How Would You Describe Your Political Views?

[knapplc]

SOCAL, this is basic stuff. I shouldn't have to tell you that the reason we ALL pay for services that we may or may not want is that there are people out there who will refuse to pay but who will use those services. Are you saying it's fair for me to pay for those services when others won't?

 

And no, I am making no assertion about general goods and services. As I've said in plain English, I'm talking about basic services like roads and Fire and Police and Military.

You're right this is basic stuff. Are you asserting that everyone pays now and there are no free riders? Since there are, and the welfare doles continue to grow as we speak, do you believe it to be fair, just or moral to steal from productive individuals so that those same free riders, and the many more who will soon join them, can use the services free of charge?

 

In all honesty, the problem of freerider's will probably never be solved. For as long as individuals have the ability to think and act irrationally, which they always will, you will always have those who think it is in their best interest to take advantage of and violate others. However, a philosophy/system based on property rights, non-aggression and self-ownership provides a much more logical, just and non-contradictory ways of solving these types of problems rather than a system of theft and violence that only serves to perpetuate and worsen them.

But such a system is fantasy, and has no real-world application. You're describing a Utopia where everyone mutually agrees to do right by each other, and that simply doesn't exist.

[knapplc]

Understood. But that's why I'm saying taxes aren't "coerced" from us - we want services from the government, so we pay for those services through our taxes. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy, but I do like having a military that keeps bad guys from invading our prosperous country.

YOU may "want" the service, which you are more than willing to pay for, but what about the individuals who don't?

 

The very idea of government providing protection and dispelling right's violators is nothing more than a well-disguised contradiction. For when one looks, one realizes that in order to provide any type of protection or service, the "protector" must first violate and aggress against those it claims to protect.

 

Your Utopian Society may not have a government that resembles our current government but it must by necessity have a governing body of some sort. Those individuals who don't want to pay for the service but use them anyway are a drain on the populace, and should be punished or expelled. In the current example, the government does this. In your example, who does this? If you are going to do it yourself, I'm going to oppose you because the leach is my buddy from college. Now what? Are you going to just leave the leacher there because I opposed you, or are you going to get a like-minded person to support your ouster of the leacher? If you do, you've just created a form of government - a group who makes decisions affecting the whole.

 

You can call it whatever you want, but the bottom line is governance is a natural thing. Someone somewhere is making some decision, and that decision is an act of governing.

[Husker_x]

Also, I forgot to add that in a free society individuals could also voluntarily pay to be protected by an army. In fact if enough people demanded that type of protection one can only imagine the kind of competition that would ensue to take advantage of that demand and the profits that follow. And remember that in a free market, one free of coercion, there will only exist goods and services that people are willing to pay for, or to a degree which they are needed, so if nobody feels the need for an army they simply don't pay for it.

 

Not only is this pure speculation, it's downright fantasy. Humans don't behave this way except in the minds of philosophers. Humans accrete power. The phrase "Might makes right" exists for a reason. Without some kind of unified protection plan we're just going to get overrun by our enemies. And if you agree with the concept of unified protection, you're simply exchanging one form of government for another. Either way, you have government.

 

I skimmed the discussion here, thought I'd chime in on this point.

 

To go along with what knapplc is saying, fantasy is a kind word here. Let me present you with a scenario.

 

Let's say I'm in a new 'free' America as SOCAL would call it. There is no government of any kind anywhere on what used to be U.S. soil. I live in a community of a hundred people. I purchase a building with two floors in it (never mind how we establish a currency in the first place) and open a butcher shop on the first floor and live upstairs. But of course the world is still a dangerous place. Human nature hasn't changed in the absence of government. One day I spy this private army contractor walking down the road. He tells me he's heard about burglars in the area and in addition to his anti-foreign invasion business, he does basic police work. But I'm a gun owner, so I tell him that in my community of a hundred people we take care of our own security.

 

His face falls. "You sure about that?" he asks. "Aren't you the least bit worried that a tank might roll over your butcher shop?" By this time I'm feeling nervous. The army contractor leans over the counter and continues, pleasantly: "You know the last butcher I came across a few miles down the road had something just like that happen. Tragic. Real tragic. Tell you what though, I'll be back in a week to see if you've changed your mind." He smiles and leaves the shop, but not without saying, "Anyone you tell about this is your responsibility."

 

Okay, so now what do you do? This the the question I'm not hearing the answer to. What happens when someone with a bigger stick than you starts to put the screws to you? Who do you talk to? There's no FBI to put you in witness protection; there's no army to swoop in and save your shop. There's nothing but you and your 99 friends in your community toting shotguns against a private army contractor who may even be packing nukes. You might say try to get ahold of another army contractor to defend you, but forgetting even the inherent risks of that, who's to say Contractor A hasn't already wiped out Contractors B, C, and D? Who's to say they aren't just as bad or worse than A? The mafia worked like this for years. Pay up if you wanna stay healthy. But unlike a government which is bound to a Constitution and ultimately responsible to an electorate, the army contractor can say f*ckall and do whatever he wants.

[knapplc]

That's exactly what Caesar did with the Gauls (example 1 I gave above). It started with the pretext of an alleged migration by one Germanic tribe and ended in the subjugation of all of Gallia Comata.

[jnkyrdoff6]

Ah. I didn't get that you were speaking mostly about the federal government. A lot of what you've been saying makes more sense now.

 

I largely don't disagree with you.

Yeah, that's my bad. I wrote government a lot without specifying that I meant federal government, and I said state without saying state government.

[jnkyrdoff6]

 

Hans-Hermann Hoppe says it best in his essay “The Idea of A Private Law Society.”

 

 

-----snippet-------

 

I will read that article and the others. Tonight, though, I have to read some of this.

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

Also, I forgot to add that in a free society individuals could also voluntarily pay to be protected by an army. In fact if enough people demanded that type of protection one can only imagine the kind of competition that would ensue to take advantage of that demand and the profits that follow. And remember that in a free market, one free of coercion, there will only exist goods and services that people are willing to pay for, or to a degree which they are needed, so if nobody feels the need for an army they simply don't pay for it.

 

Not only is this pure speculation, it's downright fantasy. Humans don't behave this way except in the minds of philosophers. Humans accrete power. The phrase "Might makes right" exists for a reason. Without some kind of unified protection plan we're just going to get overrun by our enemies. And if you agree with the concept of unified protection, you're simply exchanging one form of government for another. Either way, you have government.

 

I skimmed the discussion here, thought I'd chime in on this point.

 

To go along with what knapplc is saying, fantasy is a kind word here. Let me present you with a scenario.

 

Let's say I'm in a new 'free' America as SOCAL would call it. There is no government of any kind anywhere on what used to be U.S. soil. I live in a community of a hundred people. I purchase a building with two floors in it (never mind how we establish a currency in the first place) and open a butcher shop on the first floor and live upstairs. But of course the world is still a dangerous place. Human nature hasn't changed in the absence of government. One day I spy this private army contractor walking down the road. He tells me he's heard about burglars in the area and in addition to his anti-foreign invasion business, he does basic police work. But I'm a gun owner, so I tell him that in my community of a hundred people we take care of our own security.

 

His face falls. "You sure about that?" he asks. "Aren't you the least bit worried that a tank might roll over your butcher shop?" By this time I'm feeling nervous. The army contractor leans over the counter and continues, pleasantly: "You know the last butcher I came across a few miles down the road had something just like that happen. Tragic. Real tragic. Tell you what though, I'll be back in a week to see if you've changed your mind." He smiles and leaves the shop, but not without saying, "Anyone you tell about this is your responsibility."

 

Okay, so now what do you do? This the the question I'm not hearing the answer to. What happens when someone with a bigger stick than you starts to put the screws to you? Who do you talk to? There's no FBI to put you in witness protection; there's no army to swoop in and save your shop. There's nothing but you and your 99 friends in your community toting shotguns against a private army contractor who may even be packing nukes. You might say try to get ahold of another army contractor to defend you, but forgetting even the inherent risks of that, who's to say Contractor A hasn't already wiped out Contractors B, C, and D? Who's to say they aren't just as bad or worse than A? The mafia worked like this for years. Pay up if you wanna stay healthy. But unlike a government which is bound to a Constitution and ultimately responsible to an electorate, the army contractor can say f*ckall and do whatever he wants.

First of all, are you asserting that government prevents this from happening? Since it doesn't and shake downs still occur, and in fact most are done by the so-called "protectors," I don't see how this scenario does anything except prove that government is and always will be a complete and utter failure. You say that a government is bound by the Constitution and is responsible to the electorate, but I still have to ask, are you serious? If that's the case, why is the United States facing so many of the problems it is facing today? Why does it continue to start wars? Why is it in debt? Why are individual rights violated daily? Why do those in government do as they please? Seriously, how can they break laws and pervert it in their favor if they are bound to a piece of paper? Also, you bring up the mafia, but did it ever occur to you that nearly all the successful one's bribed or in someway used those with governmental power to achieve their ends? How is the government, other than being legitamized by voting, any different then the mafia?

 

With that being said, and while this scenario is intriguing and brilliantly crafted, it is simply a false dichotomy. To create situations in which the only options are to give in or die is to deny the reality of alternatives. You have mentioned several in your speel including arming individuals as well as the introduction of competing protection agencies. These resources, along with whatever market creations arise should be more than enough if that is all that the market demands. If someone is running around extorting and knocking off people, it is guaranteed that individuals will find it in their best interest to stop him and demand a solution voluntarily. This is done because free individuals will always choose to be free rather than enslaved and someone always exists who is willing to risk money and ideas for the benefits they may receive if successful. Since that is the case, how is this contracter finding enough individuals willing to aggress against others, for the risk vs. reward is mighty steep, and how is he planning on keeping those individuals happy once the task is complete? How can he stop his own men from turning on him?

 

Also, how did this one man come upon on all the knowledge and wealth needed to conquer the world? In a free society, capital accumulation is much more spread out due to the fact that there are no regulations on the type of work that individuals can partake in. This ensures employment for whoever chooses to work and means that the chances of a criminal acquiring enough workers or wealth to enslave or extort a society are slim to none. Also, is he the only one in the world with nuclear weapons? If so, how did he manage that? If he plans on using nuclear weapons, what is his motivation? If he plans to use it, does he plan on saving himself? And if he does how will he survive beyond the poverty of a hermit if nobody else is alive?

 

Besides all this, does fear, driven by someone's subjective opinion, somehow justify the theft and violence that are forced upon other individuals in order to achieve an end that cannot be obtained?

[SOCALHUSKER]

SOCAL, this is basic stuff. I shouldn't have to tell you that the reason we ALL pay for services that we may or may not want is that there are people out there who will refuse to pay but who will use those services. Are you saying it's fair for me to pay for those services when others won't?

 

And no, I am making no assertion about general goods and services. As I've said in plain English, I'm talking about basic services like roads and Fire and Police and Military.

You're right this is basic stuff. Are you asserting that everyone pays now and there are no free riders? Since there are, and the welfare doles continue to grow as we speak, do you believe it to be fair, just or moral to steal from productive individuals so that those same free riders, and the many more who will soon join them, can use the services free of charge?

 

In all honesty, the problem of freerider's will probably never be solved. For as long as individuals have the ability to think and act irrationally, which they always will, you will always have those who think it is in their best interest to take advantage of and violate others. However, a philosophy/system based on property rights, non-aggression and self-ownership provides a much more logical, just and non-contradictory ways of solving these types of problems rather than a system of theft and violence that only serves to perpetuate and worsen them.

But such a system is fantasy, and has no real-world application. You're describing a Utopia where everyone mutually agrees to do right by each other, and that simply doesn't exist.

What is utopian or fantastical about individual's refraining from initiating force against other's and their property and/or suffering the consequences if they do? Do most people get by just fine nearly everyday without using violence? How often do you go around violating other people, or is it not you just "other" people? If you have a problem with your ability to mutually agree with other people, feel free to stay a slave and have someone make decisions for you, but that does not mean you have any right to force anybody else to comply with your subjective opinion? In fact, isn't it you who advocates a fantasy in that you believe a coercive monopoly on theft and violence can bring about prosperity and protection?

[SOCALHUSKER]

So once again, because you have a subjective opinion that you and everyone else will get overrun by big, bad enemies, the same enemies that will gain power in government nonetheless, you are advocating and willing to force everyone, at gunpoint, to support and fund a coercive monopoly that does the very same thing? Do you have any historical evidence to back up that claim? Any proof that man, not one backed by the power of government, but one greedy, disturbing yet filthy rich and knowledable man, or even a small group for that matter, has ever subjected and conquered the amount of individuals you suggest?

You're confused. I'm not saying one man can overthrow a nation of 300 million. One man, or a small group, can loot you, and do so without fear of recrimination in the absence of a police force.

 

One nation, even a small one, with a small force, can overthrow another nation, even if it's larger, if that other nation is comprised of disparate entities or has not mutually provided for a common defense. You ask for examples.... how many do you want? History is chock full of them. I'll start with two and you tell me if you need more. But for every example I give you, you have to show me an example where disparate, un-unified people have defended themselves against a unified enemy. That's fair, and I'm going to hold you to this.

 

1) The Gauls, circa 60-50 BC. Julius Caesar, with 15 legions (that's 75,000 fighting men, plus another 10,000 called up in reserve) subjugated and destroyed the Gallic Nations. The Gauls were largely living in a society which you describe, but over 2 million of them were defeated by Caesar.

 

2) Native Americans (North America), circa 1500-1900 AD. Population of 50 million to 100 million in approximately 1500 AD, subjugated by various governments but ultimately subjugated by the US.

 

One old, one new. And that's just off the top of my head. This is basic, basic stuff.

 

Now show me two examples of a defense against a foreign nation where the defenders weren't unified by a common government. We can keep going until I bury you in examples you can't match, or you can concede the point that a common military is a necessity of a nation.

 

How does this prove that a voluntarily funded military could not fight in this day and age? Has the invention of the gun, bombs and other technology not changed the face of warfare from a time in which weapons were simple and brute strength and a thirst for violence were paramount, to today where science and knowledge rule the roost? I've never asserted that an army couldn't exist, only that it must be voluntary. In fact, there are plenty of examples of how a free society can protect itself. Feel free to check out The Production of Security, The Myth of National Defense, Defense Services On A Free Market and a host of other resources on the subject

[knapplc]

But such a system is fantasy, and has no real-world application. You're describing a Utopia where everyone mutually agrees to do right by each other, and that simply doesn't exist.

What is utopian or fantastical about individual's refraining from initiating force against other's and their property and/or suffering the consequences if they do? Do most people get by just fine nearly everyday without using violence? How often do you go around violating other people, or is it not you just "other" people? If you have a problem with your ability to mutually agree with other people, feel free to stay a slave and have someone make decisions for you, but that does not mean you have any right to force anybody else to comply with your subjective opinion? In fact, isn't it you who advocates a fantasy in that you believe a coercive monopoly on theft and violence can bring about prosperity and protection?

 

According to one of your earlier posts, I violate people every day because I work for the government. It's hard to take you seriously when you begin with a false premise like that. I don't advocate a fantasy, I am simply telling you how the world works, how it has worked since recorded history began. You come back with theoretical examples that have no practical real-world application. That's the problem you're having understanding this discussion.

 

So once again, because you have a subjective opinion that you and everyone else will get overrun by big, bad enemies, the same enemies that will gain power in government nonetheless, you are advocating and willing to force everyone, at gunpoint, to support and fund a coercive monopoly that does the very same thing? Do you have any historical evidence to back up that claim? Any proof that man, not one backed by the power of government, but one greedy, disturbing yet filthy rich and knowledable man, or even a small group for that matter, has ever subjected and conquered the amount of individuals you suggest?

You're confused. I'm not saying one man can overthrow a nation of 300 million. One man, or a small group, can loot you, and do so without fear of recrimination in the absence of a police force.

 

One nation, even a small one, with a small force, can overthrow another nation, even if it's larger, if that other nation is comprised of disparate entities or has not mutually provided for a common defense. You ask for examples.... how many do you want? History is chock full of them. I'll start with two and you tell me if you need more. But for every example I give you, you have to show me an example where disparate, un-unified people have defended themselves against a unified enemy. That's fair, and I'm going to hold you to this.

 

1) The Gauls, circa 60-50 BC. Julius Caesar, with 15 legions (that's 75,000 fighting men, plus another 10,000 called up in reserve) subjugated and destroyed the Gallic Nations. The Gauls were largely living in a society which you describe, but over 2 million of them were defeated by Caesar.

 

2) Native Americans (North America), circa 1500-1900 AD. Population of 50 million to 100 million in approximately 1500 AD, subjugated by various governments but ultimately subjugated by the US.

 

One old, one new. And that's just off the top of my head. This is basic, basic stuff.

 

Now show me two examples of a defense against a foreign nation where the defenders weren't unified by a common government. We can keep going until I bury you in examples you can't match, or you can concede the point that a common military is a necessity of a nation.

 

How does this prove that a voluntarily funded military could not fight in this day and age? Has the invention of the gun, bombs and other technology not changed the face of warfare from a time in which weapons were simple and brute strength and a thirst for violence were paramount, to today where science and knowledge rule the roost? I've never asserted that an army couldn't exist, only that it must be voluntary. In fact, there are plenty of examples of how a free society can protect itself. Feel free to check out The Production of Security, The Myth of National Defense, Defense Services On A Free Market and a host of other resources on the subject

 

I gave two real-world examples, and you come back with theories. See the problem here?

 

You want a modern example, but there isn't one. Why? Because the society you're advocating can't exist in modern society. It'll get swallowed up by a properly structured military based on a unified central government.

[jnkyrdoff6]

So once again, because you have a subjective opinion that you and everyone else will get overrun by big, bad enemies, the same enemies that will gain power in government nonetheless, you are advocating and willing to force everyone, at gunpoint, to support and fund a coercive monopoly that does the very same thing? Do you have any historical evidence to back up that claim? Any proof that man, not one backed by the power of government, but one greedy, disturbing yet filthy rich and knowledable man, or even a small group for that matter, has ever subjected and conquered the amount of individuals you suggest?

You're confused. I'm not saying one man can overthrow a nation of 300 million. One man, or a small group, can loot you, and do so without fear of recrimination in the absence of a police force.

 

One nation, even a small one, with a small force, can overthrow another nation, even if it's larger, if that other nation is comprised of disparate entities or has not mutually provided for a common defense. You ask for examples.... how many do you want? History is chock full of them. I'll start with two and you tell me if you need more. But for every example I give you, you have to show me an example where disparate, un-unified people have defended themselves against a unified enemy. That's fair, and I'm going to hold you to this.

 

1) The Gauls, circa 60-50 BC. Julius Caesar, with 15 legions (that's 75,000 fighting men, plus another 10,000 called up in reserve) subjugated and destroyed the Gallic Nations. The Gauls were largely living in a society which you describe, but over 2 million of them were defeated by Caesar.

 

2) Native Americans (North America), circa 1500-1900 AD. Population of 50 million to 100 million in approximately 1500 AD, subjugated by various governments but ultimately subjugated by the US.

 

One old, one new. And that's just off the top of my head. This is basic, basic stuff.

 

Now show me two examples of a defense against a foreign nation where the defenders weren't unified by a common government. We can keep going until I bury you in examples you can't match, or you can concede the point that a common military is a necessity of a nation.

 

How does this prove that a voluntarily funded military could not fight in this day and age? Has the invention of the gun, bombs and other technology not changed the face of warfare from a time in which weapons were simple and brute strength and a thirst for violence were paramount, to today where science and knowledge rule the roost? I've never asserted that an army couldn't exist, only that it must be voluntary. In fact, there are plenty of examples of how a free society can protect itself. Feel free to check out The Production of Security, The Myth of National Defense, Defense Services On A Free Market and a host of other resources on the subject

 

I've read the private law section now, and it didn't really help. I'd already agreed that private law agencies would work. The military is still my hangup. Do you really think a voluntarily funded military would continuously spend money on weapons, weapons research, training, etc. when there is no threat or reason to do so? Why would it? Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else in a free-market? Only our government would do that.

[knapplc]

I've read the private law section now, and it didn't really help. I'd already agreed that private law agencies would work. The military is still my hangup. Do you really think a voluntarily funded military would continuously spend money on weapons, weapons research, training, etc. when there is no threat or reason to do so? Why would it? Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else in a free-market? Only our government would do that.

 

And that's only the most simple to explain reason SOCAL's society doesn't work. It's a great idea, and I think we'd all like to live in a society like he describes where enlightened men live in cultural and economic freedom, but the reality is that the real world doesn't work that way.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I've read the private law section now, and it didn't really help. I'd already agreed that private law agencies would work. The military is still my hangup. Do you really think a voluntarily funded military would continuously spend money on weapons, weapons research, training, etc. when there is no threat or reason to do so? Why would it? Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else in a free-market? Only our government would do that.

A company that wishes to stay in business would spend whatever it took to keep their customers happy. Why would any business, especially one that relies on voluntary customer satisfaction, which a coercive monopoly does not because it gets its money by force, risk everything so that someone else would come along with more efficient weapons and training and take all their customers?

 

The beauty of the free market is that it is self-regulating, meaning that the profits and loss signals ensure that there will always be just the right amount of supply that the demand requires. Losses are signals to show the demand has been exceed by supply or that you are losing customers, and could be a signal for competition to dwindle. Profits mean that demand is up, you are doing good business and is an invite for competition to enter the market and increase the supply.

 

Because individuals do make decisions based on their own self interest there will always be those who invest and take risks for the benefits and those who agree to pay for goods and services. Only the individual knows what their own best interest is, no one else does, and it is due to this fact precisely why a regulated market, one in which the profit and loss signal are distorted or that is funded by force, can never bring stability, can never be properly gauged and can never bring about prosperity.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I've read the private law section now, and it didn't really help. I'd already agreed that private law agencies would work. The military is still my hangup. Do you really think a voluntarily funded military would continuously spend money on weapons, weapons research, training, etc. when there is no threat or reason to do so? Why would it? Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else in a free-market? Only our government would do that.

 

And that's only the most simple to explain reason SOCAL's society doesn't work. It's a great idea, and I think we'd all like to live in a society like he describes where enlightened men live in cultural and economic freedom, but the reality is that the real world doesn't work that way.

 

Really? Would you instead suggest the more prosperous government solution of running up astronomical debt funding an unlimited amount of wars, completely debase a currency, restricting individual liberty and steering money away from productive measures into ones of death and destruction?

 

Or how do you suggest security be handled?

[knapplc]

Really? Would you instead suggest the more prosperous government solution of running up astronomical debt funding an unlimited amount of wars, completely debase a currency, restricting individual liberty and steering money away from productive measures into ones of death and destruction?

 

Or how do you suggest security be handled?

 

Why do you labor under false assertions? You are not making any kind of rational point. You're, apparently, saying that every country with a standing army runs up "astronomical debt" and engages in "an unlimited amount of wars." That's ludicrous and patently false.

 

 

 

I ask you, does Portugal have a standing military? How many wars have they been engaged in lately? How about Japan? Or Ecuador? Or Canada? Or Italy?

 

 

 

Security should be handled with a common military paid for by common funds, derived from a fair tax. It should be efficient, sufficient and proficient. It should not waste, it should not engage in superfluous wars, it should not instigate wars, it should not attack a peaceful nation, and it should serve the common good when not engaged in war.