The Tea Party and the Republican Party
20 Jan 2010, 7:08 pm
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
To take those proposals seriously you must have a very odd concept of human psychology.
Odd according to your perception.
Sand:
You did not respond to the question on how does the State enforces property rights.
You know very well the answer is "force/violence".
Without an intersubjective consensus there is no other way for private property to be respected.
Probably the bulk of the legal system is concerned with property rights and how to male people and institutions behave civilly with each other. I cannot understand how this is invisible to you.
The "bulk of the legal system" still uses violence as an ultimate response.
All the organs of the legal system use their tools individually within the same system to limit the use of the ultimate response.
These organs of justice can work privately(this is what I propose and have the reason of a free market to make it work)
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
I remember the behavior of the people when the police were on strike. It wqs not a pleasant time with shooting and looting and all sorts of uncivil behavior. You are too old to be addicted to nonsense.
I fully understand what you're saying, Sand, but no one is advocating night-to-day removal of the State.
I'm talking about gradual decentralization.
What I say might not be possible today because of how people think but it does make sense and I think you agree with it in principle(self governance and a free market). If you don't agree with it even on principle then it is your 19th century mindset which causes you to think that everything should remain the same and mock anyone advocating decentralized management and a deinstitutionalized society.
According to the patterns of human history, human behavior has become less violent and more rational with each century, the process of achieving self governance is happening as we speak. We someday will be able to make our transactions without coercion from the State.
You, by legitimizing the State and its methods, are slowing down this process.
20 Jan 2010, 8:27 pm
ASPER wrote:
These organs of justice can work privately(this is what I propose and have the reason of a free market to make it work)
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
Privatized justice? This would be a nightmare. It'd literally be buying yourself a judge.
20 Jan 2010, 8:29 pm
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
To take those proposals seriously you must have a very odd concept of human psychology.
Odd according to your perception.
Sand:
You did not respond to the question on how does the State enforces property rights.
You know very well the answer is "force/violence".
Without an intersubjective consensus there is no other way for private property to be respected.
Probably the bulk of the legal system is concerned with property rights and how to male people and institutions behave civilly with each other. I cannot understand how this is invisible to you.
The "bulk of the legal system" still uses violence as an ultimate response.
All the organs of the legal system use their tools individually within the same system to limit the use of the ultimate response.
These organs of justice can work privately(this is what I propose and have the reason of a free market to make it work)
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
I remember the behavior of the people when the police were on strike. It wqs not a pleasant time with shooting and looting and all sorts of uncivil behavior. You are too old to be addicted to nonsense.
I fully understand what you're saying, Sand, but no one is advocating night-to-day removal of the State.
I'm talking about gradual decentralization.
What I say might not be possible today because of how people think but it does make sense and I think you agree with it in principle(self governance and a free market). If you don't agree with it even on principle then it is your 19th century mindset which causes you to think that everything should remain the same and mock anyone advocating decentralized management and a deinstitutionalized society.
According to the patterns of human history, human behavior has become less violent and more rational with each century, the process of achieving self governance is happening as we speak. We someday will be able to make our transactions without coercion from the State.
You, by legitimizing the State and its methods, are slowing down this process.
I may be old but I was not born in the 19th century and the evidence of torrents of scams on the net and in Wall Street and many other places plus the continual revelation of manufacturers selling infected and poisonous and overpriced inferior products is a full indication of your misperception of the nature of the free market. Humanity is just as corrupt and brutal and thieving as it has always been and any opening for destructive greedy activity will be quickly seized upon by enterprising crooks. Dream on.
21 Jan 2010, 8:23 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Sand. The free market has always been a source of both crap and good stuff. The government on the other hand produces nothing. So what the government has to peddle is neither good, nor bad. It is just plain expensive.
ruveyn
ruveyn
The so-called free market has long been the benefactor of government allocation of funds for research that would never had been done without government backing. The development of railroads, the highway system, the post office, a huge amount of research in medicine, atomics, electronics, and space and aviation would just never been done without very large amounts of government financial backing. To say that this research was done by private firms is to ignore that the private firms were funded publicly. You are really not that ignorant nor stupid, ruveyn. Why pretend to be?
21 Jan 2010, 8:56 pm
Sand wrote:
The so-called free market has long been the benefactor of government allocation of funds for research that would never had been done without government backing. The development of railroads, the highway system, the post office, a huge amount of research in medicine, atomics, electronics, and space and aviation would just never been done without very large amounts of government financial backing. To say that this research was done by private firms is to ignore that the private firms were funded publicly. You are really not that ignorant nor stupid, ruveyn. Why pretend to be?
Not every business get government subsidies or largess. Some of them actually make their profits the old fashioned way -- they earn it--. When Apple Computer first started up, they received no government contracts. Their business was strictly private. Eventually some government agency buys what is sold, so in a sense the government has a hand in the matter. BUT, this is not the same as a subsidy or a tax break. A public business is obliged to sell its products to any customer that can pay, and that includes the government.
ruveyn
21 Jan 2010, 10:12 pm
NeantHumain wrote:
ASPER wrote:
These organs of justice can work privately(this is what I propose and have the reason of a free market to make it work)
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
Privatized justice? This would be a nightmare. It'd literally be buying yourself a judge.
There is already private security, private jails and "Alternative Dispute Resolution"(ADR) thus private mediation.
ALL of the times you heard of such firms to be corrupt is when they are making business with the State, like Halliburton and XE Blackwater.
If you want justice corruption, the closest experience you will find is in centralized justice, where you do not chose the court, the judge nor the people that should take care of you.
21 Jan 2010, 10:37 pm
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
To take those proposals seriously you must have a very odd concept of human psychology.
Odd according to your perception.
Sand:
You did not respond to the question on how does the State enforces property rights.
You know very well the answer is "force/violence".
Without an intersubjective consensus there is no other way for private property to be respected.
Probably the bulk of the legal system is concerned with property rights and how to male people and institutions behave civilly with each other. I cannot understand how this is invisible to you.
The "bulk of the legal system" still uses violence as an ultimate response.
All the organs of the legal system use their tools individually within the same system to limit the use of the ultimate response.
These organs of justice can work privately(this is what I propose and have the reason of a free market to make it work)
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
I remember the behavior of the people when the police were on strike. It wqs not a pleasant time with shooting and looting and all sorts of uncivil behavior. You are too old to be addicted to nonsense.
I fully understand what you're saying, Sand, but no one is advocating night-to-day removal of the State.
I'm talking about gradual decentralization.
What I say might not be possible today because of how people think but it does make sense and I think you agree with it in principle(self governance and a free market). If you don't agree with it even on principle then it is your 19th century mindset which causes you to think that everything should remain the same and mock anyone advocating decentralized management and a deinstitutionalized society.
According to the patterns of human history, human behavior has become less violent and more rational with each century, the process of achieving self governance is happening as we speak. We someday will be able to make our transactions without coercion from the State.
You, by legitimizing the State and its methods, are slowing down this process.
I may be old but I was not born in the 19th century and the evidence of torrents of scams on the net and in Wall Street and many other places plus the continual revelation of manufacturers selling infected and poisonous and overpriced inferior products is a full indication of your misperception of the nature of the free market. Humanity is just as corrupt and brutal and thieving as it has always been and any opening for destructive greedy activity will be quickly seized upon by enterprising crooks. Dream on.
Nobody said you were born in the 19th century, I don't know why you are mentioning that.
Regulation does not stop scams from occurring in the market.
Regulations do not just have to be via the State.
Private regulation is an option and has showed to be more efficient than the public one.
Underwriters Laboratories made many times less mistakes than the FDA.
If you sell bad products, no one will buy from you.
If you cause harm to someone because of your negligence, you should paid, this could happen more justly if the State was left out of the equation. Corporations are given immunity by the State, they end up bribing politicians or just happen to have fam&friends in it that would give them a break.
I really don't know why you want to keep legitimizing the system that attracts psychopaths and thieves to its nucleus, a system that requires extortion to fund itself and that sucks at dealing with problems.
And about your perceptions on humanity. I would advice you to take a look at Steven Pinker and his talk about human violence and its history.
Click Here to find out you are not a beast
21 Jan 2010, 10:49 pm
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Sand wrote:
To take those proposals seriously you must have a very odd concept of human psychology.
Odd according to your perception.
Sand:
You did not respond to the question on how does the State enforces property rights.
You know very well the answer is "force/violence".
Without an intersubjective consensus there is no other way for private property to be respected.
Probably the bulk of the legal system is concerned with property rights and how to male people and institutions behave civilly with each other. I cannot understand how this is invisible to you.
The "bulk of the legal system" still uses violence as an ultimate response.
All the organs of the legal system use their tools individually within the same system to limit the use of the ultimate response.
These organs of justice can work privately(this is what I propose and have the reason of a free market to make it work)
Security, attorneys, prison, courts and the others can replace the other ones we have now(and will replace them once we stop thinking we humans need the threat of the big bully to behave).
I remember the behavior of the people when the police were on strike. It wqs not a pleasant time with shooting and looting and all sorts of uncivil behavior. You are too old to be addicted to nonsense.
I fully understand what you're saying, Sand, but no one is advocating night-to-day removal of the State.
I'm talking about gradual decentralization.
What I say might not be possible today because of how people think but it does make sense and I think you agree with it in principle(self governance and a free market). If you don't agree with it even on principle then it is your 19th century mindset which causes you to think that everything should remain the same and mock anyone advocating decentralized management and a deinstitutionalized society.
According to the patterns of human history, human behavior has become less violent and more rational with each century, the process of achieving self governance is happening as we speak. We someday will be able to make our transactions without coercion from the State.
You, by legitimizing the State and its methods, are slowing down this process.
I may be old but I was not born in the 19th century and the evidence of torrents of scams on the net and in Wall Street and many other places plus the continual revelation of manufacturers selling infected and poisonous and overpriced inferior products is a full indication of your misperception of the nature of the free market. Humanity is just as corrupt and brutal and thieving as it has always been and any opening for destructive greedy activity will be quickly seized upon by enterprising crooks. Dream on.
Nobody said you were born in the 19th century, I don't know why you are mentioning that.
Regulation does not stop scams from occurring in the market.
Regulations do not just have to be via the State.
Private regulation is an option and has showed to be more efficient than the public one.
Underwriters Laboratories made many times less mistakes than the FDA.
If you sell bad products, no one will buy from you.
If you cause harm to someone because of your negligence, you should paid, this could happen more justly if the State was left out of the equation. Corporations are given immunity by the State, they end up bribing politicians or just happen to have fam&friends in it that would give them a break.
I really don't know why you want to keep legitimizing the system that attracts psychopaths and thieves to its nucleus, a system that requires extortion to fund itself and that sucks at dealing with problems.
And about your perceptions on humanity. I would advice you to take a look at Steven Pinker and his talk about human violence and its history.
Click Here to find out you are not a beast
Take a look at the current meat packing industry that is selling infected products on a regular basis and would continue doing so unless the government steps in to correct it.
21 Jan 2010, 10:52 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
The so-called free market has long been the benefactor of government allocation of funds for research that would never had been done without government backing. The development of railroads, the highway system, the post office, a huge amount of research in medicine, atomics, electronics, and space and aviation would just never been done without very large amounts of government financial backing. To say that this research was done by private firms is to ignore that the private firms were funded publicly. You are really not that ignorant nor stupid, ruveyn. Why pretend to be?
Not every business get government subsidies or largess. Some of them actually make their profits the old fashioned way -- they earn it--. When Apple Computer first started up, they received no government contracts. Their business was strictly private. Eventually some government agency buys what is sold, so in a sense the government has a hand in the matter. BUT, this is not the same as a subsidy or a tax break. A public business is obliged to sell its products to any customer that can pay, and that includes the government.
ruveyn
Ruveyn, one example does not confront the examples I indicated. You know this is true. What the hell are you about?
22 Jan 2010, 12:42 am
NeantHumain wrote:
So you want a murderer to choose the court and the judge that tries him? Anarcho-capitalism leads to mafia justice.
On that small note, I actually would want a "murderer" (they're innocent until proven guilty) to have some ability to decide what court and judge will try him. I would also want the prosecution to have some choice as well. I mean, there is no such thing as a neutral court, so a court acceptable to both parties is really what is more ideal. Of course, who says that ideal things can exist?
22 Jan 2010, 7:14 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
So you want a murderer to choose the court and the judge that tries him? Anarcho-capitalism leads to mafia justice.
On that small note, I actually would want a "murderer" (they're innocent until proven guilty) to have some ability to decide what court and judge will try him. I would also want the prosecution to have some choice as well. I mean, there is no such thing as a neutral court, so a court acceptable to both parties is really what is more ideal. Of course, who says that ideal things can exist?
In anarcho-capitalism, there is absolutely no state, no overarching government; there is no neutral arbitrator that can bring parties together to resolve disputes or weigh the balance of justice. Moreover, there is no military, no police, no courts, and not even any laws.
Assuming human nature has not changed so fundamentally that acts of force or fraud are simply psychologically impossible, some people would still perpetrate them. In an anarcho-capitalist system, an individual who has wealth and influence can directly control his or her own private army. no one with a weaker private security force could bring him or her to account, and the warlord could hold anyone accountable to the laws of his or her whim. Why even bother with the farce of a court and judge and jury at that point?
Perhaps some parties would band together and form compacts, agreeing to abide by some rules and setting up some arbitrator of their own. Again, none of this matters if a warlord decides to use superior force. These warlords' organizations would resemble a mafia or similar.
If this sounds like early feudalism after the collapse of the Roman Empire, that's exactly what I'd envision anarcho-capitalism to become.
