Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 9 of 18
So it comes down to a hissy fit because you don't get to do whatever it is you want to do.
The reason the health department is interested in your lemonade stand is that they want to ensure that it's safe to drink. Now I'm sure in your world the recourse if little Johnny gets sick after drinking your lemonade is that their pa straps on his piece and shoots you (or something.) Most people though prefer prevention.
The reason they zone your area as residential is because your neighbours expect to be able to enjoy their property without interference from you. If you can turn your place into a lemonade stand why can't your neighbour do the same and make his place into a drive through McDonalds and just ignore the fact that the noise and pollution mean you cant enjoy your place? But then if he does that in your world I'm sure you would just shoot him.
No I haven't been to a failed state, however I have met and spoke with people that used to live in a few and I'm sorry their version carries a little more weight with me than that of a visiting western business man. The quote is that to know someone spend day in their shoes not drive past them in a car between your regional office and the local Hilton International.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:No, I don't believe that we can outgun any opponent. I believe that murderers and robbers are predators who do what they do because it is relatively risk free to attack unarmed people. You throw in a high risk of death, and preying is no longer as attractive.
Your belief seems to go to this, that you individually or collectively with a few buds will outgun any opponent. I would argue this hasn't been thought through. If everyone is well armed as you say, if there is no easy mark you expect criminal types to just give up and find a real job?
Why? I mean these guys don't ring you up and tell you they are coming, they will hit you when their risk is minimal. All it means is that they will tend to use more force in the same situation because they won't want to risk that you'd be able to respond. In general these people don't do this stuff because they have no options they do it because they prefer the lifestyle.
I doubt you could make anything high enough risk that nobody would try it. People rob banks and armoured cars where they KNOW that there will be armed guards, so there are obviously people out there that are not risk averse. What you are saying is that you would adjust the risk/reward equation such that in some instances it wouldn't be worth the risk to do the crime. I say that people will just adjust their schemes. When banks in Europe started becoming too tough to rob people started abducting bank manager's families then forcing the manager to rob his bank. If I want to rob your house I can do it without you firing a shot. Do YOU know where your children are every moment? If I wanted your cooperation *I* would know.
Quote:Quote:First of all, Al Q is not a predatory organization. It is a ideological organization whose members are more like soldiers. They are willing to go to any lengths for their ideology. So these aren't your typical marauders. We can deal with fanatics separately--because that means strategic war, not just simple home defense.
They will change tactics just like Al Q did.
What about organised crime? Al Q and organised crime have similar structures. Large urban street gangs have similar structures. Governments are not the only ones with "soldiers" organised gangs have them too.
Quote:Quote:Victims or private "police" hired by victims.
because who is going to investigate the crime, who will pursue a criminal once he's beyond your community?
Let's look at that.
Who are the private police? Who licences them? Who ensures that the "confession" they obtained wasn't beaten out of someone? Who ensures that any gun incident is investigated. What authority do they have to extradite a suspect from another state? Do they have to show some authority figure a warrent? Who is that figure. If there is none can they snatch people from teh streets? If his heavily armed friends see these guy's muscling in and a firefight ensues who pays the compensation/medical costs of the civilians caught in the crossfire?
What evidence do they have to have to take a case? Is it enough that the guy writing the check says the guy is guilty? Does this mean that poor people, the ones that can't afford their own Pinkertons get a lesser level of justice?
I remember a case where a guy would pick up girls, torture them and then dump the bodies hundreds of miles away where IF they were found they would be listed as Jane Does. The guy was only caught because a policeman in one community spend time effort (and tax payer's money) finding him. In your scheme if a body is found and it isn't "one of yours" do you just give it a Christian burial and forget about it? After all nobody will pay a pinkerton to track the guy down and there would be no "kin" to swear blood vengeance.
What a great world to be a serial killer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:First of all, hissy fit? Huh? Secondly, you asked what I would use my freedom for. I answered. That is what freedom is, getting to do what you want to do.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So it comes down to a hissy fit because you don't get to do whatever it is you want to do.
Third, you don't need to explain the why we have laws. My disagreement with the laws does not stem from not understanding why they are there.
Quote:Whoa. That is a lot of assumptions. What makes you think he is a western business man who drives past people between regional offices and the local Hilton International?
I'm sorry their version carries a little more weight with me than that of a visiting western business man. The quote is that to know someone spend day in their shoes not drive past them in a car between your regional office and the local Hilton International.
My husband loves Africa, esp eastern and central Africa because people there value freedom. (They don't make excuses for whatever crappy govt they have. ) He uses local transportation, stays at local lodging, and eats local food when he is there, and he stays for months at a time. He speaks the local languages. Some people save for a house, or car, or cruise. He saves for trips to Africa, and has done so since his teenage years. He's climbed Mt Kilamanjaro, hung out with the Masai, walked through jungles and the deserts. In fact, he was there at the very beginning of the Rwandan genocide. His best friend of over 20 years is African (DRCongo). Because he considers us family, we actually have family there. To tell the truth, we're slowly moving towards emigrating there eventually.
But I'm not saying this to convince you to believe my husband. You can believe whatever you want, of course. This is just where we're coming from.
--------------------------
If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since theres no government, and therefore no courts, how on Earth would you sue him anyway?
Originally posted by SignyM:
The guy who hit you has zero assets so you can forget about suing.
All the replacements for government here seem to be putting a government in place, but calling it something else.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Since theres no government, and therefore no courts, how on Earth would you sue him anyway?
Originally posted by SignyM:
The guy who hit you has zero assets so you can forget about suing.
All the replacements for government here seem to be putting a government in place, but calling it something else.
Which is kind of the point. One of the primary functions of governments is the overseeing and enforcement of contracts. Note that in the "Right-Anarchist" world all other structures are untouched and contracts are still made. Which raises the question as to who arbitrates them and who enforces them. Now CTS will probably say that if you're rich enough and powerful enough you can buy your own way even with the law (ie government) overseeing the transaction. Even IF we accept this to be universally true (ie the little guy NEVER gets an even break) then that's just an indication that the system is broken and needs reform because the intention of the law is to be a neutral and equitable arbiter of disputes. Removing the law and especially enforcement of the law will still favor the powerful because as CTS says herself the powerful can always hire renta-cops to ensure enforcement where as the little guy can't. It won't make things any fairer for contracts.
I may not hang out with the Massi but I have travelled a bit, lived in places with really stupid rules (from my viewpoint) that seem to just be some officials chance at a power trip. That doesn't mean that I view all laws in that society to be equally dubious nor does it mean that one stupid law makes me willing to decide the whole idea is a waste of time.
Which is not to say that what CTS (I think) is talking about is completely unheard of. In Arab and eastern cultures business relationships are made on a personal level, you shake hands on it and the deal is done, personal honour ensures that things are adhered to.... in theory.
The problem comes if one party is not satisfied because then "it's not business, it's personal." I once knew a Pakistani guy in London who came from the northern tribal region. His uncle has had a falling out over a dowry that effectively put two families into a state of war. Some guy from the other family was killed and the guy I knew ended up skipping the country because he was tipped off he was targeted in a revenge killing.
In the west we would sue, depending on the outcome assets may be seized and in most cases no bloodshed would ensue.
Anyway....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In Arab and eastern cultures business relationships are made on a personal level, you shake hands on it and the deal is done, personal honour ensures that things are adhered to.... in theory.
From what I understand the diamond business is much the same, I heard a story about someone who ripped of a few million dollars worth of diamonds by playing off of that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought I was a Libertarian until I read this thread. Seems like I'm a big government conservative compared to many here. I think the Federal Government's only function should be national defense and local governments only function should be law enforcement. I also believe that to minimise the number of laws, all new laws should have to be approved by a 75% or more super majority vote of the governing body. Requiring a super majority might slow down the constant stream of new laws that remove one more decision from me and transfers it to the government. Why do we need all these stupid laws. Instead of having a jaywalking law why not just remove liability for drivers who run down pedestrians outside of cross walks. Or just fine the pedestrians estate for improper placement of a speed bump. There are a lot of problems that just take care of themselves without government intervention.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting. I started this thread to ask the libertarian and anarchist folks a couple of questions I'd come up with based on my recent reading. What I got was mostly the non-anarchist and non-libertarian folks coming up with extreme worst-case scenarios that distort or ignore most of the liberterian/anarchist philosophy I've read so far. Makes me wonder what's got them so scared of people being souvreign individuals. Do they think that everyone but them is not fit to make their own decisions?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This thread has been mostly about anarchism, not libertarianism. Libertarians want government, just not a lot of it.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I thought I was a Libertarian until I read this thread. Seems like I'm a big government conservative compared to many here.
--------------------------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
--- Arthur Bloch
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Interesting. I started this thread to ask the libertarian and anarchist folks a couple of questions I'd come up with based on my recent reading. What I got was mostly the non-anarchist and non-libertarian folks coming up with extreme worst-case scenarios that distort or ignore most of the liberterian/anarchist philosophy I've read so far. Makes me wonder what's got them so scared of people being souvreign individuals. Do they think that everyone but them is not fit to make their own decisions?
Seconded.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME