SOCAL's Razor

[Husker_x]

For you statists. Maybe you can answer a few of the question brought forth?

 

I don't know if this is your conscious intention, but I see this tactic used by Creation "Scientists" all the time––it's called the Deluge Tactic. Also a favorite of some Christian apologists. The point near as I can tell isn't to illuminate any aspect of the discussion, but rather to present a list of lies, misrepresentations, gross oversimplifications or outright absurdities so numerous and time consuming that no one could possibly counter everything. An unwary debater might make the mistake of trying to hack his way through the list, but what ultimately happens is that no matter how fast he talks he'll inevitably wind up being accused in the rebuttal phase of either not answering or glossing over anything he didn't have time to go into––a true charge but not an impressive one, since no one can or should be reasonably expected to defend against the sewage tide to begin with. And since in essence it's you that takes the burden of mountain-mover on your shoulders, it's you that has the burden of proof for a worldview, not me. And since nothing in that list was an actual question to begin with, I'll cut this off at the root and simply ask you what is it you really want to know? If you had one actual question, or even five actual questions, the discussion might be productive, but twenty ridiculous statements taken off the bathroom wall of the internet isn't something I think anyone is going to seriously entertain.

[Manhattan]

; and when a majority of individuals are educated enough to accept responsibility for their actions

 

... Really? So the "educated" people working on the hedge funds and securities that eventually f'd everyone over out of their own greed were accepting the responsibility of managing the finances of millions of people? They didn't even have the responsibility to decide who gets their Audi when they go to jail.

 

Or how about educated people like Marc Dreier? Thought he could get away with the most audacious kind of crime because he thought he was so much smarter than everyone else. Or Robert Hanssen for that matter. Educated =/= free of crime or theft, or the tendency to commit crime or theft.

 

Secondly, you say that government is theft and violence "by definition". Really, "by definition"? Do you just throw in phrases like this into your arguments to sound more academic? Get over yourself.

[Husker_x]

One of my favorite scenes in the recent John Adams miniseries put out by HBO was of Adams and Thomas Jefferson arguing over a topic similar to this. Jefferson maintained that maybe no generation should bind the next to any government. Adams balked at this and accused him of flirting with anarchy. Jefferson replied, "You show a troubling lack of faith in your fellow man." Adams answered, smiling wolfishly: "And you have a dangerous excess of it."

Which then begs the question, if men are so evil that they cannot be trusted to govern themselves, how then can those same people be trusted to govern others? Please answer this simple question, the one which you and every other government supporter seemingly always seek to ignore. For you can rave all you want about the separation of powers, the will of the people, being tied to a Constitution, or any other excuse for the implementation of a coercive monopoly, but the simple fact remains that all excuses still come down to the basic fact that you, and every other supporter of government, believe it's ok to initiate theft and violence against innocent people to achieve your subjective opinions and ends.

 

Because people routinely do disregard the personal and property rights of other people, your philosophy has something to contend with. All you have managed to do by quote-bombing John Locke is establish a philosophical principle, not a practical application. In effect you retreat to the clouds every time you're presented with a real-world example, declaring a 'false dichotomy'; and while you may imagine yourself parading around in imperial robes with the power to wilt arguments by divine edict, all you're really doing is ignoring the substance of the critique to your position. You say that criminals are at the fringes of society? The only societies you have to point to are governed ones. I have buckets of evidence, baskets of it, hordes of it, that demonstrates when either a government OR its ability to execute its laws fails for one reason or another, chaos and a sharp increase of property/personal infringement is almost always the following result. These are facts. Not philosophy. Deal with them or get off the stage.

How are property rights and natural law not a practical, let alone real-world, application? Are you implying that natural law/rights do not exist? Can a person live without making a decision? Can a person live if they are killed? Are you actually implying that man-made legislation, that which is not founded upon natural law, is somehow not subjective?

 

And you say that I retreat to the clouds and avoid answers, but rather isn't it that your questions are made without the reality-based option of alternatives and in an essence never leave lala land to begin with. Your scenarios are so far-fetched and impossible that to answer them would be foolish and a waste of time. Do you have the ability to answer all the questions for the billions that arise in society? Hell, can you even provide an answer for the scenario that you submit, I think not. However, this hardly proves that a solution is impossible, unrealistic or that someone somewhere doesn't have the answer.

 

Since you and knapp have kindly pointed out that government rule has always existed, to which I, and others disagree, how then can you continue to hold the opinion, and pass it off as an objective reality, that in the absence of rulers, notice I did not say rules, that chaos and violence would ensue? For even if we are wrong, how can you possibly prove something, if you believe it has not existed? In fact, every single shred of "proof" that you claim to have provided is not the result of anarchy at all, but merely consequences of government failure. You even say yourself, "when either a government OR its ability to execute its laws fails for one reason or another, chaos and a sharp increase of property/personal infringement is almost always the following result." So, how can anarchy be blamed for the consequences of a government failing to execute it's OWN laws? That's akin to me losing control of my own mind; committing murder, theft or any other act of violence and blaming you. How ridiculous is that?

 

To the Rothbard quote: 'Natural Law' (and I'll ignore the 'objective' part in order to avoid derailing the real issue) may give man a theoretical right to self-ownership without being molested, but not the ability. This is the entire argument in a word.

 

To say that a government ('coercive monopoly') can never establish property rights or achieve justice is a bald assertion for one and a fallacy of equivocation for two. Justice is achieved all the time in the United States. It does not mean justice is literally achieved every time, but in an imperfect world there can be no perfect justice. Your dependence on a free market to achieve it or even inch us closer is utopian at best and unsupported by actual evidence––not the whimsy of political theory––in reality.

The more simple question, which is really the entire argument and another that you simply refuse to answer, is how can government establish property rights if in order to exist it must violate them? Sure, a certain amount of subjective justice can be achieved, but when one actually looks at the justice system completely naked and realizes that it is founded upon injustice, how can you ever say that my claim is a bald assertion and a fallacy?

 

On your response to my third question, I have to admit I facepalmed. "[The] only law in a free society would be that––" Stop! Read no further. You have no way of establishing any law, so what follows is useless. Your repeated appeal to Natural Law (that this basic tenant is pretty much followed by everyone) is astonishing when you read the history of the world––the violence, the cruelty, the torture, rape, and slaughter, and not even that which followed directly from governmental causes. It has happened for countless reasons political, religious, or even unmotivated. It can happen because of insult or perceived insult across generations or cultures. Right now, this very second, there is a significant population of religiously-motivated zealots sitting in the Middle East. Any one of them would strap a nuclear bomb to your child because they believe God wills it, not their government, if they even recognize one.

 

Once again natural law establishes it. To say that it doesn't, and to insinuate that your subjective opinion of history is some kind of objective reality is both asinine and false. Sure, people murder, rape and steal but that neither makes it right nor does it mean that society accepts it as ok. Do you really believe that humanity could exist if humans were allowed to murder each other without repercussion? Exactly!!

 

If you respond that a government is the cause of this, you're wrong. And if you respond that a government does nothing to prevent an atrocity from happening, you're wrong again. You claim that a free market would do just as good if not a better job of promoting safety and defense, but since you have no actual evidence to point to, no anarchist society anywhere at any time, you're obliged to explain to me how a free market would account for these basic societal needs. Then you admit you actually have no idea what the free market would look like. The defense rests, your honor.

 

You're right, government does not cause individuals to act irrational, but what it does is give the irrational people a tool of power and legitimacy to enforce and enact their subjective irrationality upon the rest of humanity. And are you really going to argue that the free market is not more efficient, more fair, more productive or more moral than an entity that survives on theft and violence alone? Do I even need to provide examples of the free market vs. government? If so, it's no wonder you that you advocate stealing from the productive and then act as if it's the work of an honest man.

 

Finally, I want you to stare long and hard at this sentence. "How [justice] is doled out is simply up to the values and preferences of all the actors that make up the market." Do you feel that creeping sense of unease when your eyes trace over it again and again? We have a term for what you wrote. It's called street justice, and its mother is Mobocracy, your preferred form of non-government. Because it might have paying customers doesn't change its nature. See, the justice system in the United States is more concerned with protecting the innocent than punishing the guilty, which is why you are considered innocent until proven guilty. What you might not know is that this is actually not as effective in stopping crime. If a man commits a murder and runs into a crowd you can either kill everyone in the crowd and stop the murderer or spare the innocent and let him get away. Our system lets him go. What if the whims of the financial mob decide they prefer a lower crime rate even at the expense of 'convicting'––assuming there's a trial at all––a few innocent people from time to time? Hey, it's the cost of doing business.

Here you go with your bullsh@t scenarios again. Because somehow all the people who voluntarily pay the financial mob individuals are going to keep forking over money, knowledge and resources as they get stabbed in the back? You really need to study basic free market economics; a little supply and demand, profit and loss and see how far a free market business makes it by increasing competition and driving away customers. And actually, now that you mention street justice and mob rule, isn't what you support more along those lines? A republican/representative/democratically elected government is in fact nothing more than rule by the tyranny of the majority. Somebody is always in the minority and someone is always getting screwed. And instead of putting more time, effort, and money into productive measures that DO benefit society, individuals are forced to comply with a lose/lose game in which everyone attempts to seek power so that they don't end up on the short end of the stick. Just because it's done by a vote, cast by a representative and supposedly bound to a piece of paper doesn't make it any different. Call it what you want, but theft is theft and rule by the majority is still mob rule. You claim that the justice system is created to protect the innocent, but since when? When has it protected innocent people who have money stolen from them everyday? Sure, it may protect a few people from random violence, but how can a system that relies solely on theft and violence ever claim to perpetuate civility, protect the innocent, or anything that closely resembles justice?

 

Yours is a worldview born out of naval gazing (philosophy), not evidence. You have no anarchist society anywhere to aid you in your cause; in fact, the evidence of anything even approaching it blunts your blade better than argument ever could. You also disregard human nature to arrive at your conclusions, and nearly the whole of history. Rhetoric and clever catchphrases comprise basically your entire point of view. And without even the slightest effort put into reasonably answering the hypothetical but reality-based flaws in anarcho-capitalism when it comes to justice and defense––I don't count the tautology of 'free market' as reasonable––you'll excuse us if we don't enthusiastically leap to your side.

Sorry, but it's not the "we" that I care about. Only individuals can choose whether or not they can make decisions and live their own life. Obviously you cannot. And though none of these were blessed with the technology or foresight of today, there are still a few examples of anarchist societies that fared reasonably well.

 

1. Our government operates under the unwavering proposition that people can and should govern themselves. Read Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, or John Adams. Of course it's impractical for private citizens to literally cast a vote on every issue at every level of government, so we elect representatives for every level of government. This ensures a standard of law for our nation which allows for a criminal justice system to function. And yes, it's okay by me to initiate theft and violence against murderers, rapists, and criminals who perpetrate actual crimes versus what some would call victimless 'crimes.' Since I don't support literally everything the government does or every law it makes, I won't assume the responsibility for those. I disagree heavily with the amount of taxation but not the fact of its existence. Part of being an American is giving a share of your labors for the funding of both international and local defense against enemies foreign and domestic, and both of these things are founded on the law. This has always been a part of our national law and not without reason. If you object to the fundamental precept of taxes, bon voyage compadre. I'd try to settle on an island somewhere.

 

2. On the contrary, every person is born with the distinctness and wonderful gift of individuality, along with a certain measure of ability to produce for a community. But he is also born with the ability and sometimes the desire to infringe the selfsame rights of others, resulting in a need for a codified law and set punishments which apply to every person of the society, rich or poor, weak or strong. The defense contractor scenario is virtually impossible in the United States as the only body allowed to possess the technology it would take to subdue an entire town is the military, which is run by the executive branch and financed by the legislative branch, both of which answer to the Constitution and the People of the United States. In an anarchy, the defense contractor would only answer to his customer base, and even that much is dangerous to assume. On the last paragraph, a government failing to enforce its laws results in an anarchy. You'll take notice that the widespread looting and violence in Montreal and New Orleans (which unless I'm mistaken are violating your prized 'natural law' that everyone is supposed to know about) were not happening the day before the strike and hurricane. Strange, isn't it, how much difference law and execution make? Also I've never said that I've proven anarchy could not work, only that I'm highly skeptical and desirous of evidence that it will. I'm a fan of the Enlightenment. Show me the evidence of a real, sizable population (say, over a million people) living in an anarchy which has produced the Disney Land of technology and comfort that we enjoy in the United States.

 

3. I fail to see how a government violates your property rights. I'm not a homeowner, but I know people that own both land, houses, and personal property; they buy and sell them at will. They do pay taxes on these items, but as I've repeated a hundred times, they aren't there for nothing. The justice system is founded on injustice, so it must be evil? Since many of the laws in this country are simply codifications of your 'natural law', the subjective part, while it exists, is a separate issue from a government establishing law at all by your own definition.

 

4. Establishes what? Natural law establishes a principle, not a result, nor a means of protection from those who violate that law. We are essentially in agreement on this point. You, however, maintain that a mobocractic band of Defense Mercenaries run on the principle of supply and demand (which does not and cannot ensure the demand will be for Natural Law) is superior to an actual codified set of laws and an apparatus of enforcing those rules that also has within its DNA restrictions on how much it can violate a persons privacy and property in search of justice. I beg to differ. Could humanity exist if...etc.? The fact is we do exist with people doing those things. Under anarchy people are 'restricted' only by their own power to do what they want for good or evil; under government, your baser instincts are further restricted and there is more than adequate evidence of this. Watch Cops some night.

 

5. It also gives people the ability to force your Natural Law on the rest of humanity. I am a fan of the free market to a point. The point stops where you tell me that national defense (putting literally world-ending military power in the hands of the lowest bidder) and common law in the hands of corporate entities who answer to no one is superior to the notion of putting it in the hands of a government whose powers are divided and must by law face regular elections or impeachment processes.

 

6. The scenario I presented was only to illustrate the thought going into our judicial system, not an actual likely event. Even still it can be used to contrast differing mindsets that would necessarily exist in a free market criminal justice system. There is always a danger of a tyranny of the majority in any form of society, however our Constitution was constructed with great pains to protect the rights of the minority––namely speech, religion, press, assembly, petition, etc. I explained to you how our system protects the innocent––by considering all people whether they actually committed a crime or not innocent until PROVEN guilty. Depending on the nature of the crime and the punishment being called for (such as death), the standards of evidence are rigid, not allowing for any reasonable doubt. The police and other law enforcement agencies by their very presence prevent any number of crimes from happening. Say you were angry, angry to the deranged point of killing someone. Would you do it? Among the many reasons not to, getting caught would be one of mine at the top of the list. Extrapolate from there. You also have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, in case you had a personal gripe.

 

I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions and living my own life, and I also cherish the privilege of being able to take part in the political process, but thanks for asking. In leafing through the list of anarchist societies, even of those lasting more than a decade (maybe half of a small total), most were pre-industrial agrarian societies. Come on, even I could point to Melville's Typee where technology and resources aren't factors, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

[SOCALHUSKER]

For you statists. Maybe you can answer a few of the question brought forth?

 

I don't know if this is your conscious intention, but I see this tactic used by Creation "Scientists" all the time––it's called the Deluge Tactic. Also a favorite of some Christian apologists. The point near as I can tell isn't to illuminate any aspect of the discussion, but rather to present a list of lies, misrepresentations, gross oversimplifications or outright absurdities so numerous and time consuming that no one could possibly counter everything. An unwary debater might make the mistake of trying to hack his way through the list, but what ultimately happens is that no matter how fast he talks he'll inevitably wind up being accused in the rebuttal phase of either not answering or glossing over anything he didn't have time to go into––a true charge but not an impressive one, since no one can or should be reasonably expected to defend against the sewage tide to begin with. And since in essence it's you that takes the burden of mountain-mover on your shoulders, it's you that has the burden of proof for a worldview, not me. And since nothing in that list was an actual question to begin with, I'll cut this off at the root and simply ask you what is it you really want to know? If you had one actual question, or even five actual questions, the discussion might be productive, but twenty ridiculous statements taken off the bathroom wall of the internet isn't something I think anyone is going to seriously entertain.

Oh here we go again, name-calling and false accusations without a hint of a valid rebuttal. Let's try to stay on topic, ok? Each one of the statements was simply common arguments/excuses used by statist, such as yourself, to advocate and support the existence of a coercive monopoly. Seeing as how you have used nearly the entire list yourself, on this thread alone, I would hardly call that a "Deluge Tactic."

 

But seeing as how you might be overwhelmed by the absurdity of your argument maybe you can start by explaining how rights can be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist? Or if man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody? Or if murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

[SOCALHUSKER]

; and when a majority of individuals are educated enough to accept responsibility for their actions

 

... Really? So the "educated" people working on the hedge funds and securities that eventually f'd everyone over out of their own greed were accepting the responsibility of managing the finances of millions of people? They didn't even have the responsibility to decide who gets their Audi when they go to jail.

 

Or how about educated people like Marc Dreier? Thought he could get away with the most audacious kind of crime because he thought he was so much smarter than everyone else. Or Robert Hanssen for that matter. Educated =/= free of crime or theft, or the tendency to commit crime or theft.

 

When did I say that people who violate others, either by force or fraud, should not be held accountable? And actually, if you actually studied the cases you describe, you would find out that it's the system that you advocate that allowed those fraudulent individuals to thrive. How do you expect individuals to be responsible, or accept responsibility, if they don't make any decisions?

 

Secondly, you say that government is theft and violence "by definition". Really, "by definition"? Do you just throw in phrases like this into your arguments to sound more academic? Get over yourself.

Yes, by definition and in practice it is an organization with a coercive monopoly on theft and violence in a geographical area. Would you suggest something a little less violent, politically correct, or maybe more academic? How do you believe it is funded? Is it voluntary? Does it allow or have any competition?

[Husker_x]

For you statists. Maybe you can answer a few of the question brought forth?

 

I don't know if this is your conscious intention, but I see this tactic used by Creation "Scientists" all the time––it's called the Deluge Tactic. Also a favorite of some Christian apologists. The point near as I can tell isn't to illuminate any aspect of the discussion, but rather to present a list of lies, misrepresentations, gross oversimplifications or outright absurdities so numerous and time consuming that no one could possibly counter everything. An unwary debater might make the mistake of trying to hack his way through the list, but what ultimately happens is that no matter how fast he talks he'll inevitably wind up being accused in the rebuttal phase of either not answering or glossing over anything he didn't have time to go into––a true charge but not an impressive one, since no one can or should be reasonably expected to defend against the sewage tide to begin with. And since in essence it's you that takes the burden of mountain-mover on your shoulders, it's you that has the burden of proof for a worldview, not me. And since nothing in that list was an actual question to begin with, I'll cut this off at the root and simply ask you what is it you really want to know? If you had one actual question, or even five actual questions, the discussion might be productive, but twenty ridiculous statements taken off the bathroom wall of the internet isn't something I think anyone is going to seriously entertain.

Oh here we go again, name-calling and false accusations without a hint of a valid rebuttal. Let's try to stay on topic, ok? Each one of the statements was simply common arguments/excuses used by statist, such as yourself, to advocate and support the existence of a coercive monopoly. Seeing as how you have used nearly the entire list yourself, on this thread alone, I would hardly call that a "Deluge Tactic."

 

But seeing as how you might be overwhelmed by the absurdity of your argument maybe you can start by explaining how rights can be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist? Or if man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody? Or if murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

 

I read through what I wrote to be sure, and yeah, I never called you a name or attacked your character in any way. You'll have to dry your own tears on that one. But I explained fully why I'm not going to entertain a list of twenty-one copy and pasted statements you borrowed from some other archbishop of anarchy. Not one of them was an actual question; they're a barrage or accusations based on false premises and mischaracterizations, and as such don't merit response. If I've already used half the list myself, then I have to wonder why you wouldn't have only posted the half of the list I haven't already dealt with in the plainest possible language. Are you deliberately trying to waste my time? Sorry bud, I'm calling you out on this one.

 

Tell you what, start over. Take any one of those statements from above that we haven't already exhaustively discussed, tack an actual question mark on it, and present it to the board so anyone following this can answer it. Then we can go to two, three, and four if you've still got the energy. But please, enough with the theatrics.

[SOCALHUSKER]

For you statists. Maybe you can answer a few of the question brought forth?

 

I don't know if this is your conscious intention, but I see this tactic used by Creation "Scientists" all the time––it's called the Deluge Tactic. Also a favorite of some Christian apologists. The point near as I can tell isn't to illuminate any aspect of the discussion, but rather to present a list of lies, misrepresentations, gross oversimplifications or outright absurdities so numerous and time consuming that no one could possibly counter everything. An unwary debater might make the mistake of trying to hack his way through the list, but what ultimately happens is that no matter how fast he talks he'll inevitably wind up being accused in the rebuttal phase of either not answering or glossing over anything he didn't have time to go into––a true charge but not an impressive one, since no one can or should be reasonably expected to defend against the sewage tide to begin with. And since in essence it's you that takes the burden of mountain-mover on your shoulders, it's you that has the burden of proof for a worldview, not me. And since nothing in that list was an actual question to begin with, I'll cut this off at the root and simply ask you what is it you really want to know? If you had one actual question, or even five actual questions, the discussion might be productive, but twenty ridiculous statements taken off the bathroom wall of the internet isn't something I think anyone is going to seriously entertain.

Oh here we go again, name-calling and false accusations without a hint of a valid rebuttal. Let's try to stay on topic, ok? Each one of the statements was simply common arguments/excuses used by statist, such as yourself, to advocate and support the existence of a coercive monopoly. Seeing as how you have used nearly the entire list yourself, on this thread alone, I would hardly call that a "Deluge Tactic."

 

But seeing as how you might be overwhelmed by the absurdity of your argument maybe you can start by explaining how rights can be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist? Or if man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody? Or if murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

 

I read through what I wrote to be sure, and yeah, I never called you a name or attacked your character in any way. You'll have to dry your own tears on that one. But I explained fully why I'm not going to entertain a list of twenty-one copy and pasted statements you borrowed from some other archbishop of anarchy. Not one of them was an actual question; they're a barrage or accusations based on false premises and mischaracterizations, and as such don't merit response. If I've already used half the list myself, then I have to wonder why you wouldn't have only posted the half of the list I haven't already dealt with in the plainest possible language. Are you deliberately trying to waste my time? Sorry bud, I'm calling you out on this one.

 

Tell you what, start over. Take any one of those statements from above that we haven't already exhaustively discussed, tack an actual question mark on it, and present it to the board so anyone following this can answer it. Then we can go to two, three, and four if you've still got the energy. But please, enough with the theatrics.

There's no crying on this end and you can start by addressing the 3 questions I posted above, and which I'll reiterate:

 

you can start by explaining how rights can be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist? Or if man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody? Or if murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

[knapplc]

you can start by explaining how rights can be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist?

This entire premise is false. My rights are not violated when I willingly pay for the benefits my taxes entitle me to. I willingly pay my taxes so that I can have police to protect my streets, a military to protect my borders, and laws to protect my rights.

 

Every person in America uses these services, and should, therefore, pay for them. There is nothing coercive about it – it's entirely voluntary on the part of the vast majority of people. Because you choose to look at it as coercive doesn't make it so.

 

Or if man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody?

In the anarchy you promote, there are no checks and balances, yet you still have those same greedy, crooked, murderous people running about your society. Further, there are no police to protect from these people in your hippopotamus applesauce society.

 

Or if murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

 

Another entirely false premise, and I explained why a week or two ago. The fact that you will not learn doesn't make you right, it makes you obstinate. You choose willfully to ignore points which obviate your fantasies, then claim there have been no refutations of your logic. One point you make is answered so you move on to the next. That is answered so you move on to the next. That is answered so you move on to the next. That is answered so you move on to the next. Eventually you get back to the first point and claim it's still valid.

 

You either have an exceedingly poor memory or you simply want government to be coercive rights violators so that you have something to rail against. I'm going with the latter.

[Husker_x]

I could probably just as easily defer to knapplc's response, but I will add a few things.

 

How can rights be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist?

 

As knap said, a false premise. Our Constitution is the thing which guarantees your rights and sets the checks and balances of power for the apparatus that defends your rights from threats both foreign in domestic. The government does not limit your freedom of speech, religion, press, or assembly. It may not subject you to cruel and unusual punishments, prevent you from owning property, or take any forcible action against you without just cause. You are also afforded the right to take as much part as you want in the political process. You could even run for president if you wanted. Which rights of yours are personally being violated, and in what way? I would hope you wouldn't say taxes since you've been given the reasons our society collects them at least three times in this thread alone.

 

If man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody?

 

Man is not exclusively greedy, crooked, and murderous. We do have some good ideas now and again. The trick is restraining the harmful impulses while promoting the helpful ones. You think that a free market system free of any checks and balances on power is superior to a codified law that restrains the mechanism by which we manage justice. I simply disagree and I've given you my reasons. I do concede that government is made by imperfect men and will necessarily be imperfect, but I'm willing to accept the reality of the situation as long as the government in question is not a tyranny and does not infringe the rights of the minority.

 

If murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

 

Unless the murder in question is done under a declaration of war or a sentence of death from granted by a judge from the verdict of an impartial jury, the state does not have the right to do it and would be violating the law if it did––all those responsible should immediately be removed from office and tried for their crime. As for theft, taxes are not theft and should not be optional. Just because someone doesn't want to pay for our national defense doesn't give them the right to piggyback on the rest of society. If our military cost a hundred dollars to run and it defended a hundred people––each of them responsible for one dollar––yet one person decided he wasn't going to pay, it doesn't make our military any cheaper to run. It only means that the missing dollar is going to have to be accounted for by the other 99 people in the community. In fact, if anyone is stealing, it's Mr. Tightwad who won't chip in for the common defense but would damn well expect his property and person to be defended if we were invaded.

[SOCALHUSKER]

1. Our government operates under the unwavering proposition that people can and should govern themselves. Read Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, or John Adams. Of course it's impractical for private citizens to literally cast a vote on every issue at every level of government, so we elect representatives for every level of government. This ensures a standard of law for our nation which allows for a criminal justice system to function. And yes, it's okay by me to initiate theft and violence against murderers, rapists, and criminals who perpetrate actual crimes versus what some would call victimless 'crimes.' Since I don't support literally everything the government does or every law it makes, I won't assume the responsibility for those. I disagree heavily with the amount of taxation but not the fact of its existence. Part of being an American is giving a share of your labors for the funding of both international and local defense against enemies foreign and domestic, and both of these things are founded on the law. This has always been a part of our national law and not without reason. If you object to the fundamental precept of taxes, bon voyage compadre. I'd try to settle on an island somewhere.

 

Really? Maybe you can explain the astronomical amount of senseless regulation, statutes, and other victimless crime laws that litter the law books today? Is that the unwavering proposition you speak of? Who deems what is practical or not? Does practical include robbing innocent individuals? And who's this "we" that you speak so frequently of? I sure didn't elect anybody to represent me, so please don't say we, it is only you who wishes to rule or be ruled by others. You also say that a standard of law allows the criminal justice system to function, but for who does it function? The government, the extremely wealthy or the politicially connected? You really believe that a monopoly, and a coercive one at that, provides the best service possible at the best possible price? How do you figure that?

 

You say "And yes, it's okay by me to initiate theft and violence against murderers, rapists, and criminals who perpetrate actual crimes versus what some would call victimless 'crimes.'" but once again you blur the lines and can't seem to differentiate between initiating theft and violence and/or that which is deemed defensive or retalitory violence or repayment/reparation. If someone violates another individual, or their property, of course they should be held accountable and suffer the consequences, but how can you seriously call it justice if the victim is not only violated by the criminal but also robbed to pay for the supposed act of justice?

 

And then we come to the crux of your argument, that if I don't like it, I should "try to settle on an island somewhere." Ah yes, the final blow. The declaration of defeat. The I don't have a single rational excuse for why I believe it moral or just to initiate theft and violence against innocent people so if someone doesn't like it, they can just leave. Well, it just so happens that I don't feel like leaving, I enjoy the place I was born, I would rather stay near my loved ones, keep my hard earned money, make my own decisions, voluntarily trade and work with other individuals and either benefit or suffer the consequences for my actions. So, instead why don't you and all your buddies who wish to dictate how people live, how they work, what they can buy and then rob them to pay for your existence, how about you leave and find and island to destroy.

 

2. On the contrary, every person is born with the distinctness and wonderful gift of individuality, along with a certain measure of ability to produce for a community. But he is also born with the ability and sometimes the desire to infringe the selfsame rights of others, resulting in a need for a codified law and set punishments which apply to every person of the society, rich or poor, weak or strong. The defense contractor scenario is virtually impossible in the United States as the only body allowed to possess the technology it would take to subdue an entire town is the military, which is run by the executive branch and financed by the legislative branch, both of which answer to the Constitution and the People of the United States. In an anarchy, the defense contractor would only answer to his customer base, and even that much is dangerous to assume. On the last paragraph, a government failing to enforce its laws results in an anarchy. You'll take notice that the widespread looting and violence in Montreal and New Orleans (which unless I'm mistaken are violating your prized 'natural law' that everyone is supposed to know about) were not happening the day before the strike and hurricane. Strange, isn't it, how much difference law and execution make? Also I've never said that I've proven anarchy could not work, only that I'm highly skeptical and desirous of evidence that it will. I'm a fan of the Enlightenment. Show me the evidence of a real, sizable population (say, over a million people) living in an anarchy which has produced the Disney Land of technology and comfort that we enjoy in the United States.

Where do you come up with the bolded part? What part of a individual do you believe other people seemingly own, which requires that individuals produce for others? How can you estabish that?

 

Yes, I agree that individuals do have the ability to act irrational. And it is exactly for that reason that there should not be a coercive monopoly, made up of the same people who still have the ability to be irrational, with any power to control others. How can you possibly say that a coercive monopoly is logical?

 

You also say, "You'll take notice that the widespread looting and violence in Montreal and New Orleans (which unless I'm mistaken are violating your prized 'natural law' that everyone is supposed to know about) were not happening the day before the strike and hurricane. Strange, isn't it, how much difference law and execution make?" And I say yes. It is strange, yet historically accurate, that a community can be so peaceful without widespread government intervention and so horribly violent and chaotic when under complete control of government. Has it ever occured to you that the government ordered and conducted evacuations made it impossible for individuals to defend their property, that weapons were confiscated so that individuals could not defend themselves and their property, that trade routes were blockaded to prevent goods and services from being employed and distributed and that both medical and charity supplies were disallowed from being brought into the area unless they were approved by government. Does that sound like anarchy to you or rather a totalitarian police state?

 

3. I fail to see how a government violates your property rights. I'm not a homeowner, but I know people that own both land, houses, and personal property; they buy and sell them at will. They do pay taxes on these items, but as I've repeated a hundred times, they aren't there for nothing. The justice system is founded on injustice, so it must be evil? Since many of the laws in this country are simply codifications of your 'natural law', the subjective part, while it exists, is a separate issue from a government establishing law at all by your own definition.

It quite simply boils down to how can I claim property rights if someone else can also lay claim to that property? If the government can claim ownership to my home, my wages and my person how can then can I have property rights and how can the government uphold them? You say that people can buy and sell at will, but that is not only absurd but completely false. You say that you do not own a home or property and it shows. Not only does the process of selling/buying a house, land or vehicle (especially in CA) require compliance with a plethora of regulation (all which have their cost), but the seller/owner is not free to accept or offer what they please (for they must always pay taxes), and even more absurd is the fact that at anytime the government can confiscate property for whatever it deems "necessary" (eminent domain).

 

How can something be just or moral if it's very existence is based on injustice and immorality?

 

4. Establishes what? Natural law establishes a principle, not a result, nor a means of protection from those who violate that law. We are essentially in agreement on this point. You, however, maintain that a mobocractic band of Defense Mercenaries run on the principle of supply and demand (which does not and cannot ensure the demand will be for Natural Law) is superior to an actual codified set of laws and an apparatus of enforcing those rules that also has within its DNA restrictions on how much it can violate a persons privacy and property in search of justice. I beg to differ. Could humanity exist if...etc.? The fact is we do exist with people doing those things. Under anarchy people are 'restricted' only by their own power to do what they want for good or evil; under government, your baser instincts are further restricted and there is more than adequate evidence of this. Watch Cops some night.

 

What's mobcratic about individuals in the market deciding what they want, what they don't and paying for it or not? If each individual has a choice of whether they participate or not, how is that mob rule? How many people do you know of that are voluntarily willing to pay for products that they do not want, do not need, nor do they see any benefit in having? Are you really so naive to believe that a voluntarily funded protection company could flourish by offering to rob and kill people? Maybe it could in a society in which responsibility was lacking, such as one ruled by government, but in a free society in which every individuals actions are accountable, the chances are highly unlikely.

 

BTW, what do you consider baser insticts and how do you derive/establish this as some sort of objective fact that applies to everyone?

 

5. It also gives people the ability to force your Natural Law on the rest of humanity. I am a fan of the free market to a point. The point stops where you tell me that national defense (putting literally world-ending military power in the hands of the lowest bidder) and common law in the hands of corporate entities who answer to no one is superior to the notion of putting it in the hands of a government whose powers are divided and must by law face regular elections or impeachment processes.

People cannot force Natural Law, they can only exploit it which is what government routinely does. It arises naturally and allows for the contuance of life hence the name natural.

 

Also, how can you honestly believe that the free market works, yet when it pertain to defense that only a monopoly, and coercive one at that, can provide adequete and efficient service? Government planning has failed miserably at running a postal service, banking, education, healthcare, transportation and just about everything other service it has tried; what makes you believe that it is somehow different with justice and defense? Also, just so you know corporations are a government created fiction and would not exist in a free market.

 

6. The scenario I presented was only to illustrate the thought going into our judicial system, not an actual likely event. Even still it can be used to contrast differing mindsets that would necessarily exist in a free market criminal justice system. There is always a danger of a tyranny of the majority in any form of society, however our Constitution was constructed with great pains to protect the rights of the minority––namely speech, religion, press, assembly, petition, etc. I explained to you how our system protects the innocent––by considering all people whether they actually committed a crime or not innocent until PROVEN guilty. Depending on the nature of the crime and the punishment being called for (such as death), the standards of evidence are rigid, not allowing for any reasonable doubt. The police and other law enforcement agencies by their very presence prevent any number of crimes from happening. Say you were angry, angry to the deranged point of killing someone. Would you do it? Among the many reasons not to, getting caught would be one of mine at the top of the list. Extrapolate from there. You also have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, in case you had a personal gripe.

 

I don't get what you are trying to prove here, except that if by presence alone you think that crime is prevented one can only imagine the drastic decline in crimes that follows the repealing of gun laws in a free society and the employment of security and justice that actually protects, enforces and upholds private property rights. And as you say, "extrapolate from there."

 

I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions and living my own life, and I also cherish the privilege of being able to take part in the political process, but thanks for asking. In leafing through the list of anarchist societies, even of those lasting more than a decade (maybe half of a small total), most were pre-industrial agrarian societies. Come on, even I could point to Melville's Typee where technology and resources aren't factors, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

I don't doubt that you have the ability to make decisions for yourself, and if I implied that you can't, sorry. What I was getting at was just because YOU may FEEL a certain way does not mean that you have the right to force those decisions/feelings upon anyone else. And quite frankly that is all that the political process is.

 

Yes, you are correct about anarchist societies in history being pre-industrial agrarian societies, and it is exactly that reason why many did not last as long as they should have. However, by stating what you did, and comparing that to Melville, are you implying that freedom today would require a return to the technology of yesterday? Or that without government that individuals would cease to innovate? Iceland, which lasted nearly three times as long as the US did before both plunged into civil war, merely fell apart due to the introduction of Christianity. Luckily, today we have both the means of education and technology to combat or learn from such things. And as I have pointed out numerous times, man is on an evolutionary path from divine rulers and complete servitude to the end result of complete liberty. The free market has provided man with the technology and tools needed to be free and when a majority of individuals are educated and willing to seek responsibility and benefit from their actions it is freedom that man shall finally have. I just prefer it sooner rather than later.

[knapplc]

The Iceland example is not analogous to today's society in the least. Iceland was a month in a frozen sea from the nearest European land mass. Being that far away, and being almost within the Arctic circle, there was zero incentive for any foreign invader to take over a leaderless society.

 

In order to have a viable, real-world example, you're going to have to provide a stable society that didn't exist in near complete isolation from other cultures, a society that had (like America) natural resources that other countries would desire. I spoke before that your society would only exist in a commune or an enclave - Iceland was an enclave in its isolation.

 

And you have given no facts to show that "man is on an evolutionary path from divine rulers and complete servitude to the end result of complete liberty." You've asserted this, but that does not prove anything. Judging by the relatively simplistic nature of most historic governments and comparing those to modern, complex governments, it's far easier to draw a path from basic government to more and more government than your example.

[Husker_x]

1. Our government operates under the unwavering proposition that people can and should govern themselves. Read Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, or John Adams. Of course it's impractical for private citizens to literally cast a vote on every issue at every level of government, so we elect representatives for every level of government. This ensures a standard of law for our nation which allows for a criminal justice system to function. And yes, it's okay by me to initiate theft and violence against murderers, rapists, and criminals who perpetrate actual crimes versus what some would call victimless 'crimes.' Since I don't support literally everything the government does or every law it makes, I won't assume the responsibility for those. I disagree heavily with the amount of taxation but not the fact of its existence. Part of being an American is giving a share of your labors for the funding of both international and local defense against enemies foreign and domestic, and both of these things are founded on the law. This has always been a part of our national law and not without reason. If you object to the fundamental precept of taxes, bon voyage compadre. I'd try to settle on an island somewhere.

 

Really? Maybe you can explain the astronomical amount of senseless regulation, statutes, and other victimless crime laws that litter the law books today? Is that the unwavering proposition you speak of? Who deems what is practical or not? Does practical include robbing innocent individuals? And who's this "we" that you speak so frequently of? I sure didn't elect anybody to represent me, so please don't say we, it is only you who wishes to rule or be ruled by others. You also say that a standard of law allows the criminal justice system to function, but for who does it function? The government, the extremely wealthy or the politicially connected? You really believe that a monopoly, and a coercive one at that, provides the best service possible at the best possible price? How do you figure that?

 

You say "And yes, it's okay by me to initiate theft and violence against murderers, rapists, and criminals who perpetrate actual crimes versus what some would call victimless 'crimes.'" but once again you blur the lines and can't seem to differentiate between initiating theft and violence and/or that which is deemed defensive or retalitory violence or repayment/reparation. If someone violates another individual, or their property, of course they should be held accountable and suffer the consequences, but how can you seriously call it justice if the victim is not only violated by the criminal but also robbed to pay for the supposed act of justice?

 

And then we come to the crux of your argument, that if I don't like it, I should "try to settle on an island somewhere." Ah yes, the final blow. The declaration of defeat. The I don't have a single rational excuse for why I believe it moral or just to initiate theft and violence against innocent people so if someone doesn't like it, they can just leave. Well, it just so happens that I don't feel like leaving, I enjoy the place I was born, I would rather stay near my loved ones, keep my hard earned money, make my own decisions, voluntarily trade and work with other individuals and either benefit or suffer the consequences for my actions. So, instead why don't you and all your buddies who wish to dictate how people live, how they work, what they can buy and then rob them to pay for your existence, how about you leave and find and island to destroy.

 

2. On the contrary, every person is born with the distinctness and wonderful gift of individuality, along with a certain measure of ability to produce for a community. But he is also born with the ability and sometimes the desire to infringe the selfsame rights of others, resulting in a need for a codified law and set punishments which apply to every person of the society, rich or poor, weak or strong. The defense contractor scenario is virtually impossible in the United States as the only body allowed to possess the technology it would take to subdue an entire town is the military, which is run by the executive branch and financed by the legislative branch, both of which answer to the Constitution and the People of the United States. In an anarchy, the defense contractor would only answer to his customer base, and even that much is dangerous to assume. On the last paragraph, a government failing to enforce its laws results in an anarchy. You'll take notice that the widespread looting and violence in Montreal and New Orleans (which unless I'm mistaken are violating your prized 'natural law' that everyone is supposed to know about) were not happening the day before the strike and hurricane. Strange, isn't it, how much difference law and execution make? Also I've never said that I've proven anarchy could not work, only that I'm highly skeptical and desirous of evidence that it will. I'm a fan of the Enlightenment. Show me the evidence of a real, sizable population (say, over a million people) living in an anarchy which has produced the Disney Land of technology and comfort that we enjoy in the United States.

Where do you come up with the bolded part? What part of a individual do you believe other people seemingly own, which requires that individuals produce for others? How can you estabish that?

 

Yes, I agree that individuals do have the ability to act irrational. And it is exactly for that reason that there should not be a coercive monopoly, made up of the same people who still have the ability to be irrational, with any power to control others. How can you possibly say that a coercive monopoly is logical?

 

You also say, "You'll take notice that the widespread looting and violence in Montreal and New Orleans (which unless I'm mistaken are violating your prized 'natural law' that everyone is supposed to know about) were not happening the day before the strike and hurricane. Strange, isn't it, how much difference law and execution make?" And I say yes. It is strange, yet historically accurate, that a community can be so peaceful without widespread government intervention and so horribly violent and chaotic when under complete control of government. Has it ever occured to you that the government ordered and conducted evacuations made it impossible for individuals to defend their property, that weapons were confiscated so that individuals could not defend themselves and their property, that trade routes were blockaded to prevent goods and services from being employed and distributed and that both medical and charity supplies were disallowed from being brought into the area unless they were approved by government. Does that sound like anarchy to you or rather a totalitarian police state?

 

3. I fail to see how a government violates your property rights. I'm not a homeowner, but I know people that own both land, houses, and personal property; they buy and sell them at will. They do pay taxes on these items, but as I've repeated a hundred times, they aren't there for nothing. The justice system is founded on injustice, so it must be evil? Since many of the laws in this country are simply codifications of your 'natural law', the subjective part, while it exists, is a separate issue from a government establishing law at all by your own definition.

It quite simply boils down to how can I claim property rights if someone else can also lay claim to that property? If the government can claim ownership to my home, my wages and my person how can then can I have property rights and how can the government uphold them? You say that people can buy and sell at will, but that is not only absurd but completely false. You say that you do not own a home or property and it shows. Not only does the process of selling/buying a house, land or vehicle (especially in CA) require compliance with a plethora of regulation (all which have their cost), but the seller/owner is not free to accept or offer what they please (for they must always pay taxes), and even more absurd is the fact that at anytime the government can confiscate property for whatever it deems "necessary" (eminent domain).

 

How can something be just or moral if it's very existence is based on injustice and immorality?

 

4. Establishes what? Natural law establishes a principle, not a result, nor a means of protection from those who violate that law. We are essentially in agreement on this point. You, however, maintain that a mobocractic band of Defense Mercenaries run on the principle of supply and demand (which does not and cannot ensure the demand will be for Natural Law) is superior to an actual codified set of laws and an apparatus of enforcing those rules that also has within its DNA restrictions on how much it can violate a persons privacy and property in search of justice. I beg to differ. Could humanity exist if...etc.? The fact is we do exist with people doing those things. Under anarchy people are 'restricted' only by their own power to do what they want for good or evil; under government, your baser instincts are further restricted and there is more than adequate evidence of this. Watch Cops some night.

 

What's mobcratic about individuals in the market deciding what they want, what they don't and paying for it or not? If each individual has a choice of whether they participate or not, how is that mob rule? How many people do you know of that are voluntarily willing to pay for products that they do not want, do not need, nor do they see any benefit in having? Are you really so naive to believe that a voluntarily funded protection company could flourish by offering to rob and kill people? Maybe it could in a society in which responsibility was lacking, such as one ruled by government, but in a free society in which every individuals actions are accountable, the chances are highly unlikely.

 

BTW, what do you consider baser insticts and how do you derive/establish this as some sort of objective fact that applies to everyone?

 

5. It also gives people the ability to force your Natural Law on the rest of humanity. I am a fan of the free market to a point. The point stops where you tell me that national defense (putting literally world-ending military power in the hands of the lowest bidder) and common law in the hands of corporate entities who answer to no one is superior to the notion of putting it in the hands of a government whose powers are divided and must by law face regular elections or impeachment processes.

People cannot force Natural Law, they can only exploit it which is what government routinely does. It arises naturally and allows for the contuance of life hence the name natural.

 

Also, how can you honestly believe that the free market works, yet when it pertain to defense that only a monopoly, and coercive one at that, can provide adequete and efficient service? Government planning has failed miserably at running a postal service, banking, education, healthcare, transportation and just about everything other service it has tried; what makes you believe that it is somehow different with justice and defense? Also, just so you know corporations are a government created fiction and would not exist in a free market.

 

6. The scenario I presented was only to illustrate the thought going into our judicial system, not an actual likely event. Even still it can be used to contrast differing mindsets that would necessarily exist in a free market criminal justice system. There is always a danger of a tyranny of the majority in any form of society, however our Constitution was constructed with great pains to protect the rights of the minority––namely speech, religion, press, assembly, petition, etc. I explained to you how our system protects the innocent––by considering all people whether they actually committed a crime or not innocent until PROVEN guilty. Depending on the nature of the crime and the punishment being called for (such as death), the standards of evidence are rigid, not allowing for any reasonable doubt. The police and other law enforcement agencies by their very presence prevent any number of crimes from happening. Say you were angry, angry to the deranged point of killing someone. Would you do it? Among the many reasons not to, getting caught would be one of mine at the top of the list. Extrapolate from there. You also have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, in case you had a personal gripe.

 

I don't get what you are trying to prove here, except that if by presence alone you think that crime is prevented one can only imagine the drastic decline in crimes that follows the repealing of gun laws in a free society and the employment of security and justice that actually protects, enforces and upholds private property rights. And as you say, "extrapolate from there."

 

I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions and living my own life, and I also cherish the privilege of being able to take part in the political process, but thanks for asking. In leafing through the list of anarchist societies, even of those lasting more than a decade (maybe half of a small total), most were pre-industrial agrarian societies. Come on, even I could point to Melville's Typee where technology and resources aren't factors, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?

I don't doubt that you have the ability to make decisions for yourself, and if I implied that you can't, sorry. What I was getting at was just because YOU may FEEL a certain way does not mean that you have the right to force those decisions/feelings upon anyone else. And quite frankly that is all that the political process is.

 

Yes, you are correct about anarchist societies in history being pre-industrial agrarian societies, and it is exactly that reason why many did not last as long as they should have. However, by stating what you did, and comparing that to Melville, are you implying that freedom today would require a return to the technology of yesterday? Or that without government that individuals would cease to innovate? Iceland, which lasted nearly three times as long as the US did before both plunged into civil war, merely fell apart due to the introduction of Christianity. Luckily, today we have both the means of education and technology to combat or learn from such things. And as I have pointed out numerous times, man is on an evolutionary path from divine rulers and complete servitude to the end result of complete liberty. The free market has provided man with the technology and tools needed to be free and when a majority of individuals are educated and willing to seek responsibility and benefit from their actions it is freedom that man shall finally have. I just prefer it sooner rather than later.

 

I began to compose a response to this most recent train of false premises and intellectual acrobatics, but I stopped. I stopped right at the point where I realized you have literally done nothing but repeat the same things in a shifting rotation that you've said in this or other threads. I don't mean to be offensive, but the parallels with Creation 'Science' are staggering. Start with the burden of proof in the wrong place, follow it up with a false mischaracterization of another person's position, add an unsupported and whimsically utopian 'solution' to a perceived 'problem', and rail away, all the while never understanding why no one can perceive your obvious genius.

 

The fact of the matter, SOCAL, is that every singe one of your arguments above has already been answered––in detail, exhaustively, by multiple people––and you remain unconvinced that your position is untenable. I find it shocking that one could apparently add Religion to the list of things to be abolished and still not hear the circus music playing in his head. We could go on doing this forever, but from my position it feels like battling a hydra, where for every head of a false premise you chop off, three more spring up to take its place––and for the time it takes to battle freshly-created false premises, I could be doing something useful with my time. I am bored to death repeating myself, so unless you have something new to present, free of mischaracterization, oversimplification, or outright fantasy, I respectfully leave you to your preaching.

[SOCALHUSKER]

you can start by explaining how rights can be protected by the same entity that must violate them to exist?

This entire premise is false. My rights are not violated when I willingly pay for the benefits my taxes entitle me to. I willingly pay my taxes so that I can have police to protect my streets, a military to protect my borders, and laws to protect my rights.

 

Every person in America uses these services, and should, therefore, pay for them. There is nothing coercive about it – it's entirely voluntary on the part of the vast majority of people. Because you choose to look at it as coercive doesn't make it so.

 

Talk about a false premise, you and Husker X both operate on the false premise that rights are somehow granted by government, where and how do you arrive at such an absurd conclusion.

 

Also, you may very well be willing to pay for all the goods and services that the government claims to provide, though I hardly doubt that to be true, but that does not make it voluntary. Go ahead and withhold your payment and see how voluntary that is. Voluntary implies free choice and that means the choice of not participating and not paying. But you know, just as well as I do, that even if I refused to use the roads, defended my own property, homeschooled, pumped my own water and created my own energy; that the government would still hunt me down to pay for them. You claim that because services are provided that people must pay, whether they agree to or not. So that must mean if I go to your house and remove your lawn, castrate your dog, and remove the engine from your car that you must still pay me for the services I provide, whether you want the services or not? How absurd is that?

Or if man is so greedy, crooked, murderous, etc... and cannot possibly be left to make decisions for himself, how is it that government, made up entirely of the same men, is expected to make decisions for everybody?

In the anarchy you promote, there are no checks and balances, yet you still have those same greedy, crooked, murderous people running about your society. Further, there are no police to protect from these people in your hippopotamus applesauce society.

Basic economics and another false premise, it would clearly help your argument to learn the former and refrain from using the latter. The checks and balances of the free market are called profit and loss. If individuals wish to remove criminals from the street, as many people would no doubt want, they would voluntarily pay for the best possible police service. The payment for this demand is what leads to what is called a profit, this proves to a business that they are providing adequate service at an adequate price. However, If someone wishes to rob people in the name of providing them "security" and customers seek to have this madman put out of business, as many of them would no doubt do, they not only refuse to compensate him for his supposed "service," but they pay his competition to stifle him. His "business" not only goes under but he is required to compensate those who he wronged. This is called justice and the criminal suffers what is commonly known as a loss.

 

Which leads me to ask another question: how in a free market, one in which all transactions are made through voluntary and mutual consent, can you assume that a business could operate at a loss or could operate without pleasing customers? Feel free.

Or if murder, theft or any other violation of a person's property is wrong when committed by an individual, why are those same violations ok if they are committed by the state?

 

Another entirely false premise, and I explained why a week or two ago. The fact that you will not learn doesn't make you right, it makes you obstinate. You choose willfully to ignore points which obviate your fantasies, then claim there have been no refutations of your logic. One point you make is answered so you move on to the next. That is answered so you move on to the next. That is answered so you move on to the next. That is answered so you move on to the next. Eventually you get back to the first point and claim it's still valid.

 

You either have an exceedingly poor memory or you simply want government to be coercive rights violators so that you have something to rail against. I'm going with the latter.

 

What exactly is your argument here? Please explain how the question is based upon a false premise? What premise is that? How is taking something from a person without their permission not theft? How is using violence against someone who has not harmed or violated the person or property of another individual, not a violation of that individual? Which points have I ignored? These are simple questions and the fact that you refuse to answer them, and instead rattle off excuses for completely immoral, unjust and destructive behavior is only further proof of how ass-backwards, illogical and truly immoral the philosophy you advocate and support really is.

[knapplc]

You've been shown that people voluntarily pay taxes in exchange for the services provided. Any assertion that government is solely "coercive" is false. Whether I choose not to pay for them is irrelevant, because you can't not have them in a modern society. It is not "voluntary" that I pay for food when I don't grow food. It is "necessary." I need food to survive, just like I need a military to protect my country from invasion. But I am neither a farmer nor a soldier, so I pay for those things that I do not produce.

 

Neither I nor Husker_x have asserted that the government grants rights - in fact, quite the opposite. You may need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

 

This fantasy you have where "bad guys" would simply go away because they would go out of business is a childish simplification completely outside the realm of reality. "Bad guys" don't just "go away" because you stop paying for their goods and services, they rob you and take your goods. And your police force of private officers - do they have truncheons made of sugarplums or lollipops? What laws do they administer? Who creates those laws? How are they passed, and how are they repealed?

 

This police force, does it just spring forth from the forehead of Zeus fully formed, already armed with ready-made laws and jurisdictions? Or is it more like the fire departments of Tammany Hall era New York, where privatized groups literally waged war on the streets while buildings burned? GREAT idea, that. Let's let the free market decide who gets to put this fire out through fists and clubs, while the fire destroys anything of value. Too bad we "evolved" away from such a successful model, huh?

[Husker_x]

You've been shown that people voluntarily pay taxes in exchange for the services provided. Any assertion that government is solely "coercive" is false. Whether I choose not to pay for them is irrelevant, because you can't not have them in a modern society. It is not "voluntary" that I pay for food when I don't grow food. It is "necessary." I need food to survive, just like I need a military to protect my country from invasion. But I am neither a farmer nor a soldier, so I pay for those things that I do not produce.

 

Neither I nor Husker_x have asserted that the government grants rights - in fact, quite the opposite. You may need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

 

This fantasy you have where "bad guys" would simply go away because they would go out of business is a childish simplification completely outside the realm of reality. "Bad guys" don't just "go away" because you stop paying for their goods and services, they rob you and take your goods. And your police force of private officers - do they have truncheons made of sugarplums or lollipops? What laws do they administer? Who creates those laws? How are they passed, and how are they repealed?

 

This police force, does it just spring forth from the forehead of Zeus fully formed, already armed with ready-made laws and jurisdictions? Or is it more like the fire departments of Tammany Hall era New York, where privatized groups literally waged war on the streets while buildings burned? GREAT idea, that. Let's let the free market decide who gets to put this fire out through fists and clubs, while the fire destroys anything of value. Too bad we "evolved" away from such a successful model, huh?

 

This. It's statements like the one the bolded part was referring to that make you realize when a discussion has become completely pointless. How a person can get from what was said to the exact opposite of what was said and still plow on is hard to understand. What's even harder to understand is when you get fifteen or twenty of these mischaracterizations per post is what point there could possibly be in carrying on a conversation along these lines.