Why we should never abolish government...

[ClayTrainor]

- Slavery is Necessary.

- Slavery has always existed.

- Every society on earth has Slavery.

- The Slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.

- Getting rid of Slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

- Without Slavery, the Slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

- Trying to get rid of Slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a proposal.




*** Now replace "Slavery" with "government" and "slaves" with "individuals", and check the core principles in which you stand on *** (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html)


:):cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

- Slavery is Necessary.

- Slavery has always existed.

- Every society on earth has Slavery.

- The Slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves.

- Getting rid of Slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils.

- Without Slavery, the Slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem.

- Trying to get rid of Slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a proposal.




*** Now replace "Slavery" with "government" and "slaves" with "individuals", and check the core principles in which you stand on ***
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html)



:):cool:


NICE! :cool::D

[Icymudpuppy]

Here's a question, Clay.

It is generally accepted that to have freedom, one must accept responsibility for one's own actions. What is to be done with those who cannot or do not accept responsibility? Are they forfeiting their freedom? Can I, an Anarcho-capitalist, deny freedom to someone who refuses to accept responsibility in order to protect myself and the one's I love from them?

[ClayTrainor]

It is generally accepted that to have freedom, one must accept responsibility for one's own actions.
This is correct. Without the freedom to fail, you don't really have freedom at all. At least in my opinion.



What is to be done with those who cannot or do not accept responsibility? Are they forfeiting their freedom?
What exactly did they do that they are denying responsibility from?



Can I, an Anarcho-capitalist, deny freedom to someone who refuses to accept responsibility in order to protect myself and the one's I love from them?
What freedom would you be denying him?

I'm still a little unclear by what you mean by responsibility, in this example. Is this individual a danger to you? Is he violent? You should be able to arm yourself, and pay for whatever security services you desire to defend the natural rights of your family.

[Icymudpuppy]

This is correct. Without the freedom to fail, you don't really have freedom at all. At least in my opinion.


What exactly did they do that they are denying responsibility from?



I'm still a little unclear by what you mean by responsibility, in this example. Is this individual a danger to you? Is he violent? You should be able to arm yourself, and pay for whatever security services you desire to defend the natural rights of your family.

Let's include an example. Ms. X has the freedom to buy coffee. However, she declines the responsibity for spilling her coffee in her lap. Should she be denied the freedom to purchase coffee or any other hot beverage for that matter in the future since she has proven herself unable to accept responsibility for securing it properly?

[ClayTrainor]

Let's include an example. Ms. X has the freedom to buy coffee. However, she declines the responsibity for spilling her coffee in her lap. Should she be denied the freedom to purchase coffee or any other hot beverage for that matter in the future since she has proven herself unable to accept responsibility for securing it properly?

This would 100% depend on the opinion of the property owner. If Mrs. X owns the property, than she can spill as much of it on herself as she chooses. If the property is owned by someone else (coffee shop, neighbor, etc.), then they have the right to reject service to whoever they want, for whatever reason. It is their property, so they have the final say as to what goes on, within their property.

They don't have the right to stop her from drinking and buying coffee from other property owners, or producing it herself. In my opinion, it would be mutually beneficial to Ms X and the property owner, to try and peacefully resolve the issue and continue business with each other.

Did I answer that okay? I've got a few beers in me... :o

[MRoCkEd]

Can I legally shoot trick or treaters? They ignored the no trespassing sign!

[Icymudpuppy]

what if she demands damages and medical expenses from the establishment she purchased the coffee from? Is it enough for that business to stop selling her hot beverages, or do all hot beverage vendors need to start keeping lists of irresponsible people whom you should not sell hot beverages to? If she refuses to accept responsibility for securing her hot beverage, is it not logical that she probably would not accept responsibility for any of her personal mistakes? In which case, should she be allowed to continue damaging the reputations of businesses by initiating frivolous action against them, or perhaps the responsible people should all band together and make her a slave, thus denying her freedom, as she denies herself responsibility?

[ClayTrainor]

Can I legally shoot trick or treaters? They ignored the no trespassing sign!

There will be consequences to violating the natural law, there always is. In your example you clearly intend to make a violation of the natural right to life as if it justifies, a property violation.

If you kill when you're clearly not threatened, it will not go down lightly and you won't simply get away with it. You can get pretty deep into it talking about these kinds of issues in relation to property rights. Murders, investigations, etc.

The Natural Right to life trumps all, and you already defined these individuals as trick or treaters. This implies that they are probably unarmed children, who did not notice your sign. I'm not sure you could argue that they were a threat and anyone would believe you.

It wouldn't be looking good for you, haha. :p


what if she demands damages and medical expenses from the establishment she purchased the coffee from?

Were they responsible in any way for the spilling of the coffee? As soon as that coffee is out of the hands of the cashier, it becomes the responsibility of the consumer, it becomes their property and their responsibility ;)



Is it enough for that business to stop selling her hot beverages, or do all hot beverage vendors need to start keeping lists of irresponsible people whom you should not sell hot beverages to?

Entirely up to the property owners. If i was a coffee shop owner, I would never consider keeping such a silly list, unless these people were able to use the power of the government against me ;)



If she refuses to accept responsibility for securing her hot beverage, is it not logical that she probably would not accept responsibility for any of her personal mistakes?

That's her choice, but others should not be forced to accept responsibility for her if they choose not to... What options does she have? What are you suggesting?



In which case, should she be allowed to continue damaging the reputations of businesses by initiating frivolous action against them,

She can pursue it however she wants, but she does not have the right to someones property because she can't figure out how to drink a coffee, which she claimed the property ownership of, in the exchange. You could have a case if the cashier spilled it on her.



or perhaps the responsible people should all band together and make her a slave, thus denying her freedom, as she denies herself responsibility?

She would have to be a proven violent threat to individuals, for this to be even remotely justified.

[Andrew-Austin]

Here's a question, Clay.

It is generally accepted that to have freedom, one must accept responsibility for one's own actions. What is to be done with those who cannot or do not accept responsibility? Are they forfeiting their freedom? Can I, an Anarcho-capitalist, deny freedom to someone who refuses to accept responsibility in order to protect myself and the one's I love from them?

This is too vague. If they can't claim responsibility for themselves, there will be some pretty natural consequences to that. If by being irresponsible you mean they violate your rights, yes you can defend yourself. If by being irresponsible you mean they neglect to take care of themselves, they have to face the consequences of that and are not entitled to to make claims on anyone else to make up for that.


what if she demands damages and medical expenses from the establishment she purchased the coffee from? Is it enough for that business to stop selling her hot beverages, or do all hot beverage vendors need to start keeping lists of irresponsible people whom you should not sell hot beverages to? If she refuses to accept responsibility for securing her hot beverage, is it not logical that she probably would not accept responsibility for any of her personal mistakes? In which case, should she be allowed to continue damaging the reputations of businesses by initiating frivolous action against them, or perhaps the responsible people should all band together and make her a slave, thus denying her freedom, as she denies herself responsibility?

Are you being serious, or have you had a few beers as well?

If you don't think a free society can handle the incident of some stupid bitch spilling coffee on herself, then yes we would be fucked from the get go as the conflict would evolve in to an all out war. There you win.


Can I legally shoot trick or treaters? They ignored the no trespassing sign!

No, its pretty reasonable to expect private courts to rule that as murder.

[angelatc]

We should never abolish government because it's sometimes the only thing that keeps me from repeatedly clubbing some people.

A jury of my peers would understand completely.

[malkusm]

There is no enforcement of rights without an objective standard of what those rights explicitly are. You don't have to call it government, but that standard has to exist in a society that attempts to punish violations of whatever "natural rights" you believe in.

[CCTelander]

We should never abolish government because it's sometimes the only thing that keeps me from repeatedly clubbing some people.

A jury of my peers would understand completely.

I would humbly suggest that you NOT attempt to "repeatedly club..." any of the an-caps that I know. You'd probably dislike the outcome of such an attempt.

[Andrew-Austin]

We should never abolish government because it's sometimes the only thing that keeps me from repeatedly clubbing some people.

I think its the reverse with me. Government makes me want to club people, it has created such a hopeless situation for society, so so many stupid people. I'm sure you have felt the same. I have observed this same vague feeling in others seeking to squeeze the leviathan monster back in to some tiny theoretical cage, trying to impart sense in to their stupid rulers and fellow voters.

And I reckon there would be enough disincentives in a society without rulers, besides punishment from some type of DRO entity, to prevent you from violence.


There is no enforcement of rights without an objective standard of what those rights explicitly are. You don't have to call it government, but that standard has to exist in a society that attempts to punish violations of whatever "natural rights" you believe in.

Private, competing, common law courts would sure as hell get closer to upholding a rational standard of rights than a monopoly institution would.

Just because its a monopoly doesn't mean it will uphold your natural rights. All the power that accompanies a coercive monopoly would corrupt whatever system of rights layed down, despite the pleas of preoccupied peon voters.

[tremendoustie]

Here's a question, Clay.

It is generally accepted that to have freedom, one must accept responsibility for one's own actions. What is to be done with those who cannot or do not accept responsibility? Are they forfeiting their freedom? Can I, an Anarcho-capitalist, deny freedom to someone who refuses to accept responsibility in order to protect myself and the one's I love from them?

If someone harms you, you have a right to obtain restitution from them, and if they are a continuing threat to others, I think it is justified to keep them in a secure environment.

[tremendoustie]

There is no enforcement of rights without an objective standard of what those rights explicitly are. You don't have to call it government, but that standard has to exist in a society that attempts to punish violations of whatever "natural rights" you believe in.

Well said. It would hardly be a free society, for example, in which people generally agree that theft is ok, and the "justice system" defends theives. I do think that the natural standard will be the NAP, as this is the standard by which most of us conduct our personal lives. Most of us recognize that murder, assault, theft, etc, are a violation of the rights of others, so I think the consensus on what constitutes justice will be based on this fundamental principle, although it might vary slightly in the details.

[tremendoustie]

Can I legally shoot trick or treaters? They ignored the no trespassing sign!

No. You may use the minimum force required to expel intruders from your property, which in this case, would start with asking nicely. Common sense does not disappear in a free market justice system, ya know ;). It's just no longer a monopoly, and no longer paid for by theft.

[tremendoustie]

what if she demands damages and medical expenses from the establishment she purchased the coffee from? Is it enough for that business to stop selling her hot beverages, or do all hot beverage vendors need to start keeping lists of irresponsible people whom you should not sell hot beverages to? If she refuses to accept responsibility for securing her hot beverage, is it not logical that she probably would not accept responsibility for any of her personal mistakes? In which case, should she be allowed to continue damaging the reputations of businesses by initiating frivolous action against them, or perhaps the responsible people should all band together and make her a slave, thus denying her freedom, as she denies herself responsibility?

I think if a person or their protection agency makes a frivolous claim, they should be required to pay the court expenses of the defendant, plus a little extra for the hastle. And, I doubt crazy lady X would have much power to damage people's reputations after a few frivolous suits ;). The beverage people could also certainly keep a list if they like.

[heavenlyboy34]

Can I legally shoot trick or treaters? They ignored the no trespassing sign!

If you REALLY wanted to keep them out, wouldn't you have built a barrier? Do not "good fences make good neighbors"? Just putting up a sign is no more effective than claiming that Obamacare is unconstitutional while it gets passed anyways.

[Icymudpuppy]

I think if a person or their protection agency makes a frivolous claim, they should be required to pay the court expenses of the defendant, plus a little extra for the hastle. And, I doubt crazy lady X would have much power to damage people's reputations after a few frivolous suits ;). The beverage people could also certainly keep a list if they like.

The reason I bring this up is the McDonald's incident about a decade ago now in which a woman successfully sued McDonald's for $1mil for not having a warning label on their coffee about hot coffee, and she burned herself when she spilled it as she was leaving the drivethru.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The reason I bring this up is the McDonald's incident about a decade ago now in which a woman successfully sued McDonald's for $1mil for not having a warning label on their coffee about hot coffee, and she burned herself when she spilled it as she was leaving the drivethru.

These are the stupid irrelevancies when we have to deal with people who aren't An-Caps. Hey, guess what? These things are in abundance in our current society. Our current society is perpetrating these ludicrous litigations because of the State. The BAR's are in collusion with the Government. Government makes money, Lawyers make money, it's a win-win for the State. You can't go to another court, or another system of law. It is involuntary.

Sure, these instances will more than likely arise in every society, but the consistency and severity of cases are the underlying problems. Our society today pushed by the State, engage in these activities far more than we would in any An-Cap society. Besides, in an An-Cap society, the Court and Legal system wouldn't be getting their free money from involuntary taxation. Therefore they would have a self-interest to rule most justly in cases. They would throw this shit out. If they continued to rule on such frivoulous unmitigated cases then they would have no business.

PS: If that is a bit harsh, well look at it in my shoes. There are always absurd and inane what if scenariosthat are always asked. The fact is as Stefan M. pointed out we currently have an anarchic system that works in spite of the harshest of conditions. It was pretty ingenious I might add. It was posted here a few days ago, shouldn't be hard to find.

Here it is: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=216826&highlight=Molyneux

[ClayTrainor]

The reason I bring this up is the McDonald's incident about a decade ago now in which a woman successfully sued McDonald's for $1mil for not having a warning label on their coffee about hot coffee, and she burned herself when she spilled it as she was leaving the drivethru.

I remember something about this story...

It's an example of someone being granted power and property they don't deserve, because of government intervention.

Warning labels don't cure idiocy, and would've prevented nothing, just as the fine print on products is almost always ignored before use.

[Icymudpuppy]

There was no law on the books about a warning label at the time, still the Judge found McDonald's liable for damages for not making some kind of warning. After that, all hot beverage people started putting warning labels on their beverages to protect themselves from such frivolous lawsuits, but what would have prevented a private judge from ruling for the irresponsible woman in an AnCap world?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

There was no law on the books about a warning label at the time, still the Judge found McDonald's liable for damages for not making some kind of warning. After that, all hot beverage people started putting warning labels on their beverages to protect themselves from such frivolous lawsuits, but what would have prevented a private judge from ruling for the irresponsible woman in an AnCap world?

I all ready answered this......

[ClayTrainor]

There was no law on the books about a warning label at the time, still the Judge found McDonald's liable for damages for not making some kind of warning.
I've spilled coffee on myself dozens of times. I should be a millionaire by now! :p



After that, all hot beverage people started putting warning labels on their beverages to protect themselves from such frivolous lawsuits, but what would have prevented a private judge from ruling for the irresponsible woman in an AnCap world?

The Private court would not be able to tax the property of a store owner, based on the irresponsibility of what the consumer did with that product. If the coffee was poisoned, or there was a dead rat in it or something, it would be a different story.

When you pay for the coffee and take it, it becomes your property and your responsibility, based on the contract of voluntary property exchange. (you exchange cash for coffee)

[tremendoustie]

The reason I bring this up is the McDonald's incident about a decade ago now in which a woman successfully sued McDonald's for $1mil for not having a warning label on their coffee about hot coffee, and she burned herself when she spilled it as she was leaving the drivethru.

I think the ruling was silly. I suppose there is no absolute guarantee that such a ruling would not occur in a free society. If we are going to assume that the general populace is like you and me, and finds that kind of ruling silly, then courts of arbitration which make such foolish rulings will quickly reduce their credibility, and lose business. We can't hold courts accountable in this way today.

[andrewh817]

Here's a question, Clay.

It is generally accepted that to have freedom, one must accept responsibility for one's own actions. What is to be done with those who cannot or do not accept responsibility? Are they forfeiting their freedom? Can I, an Anarcho-capitalist, deny freedom to someone who refuses to accept responsibility in order to protect myself and the one's I love from them?

What do you mean by cannot or do not accept responsibility? Everyone is responsible for their actions whether they accept that fact or not.

[andrewh817]

The reason I bring this up is the McDonald's incident about a decade ago now in which a woman successfully sued McDonald's for $1mil for not having a warning label on their coffee about hot coffee, and she burned herself when she spilled it as she was leaving the drivethru.

You can often tell how free a society is by the degree of personal responsibility everyone is assumed to have. Statist societies often side with little to no personal responsibility (so it's not surprising they squander all our money). It's not your fault you gave your credit card and bank numbers to a stranger who ASKED for them on the phone. It's not your fault you eat fattening foods and don't exercise. It's not your fault you drink too much, it's a DISEASE.

[Joe3113]

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp

[heavenlyboy34]

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/thirteen.asp)

Nice choice. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

You can often tell how free a society is by the degree of personal responsibility everyone is assumed to have. Statist societies often side with little to no personal responsibility (so it's not surprising they squander all our money). It's not your fault you gave your credit card and bank numbers to a stranger who ASKED for them on the phone. It's not your fault you eat fattening foods and don't exercise. It's not your fault you drink too much, it's a DISEASE.

This is so good, it merits repeating! :cool: