Are you in favor of abolishing the police?

[Christian Liberty]

Would a minarchist be opposed to having the government maintain a national system of currency, like we have now?

It seems like Ron Paul is, based on things that he's said. Based on most definitions I've seen, it seems like that would be the case (That they would oppose such.) But there might be people who use definitions of minarchy that would include that too. Not sure.

How do you interpret Jesus' comment when he said "give back to Caesar's what is Caesar's?"

Declining the gambit to answer a trick question.

What's interesting about his answer is that he really makes absolutely no comment about what Caesar owns and what he doesn't. Common sense would tell us that if Caesar is trying to take your property by violent force, it isn't actually his.

Most Christians seem to take this passage in a manner that isn't contradictory with itself. They say that Jesus is condoning the power of taxation, and that he is saying that whatever Caesar demands should be paid, but he won't say that if Caesar demands more than half your income that he actually owns all of that and that it isn't wrong. So ultimately, I think they contradict themselves.

Mind you, I'm addressing the assertion that Caesar actually has any legitimate right to tax here (And denying it), not the question of civil disobedience to taxes that do exist, which is a different question entirely.

That's quite obvious.

Considering the fact that you're willing to call minarchy and anarchy opposites, I think you're basically being a hypocrite by defending Mises. Mises supported a freaking draft. He was much more anti-libertarian than anyone in this thread.

I really just wanted you to think a bit about what you were saying, really. You're very passionate, which is great, but don't let it blind you either. Just because someone is a "utilitarian" doesn't make them "useless" or "evil". That statement itself is really not useful for much other than instigating conflict. Also, the political realm and the economic realm are intertwined.

OK, I agree that they are related. I guess this brings us to an interesting question: should deontological libertarians even address the assertions of the left that libertarian economics would result in poverty at all? I think its fine to do so, but ultimately, the reason I support libertarianism is because it is RIGHT, not because it "works."

I'm not really trying to rag on you, I'm nowhere close to perfect myself, but I try to grow out of things I recognize as detrimental to my development.

No problem.

Mises had an interesting life, and essentially single-handedly brought the Austrian School back to life. He's got a lot of admirers due to his life story and his profound academic contributions. You might get more clarity in understanding others perspective of him by learning about him yourself. If you look at the world through the context of "utilitarians of all stripes are useless and evil" and dismissed what he brought to the table then it would be exceedingly difficult to understand more positive perspectives of him.
I didn't really want to make this about Mises, the same thing applies to a lot of what you say about retaliation from my perspective, but this conversation reminded me of this video, and I figured you may find it interesting if you were inclined to learn more.

I'll take a look at it.

[Cabal]

Considering the fact that you're willing to call minarchy and anarchy opposites, I think you're basically being a hypocrite by defending Mises. Mises supported a freaking draft. He was much more anti-libertarian than anyone in this thread.

By definition, statism is the opposite of anti-statism. By definition, minarchy is statism. By definition, anarchy is anti-statism. Therefore, minarchy is opposite anarchy. This isn't as difficult as you're making it.

Also, I haven't defended Mises--I've merely agreed that you obviously know very, very little of Mises. That was my not so kind way of suggesting you make the effort to know what you're talking about before presuming to talk and make judgments about it; not so kind because it should go without saying.

As for Mises...

No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.

The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest.

Compulsory military service thus leads to compulsory labor service of all citizens who are able to work, male and female. . . . Mobilization has become total; the nation and the state have been transformed into an army; war socialism has replaced the market economy.

Mises on Conscription

[Brett85]

Declining the gambit to answer a trick question.

What's interesting about his answer is that he really makes absolutely no comment about what Caesar owns and what he doesn't. Common sense would tell us that if Caesar is trying to take your property by violent force, it isn't actually his.

Most Christians seem to take this passage in a manner that isn't contradictory with itself. They say that Jesus is condoning the power of taxation, and that he is saying that whatever Caesar demands should be paid, but he won't say that if Caesar demands more than half your income that he actually owns all of that and that it isn't wrong. So ultimately, I think they contradict themselves.

Mind you, I'm addressing the assertion that Caesar actually has any legitimate right to tax here (And denying it), not the question of civil disobedience to taxes that do exist, which is a different question entirely.

I'm not exactly sure what it means either, but I just don't see any verse in the Bible that says that taxes are wrong or that it's wrong to have a government. I think that often times it's not a good idea to mix the Bible with politics, regardless of whether it's the argument you're making, or liberals who argue that Jesus supported big government and socialism. I don't personally base my political views off of the Bible. I base my personal views and the way I live my life off of the Bible.

And I don't consider all taxes to be theft, although I consider the income tax to be theft and support abolishing the income tax.

[Christian Liberty]

I have now. Thanks.

What was your take?

[Brett85]

What was your take?

I didn't think the video addressed what would happen if the two people who were having a dispute didn't actually want to have a 3rd party arbitrator, or if the two people having a dispute asked for a 3rd party arbitrator to settle the dispute, but then didn't agree with the arbitrator's decision and chose not to follow the decision. I don't see how the 3rd party arbitrator would have any kind of enforcement mechanism to enforce any of his decisions. It just seems like he would basically be giving advice to two people who were having a dispute, when he was asked to give advice.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not exactly sure what it means either, but I just don't see any verse in the Bible that says that taxes are wrong or that it's wrong to have a government.

"Government" is a very tricky term, and can mean a lot of different things.

Taxes are pretty clear though. Exodus 20:15. And as for those who would say the State is an exception for some arbitrary reason that they can't possibly defend, Isaiah 5:20.

I think that often times it's not a good idea to mix the Bible with politics, regardless of whether it's the argument you're making,

I disagree with you. I used to agree, but I don't anymore. Rights cannot rationally exist unless they are imputed by God. God reveals Himself through his Word. Thus, the Bible does indeed tell us everything we need to know about politics. Although of course, its not a political textbook, and the "religious right" ignores scripture (read 1 Corinthians 5).

or liberals who argue that Jesus supported big government and socialism.

\

And they get that from Jesus' command to help the poor. This is a classic example of taking the Bible out of context. The Bible NEVER says that wealth should be redistributed by force, in fact, Acts 5:4 completely refutes this accusation. Not to mention Christ's command to the Rich Young RULER not to Steal.

Also, see Here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-In-Government

I don't personally base my political views off of the Bible. I base my personal views and the way I live my life off of the Bible.

This is paradoxical, because politics ultimately deal with morals and how people live. If you believe that you shouldn't murder because the Bible tells you not to, but you wouldn't base your opinion on whether a certain city should be carpet bombed on that belief that it is wrong to murder (Note that I'm not saying "killing" in generic here, I'm talking about the carpet bombing of a city which will destroy INNOCENT lives) than your position is paradoxical.

I don't see anything in the Bible that says you have one set of rules for people who call themselves "government" and another set of rules for other people. Thus, I would maintain that the Bible teaches that a stateless society is the only moral society.

And I don't consider all taxes to be theft, although I consider the income tax to be theft and support abolishing the income tax.

Wait, so some forms of involuntary plunder of wealth are theft, but others are not? Where are you gettng this from? Can you defend it Biblically OR logically?

[noneedtoaggress]

I didn't think the video addressed what would happen if the two people who were having a dispute didn't actually want to have a 3rd party arbitrator,

It did. The same thing as if there were only 2 people on the island. Their options are to settle it peacefully between themselves or to resort to violence.

That part doesn't change whether a state is involved or not. People can choose to settle disputes out of court, or they may resort to using violence even with a state monopoly.

or if the two people having a dispute asked for a 3rd party arbitrator to settle the dispute, but then didn't agree with the arbitrator's decision and chose not to follow the decision.

This was also addressed in the video. It puts you right back into the position of having to settle between themselves or resorting to violence. And again adding the state to the mix doesn't change any of this.

I don't see how the 3rd party arbitrator would have any kind of enforcement mechanism to enforce any of his decisions. It just seems like he would basically be giving advice to two people who were having a dispute, when he was asked to give advice.

This wasn't addressed because it's beyond the scope of the video. It was introducing the production of law. There are actually more parts of the video that do discuss this though. Here's part 2:



But, in the most fundamental aspect, it's true that he was basically asked to give advice. That was his role in the situation. An impartial judge who gives advice on how the dispute should be resolved fairly.

[Brett85]

I was making the point that I oppose direct taxes but don't oppose indirect taxes. I view a tax like the income tax to be a direct tax, while a tax like the sales tax is more of an indirect tax. You don't really have any choice at all how much in taxes you pay with an income tax, you have to pay taxes no matter what. With a sales tax, you don't have to pay any taxes at all if you don't buy anything. I realize that's not possible, but some states don't even tax the essential things that people have to buy in order to survive. Then if you save money and don't spend like crazy, you won't end up paying any taxes at all, or at least very, very minimal taxes.

[noneedtoaggress]

I was making the point that I oppose direct taxes but don't oppose indirect taxes. I view a tax like the income tax to be a direct tax, while a tax like the sales tax is more of an indirect tax. You don't really have any choice at all how much in taxes you pay with an income tax, you have to pay taxes no matter what. With a sales tax, you don't have to pay any taxes at all if you don't buy anything. I realize that's not possible, but some states don't even tax the essential things that people have to buy in order to survive. Then if you save money and don't spend like crazy, you won't end up paying any taxes at all, or at least very, very minimal taxes.

Except it's still stealing because you're butting into a private trade of property between two (or more) private individuals and demanding "protection money" whether your services were asked for or not. There's hardly any difference from the protection rackets run by the mafia other than the perception of legitimacy.

[Brett85]

Except it's still stealing because you're butting into a private trade of property between two (or more) private individuals and demanding "protection money" whether your services were asked for or not. There's hardly any difference from the protection rackets run by the mafia other than the perception of legitimacy.

What about funding the government through a national lottery? That wouldn't be theft. It would basically just be an optional tax.

[noneedtoaggress]

What about funding the government through a national lottery? That wouldn't be theft. It would basically just be an optional tax.

It's only optional if you can opt out of it entirely.

If it's a voluntary form of government then it's not a state. It would be a governing institution in a stateless society.

[A Son of Liberty]

It seems like if anarchists are against using force, then they wouldn't have any way to stop a group of people who tried to create a new government. If anarchists do believe in using force, then anarchism would simply lead to non stop civil war, as those who truly support anarchism would be fighting against those who actively try to create a new government.

You are being disingenuous to the point of dishonesty. It has been explained to you on more than one occasion (and you always seem to not respond to those explanations, by the way) that we anarchists are NOT against the use of force. STOP SAYING THIS.

We are against the use of preemptive/unprovoked/coercive force. If you punch me in the face, I have the right to defend myself from you.

This is freaking basic. This is like "founding documents" type of stuff that you SHOULD understand.

It's like Travlyr is back or something. Sheesh.

[A Son of Liberty]

1. Minarchists - First of all, I'm a min-stater, not a minarchist. There is a great theory to support our limited role for the state. It's based on the idea of "Public Goods" theory, and it basically posits that certain necessary and sufficient conditions must be in place for liberty to exist. Things such as national defense, uniform and objective law (to the degree it can be), protecting our commons (which a free market can't protect) such as the environment and certain kinds of infrastructure and the provision toi all citizens a basic education. The last is supposedly controversial, but I'm with Jefferson - an educated populace is required for democracy to function. Do some web searches on Public Goods for more specifics.

National defense? What's a nation but a group of individuals. Cannot those individuals provide defense services voluntarily through mutual cooperation? Why is it taken as given that "national defense" must be provided through violence and coercion? When it is, how exactly can liberty exist?

ETA: I read this paragraph a little closer and just had to come back and comment further.

The state does NOT provide a "uniform and objective law", at least not that we've ever seen. This is a fact in evidence.

Protection of the environment is obviously - to anyone with a fairly basic understanding of private property and human behavior - far better achieved through private property; identifying untapped natural resources such as land mass or ocean and declaring that it belongs to "everyone" and then charging the state with its oversight is a well-documented recipe for disaster.

Lastly - regarding education... I think your friend who sent you this is very likely a socialist, or a hyper-statist of some sort. There is almost no one in the liberty movement who argues on behalf of state-directed education. That is "liberty 101", really. In fact, there may be nothing so obviously to blame for the 'state' we're in (pardon the pun) than "public education".

2. Anarchy has never, ever worked anywhere. This is an obstacle which they cannot overcome. I believe anarchy and criticisms of the state are very interesting, as I do much of philosophy, but I don't wish to put many of those ideas into practice. This is actually a form of "scientism" which Hayek accused the socialists and progressives of, but the anarchists do the same. They give their theories the certainty of physical science, and then come to absurd conclusions. It's intellectually immature mental masturbation. Hence Ayn Rand's disgust with them, a disgust I share, fyi, because the Anarchists have marginalized libertarians for 40 years, and as a result our nation is in peril without a viable governing alternative.

Well, since none of the "absurd conclusions" are addressed, I guess I can't really respond to them so I'll just leave this big ad hominem of a paragraph alone.

3. Incentives - It's axiomatic to libertarians that people respond to incentives, but not perfectly rationally, and that individuals will act differently in the same circumstances. To assume that we would evolve towards compliance and belief in liberty/anarchy via some inexorable tug of the good (yes, some anarchists actually posit that "good" always wins, a laughable assertion) is simply more mental masturbation. Some folks will always choose coercion and force over non-aggression and voluntarism. It's axiomatic to any real study of human behavior.

I agree with the bolded entirely. That is why I object to creating in society with a monopoly on violence, as those folks amongst us who choose coercion and force over non-aggression and voluntaryism will be drawn to it as moths to a flame.

As well, any study of political science reveals quickly that a minority can exert meaningful control over a populace. In fact, if a relatively small group can assert positive control over 25% of a population, they can quite easily exert negative control over the rest due to factionalization. Anthropology, history, and sociology tell us this as well, but hey, lets not let reality slow these guys down.

Laughable. A minority of people can exert control over a populace, therefore, let us institute an entity over that populace to make their desires so much more easily attained and utterly complete! BRILLIANT!

They seem to believe they are in possession of revealed truths

Objective truths, actually, and fairly easily deduced, in the absence of pro-state indoctrination, with not too awful much effort.

and in a conference room or lecture hall can quite readily ignore these arguments. Tell them that when the warlord armed to the teeth is at their door. Another way to look at it, as Nozick did, is that a state is an emergent property of anarchy, arising inexorably from it. Either way, it's an idea that flies in the face of much of what we know.

4. Evidence of the state enabling huge gains in wealth and living conditions - Much academic research has been done on the explosion of wealth and consequent dramatic improvement in living conditions over the past 500 years, versus the previous tens of thousands of years in which these measures barely budged in comparison.

Ah yes, the utilitarian argument. "Come to the candy man, little child. I'll give you everything you want."

Many political scientists attribute this to very existence of states, but of states of a particular kind which protect civil liberties and contracts to a large extent. The causality is self evident. In the face of this evidence, anarchists instead ask me to believe that without the rise of the modern, liberal nation state, we would have an experience of real liberty anyway, in even greater abundance? Are you laughing yet? But see, the anarchists want to pretend history doesn't exist

Smug little comments like this do nothing to further the discussion, and this bit of text is rife with them. I respond in kind.

Those who advocate a "particular kind" of state "which protects civil liberties and contracts" have a few hurdles of their own to clear. How about the one state created in human history with the explicit intention of protecting civil liberties and contracts, and claiming authority over little else? How about that one? It was still in swaddling clothes when it started making laws about what you were allowed to say, and to who. It didn't make it out of adolescence before it made war on it's own people and killed probably a million of them. Shortly after that, it perverted the currency of the people, made "illegal" the production and ownership of a certain type of beverage, engaged in imperialistic overseas wars... and on and on and on.

Are you laughing yet? But see, "minarchists" want to pretend history doesn't exist.

and think they can just start now with the existing conditions in liberal democracies and the beliefs folks hold in those societies and then ban the state. It's much like the equally fanciful beliefs of Marxists in this regard, and just as fantastic.

But "going back" to a "constitutionally limited government" is well rooted in good sense?

5. Practical considerations - Let's just concede for a second that they are right, that I don't need uniform and guaranteed (and imperfect, you silly children) protection from your worst instincts, and that somehow, humanitie's good instincts will prevail. So, should I then advocate for something that has no chance of ever occurring in an actual reality?

Leaving aside the non sequitur that uniform and guaranteed protections is impossible without a state (or that it is possible with a state - which is far, far, FAR more laughable, through simple observation of the state we now have), statelessness has as much of a chance of being the choice of our society as a "constitutionally limited government" does.

The reality is that the likes of Rothbard et al have marginalized libertarians, making common cause with anarchists (whose thought actually stem from a different epistemological background than libertarian thought), who most free people see as dangerous and destructive.

Appeal to popularity. I don't care what most people see as dangerous and destructive. Most people see al Qaeda as the biggest threat to their security, rather than the existing US state. Therefore most people are idiots. What I care about is holding a logically consistent philosophy, guiding my thoughts and actions by it, and convincing others of it. The rest - since I am not a fortune teller - will take care of itself. "...drink the wine; let the world be the world."

Because I sort of like the ideas and agree with some of them, I'm to then doom the entire movement for liberty to irrelevance because anarchy is interesting? Again, I can only classify this as juvenile thinking. The libertarian movement has a great min-state platform that clearly and practically is workable, and can win real political gains in our system. The Rothbardian, anarchist Utopian, minority view of the libertarian movement has destroyed our credibility, by claiming the "truer" libertarian mantle. Instead of libertarians distancing themselves from anarchy, we will drown with the children who can't separate reality from fantasy.

Getting in bed with the GOP will be far more destructive to the "liberty movement" than allowing a few anarchist blowhards to show up at your functions. Control your bladder for heaven's sake.

6. Anarchy in it's truest sense isn't a political system - Anarchy has much deeper philosophical implications with respect to human existence than just whether we govern ourselves via a state of some sort. To reduce it to it's mere political implications misses most of what it has to say about human desire and will. One point is that in anarchy, you wouldn't have any "right" to property or liberty, yeah?

Did Travlyr write this nonsense?

I've addressed this all earlier, so moving on...

I won't go on, but really, it's a very large difference. Accordingly, why don't you freaking anarchists stop hiding behind the libertarian movement and identify yourselves as anarchists - period? Then you wouldn't drag us down and we wouldn't be locked in an unresolvable argument. You could then exist as the tiny, absurd minority that you are instead of free-riding on the political work we libertarians are doing. If we weren't being dragged down by you, we might already be in the midst of redesigning our state, with popular support from most Americans.

I hope this helps you. If you want a real dissection of anarchy, read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia. In the meantime, don't be confused, your instincts and common sense are spot on. Anarchy is absurd.

"Anarchy is absurd." Welp, this is an assertion without basis, isn't it? One certainly wasn't provided in this dull bit of text, that's for sure. We may not stand much of a chance of achieving statelessness, sure, but something that is absurd is baseless, unsubstantiated, and foolish. "Anarchism" has been proven time and again to be rooted in a very sound, logical set of objective, observable principles. Statism, a philosophical framework which must take as a given that some men are endowed with certain powers that others do not, or are not allowed to possess, is obviously what is absurd.

[fisharmor]

NOBODY says that. Wow...

What we're saying is that that's what happens, not that that's what should happen.

@Fisharmor- I think Stephan Kinsella makes a pretty compelling case that the death penalty can be completely libertarian.

Fwiw the examples of stateless law I've been exposed to (including the Lakota example) don't discount the idea of judicial killing. The difference is that it is used as a last resort. The true meaning of 'outlaw' is someone whom the law no longer protects. Thus, if a judgment is passed requiring someone to pay restitution, and he doesn't, then he is branded outlaw and anyone encountering him can bring him to justice. So if a family isn't paid for the death of one of its mwembers, they can hunt down the aggressor and kill him.

Note, however, that *they* are the ones taking vengeance. Not the state. And its a last resort, not a primary judgment.

[Christian Liberty]

I was making the point that I oppose direct taxes but don't oppose indirect taxes. I view a tax like the income tax to be a direct tax, while a tax like the sales tax is more of an indirect tax. You don't really have any choice at all how much in taxes you pay with an income tax, you have to pay taxes no matter what. With a sales tax, you don't have to pay any taxes at all if you don't buy anything. I realize that's not possible, but some states don't even tax the essential things that people have to buy in order to survive. Then if you save money and don't spend like crazy, you won't end up paying any taxes at all, or at least very, very minimal taxes.

OK, I can see the practical reasons for doing this, because it limits how much the government can take. But in the purely theoretical I honestly fail to see the difference. Would there really be any difference if the mafia stole 20% of each of your paychecks, or if they stole 20% of the value of each item you buy each time you buy it?

I could be convinced otherwise here, but I actually feel likee a flat income tax might be less evil than a flat sales tax (Note that I still believe that both are absolutely evil) (Presuming the revenue stolen by each is equal) because the flat income tax would at least target everyone equally, and thus tick everyone off equally, whereas the sales tax disproportionately targets the poor. I guess this is kind of like aying would you reather the mafia steal 10% from everyone, or would I rather them steal more than 10% from the poorest Americans and less than 10% from the richest, but it would still add up to an average of 10%. I mean, I'd rather take the 3rd option of "Put all the mafia to death", but if I had to pick between those two theft schemes, I think the one that is proportional is marginally preferable considering the same amount of money is taken.

On the other hand, if there was a choice between stealing 10% from everyone, or only stealing 10% from the bottom 50%, the latter would be preferable, because even those the latter theft scheme is "regressive" it actually involves outright less theft than the first one. So ultimately my biggest concern is how MUCH is being stolen, not how its distributed. I would also argue that its an act of aggression to deliberately tweak the tax code in way that would increase the amount stolen from some Americans even if it would decrease the amount stolen for Americans. I know liberty minded politicians will still stretch this a little, which is why I'm not suited for politics, because I couldn't, but this is essentially why I reject fairtax and every other "tax fairness" scheme even though I also reject what we have.

Except it's still stealing because you're butting into a private trade of property between two (or more) private individuals and demanding "protection money" whether your services were asked for or not. There's hardly any difference from the protection rackets run by the mafia other than the perception of legitimacy.

Yep. See my post above.

What about funding the government through a national lottery? That wouldn't be theft. It would basically just be an optional tax.

Massive, massive improvement. Not perfect, because it seems like in this system competing governments, competing police, etc. would be banned, but its a HUGE step in the right direction.

Fwiw the examples of stateless law I've been exposed to (including the Lakota example) don't discount the idea of judicial killing. The difference is that it is used as a last resort. The true meaning of 'outlaw' is someone whom the law no longer protects. Thus, if a judgment is passed requiring someone to pay restitution, and he doesn't, then he is branded outlaw and anyone encountering him can bring him to justice. So if a family isn't paid for the death of one of its mwembers, they can hunt down the aggressor and kill him.

Note, however, that *they* are the ones taking vengeance. Not the state. And its a last resort, not a primary judgment.

OK, first of all, I'd like to start this conversation by saying my knowledge of voluntarism is fairly limited. Most of the little I do have, other than the snippets hinted at by Ron Paul (Who I do not believe is himself a voluntarist although I do believe he is sympathetic) has primarily come from Rothbard, Block, Vance, Tom Woods, and I have seen the "Law Without Government" videos, but that's mostly it. I know that David Friedman's anarchy is very different than Rothbard's anarchy, but I'm not well versed in the differences between them.

Murder is a unique case because the victim himself is dead, so unless he left specific instructions in a will, we're left with either exacting the "default" punishment, or leaving the option to his heirs, either of which is a "Least bad" scenario. To make it simple, let's say Person A says in his will that if he is murdered, his brother, Person B has the right to decide for him what punishment is exacted. Let's say the murderer is identified as Person Z, he is put on trial, and convicted.

The way I see it, Person Z now owes his life to Person B. Person B would have the right to kill Person Z. Now, he might not want to, put Person Z to death. Perhaps they would strike some sort of deal. But the way I see it, Person B does have the right to kill Person Z. He could also hire someone else to do it for him.

Regarding States, I do not believe States should exist, but as long as they do, I see no reason they shouldn't be able to exercise punishment against legitimate criminals, provided that the punishment actually fits the crime. If someone commits murder, I see no reason, at least in theory, that the State could not rightfully execute them, at least in theory. They shouldn't have a monopoly on the use of force, but as long as they do, I see nothing wrong with them using it against an actual murderer. Now, if the murdered individual was a pacifist, and wrote in his will that he didn't want any punishment to be exercised against anyone who killed him, than that wish should be respected.

Now, assuming the person murdered did NOT write anything in his will, murder is honestly a tricky case. I could see an argument that says that the murderer can be justifiably killed no matter what (after conviction, of course) and I could also see a case for allowing the heirs to decide.

Other crimes are relatively simple though. In the case of assault, for example, the victim is still alive, so all of this would be much easier to figure out. Although in that case, the maximum penalty would be proportional to assault, probably flogging. And as with murder, the victim and assailant could work out some other type of penalty if desired.

Are you getting what I'm trying to say here?

Now, I would have to say a serial killer should pretty much receive the death penalty by definition, unless ALL of his victim's heirs agreed that he shouldn't, which is unlikely.

Punishment theory is kind of tricky though. Even among anarchists there's plenty of disagreement on it.

[fisharmor]

Sorry I'm just catching up....

Then answer my question about what a county Sheriff should do if a woman calls 9-1-1 and asks for help because she's being raped.

Which part of the fact that "police cannot be 'completely relied' upon to help anyone because police have absolutely no responsibility or obligation whatsover to help anyone" do you not understand?

TC, did you actually read about Warren V. DC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

The first Supreme Court case we already used to debunk the protection argument is specifically about RAPE.

I'm not exactly sure what it means either, but I just don't see any verse in the Bible that says that taxes are wrong or that it's wrong to have a government.

Then it's time to cast off this illegitimate state and go back to being British subjects.
If you believe in this state, then you fundamentally believe in the words of the DOI, which state that when a state becomes destructive to liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

If we're talking Scripture here, to which Caesar do I owe my loyalty?
The British crown, or the DOI? If it's the British, then every Christian needs to subject himself to the crown.
If it's the DOI, then we have the right to call for scrapping this system.

I didn't think the video addressed what would happen if the two people who were having a dispute didn't actually want to have a 3rd party arbitrator, or if the two people having a dispute asked for a 3rd party arbitrator to settle the dispute, but then didn't agree with the arbitrator's decision and chose not to follow the decision. I don't see how the 3rd party arbitrator would have any kind of enforcement mechanism to enforce any of his decisions. It just seems like he would basically be giving advice to two people who were having a dispute, when he was asked to give advice.

Yeah I don't know why this is TC but other advocates of statelessness abjectly refuse to offer historical examples of this.
They DO exist.
In the "backward" celtic world, prior to what Osan calls "empire" spreading throughout Europe, there were often professional judges tasked with hearing cases. They competed with each other, and judges known for passing wise judgments were sought after.
When they passed a judgment against someone, that person more often than not paid restitution or did what was required. This is because despite what the state brainwashes us into believing, most people are peaceful by nature and just want to get along with life. (How else would you explain their tendency to put up with the state's abuses?)

As I already indicated, those who refuse a judgment can be named outlaw - meaning they have no protection from the law. Other judges would not assist such a person, and anyone can administer justice on that outlaw as they see fit. This is one way that it was dealt with in Western Europe.

The specifics would get filled in as people go. The reason why I subscribe to this idea is because it is fundamentally mutable. Just as with other markets, the justice market would adapt itself to people's needs.

I don't see how people would be brought to justice, because I don't have the ultimate answer. I think I'm going to be writing this out weekly at this point: the fact that we don't have an answer is not an indicator it won't work.
If you believe there is a market for justice, it follows that a monopoly on it is a bad thing, and it follows that the state has no business providing it.
If you don't believe there is a market for justice, then you fundamentally believe that nobody is interested in it - meaning the state has no business providing it anyway.

What about funding the government through a national lottery? That wouldn't be theft. It would basically just be an optional tax.

The problem with this is that the state will always fail to provide goods and services better than the market.
The only way the state can look like it's doing a good job is if it criminalizes competition.
The amount of profit they get from lotteries is absolutely sickening - and they're engaging in false advertising to boot.
If the state allowed other people to run lotteries, then the state's lotteries would fold within weeks.

[Brett85]

TC, did you actually read about Warren V. DC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia

The first Supreme Court case we already used to debunk the protection argument is specifically about RAPE.

Yeah, that's an absolutely outrageous court decision. I definitely agree with the 3 judges who dissented. The three police officers who failed to stop the rapists are as much to blame for what happened to these women as the rapists were.

[Cabal]

[noneedtoaggress]

It did. The same thing as if there were only 2 people on the island. Their options are to settle it peacefully between themselves or to resort to violence.

That part doesn't change whether a state is involved or not. People can choose to settle disputes out of court, or they may resort to using violence even with a state monopoly.



This was also addressed in the video. It puts you right back into the position of having to settle between themselves or resorting to violence. And again adding the state to the mix doesn't change any of this.



This wasn't addressed because it's beyond the scope of the video. It was introducing the production of law. There are actually more parts of the video that do discuss this though. Here's part 2:



But, in the most fundamental aspect, it's true that he was basically asked to give advice. That was his role in the situation. An impartial judge who gives advice on how the dispute should be resolved fairly.

TC, did you get a chance to watch that 2nd video?

[Brett85]

TC, did you get a chance to watch that 2nd video?

Yeah, it was very interesting. The thing is that there have been countries throughout history that have had anarchy, and nothing like what was shown in the video was ever organized by private individuals. It's possible that what's described in the video could theoretically work. The problem is that something like that would likely never get organized, because different people would have all kinds of different ideas about the way that law and order would work. I'm just not going to buy into this idea of anarchism until I actually see it work in practice. I've never seen any country that doesn't have a central government have any kind of success.

[noneedtoaggress]

Yeah, it was very interesting. The thing is that there have been countries throughout history that have had anarchy, and nothing like what was shown in the video was ever organized by private individuals. It's possible that what's described in the video could theoretically work. The problem is that something like that would likely never get organized, because different people would have all kinds of different ideas about the way that law and order would work. I'm just not going to buy into this idea of anarchism until I actually see it work in practice. I've never seen any country that doesn't have a central government have any kind of success.

Other than the issue you have with competing ideas of law and order, those same arguments were made about the abolition of slavery and that radical experiment at it's construction - these United States.

As far as competing ideas of law and order, that leads into the third video:



You should also keep in mind that this is just one guy's interpretation of how the market could function.

[Cabal]

[Origanalist]

I will be eagerly awaiting an answer to that question.

[heavenlyboy34]

Micro-secession FTW! This is something the Rothbardians and Misesians agree on.

[Cabal]

[Anti Federalist]

Yes.

[ProIndividual]

Anarchy is absurd.

Not as absurd as a minimal state staying minimal. It will grow, it will murder, it will steal...and the true absurdity is the suggestion that life will be better if we only legalize those crimes for some minority group of parasitical priests in the Cult of Nationalism. Everyone agrees murder and theft should be illegal for almost everyone...it's only the anarchists who say it should be illegal for all of us, including the people calling themselves "politicians", "soldiers", "police", "prison guards", "IRS agents", and any other label used by members of the state. The other side of the debate seems to be a defense on any number of grounds for murder and theft to be legal for some minority of people, on the pretense this carries with it some benefit overall for the rest of us. I see how it benefits the rulers, but I can't see the benefit for all of us; the ruled. Seems to me that if it should be illegal to steal and murder generally, that it should always be illegal for anyone. This notion of universality in ethics and law is called absurdity by those who still cling somewhat, or in total, to the Cult of Nationalism, the god of the state, and its Priest Caste. I think the absurdity is the lack of universality in statist ethics, whether totalitarians, authoritarians, or minarchists/"min-stater".

Enough with changing the labels..."min-stater" and "minarchist" are functionally equivalent in a debate with an anarchist. If you advocate for the ethical and/or pragmatic legitimacy of the state, you are statist....the rest is not a difference of principle, but a difference of degree (and too often, very arbitrary).

[osan]

Sheriffs can be just as crooked as Policemen. It's just a label. There are bad apples in any position.

You miss the point. Sheriffs are neither "hired" nor "appointed". They are elected and are, therefore, impeachable and may be otherwise held accountable. Note also I specified in an earlier post that there would be few or even zero full-time salaried deputies. The sheriff would be completely dependent upon the good will of his constituents to perform certain aspects of his job. If he needs a posse and nobody bellies up, he is going to be in some real poo.

[osan]

I disagree

Please elaborate.

[Christian Liberty]

I really can't answer your question because I am both for and against abolishing police. It just depends on what level of government that police has jurisdiction over. For national police, yes, I am for abolishing it. For local/state police, I am against abolishing it. Police are useful because I can't guard my home and possessions all day while I am away at work. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with deputizing law enforcement, on a local or state level, with the task of maintaining order and upholding laws that protect life and property. The police should not have a "monopoly" on protection services, but still, they can serve and protect in the public's trust.

Government cops are USELESS:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/r...f-street-cops/

I think one of the biggest moral failings of the church today is that being a cop isn't considered morally equivalent to being a prostitute.