Quote :

"I think your beliefs are fundamentally flawed."

Nope. Don't think so. You're the one who's promoting private police that someone pays for if they want the "protection" and the ability to impose their will on others with their only restraint being money...

Quote :

" What if, with ample education, the state can be rolled back and people can be left to live and let live? What if that's utopia, and history has been nothing but a long story of one tyrannical government after another, slowly progressing towards more freedom but never making it all the way there?"

So utopia is what we had thousands of years ago when we were all fighting against each other and watching out for our own backs. Yes. Our liberties were high, but our quality of life sucked. Disease was rampant. Hunger was everywhere. Then we found out that we can survive better if we work together. Then we appointed a leader who the group deemed to be the best and smartest. Then power corrupted him and his decisions were made on what benefited him the most. But we were able to work together to accomplish more.

You're asking us to abandon our collective. Together, we are able to do far more and attain a higher quality of life than we would if we were alone and separated. We haven't been progressing towards more freedoms, we've been progressing towards a better quality of life as a whole.

Quote :

"I'm an idealist in the sense that I can think upon principle, and determine how things should be."

Yes, you are thinking on principle. Thinking on principles is no different than saying you think based off of your own beliefs. There can be a rationale behind it, but it's not a qualification for something to be a "principle." You're an idealist in that you think that humans can live without corruption. You think we can live together without this urge to take advantage of a situation and be above the rest. That is naive.

The difference between you and me isn't that I don't think it would be nice if people didn't try to take advantage of other people and exploit others. The difference is that I know it will never happen. You, somehow think that all humans are capable of being moral.

Quote :

"Cost minimization is the thing that "dictates" what a private defense company can and can't do."

This doesn't address anything I said. You completely side stepped my issue of WHO is going to hire a private defense company? WHAT will be allowed (lets assume I can afford to arrest someone for saying something bad against me in public)? WHO+ will do the punishment? And WHERE do the guidelines come from?

Money can't be the limiting factor. I'm sorry. You're a fucking idiot if you think money is the limiting factor, and you think that what will limit the private police's authority is money. The limiting factor is ultimately power and desire. If they have the power (money/authority, whether taken, earned, assumed or given) they can limit anything they want.

Quote :

"Private courts, too, will aim for lower costs."

So they won't exist? It's cheaper to let a criminal go or just toss him in the cell then it is to try him.

Quote :

"Since it tends towards lower cost, PDAs will do the bare minimum, as required by their contractors, the private insurance companies."

I'm assuming that PDA is "Public Defense Attorney." Who is the PDA? Who hires the PDA? If an insurance company hires the PDA, who hires the insurance company?

Quote :

"Dictatorships are only allowed to take hold when a small group is granted a monopoly on force."

And what is preventing a monopoly? Nothing.

Quote :

"t would not be "laws" that a PDA would enforce - it would be rights violations."

And who decides what is a rights violation?

Quote :

"Their intervention would be "triggered" by a sort of private insurance."

Who hires the insurance company? We're all going to have to buy insurance against everyone else. What's to protect me against private insurance companies? All the force and power is going to be given to private insurance companies?

Quote :

"If any one of these pot smokers happened to have insurance"

And if they don't? You're creating a class system where the rich are given power over the poor based on one's ability to pay for insurance.

Quote :

"the PDAs use of force would be questioned."

By who? Other insurance companies?

Quote :

" Perhaps a civil suit would be applicable, if the pot smoker in question was trespassing and refused to leave."

How about I bribe the judge to give me win, in return for 50% of the winnings?

Quote :

"I don't think it would be worth anyone's time and money to imprison millions of people that did not actually harm them, if the people doing the imprisoning have a bottom line."

That is a stupidly bold statement that you would lose in your society.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 6:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2011 6:54:17 PM

Quote :

"They set up a constitutional system of checks and balances. We see how well that worked out. "

Are you being sarcastic? We have a government that we can change at will. If you think its bad, then blame people for being too complacent.

1/27/2011 7:09:48 PM

Quote :

"Rubies, emeralds and sapphires are all rarer than diamonds. DeBeers is sitting on the supply, and has marketed the shit out of diamonds. It has little to do with the rarity and everything to do with (manufactured) demand."

All of that is irrelevant. The fact is that if I found a diamond, it will be worth a lot because there is a small supply of them, it's irrelevant how many there are on the earth, only how many of them people can buy.

Quote :

"We have a right to our labor, or the products of our labor, by virtue of the fact that we live here and have a vested interest in surviving."

The point is that ownership of capital is arbitrary, and your arbitrary rules of ownership are the only justification you have for the exclusion of others from capital, which is little different than theft.

Quote :

"Animals hoard and steal."

They do not hoard or steal more than they will use or need, humans are the only animals with unlimited demand.

Quote :

"They'd be willing to pay the cost of apprehending, arresting, clothing, feeding, and housing a marijuana smoker?"

They do now, don't they? It's surprisingly not that expensive, especially considering the lack of laws would mean you could just kill them, after all, who would miss them?

Quote :

"No, that's not how it works."

No, that's exactly how it works, if I found a diamond, it would be worth a lot of money regardless of how many exist.

Quote :

"A leopard with two kills on the ground will kill a third on instinct if it can manage it."

"Instinct" is not the same as greed. We take more because we want more, and we are the only animals that do so.

1/27/2011 10:45:48 PM

that used to be the thinking, but recently experiments have shown that some primates will hoard as much of something as they can and trade it for sexual favors. its greed and prostitution all in one.

1/27/2011 11:24:07 PM

Why buy the cow when you can rape it for free?

1/27/2011 11:27:08 PM

Quote :

""Instinct" is not the same as greed. We take more because we want more, and we are the only animals that do so."

You are wrong. In fact, you are so wrong, you have demonstrated that you are either lying or you must know nothing about animal behavior.

Instinct makes them want to hunt more, so they do. They have a choice, but hunting is visibly enjoyable for a predator. Instinct makes us want more, so we work to get it. We too have a choice, but getting more stuff is visibly enjoyable for most humans. It is not a learned connection; DNA wires both predators and humans to be this way. All mammals are capable of learning, but that learning must take place within the framework laid out by our DNA.

A beaver always wants a bigger pond so it can store ever more food than it can ever eat, until the forest is gone, the stored food rots, and his home must be abandoned. Some ant colonies will keep expanding its nest and collecting more food until it becomes too much and must be abandoned.

Humans are a great trick, but we are built out of the exact same stuff as the rest of the animal kingdom. But you are so desperate to secure your world view that you keep making up lies to justify it.

1/28/2011 1:01:53 AM

Quote :

"They have a choice"

Quote :

"but hunting is visibly enjoyable for a predator"

Quote :

"A beaver always wants a bigger pond"

You're attributing human characteristics to animals.

Quote :

"Instinct makes us want more"

Quote :

"It is not a learned connection"

You're attributing animal characteristics to humans.

I don't instinctively want a big tv.

Quote :

"you are so desperate to secure your world view that you keep making up lies to justify it."

I'm not the one claiming that beavers "choose" and "want" things or that humans are instinctively driven to acquire sheets of paper and electronics. You are redescribing the world in terms of what you want it to be.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 1:30 AM. Reason : ]

1/28/2011 1:30:19 AM

d357r0y3r reminds me a lot of salisburyboy, having transformed, right before our eyes, from a hardcore conservative to a conspiracy-minded big "L"ibertarian with an overarching ideology and crackpot theories on everything from taxes to foreign policy. It's probably only a matter of time before he starts blaming all the world's problems on the Jews.

1/28/2011 2:30:53 AM

And recommending that we watch Zeitgeist.

1/28/2011 8:57:45 AM

^^^ And you are attributing mindlessness to creatures which clearly have a brain while trying to pretend the human animal is somehow no longer an animal.

As our environment changes, we satisfy out instinctive desires differently. While wild dolphins satisfy their desire for interaction by chasing human boats, humans acquire televisions. A dolphin's thought processes are clearly more complex than a squirrel, and a human's are clearly more complex than a dolphin, but all mammal brains are a gene defined mixture of the instinct and thought.

But good work changing the subject. Let's get back to how utterly wrong you were when you said "They do not hoard or steal more than they will use or need" as if an animal is smart enough to figure out exactly how much land it needs to fight and kill for, and no more.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/28/2011 8:58:48 AM

Animals are greedy. Squirrels hoard nuts. Lions hoard lionesses. Dogs do not want to share their bones. Humans are animals.

Why the fuck is this animal discussion relevant?

1/28/2011 9:16:59 AM

Quote :

"And you are attributing mindlessness to creatures which clearly have a brain while trying to pretend the human animal is somehow no longer an animal. "

No I have not, but there is differences, you've stated that animals choose and enjoy. Now surely an ant doesn't go through any sort of complex "choice" thought process when he decides to go get food, and in the same way, it is likely he finds little "enjoyment" out of finding that food. "Choice" and "enjoyment" are both concepts that arise out of brain complexity, which most any other animal but a small handful does not have.

Quote :

"As our environment changes, we satisfy out instinctive desires differently."

You are changing the meaning of the word "natural", that environment being changed is what is making it "unnatural". It is not natural for us to instinctively want televisions, early man did not crave televisions. We want them for unnatural reasons.

Quote :

"as if an animal is smart enough to figure out exactly how much land it needs to fight and kill for, and no more."

Then how do they do it? I don't see dead hunted animals everytime I step outside, the very definition of an animal's territory denotes limits, clearly animals are able to not kill more than they need and denote limits to their territory, how are they able to do it? It's not about them being smart, this is instinctive.

Quote :

"Squirrels hoard nuts"

For a reason. There are not nut hoards everywhere are there?

Quote :

"Why is this animal discussion relevant?"

I was pointing out that imposing one's will upon another is a far more natural thing than avarice.

1/28/2011 11:16:54 AM

Quote :

"Then how do they do it? I don't see dead hunted animals everytime I step outside, the very definition of an animal's territory denotes limits, clearly animals are able to not kill more than they need and denote limits to their territory, how are they able to do it? It's not about them being smart, this is instinctive. "

Just like with humans, an animal knows its territorial limits because another animal confronts it and uses violence to make it leave. Wolf packs howl to advertise their numbers to would-be invaders, in effect asking them to stay out. If they don't stay out, then violence ensues and one side wins. Exactly the same way tribal humans determined their territorial limits.

Again, you are trying to distract from the fact you make a boneheaded statement that anyone but you could see was absolutely false.

1/28/2011 1:57:29 PM

Quote :

"Just like with humans, an animal knows its territorial limits because another animal confronts it and uses violence to make it leave."

So by that logic, the strongest animal would have all of the territory and every other animal would have none. The fact is that they take what they need, they don't lay claim to more.

1/28/2011 2:42:20 PM

Why? If that was the case, then by your logic, the strongest human would have all the television sets.

In reality, animals are restricted by their environment. A male lion can only walk so fast and therefore patrol so much territory. But it is quite clear that they try to lay claim to far more territory than they need. Hell, they don't even NEED to claim any territory. They would survive just fine if they shared their land with their fellow lion comrades. Of course, anyone that knows anything would point out such behavior would be disastrous from an evolutionary aspect, as the lion population grew unchallenged and environmental collapse killed off those only taking what they need, to be replaced by lions that monopolize their territory and exclude outside genes.

Go ahead, keep the obviously false statements coming. This is fun.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/28/2011 2:59:50 PM

Quote :

"Why? If that was the case, then by your logic, the strongest human would have all the television sets. "

Yes, he absolutely would, were it not for the human constructs of laws, society, governments and such, yes, the strongest human would absolutely have all of the television sets.

Quote :

"A male lion can only walk so fast and therefore patrol so much territory."

Why would he even bother defining territory?

Quote :

"Hell, they don't even NEED to claim any territory."

But the entire concept of territory not only implies such a claim, but limits upon it.

1/28/2011 4:14:16 PM

And were it not for exhaustion, cumulative injury, technical limitations, and social norm, one male lion would indeed own all the territory.

Quote :

"Why would he even bother defining territory?"

As usual in this conversation: For the exact same reasons a human defines territory!

Quote :

"But the entire concept of territory not only implies such a claim, but limits upon it."

Hilarious! I guess that's why ancient Rome never exceeded its city limits! After-all, territory never changes hands, increases in size, or shrinks through the application of violence or the threat there-of. Keep dancing there, Kris. I'm sure your world view can survive even this.

1/28/2011 4:53:28 PM

LS are you actually trying to take the standard micro-economic rational agent framework for explaining behavior and apply it directly to animals?

(Keep in mind this isn't even what game theorists studying biology do)

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 5:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2011 5:06:25 PM

Quote :

"And were it not for exhaustion, cumulative injury, technical limitations, and social norm, one male lion would indeed own all the territory."

Ah, so I assume you are able to speak to lions to know all of their intentions? The only other option here is that you're making this up.

Quote :

"For the exact same reasons a human defines territory!"

Humans define territory in order to have it respected by others through law and society, lions do not have such respect.

Quote :

"Hilarious! I guess that's why ancient Rome never exceeded its city limits!"

Rome did, but it was populated by humans, not lions.

1/28/2011 5:12:02 PM

Oh snap, a threadjack that I wasn't a part of! Granted, it was my thread so I guess it's fitting that it was derailed.

1/28/2011 5:37:04 PM

There's a lot that has been posted, and I don't have the time to respond to all of it. This is the reaction I would expect from people that have never been exposed to a real argument for privatized defense. Many of the objections launched here are the same I would have made a year ago. I'll just take a stab at some of the big points here.

Quote :

"Nope. Don't think so. You're the one who's promoting private police that someone pays for if they want the "protection" and the ability to impose their will on others with their only restraint being money..."

Quote :

"This doesn't address anything I said. You completely side stepped my issue of WHO is going to hire a private defense company? WHAT will be allowed (lets assume I can afford to arrest someone for saying something bad against me in public)? WHO+ will do the punishment? And WHERE do the guidelines come from?"

Quote :

"Money can't be the limiting factor. I'm sorry. You're a fucking idiot if you think money is the limiting factor, and you think that what will limit the private police's authority is money. The limiting factor is ultimately power and desire. If they have the power (money/authority, whether taken, earned, assumed or given) they can limit anything they want."

Quote :

"So they won't exist? It's cheaper to let a criminal go or just toss him in the cell then it is to try him."

Quote :

"etc"

You're imagining a system where the PDAs (private defense agencies) are the judge, jury, and executioner. It's going to be a lot easier if I actually provide some examples of how a private "crime and justice" scenario might happen in the kind of society I'm talking about, and why a single PDA would never be able to "take over."

Man comes home to find his wife murdered. Man and wife both have insurance. Maybe they have multiple kinds of insurance. They have a policy that protects specifically against any kind of physical injury/death caused by another person. The first thing the man will do, beyond calling the [private] hospital, is contact the insurance company. That company will be responsible for hiring a investigation team. Investigation team will do what they already do under the public system: attempt to figure out who committed the murder. Turns out that there are finger prints all over the crime scene, and the finger prints come up in a shared (as it undoubtedly would be, in a system without patent law - intellectual property discourages collaboration) criminal database. Having discovered the identity of the suspect, the insurance company is now responsible for hiring someone to apprehend them - private police.

Of course, the police agency has no interest in locking up an innocent person, as it would destroy their reputation and make them less likely to be contracted by the insurance company, and they'd come under attack from other defense organizations, since they'd be held liable. Locking up someone "just because" would be like Wendy's purposely throwing a human finger into the chili mix. It'd be a costly endeavor. So, they hire a private court. Now, just like the police and insurance company, this court has no incentive to get convictions. They're, again, held liable for any mistakes they make. At every point in the system, whether it's insurance, investigators, police, courts, security, or anything else, everyone involved has to pay a financial price for their mistakes. That, in a nutshell, is what I mean when I discuss "cost minimization."

Compare that to our system: rarely is anyone held liable when an innocent person is kept in jail for years, or even executed. It's chalked up to a bad jury, faulty investigation, evidence tampering - but no one really has to "pay up." The police or courts don't go out of business. In fact, if the state or federal government sees that they're performing poorly, they'll probably get more funding. The only thing a public justice system has to lose is revenue, which is why we typically see bullshit laws put into place with fines attached.

I'm not just arguing that a privatized system would be moral, though - it would be, hands down, better and more effective at catching and dealing with actual criminals. There are good, smart cops out there right now. There are guys that really are putting their lives on the line every day to keep the community safe from bad guys. Let's face it, though - with the pay that a street cop expects to make, and the risk that goes along with it, the actual "cop" profession does not attract the best and the brightest. When the creme of the crop does join the force, he ends up advancing within the bureaucracy, not patrolling the streets. Under a private system, you would have professional police. They'd would go to private school to become trained cops, they'd be paid more, and overall, we'd be safer. Not only that, but difference police agencies would be competing for labor - the current labor market for police is exempt from that, because there's only one company in town.

TLDR: In a private justice system, every organization is held directly liable for the mistakes that they make, which means there will be comparatively more incentive to catch the bad guy and not lock up the good guy than in the public justice system. Furthermore, allowing competition in the labor market for police, courts, security, and prisons will result in a more efficient, less costly, and less invasive criminal justice infrastructure.

Quote :

"Are you being sarcastic? We have a government that we can change at will. If you think its bad, then blame people for being too complacent."

We can't change the government at will. If we want to add or repeal a law, that's potentially a months or year long legislative battle. That's assuming that there is any political will to do so, which is distinctly different than "the will of the public." Politicians, being politicians, have their own priorities, which means doing, voting, and saying what's popular, or at the very least, acceptable.

I do blame the people for becoming complacent, and unless they can be awoken from their apathetic slumber, I don't expect much to change.

Quote :

"No, that's exactly how it works, if I found a diamond, it would be worth a lot of money regardless of how many exist."

If you found a diamond right now, yes, it would be worth a lot of money. If more people understood how many diamonds there actually were (as I and some others in this thread do), they'd realize that others gems are actually more desirable.

Quote :

"Yes, he absolutely would, were it not for the human constructs of laws, society, governments and such, yes, the strongest human would absolutely have all of the television sets."

That's totally absurd. Without government, the strongest man in the world could collect all of the TV sets? The strongest man can be defeated by anyone with a gun or a knife.

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2011 9:10:12 PM

Quote :

"In a private justice system, every organization is held directly liable for the mistakes that they make"

By who? What, you're going to sue? Why would they care, who would make them pay?

Quote :

"If more people understood how many diamonds there actually were (as I and some others in this thread do), they'd realize that others gems are actually more desirable."

There could be a billion diamonds in existence, it wouldn't matter, if there are only five that you can buy, they will command a hefty price.

Quote :

"The strongest man can be defeated by anyone with a gun or a knife."

Don't be retarded, the "strongest man" is the one with the most guns or the largest private army, or whatever.

1/29/2011 12:34:10 AM

Quote :

"Ah, so I assume you are able to speak to lions to know all of their intentions?"

Keep thinking that. It's not that your world view is insane and clearly dis-proven with a minimum of observation, it's that lion society is just too complex for mere humans to understand.

Quote :

"Humans define territory in order to have it respected by others through law and society, lions do not have such respect."

Lions too weak to conquer a territory of their own are all too happy to respect defined territorial boundaries, by running away. What next, you're going to back up the glorious lie that animals take only what they need with a proclamation that animals only kill when they must? Let me introduce you to another aspect of lion society I guess you've never heard of: infanticide. When a lion's territory is conquered by another lion (or lions) then their young cubs are often hunted down and killed.

1/29/2011 1:54:33 AM

Quote :

"it's that lion society is just too complex for mere humans to understand"

That's certainly not it, it's just that you have absolutely no reason to believe what you claimed. You have completely imagined what you believe the lion's intentions are.

Quote :

"Lions too weak to conquer a territory of their own are all too happy to respect defined territorial boundaries"

If they are to weak to conquer territory then they would be too weak to defend their territory as well, thus if you are correct and a lion has unlimited demand, this lion would no longer have any territory.

Quote :

"that animals only kill when they must? Let me introduce you to another aspect of lion society I guess you've never heard of: infanticide"

That seems necessary, that cub would soon grow to be a competitor, why not kill. Infantcide has little to do with greed and more with survival.

1/29/2011 9:56:49 AM

Infanticide of some other shmuck's babies has a lot more to do with controlling the genetic makeup of the population (skewing it toward you) and a lot less to do with greed

1/29/2011 1:20:41 PM

Quote :

"Man comes home to find his wife murdered. Man and wife both have insurance."

And if they don't have insurance? Why should someone have insurance to guarantee their personal rights? If you can't see how having to pay for insurance makes the problem worse, then you're blind to your own beliefs. Power is still being controlled, except by profit driven insurance companies.

Quote :

"They have a policy that protects specifically against any kind of physical injury/death caused by another person."

That's stupid. They're paying for what personal rights they want.

Quote :

"The first thing the man will do, beyond calling the [private] hospital, is contact the insurance company."

So you're adding a step to an already pain in the ass process?

Quote :

"and the finger prints come up in a shared (as it undoubtedly would be, in a system without patent law - intellectual property discourages collaboration) criminal database."

If I had a database of fingerprints, why would I share it? If I'm able to advertise myself as having the most resources, then obviously, I would want to build up the fingerprint database myself and keep it to myself. But this is all besides your point.

Quote :

"Of course, the police agency has no interest in locking up an innocent person, as it would destroy their reputation and make them less likely to be contracted by the insurance company"

Well, the police are only arresting who the insurance company tells them to arrest. They're not really police officers, they're hired strongmen. They're like repomen, except instead of being after your car, they're after your rights.

Quote :

"Locking up someone "just because" would be like Wendy's purposely throwing a human finger into the chili mix. It'd be a costly endeavor. So, they hire a private court."

So why do they need a private court? Why does the insurance company need one? Who is going to make you get one, and where will the person on defense get his lawyer to defend himself? Or is it just a show trial?

Quote :

"At every point in the system, whether it's insurance, investigators, police, courts, security, or anything else, everyone involved has to pay a financial price for their mistakes. That, in a nutshell, is what I mean when I discuss "cost minimization."

How is the insurance company being held liable? They're allowed to arrest people at will. If they arrest a person on another person's insurance company, it would be interesting to see what would happen. Nobody would force them to use a court, and in the case of a court, there is a huge incentive for either of the insurance companies to win. And with the courts not being held up to any standard, what's to stop one from bribing the judge?

Hell, when the police go to arrest the guy, what's to stop him from shooting them dead? Nothing. He killed once, what's another time?

Quote :

"I'm not just arguing that a privatized system would be moral"

I know you're not arguing that. Because it wouldn't be moral. It would be a system where our rights are monetized with the enforcement of our rights be held by the insurance company we hire. A system constructed by the insurance companies, with no means to keep them moral. If the insurance companies can't find the culprit, it IS in their best interest to apprehend someone to keep their customer happy.

1/29/2011 5:20:09 PM

Quote :

"And if they don't have insurance? Why should someone have insurance to guarantee their personal rights? If you can't see how having to pay for insurance makes the problem worse, then you're blind to your own beliefs. Power is still being controlled, except by profit driven insurance companies."

Quote :

"That's stupid. They're paying for what personal rights they want."

You're already paying for the "rights you want." The only difference is that you're forced to pay, and if you don't agree to pay, you go to jail or die. In the system I'm talking about, you'd pay less, and you get a better service, because you'd have competition between every part of the system.

Quote :

"If I had a database of fingerprints, why would I share it? If I'm able to advertise myself as having the most resources, then obviously, I would want to build up the fingerprint database myself and keep it to myself. But this is all besides your point."

Because everybody else has a database of fingerprints, and at some point, someone else is going to have some information that you don't have.

Quote :

"Well, the police are only arresting who the insurance company tells them to arrest. They're not really police officers, they're hired strongmen. They're like repomen, except instead of being after your car, they're after your rights."

I'm getting the feeling you didn't read much of what I wrote.

Quote :

"So why do they need a private court? Why does the insurance company need one? Who is going to make you get one, and where will the person on defense get his lawyer to defend himself? Or is it just a show trial?"

Because they have a lot more to lose than they have to gain by locking up an innocent person. What if the person has insurance too, and that company files a dispute? Is it going to be cost effective for the insurance companies to wage all out war, or does it make sense to hire a private arbitrator to determine guilt?

Quote :

"I know you're not arguing that. Because it wouldn't be moral. It would be a system where our rights are monetized with the enforcement of our rights be held by the insurance company we hire. A system constructed by the insurance companies, with no means to keep them moral. If the insurance companies can't find the culprit, it IS in their best interest to apprehend someone to keep their customer happy."

It's actually the only moral system that can exist. Is it moral to say, "Hey, pay up so we can protect you, and if you refuse, we're going to kill you." That sounds like a mafia to me, man. But that's what kind of system we live in now, and the kind of system that you support. I'm not advocating getting rid of laws, prisons, or punishment - I'm just saying open it up to competition. The state's monopoly on force is what allows it commit atrocities and get away with it.

1/29/2011 8:12:24 PM

Quote :

"You're already paying for the "rights you want.""

I know. But in this system, everyone is protected, not just those who can't afford it.

Quote :

"The only difference is that you're forced to pay, and if you don't agree to pay, you go to jail or die."

That's what a government is. This is why I said "Ok... Who cares what an anarchist believes? Their beliefs are fundamentally flawed." You're showing me that I'm right. You've only solidified my stance with every word that you type. You are unable to see what would actually happen under your system. I am well aware of what you want to happen under your system. And if it worked out the way you think it will, it would be great. But it won't. It will not logically work, as greed will always win out.

Quote :

"n the system I'm talking about, you'd pay less, and you get a better service"

Don't make statements like this. You are simply unable to defend it. You cannot prove that I would pay less and get better service.

And for the second time, YOU IGNORED MY QUESTION TO YOU. So I will say it again:

Quote :

"And if they don't have insurance?"

Like, what if they can't afford to protect their rights?

Quote :

"because you'd have competition between every part of the system."

Do we really want competition for the protection of my rights?

Quote :

"Because everybody else has a database of fingerprints, and at some point, someone else is going to have some information that you don't have."

Doesn't mean they will share. They will just independently build up a database of fingerprints.

Quote :

"I'm getting the feeling you didn't read much of what I wrote."

I read exactly what you wrote. You just didn't like my summary of what you're saying.

Person has rights violated -> Insurance Company hires investigation firm -> Investigation firm gathers evidence and determines who to arrest -> Insurance company hires "police." -> Insurance company arrests man. -> Insurance company hires court. -> Court tries and convicts man. -> Insurance company sends man to jail that they pay for or they release him.

Under your system, the police are strongmen. They aren't police officers that we think of now.

Quote :

"Because they have a lot more to lose than they have to gain by locking up an innocent person."

No they don't. They keep their customer happy because they think they arrested the person who harmed them.

Quote :

"What if the person has insurance too, and that company files a dispute? Is it going to be cost effective for the insurance companies to wage all out war, or does it make sense to hire a private arbitrator to determine guilt?"

Did you miss the part where I asked you what's to keep either of the insurance companies from bribing the private arbitrator?

And what if the insurance company insures both the offended party and the person who supposedly violated the rights of the offended party? What will motivate them to put the guy in jail? Why pay to have a former customer in jail, when you can put someone else in jail, preferably if they don't have insurance.

Quote :

"It's actually the only moral system that can exist."

No. That's not a moral system. It's a profit driven system. Your system has NOTHING to do about morality, it has to do about cost. The insurance companies hire the court, which is an AUTOMATIC conflict of interests. They hire the investigators, a huge conflict of interests. And they hire the "police," which is another conflict of interest. The system has more to do about keeping the customer happy, then it does with morality.

And who would know?

I love how you ignored my part about the person who harmed the offended party shooting the police.

Quote :

"Is it moral to say, "Hey, pay up so we can protect you, and if you refuse, we're going to kill you.""

That's the role of the government. I know, you think no government is best. But I think I've already firmly established that your beliefs aren't logical, moral, and they don't really yield good results. I know you think I'm wrong about that. But if I was so wrong about that, then why do you leave my question of "What if you don't have insurance" unaddressed? You completely left this:

Quote :

"How is the insurance company being held liable? They're allowed to arrest people at will. If they arrest a person on another person's insurance company, it would be interesting to see what would happen. Nobody would force them to use a court, and in the case of a court, there is a huge incentive for either of the insurance companies to win. And with the courts not being held up to any standard, what's to stop one from bribing the judge? Hell, when the police go to arrest the guy, what's to stop him from shooting them dead? Nothing. He killed once, what's another time?"

unaddressed.

What you don't seem to understand is that the state has a monopoly on force, because WE (we, being the majority of us) gave them that force. We gave it to them over 200 years ago. We don't want what you want. We don't want to set society back 3,000 years ago. To be quite honest, we like not having to worry about whether we renewed our rights insurance coverage, or if we can afford to protect our rights. We're willing to forgo some of the liberties lost to gain in security (yes, I know, "He who gives up liberty for security, deserves neither," but that statement is fundamentally flawed, in that we have to give up some amount of liberty for a government to exist). It's not a mafia, because WE want them to do that. If you don't want them to do it, nobody is forcing you to stay here.

1/29/2011 8:48:13 PM

Quote :

"I know. But in this system, everyone is protected, not just those who can't afford it."

Quote :

"Like, what if they can't afford to protect their rights?"

Everyone isn't protected by the state. Poor people, foreigners, drug users, prostitutes, clients of prostitutes, and many other classes fail to get adequate protection from the government. In some cases, those people are targeted by the government specifically because of their status.

Whose rights are protected when we give the state the power to invade and conquer other states? Ours? That couldn't be, war can only be financed by lost production/consumption (or inflation, which is essentially the same thing). It's not us being protected by all of these police actions around the globe - we're often the victims of intervention. War usually is a byproduct of the state. I'm not sure of your personal view on interventionism or foreign policy, but if you are against military aggression, you should realize that granting the state a monopoly on force is essentially giving them the green light to behave recklessly in regards to international affairs.

Quote :

"Don't make statements like this. You are simply unable to defend it. You cannot prove that I would pay less and get better service."

Besides the fact that the current system actually doesn't protect everyone's rights, the cost of protection really would be cheaper. It'd have to be. Competition always drives down prices, and I'm suggesting that we introduce competition to the justice market. You want to keep it non-competitive, which means you'll get a worse final product and a higher price. We see that in every other aspect of the market; competition breeds innovation and cost minimization. What makes you think the area of defense is any different? As I previously explained, the current justice structure doesn't typically attract "the best of the best" to law enforcement, with many notable exceptions - just as with public teachers, DMV workers, and basically every arm of government that seeks, first and foremost, to expand (and secure) its own position and security.

Quote :

"Do we really want competition for the protection of my rights?"

For reasons explained above, yes. We know through observation that organizations run more efficiently when competition is present.

Quote :

"Doesn't mean they will share. They will just independently build up a database of fingerprints."

I imagine they will, but there's more of an incentive to share information than to hoard it. Why hoard it? Is the benefit of your competitors not having the same records as you greater than that gained by having access to all of their records? It's pretty obvious which choice would serve as more of an all around boon for the company's ability to find criminals, which is the only thing that really matters for the investigator.

Quote :

"Under your system, the police are strongmen. They aren't police officers that we think of now."

Under our system, the police are strongmen. Unless they're present when the actual crime occurs, they're just finding and arresting whoever their superiors tell them to. The only difference is that instead of working for a company, they work for the government. There's no difference, except that under my system, potential "police" would have a choice of which agency to work for, meaning that the agencies are competing against each other for labor, in turn improving working conditions and wages for officers.

Quote :

"No they don't. They keep their customer happy because they think they arrested the person who harmed them."

Except that when it comes out that the court sentenced an innocent person to jail time (as we occasionally hear about even today), not only will their reputation be shot (which, in itself, will reduce profitability), but the innocent party will be able to rightfully pursue damages. The court/insurance company has no choice but to oblige, as they are liable for their actions, and the alternative is all out war with (what would likely be) every other defense agency. It's never cost effective to "take over everything," unless you can actually succeed, in which we case we're left with a government. That outcome is unlikely unless the people can be made to believe that their nationality is something to be proud of, or worth fighting to preserve. That is the essence of nationalism, and nationalism has proven to be the foundation of the state.

Quote :

"Did you miss the part where I asked you what's to keep either of the insurance companies from bribing the private arbitrator?"

That's a huge risk. Let's see: they pay money to the court to pump out a "guilty" verdict. The insurance doesn't want a guilty verdict for a person that isn't actually guilty, because if evidence comes to light that absolves the person of guilt, the insurance company and court are held liable, as I explained before. The insurance company wants to use the private court that is the best at determining guilt, since doing so will reduce their overall liabilities. Currently, corporations have their liabilities capped - no such cap could exist without a state to enforce it.

Quote :

"Your system has NOTHING to do about morality, it has to do about cost."

An anarcho-capitalist system says nothing about morality at all. I'm saying that the state is an immoral institution, as it violates the rights of those that did not consent.

Quote :

"How is the insurance company being held liable? They're allowed to arrest people at will. If they arrest a person on another person's insurance company, it would be interesting to see what would happen. Nobody would force them to use a court, and in the case of a court, there is a huge incentive for either of the insurance companies to win. And with the courts not being held up to any standard, what's to stop one from bribing the judge?"

Inevitably, what you're talking about is what would happen: someone would be arrested while under the protection of another insurance company. Hell, they might even be arrested by police contracted by the insurance company they themselves are covered by. So, right there you've got two scenarios: insurance company A is facing a potential dispute with insurance company B, or insurance company A is faced with investigating, charging, and imprisoning their own client.

The first scenario we've already discussed. The insurance companies can choose to use an arbitrator or court to settle the matter, or they can go to war. Both companies have an incentive to avoid war, as it would be a costly series of events. Furthermore, the people employed by those companies will be less likely to work for an "aggressor" company, as it implies a substantially greater amount of overall risk when compared to a company that is strictly defensive.

In the second scenario, the insurance company could release the offender, most likely losing a client in the process, as well as putting a potentially aggressive criminal back on the streets who represents an escalated liability. Not a very reasonable course of action. They could try the suspect, aiming to determine guilt. Leaving a guilty man free represents the escalated liability, while imprisoning an innocent man introduces an entirely different array of liabilities.

Quote :

"What you don't seem to understand is that the state has a monopoly on force, because WE (we, being the majority of us) gave them that force. We gave it to them over 200 years ago. We don't want what you want. We don't want to set society back 3,000 years ago. To be quite honest, we like not having to worry about whether we renewed our rights insurance coverage, or if we can afford to protect our rights. We're willing to forgo some of the liberties lost to gain in security (yes, I know, "He who gives up liberty for security, deserves neither," but that statement is fundamentally flawed, in that we have to give up some amount of liberty for a government to exist). It's not a mafia, because WE want them to do that. If you don't want them to do it, nobody is forcing you to stay here."

You're talking a lot about "we," which at least offers some insight into your philosophy. A philosophy that is, by the way, ubiquitous in the world we live in today, making your "love it or leave it" statement irrelevant. We made the laws, we go to war, we founded the country, we do this, we do that. Guess what: "we" didn't do anything. "We" is inclusive. I didn't sign up to be a citizen, and you probably didn't either. I didn't make the laws. I didn't vote for many of the people making the laws. I certainly didn't have anything to do with the decisions of past politicians and leaders, the consequences of which I personally have to deal with. You think of yourself as part of the collective, and in many ways, you are.

You wholeheartedly endorse group-think and nationalistic pride with this bit. You don't want true democracy, because in true democracy, everyone has a voice. You want mob rule, or majority rule. The only real difference between your mindset and a dictator's mindset is that the dictator wants the ruling class to be a little smaller. A dictator might want .01% of the population telling the other 99.9% what to do. You want 51% of the population telling the other 49% what to do. Either way, a lot of people are being forced to follow a decree that they may or may not agree with.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

2/1/2011 1:00:47 AM

You are still skirting the main point, that many people wouldn't be able to afford thier rights. Who would protect the poor, what would stop me, someone who can afford to have thier rights protected, from killing, stealing from, or enslaving someone who cannot?

2/1/2011 10:58:54 AM

oh Kris, you're such a pretentious know-it-all who will belabor any point until it has little to do with the original argument

2/1/2011 11:00:45 AM

Quote :

"It'd have to be. Competition always drives down prices, and I'm suggesting that we introduce competition to the justice market. You want to keep it non-competitive, which means you'll get a worse final product and a higher price. "

In anarcho-capitalism, there is no standing military accountable to the voting public. Thus, there is no threat of force holding companies back from doing anything and everything to compete. In that situation, the company that succeeds will be the company that kills or coerces all competitors. Cost and profit won't matter when there is nothing stopping the strongest company from simply TAKING things.

This just leads to power once again being consolidated. This time, instead of a federal government accountable to a voting public, power is held by a dictator. I'm not being figurative.

Quote :

"Under our system, the police are strongmen."

They're accountable to the federal government, due to threat of force.

Quote :

"It's never cost effective to "take over everything," unless you can actually succeed, in which we case we're left with a government."

Government is the only thing making it impossible to "take over everything". Lawfulness is not cost effective. Laws are just restrictions. The less restrictions a company has, the more competitive it can be. The ultimate form of competition is warfare.

Maybe no company could acquire the kind of size and power our federal government has. However, it can certainly claim a smaller piece of territory and exert more power over that.

2/1/2011 11:21:16 AM

I've addressed all of those points in this thread, multiple times. I'm not going to keep doing it. For anyone interested in learning more about private defense, I would start with by reading this piece by Hoppe: https://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

2/1/2011 12:13:03 PM

Quote :

" but the innocent party will be able to rightfully pursue damages. "

By what right? What if he doesn't have the money to contract a private justice firm? What if all the private justice firms available to him have consolidated and are colluding with each other against him? (which would be maximum profitability right? What stops private justice firm trusts in an anarcho-capitalist society?)

Also for everyone else in this thread. Here is Hoppes' answer to being invaded by another country in this hairbrained idea of society (p50):

Quote :

" However, as unlikely as this may be, what would happen if a state still attacked and/or invaded a neighboring free territory? In this case the aggressor would not encounter an unarmed population. Only in statist territories is the civilian population characteristically unarmed"

And here is the part we're all trying to get dnumbers to answer (p37)

Quote :

"As elementary as this first insight into the essentially defensive—non-aggressive and non-provocative—nature of protection-insurance may seem, it is of fundamental importance. For one, it implies that any known aggressor and provocateur would be unable to find an insurer, and hence, would be economically isolated, weak, and vulnerable "

It is implied that bad people won't be able to get protection firms. It is implied that there will be no bad protection firms. It implied that bad people will not be able to consolidate power to become more powerful than any individual protection firms. All of this is just implied.


[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 12:46:56 PM

Quote :

"I've addressed all of those points in this thread"

No. There is one point that you keep avoiding each and every time it is posted. When you do respond to it, you start going in to something completely irrelevant. The question is, why would the poor in your system not be killed or enslaved? All you've done is put a capitalistic shine on a fuedalistic turd. You continue to discuss in length the capitalistic shine, but skirt the issue once it is noted that your system, in practice, would be little more than fuedalism.

2/1/2011 1:07:48 PM

Quote :

"The question is, why would the poor in your system not be killed or enslaved?"

Because without the security subsidy provided by the state, employing enough security to keep your slaves will always cost more than just paying them the going wage. The only exception is instances where legal workers cannot be had at any wage, namely illegal activities such as prostitution.

Without a state to make prostitution illegal, there would be far less sex slave trade, possibly none at all.

2/1/2011 2:27:04 PM

Quote :

"Because without the security subsidy provided by the state, employing enough security to keep your slaves will always cost more than just paying them the going wage. "

Unless cost is not the only factor in deciding whether to pay someone legitimately or enslave them. I can't abuse my workers without recourse if I let them go to go open a security claim against me, can I? Bad people with money make this system fail miserably for everyone except for the bad people with money.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 2:33:22 PM

Quote :

"employing enough security to keep your slaves will always cost more than just paying them the going wage"

You must not have been by a hardware store. Chains are very cheap.

Additionally you must not realize that fuedalism existed, and ran just fine for quite a while. Feudal lords needed no help from the state to keep their serfs in line.

2/1/2011 2:57:35 PM

Why on earth would people consent to a system where access to the justice system was predicated on your income, when the alternative is a democratic system where laws are collectively decided and (at least in theory, which this doesnt even attempt) enforced equally on all citizens? Even narcissists understand that they might fall under hard times or bad luck at some point in their lives and would be scared shitless of a system where that would inhibit their access to justice.

Any reasonable individual would find this whole shpeel fundamentally repulsive except those who know they'd enter this system with a healthy collection of wealth with which to hire their own police forces or buy out those of the people they wish to exploit or violate the rights of. And what the hell is a right if you don't have a legal enshrinement?

Like wow you've rediscovered feudalism without the divine right of kings, and you think it's a great, novel idea. I'm stunned.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 3:37:07 PM

Quote :

"Without a state to make prostitution illegal, there would be far less sex slave trade, possibly none at all."

holy faulty logic batman

2/1/2011 4:08:27 PM

Destroyer do you believe in Intelligent Design? I ask because you seem to believe that the human organism is ideally wired to produce a perfectly stable and infinitely scalable society just by being left to individual drives and instincts for acquisition, consumption, and association.

2/1/2011 4:20:48 PM

Quote :

"Additionally you must not realize that fuedalism existed, and ran just fine for quite a while. Feudal lords needed no help from the state to keep their serfs in line."

History disagrees. Feudal lords were often over-thrown by their serfs and the whole state apparatus had to be brought to bear to restore the feudal order.

Quote :

"Why on earth would people consent to a system where access to the justice system was predicated on your political influence"

Str8Foolish, while it is wonderful right now that the democratic states put so much effort into sharing political resources, it is not a rule of nature. Even in today's enlightened age, it is difficult to find a cop in certain neighborhoods. The third world is full of democratic states that offer no police protection what-so-ever to their poorest members. When police protection is allocated in accordance to the political system, then even here in the U.S. it is not unusual for police protection to be concentrated in the politically influential suburbs and for little to no protection to be offered in poor immigrant communities that lack political influence. Especially when you realize that police protection is relatively cheap. In America, the per-capita cost of police protection is something like $10 a month. Well, the political system allocates those dollars in accordance with political influence: the state is paying $60 to protect the property of the rich guy living in an influential neighborhood enjoying his 10 minute response time while the poor immigrant is getting only protected to the tune of $2 and may not see a cop until a day after dialing 911. Just because he can't afford to buy a house in the right neighborhood, he must suffer with bad schools, poor fire protection, and poor police protection. Well, however poor someone is, I suspect they would happily choose to pay more than they are for police protection.

How our society tends to treat the poor is far worse than any minimalist state would. We collect taxes from the poor and then give them crap in return.

True, this need not be an argument in favor of anarcho-capitalism, merely in favor of changing the current arrangement of government. Education is the easiest: just let people choose their school and take their education dollars with them. Police and other services are a little harder, but many cities have a scheme for garbage collection. Instead of monopolizing an entire city's service into one government bureaucracy, chop it up into multiple firms and allow neighborhoods to choose which one they choose to be serviced by. If the current provider does not fulfill their needs at a fair price, the neighborhood can vote to change providers.

2/1/2011 4:59:38 PM

Quote :

"I've addressed all of those points in this thread, multiple times."

You attempted to address them, but none of your attempts provided a compelling rebuttal. You keep presenting these dubious assumptions and contrived hypothetical situations.

2/1/2011 5:02:17 PM

Quote :

"We collect taxes from the poor and then give them crap in return."

We do?

2/1/2011 5:04:51 PM

Quote :

"Feudal lords were often over-thrown by their serfs"

You seem to be confusing the terms "often" and "rarely".

Quote :

"Even in today's enlightened age, it is difficult to find a cop in certain neighborhoods"

That may be true at times, but crime is still relatively low here now, and I would rather have inadequate police protection in some neighborhoods some of the time rather than no police protection at any of the neighborhoods all of the time.

2/1/2011 5:10:00 PM

Have you considered the possibility that the failings of government to adequately provide for the poor, in terms of police protection or education, isn't inherent in governance but a result of said governance not being adequately implemented? The problems you describe, poor people not getting police assistance...comes exactly from flows of capital from people to politicians to policeman. You think giving MORE influence to money is going to help that? All you're proposing is cutting out the one middle man who happens to have some democratic accountability, the last shred remaining between us and feudalism?

And leaving education to private funding? Seriously? Fuck you. No child deserves a worse (or better) education based on his parents income.

2/1/2011 5:21:54 PM

A large number of the poor are rightfully exempt from income tax, precisely because they arent benefiting from the system (they are in fact damaged by it) and so shouldn't be expected to pay into it. They should be exempted from sales taxes as well and if possible given discounts on goods and services so they don't have to pay the corporate taxes that are handed down to them.

[Edited on February 1, 2011 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

2/1/2011 5:23:23 PM

^^ Was that directed at me? You seem not to have managed to the third paragraph where I said the issue was poor governance, not a call for anarchy. I said we should give more influence to the people to choose the school they attend regardless of what house they can afford. But it seems you cannot help but vehemently defending the corrupt current system as if setting up a few charter schools is really going to herald the return of feudalism. Afraid of what empowering the poor might do to your privileges?

Quote :

"And leaving education to private funding? Seriously? Fuck you. No child deserves a worse (or better) education based on his parents income."

Then you should be entirely in favor of my proposals. Only then will a child's education not be entirely dependent upon which neighborhood his parent's income can buy into.

Quote :

"We do?"

Local roads, schools, police, fire, sanitation, all the services we use on a daily basis are not taxed progressively. In the vast majority of jurisdictions in this country, these services are principally funded through a flat property tax, which I should not need to remind anyone the poor are not exempt from. So, yes, the poor pay taxes at equal rates to everyone else yet tend to receive dramatically lower quality services in return.

[Edited on February 2, 2011 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/2/2011 12:04:41 AM

The poor pay some taxes at the same rate as everyone else but to suggest that their overall taxation is the same as everyone else is just wrong. Also, the poor tend to not own property to be taxed more than the affluent. So how "property tax is the same for everyone" is also wrong. Sales tax may be the same for everyone as well, but the poor are helped through assistance programs so the money they're spending on food may be taxed but it's not coming from their income. And obviously the poor are mostly exempt from income tax.

2/2/2011 8:51:58 AM

Quote :

"Destroyer do you believe in Intelligent Design? I ask because you seem to believe that the human organism is ideally wired to produce a perfectly stable and infinitely scalable society just by being left to individual drives and instincts for acquisition, consumption, and association."

Of course not. You believe that when humans are put in control of the state apparatus, they suddenly become altruistic.

Quote :

"No. There is one point that you keep avoiding each and every time it is posted. When you do respond to it, you start going in to something completely irrelevant. The question is, why would the poor in your system not be killed or enslaved? All you've done is put a capitalistic shine on a fuedalistic turd. You continue to discuss in length the capitalistic shine, but skirt the issue once it is noted that your system, in practice, would be little more than fuedalism."

The charge is "under our system, everyone is protected, but under your system, only those that can afford it are." The premise there is false, by every possible measure. Everyone in our system is not protected, and they're certainly not protected equally. Money is king in our system - you get as much justice as you can afford. A poor, black man that gets caught smoking crack is not treated the same way as a rich, white frat boy that gets caught snorting coke. We shit on other nations at the drop of a hat, their rights aren't protected. We imprison drug users who have committed no aggressive acts - that's not protection, that's aggression on the part of the state. That's unacceptable.

At least under my system, we'd get the benefits of competition. By handing the state a monopoly on force, you must also accept the consequences: war. If you're against war, you should be against the state - war is the health of the state, and control of the money is its lifeblood. George Bush was not held liable for his bullshit war in Iraq, we were, yet he was the one that declared war.

Quote :

"The poor pay some taxes at the same rate as everyone else but to suggest that their overall taxation is the same as everyone else is just wrong. Also, the poor tend to not own property to be taxed more than the affluent. So how "property tax is the same for everyone" is also wrong. Sales tax may be the same for everyone as well, but the poor are helped through assistance programs so the money they're spending on food may be taxed but it's not coming from their income. And obviously the poor are mostly exempt from income tax."

The poor spend a greater percentage of their income on food and energy. So, when government policy drives up the price of those things (hint: it does, and we're seeing it happen before our eyes), who feels the pressure the most? Do you think it's any consolation to a poor person that they don't have to pay income tax when they can't even afford health insurance, much less health care, and the price of basic necessities has jumped 10%, while their wages haven't? The economic policy the state rulers have pursued in this country has, in every case that it's been tried in history, crowded out the middle class.

2/2/2011 11:34:27 AM