Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37

Thread: How to defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct?

  1. #1
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,453
    Join Date
    May 2007

    How to defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct?

    How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but letís consider some more detail. Consider the following situationsÖ

    -----

    1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?

    2) One of your loved ones is murdered, how do you seek justice? How do you know you have the right person?

    3) Someone falsely accuses you of a crime, how do you defend yourself? Who decides your fate?

    4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?

    5) Your private security firm turns corrupt and robs you, how do you deal with the situation?

    6) Your access path to your water supply is now fenced off as private property as someone moved into the area and needed farm land. How do you deal with the situation?

    7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?



    Note: The goal of this thread is to catalog the best solutions to potentially dicey situations, this isnít an argument that something wonít work but proís and conís can be explored. Information may be used for the Foundational Knowledgebase project.


    Important: Any off-topic discussion, such as minarchy discussion, will be flagged to be deleted.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but let’s consider some more detail. Consider the following situations…

    -----

    1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
    Weapons, of course, but luctor and I were having a pm conversation (sorry, if I'm telling too much, luc) and he mentioned a retaining wall he's building and how he is going to plant something (can't remember what it is) that no one wants to climb through around it. Anyway, your first question made me think of that - natural deterrents. You could plant things around entrance points to your house. It may not stop anyone but a few well placed thorns would slow them down. Obviously, you would still need to fortify your doors.

    Edited to add...
    A well trained dog is not only a good deterrent but could help in a confrontation.

    2nd edit

    Booby traps (not made with real boobies). I got this idea from Better Call Saul. The excop guy made a tack strip with nails and a garden hose. If you have a long driveway, running something like that across it would stop a vehicle and maybe make them think twice about continuing. You could also conceal something like that in the mulch under your thorny shrubs.
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 04-14-2016 at 06:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Weapons, of course, but luctor and I were having a pm conversation (sorry, if I'm telling too much, luc) and he mentioned a retaining wall he's building and how he is going to plant something (can't remember what it is) that no one wants to climb through around it. Anyway, your first question made me think of that - natural deterrents. You could plant things around entrance points to your house. It may not stop anyone but a few well placed thorns would slow them down. Obviously, you would still need to fortify your doors.

    Edited to add...
    A well trained dog is not only a good deterrent but could help in a confrontation.
    That was a simple fence with hardwood posts/rebar mesh that is occupied with all sorts of vines.. More for looks than safety. But I guess it's a lot harder to climb over than a wooden fence. If people want to get in my backyard, all they have to do is come by boat.

    But if you feel the need to, you could use thicker and longer posts, 10ft high.. Use very thick rebar, both sides of the posts bend out the tops, grind spikes on them. Then add a coil of barbed/razor wire on top... And let the plants cover it up so it looks nice.

    But that's just a practical means of keeping people out. Sure, if they want to get in, they can. Not very convenient so they will go to your neighbors.


    There are other defensive means you could employ to protect your house in case you're not around. Such as smoke generators, teargas generators or freakishly loud noise generators.... Stuff that makes burglars/robbers go elsewhere.

    When you are at home, well I guess that part is obvious..
    Last edited by luctor-et-emergo; 04-14-2016 at 05:39 PM.
    "I am a bird"

  5. #4
    The ability to switch legal systems with out moving, is key to a decentralized system.
    It creates secession down the level of the individual,
    making all governance structures formed truly voluntary.
    ...
    https://mises.org/library/medieval-i...nce-government

    1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
    a) You're armed.
    b) You form a syndicate with neighbours and prepay for security on demand for such situations; like prepaid fire services
    c) You fortify your home with typical above par security features; locks, gates, fences, dogs, cameras, etc.
    d) You have more money to do all these things because you're not being robbed to support an involuntary police state.
    e) You have a coalition of networked voluntary friends which you can call in case of emergency.






    developing... more to come
    Last edited by presence; 04-14-2016 at 06:38 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but let’s consider some more detail. Consider the following situations…

    -----

    4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?
    Hopefully, you had your land surveyed when you purchased the property and can prove where your property line falls. If so, I would take it to my neighbor and try to work out a satisfactory agreement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  7. #6
    A lot of the very same ways it is currently done in a state social construct. The state isn't obligated to defend liberty and property.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Hopefully, you had your land surveyed when you purchased the property and can prove where your property line falls. If so, I would take it to my neighbor and try to work out a satisfactory agreement.
    Yeah, well, I think the problem here is...

    Who has the authority to validate the document you have that you claim proves you own the property ?
    "I am a bird"

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    Yeah, well, I think the problem here is...

    Who has the authority to validate the document you have that you claim proves you own the property ?
    Your bank, your insurance company, private market registry of deeds, etc.?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Your bank, your insurance company, private market registry of deeds, etc.?
    That's all fine and dandy until you get into a dispute. (Assuming you do not have any kind of central body of law, it wouldn't really be stateless otherwise ?)
    "I am a bird"

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    That's all fine and dandy until you get into a dispute. (Assuming you do not have any kind of central body of law, it wouldn't really be stateless otherwise ?)
    Common law, natural law, dispute resolution arbitration, insurance, etc. Nothing magic about government. It's all just people too.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Common law, natural law, dispute resolution arbitration, insurance, etc. Nothing magic about government. It's all just people too.
    and how sir, has this worked out for the Dutch in the past?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    ...
    https://mises.org/library/medieval-i...nce-government



    a) You're armed.
    b) You form a syndicate with neighbours and prepay for security on demand for such situations; like prepaid fire services
    c) You fortify your home with typical above par security features; locks, gates, fences, dogs, cameras, etc.
    d) You have more money to do all these things because you're not being robbed to support an involuntary police state.
    e) You have a coalition of networked voluntary friends which you can call in case of emergency.





    developing... more to come
    To expand on that a bit, there's an app for that - seriously, there is. http://safearx.com/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    a) You're armed.
    b) You form a syndicate with neighbours and prepay for security on demand for such situations; like prepaid fire services
    c) You fortify your home with typical above par security features; locks, gates, fences, dogs, cameras, etc.
    d) You have more money to do all these things because you're not being robbed to support an involuntary police state.
    e) You have a coalition of networked voluntary friends which you can call in case of emergency.

    developing... more to come
    So, then, you're talking about cliques getting together and organizing their own syndications within the neighborhood? What if I, too, own a pad in the neighborhood and I choose not to consent to the rules that your clique have organized and made for themselves. What if I don't want to pay into your clique and decide that I have an idea for a better clique? What if I determine that your clique is organizing to empower themselves over the rest of the individuals/groups of individuals in the neighborhood? Do I have to move out of the neighborhood in order to form my own clique? Or can I stay in the neighborhood and syndicate my own clique? Also, who decides my options? Would your clique be checked and balanced in any way aside from the pay to play deal? If so, then, how? If not, then, why not? I'd hate to leave my pad. I'd like to keep it.

    What if you end up with 4 or 5 different cliques forming/funding their own syndications against other syndications because one clique doesn't agree with the other clique? All armed, of course. Would there be a particular clique in charge of the other cliques? If so, then, where does their authority over the other cliques in the neighborhood come from?

    I suppose that libertarianism does permit for socialism. Seems like that eventually, though, you'll still have one armed synicate who wants to police the others and harvest/delegate their wealth or whatever. So, then, the Individual who was seeking to escape that kind of thing in the first place ends up right back in the same situation with the same socialist model.

    You know how you have the store owner in some cities who has to pay gangs "protection money" except, really, he is only paying this "protection money" to the gang so that the gang itself doesn't vandalize/rob/destroy his store?

    Anyway. Who would decide which clique was the clique in charge? How would they go about deciding it?

    I'm just wondering how individual rights or even individualism in general pans out in your model. Like say if 20 of my neighbors decided to pay into a fire company but I decided that, no, I don't want to pay for a fire company. I'll just hook my hose up to the water hole and put my own fire out should the situation arise. Would this prepaid security that the other 20 neighbors in your clique decided among themselves to pay into also guard the water hole and not let me use it for my hose? Certainly you'd agree that others are free to organize and make rules for themselves in a society so long as it doesn't prevent other individuals or groups of individuals from equally doing the same from within the same society. This is a fundamental principl of liberty.


    Seems like individualism is still out the window with your model (which is essentially a socialist model/society no matter how one spins it). Kind of like this...

    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-15-2016 at 05:11 AM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by luctor-et-emergo View Post
    That was a simple fence with hardwood posts/rebar mesh that is occupied with all sorts of vines.. More for looks than safety. But I guess it's a lot harder to climb over than a wooden fence. If people want to get in my backyard, all they have to do is come by boat.

    But if you feel the need to, you could use thicker and longer posts, 10ft high.. Use very thick rebar, both sides of the posts bend out the tops, grind spikes on them. Then add a coil of barbed/razor wire on top... And let the plants cover it up so it looks nice.

    But that's just a practical means of keeping people out. Sure, if they want to get in, they can. Not very convenient so they will go to your neighbors.


    There are other defensive means you could employ to protect your house in case you're not around. Such as smoke generators, teargas generators or freakishly loud noise generators.... Stuff that makes burglars/robbers go elsewhere.

    When you are at home, well I guess that part is obvious..
    Bodark (Osage orange or hedge) and blackberry's were early fencing that neither man nor bull would brave.......


  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Bodark (Osage orange or hedge) and blackberry's were early fencing that neither man nor bull would brave.......

    Two or three of these puppies...
    "I am a bird"

  18. #16
    I used to raise mastiffs.......

    Just their bark is a deterrent..




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Unfortunately, the whole reason people begin governments, or states, is because it is impossible to gain complete unanimity of all people about what is right and wrong. Even in the examples above, the suggestion to resolve these conflicts is to create voluntary "societies" in which people all agree to certain terms. This, of course, is the birth of feudalism. (which is the birth of larger and larger states, and less and less voluntary action)

    So, I think it's instructive to understand how this dilemma has been explored in the past by a great thinker.

    John Locke - Second Treatise of Civil Government - Chapter 8 - Of the Beginning of Political Societies: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr08.htm

    EDIT: I started collecting quotes from this chapter, but I really think you need to read the whole thing in context. I will leave the summation for the lazy:

    But submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly, and enjoying privileges and protection under them, makes not a man a member of that society: this is only a local protection and homage due to and from all those, who, not being in a state of war, come within the territories belonging to any government, to all parts whereof the force of its laws extends. But this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws, and submit to the government he found there. And thus we see, that foreigners, by living all their lives under another government, and enjoying the privileges and protection of it, though they are bound, even in conscience, to submit to its administration, as far forth as any denison; yet do not thereby come to be subjects or members of that commonwealth. Nothing can make any man so, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact. This is that, which I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any common-wealth
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  21. #18
    Something that I have only glossed over, but want to read in full, that may have answers to these questions...

    https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west

    ETA: This excerpt specifically shared for the amusement of tod evans....

    Moreover, the services of trained lawyers were not welcomed in many of the camps and even forbidden in districts such as the Union Mining District.

    Resolved, that no lawyer be permitted to practice law in this district, under penalty of not more than fifty nor less than twenty lashes, and be forever banished from this district.42
    Last edited by phill4paul; 04-15-2016 at 06:51 AM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Michael View Post
    So, then, you're talking about cliques getting together and organizing their own syndications within the neighborhood? What if I, too, own a pad in the neighborhood and I choose not to consent to the rules that your clique have organized and made for themselves. What if I don't want to pay into your clique and decide that I have an idea for a better clique? What if I determine that your clique is organizing to empower themselves over the rest of the individuals/groups of individuals in the neighborhood? Do I have to move out of the neighborhood in order to form my own clique? Or can I stay in the neighborhood and syndicate my own clique? Also, who decides my options? Would your clique be checked and balanced in any way aside from the pay to play deal? If so, then, how? If not, then, why not? I'd hate to leave my pad. I'd like to keep it.
    Well, in my utopia, it would be no problem at all for you not to purchase fire services or security services for your property. For example, in my county, we don't have county trash pickup. You either find a trash service, take it to the dump yourself, take it to a dumpster, or burn it, compost it...whatever. Anyway, the neighbors in the cul de sac got together and made a deal with a company to get a better rate but I wasn't interested because Mr Animal was taking what I don't compost to the dumpster at work. I liked not dealing with a huge can and having trash day 5 days a week and, frankly, we didn't generate a lot of trash. Anyway, it was no big deal for my neighbors that I didn't join in the trash deal. I actually ended up joining a few years later, btw because Mr Animal's car started smelling like a garbage truck and they were happy to have me in the Monday morning kool kids kan klub. My point is, everything doesn't have to be a fight.

    What if you end up with 4 or 5 different cliques forming/funding their own syndications against other syndications because one clique doesn't agree with the other clique? All armed, of course. Would there be a particular clique in charge of the other cliques? If so, then, where does their authority over the other cliques in the neighborhood come from?
    This is all escalating very quickly.

    I suppose that libertarianism does permit for socialism. Seems like that eventually, though, you'll still have one armed synicate who wants to police the others and harvest/delegate their wealth or whatever. So, then, the Individual who was seeking to escape that kind of thing in the first place ends up right back in the same situation with the same socialist model.
    If the subdivision next to mine wants to create a little socialist utopia - and a lot already do that, as far as I'm concerned, with homeowners associations, I don't give a crap as long as they keep it on their block. As a matter of fact, many years ago, someone tried to start a homeowners association in our neighborhood. They even drew up a list of bylaws and put them in everyone's mailbox but most of my neighbors are grown ups (Thank God) who have better things to do than worry about that bright yellow house or that unapproved treehouse. How many armed syndicates are roaming neighborhoods without homeowners associations? O_o

    It seems like you're imagining an apocalyptic situation. I'm not. I imagine without the burden of government, business will flourish and people will become friendlier.

    You know how you have the store owner in some cities who has to pay gangs "protection money" except, really, he is only paying this "protection money" to the gang so that the gang itself doesn't vandalize/rob/destroy his store?
    Yes, it's a good thing he has the police to protect him.

    Anyway. Who would decide which clique was the clique in charge? How would they go about deciding it?
    I would say you're in charge of your own property and you should promptly tell anyone who tells you otherwise to $#@! off.

    I'm just wondering how individual rights or even individualism in general pans out in your model. Like say if 20 of my neighbors decided to pay into a fire company but I decided that, no, I don't want to pay for a fire company. I'll just hook my hose up to the water hole and put my own fire out should the situation arise. Would this prepaid security that the other 20 neighbors in your clique decided among themselves to pay into also guard the water hole and not let me use it for my hose? Certainly you'd agree that others are free to organize and make rules for themselves in a society so long as it doesn't prevent other individuals or groups of individuals from equally doing the same from within the same society. This is a fundamental principl of liberty.
    Why on earth would your neighbors do that? Geez, get out there, talk to your neighbors - make friends with them. I believe most people are decent and just want to be left alone.
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 04-15-2016 at 06:40 AM. Reason: Spelling is hard
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  23. #20
    ~you must spread some reputation around before giving it to Suzanimal again.~

    that's all I got
    Disclaimer: any post made after midnight and before 8AM is made before the coffee dip stick has come up to optomim level - expect some level of silliness,

    The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are out numbered by those who vote for a living !!!!!!!

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    How would you defend liberty and property in a stateless social construct? The use of private security firms is a stock answer, but let’s consider some more detail. Consider the following situations…
    And it has its problems. It is a partial answer at best.


    1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
    By killing them. Not "stopping the attack". Your intention is to kill them from the get-go; to eliminate them from the book of immediate and potential future threats to others, including yourself.

    Period.

    Once one chooses to willfully violate the rights of another by presenting a threat to the latter's property, a fact that is prudently and reasonably assumed in all such situations, the perpetrator forfeits his claim to life. No "ifs", "ands", or "buts" about it. This is why such bad behavior is unwise. It is only through the demented post-modern vision of "society" that corrupt stooges have foisted the idiotic notions of "proportionate force", "stopping the threat", and so forth all the way up to "you have no right to defend yourself" upon entire populations, worldwide.

    2) One of your loved ones is murdered, how do you seek justice? How do you know you have the right person?
    I am in favor of apprehension by anyone's means, and trial by jury upon presentation of evidence. Once convicted, next of kin gets to pronounce sentence, but if it be death, that individual is obliged to execute. No pawning of that responsibility to others. You want death, you bring it. If death be truly just, you should have no hesitation in making it real. This is all very serious business and should be structured such that all parties in question maintain their proper perspectives in these sorts of matters. It is one thing to be way pissed at someone even unto imposing a sentence of death. It is quite another to carry that sentence out, oneself. It is, OTOH, relatively easy to so pronounce when you know someone else will be doing the actual dirty work. I would never allow such a thing. You want it, you make it.

    3) Someone falsely accuses you of a crime, how do you defend yourself? Who decides your fate?
    All false witnesses face death or life in a cage (minimally) as the consequence of their choices. No exceptions at any time. If you are not 100% certain of an event, you do not state it as "fact". Let a jury decide what your experience means in point of fact. Therefore, in a case where a witness is not absolutely certain of the identity of an accused murderer, rather than say "I saw the defendant murder the deceased", the wise witness might say, "A man looking to my eyes precisely as the defendant appeared to me to have murdered the deceased." This may sound like silly games in semantics, but it is really not. It all boils down to the cultivation of an attitude of extreme care in what is said and how. Preferable to let all criminals go free than to unjustly imprison even a single innocent man, and to that I say let all accusers stand in peril of their own liberty or even their lives if they bear false witness, whether knowingly or otherwise. As I wrote, this is very serious business.

    Now, why does the potential for allowing criminals to go free not bother me in the least? Because, assuming such a society were properly structured, all men would stand centrally within the circle of their rightful prerogatives to end the lives of those who criminally trespass against them. This boils down to crime becoming an enormously high-risk endeavor in which far fewer people would engage, and those so choosing would most likely be killed in the process of carrying out their perfidious acts. This, of course, would lead to very few trials, and so even in the event there a man "gets away with murder" on Tuesday, by Wednesday he will have been shot dead by his next intended victim. Either way, such people are likely to find justice catching up with them in time. Yes, it may ultra-suck that some will get away, only to strike again, but that is one of the prices you pay and risks that you face as a free man living in a free land. This is the not-so-attractive side of freedom - the one that requires courage and accountability of the individual. This is one of the faces of freedom in which the average man holds absolutely no interest, and in fact recoils into his desire for pretty servitude where he recedes into the darkness of the tyrants false promises of saving him from such ugliness in exchange for just a smidge of his freedom. Well guess what: there is no such thing as a smidge of freedom. It is an all-or-nothing affair. You are either free or you are something else. There is literally nothing in between freedom and servitude. There are only degrees of servitude to other men. No matter how slight those degrees may be, you are still not free, but rather tethered to the will of another. This is what 99.999% of all men choose to call "freedom" and it is the grandest, most insidious, utterly shameful, unforgivably disgusting, criminal, and dangerous of all human lies. It is the very heart of human darkness.

    4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?
    Hire a bloody surveyor.

    Next.

    5) Your private security firm turns corrupt and robs you, how do you deal with the situation?
    Hunt and kill them. Robbery is a crime employing physical violence or the threat thereof. Response to such acts should be unequivocal.

    6) Your access path to your water supply is now fenced off as private property as someone moved into the area and needed farm land. How do you deal with the situation?
    A stateless society must perforce be one of clued-in, cautious, and diligent people. Those who are not, tend to get scrood. That said, the circumspect man understands the risks, and stakes his claims early on, formalizing them. If the property in question was owned previously, he obtains right-of-way, an easement, or purchases the strip of ground defining his path, thereby protecting himself from being cut off. Whatever the case, he establishes his claim to the means of access to a vital resource. In such a world, few would remain ignorant on such matters for long and it is likely that there would arise markets for experts in such affairs.

    7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?
    Firstly, you decide whether you want to remain free and unconquered. Then you decide how serious you are about it. Then you begin investing in the means of best ensuring your abilities pursuant to the degree of seriousness.

    This is a special case of sorts because it is the one situation where the collective action of another land holds the potential for negatively impacting your own land in terrible ways. There are many factors to take into account, but the bottom line is that to some degree and in some manner, one must match the common denominator of one's neighboring lands in order to speak to power that may be turned against you. This is simple material reality. Therefore, the free land must be populated with those of a minimally common mind such that men are impelled from within to join ranks with their fellows for the common good, if the goal be to remain free. The moment you force it, as through conscription and taxation, you are no longer a free people.

    In that society, everyone has a choice and one of the risks is that there will be those who are either unwilling or incapable of acting in that capacity. Not every man is a warrior, and perhaps those who are unable/unwilling to fill that role even in the most dire times make up for their shortcoming by providing other benefits to the congress of their fellows. I cannot give all chapter and verse on how this would work, but I can say without reservation that force and freedom cannot coexist in such ways. I firmly believe that a society that has evolved into true human freedom will also evolve into one where everyone has their rightful places, as well as the attitude of voluntary cooperation in various affairs. Achieving the things that are desired (e.g., sanitation, water systems, roads, air traffic control, justice, etc.) without having to resort to the use of force in order to make them real would be the defining hallmark of such a people. And another truth about freedom, one in which most men have no interest due to wanting what they want, is that those things which do not find voluntary realization are those that people will have to forgo because the market has spoken. If a population does not want to pay for putting in sewers, then they may choose to live in filth and disease. The rest will avoid them, and I suspect that in time their noses will drive them to a new understanding of what it is they really want.

    Note: The goal of this thread is to catalog the best solutions to potentially dicey situations, this isn’t an argument that something won’t work but pro’s and con’s can be explored. Information may be used for the Foundational Knowledgebase project.

    Thanks for any responses.
    Freedom provides benefits to men. Those benefits carry costs and responsibilities.

    Here are the three basic characteristics of freedom in the context of proper human relations:

    1. Freedom provides the benefit of unfettered latitude of praxis in individual affairs.

    2. Freedom, as a matter of structural reality, carries the cost of the individual responsibility to respect the equal freedoms of others.

    3. Freedom demands the courage, will, and practice of men to assume the risks inherent to free men acting amongst one another.


    The vast and crushing majority of people want the benefits of point 1 while assuming none of the costs and responsibilities listed in points 2 and 3. This stems from the corrupted nature of men; corruption that arose with Empire, which in turn is the very manifestation of men living off the backs and sweat of their fellows in the quest for getting something for nothing. Forget the fruit of the tree of knowledge; the downfall of man was sealed the moment the first man set himself above the rest and the latter assented under whatever false promise or threat the king made unto them. Had all people at all times rose to escort into death all who presumed the monarch's seat, I daresay this would be a vastly different and improved world.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  25. #22
    One point I would make before even trying to give any specifics is that I would deny that my position requires me to be able to know the answers to any of those questions. And, even if I suggested any possible answers, it would be safe to assume that the actual solutions to the problems that would emerge in a free market would be very different from my suggestions and vastly superior to them. The same is true of any other solutions that any other theorist in the world might ever come up with. Furthermore, without even knowing what the free market solutions would be, we can always take for granted that they will be vastly superior to anything any centrally managed bureaucracy of the state could come up with.

    That's one of the chief features of the free market, and it should always be a selling point for it that we aren't afraid to use: the solutions that will arise as a result of the collective brain-power of millions of people interacting with each other according to their own determinations of what constitutes their own self-interest, will always accomplish things that no organization could ever accomplish by dictating to a whole population of individuals how things must be.

    To illustrate this, I always mention, "I, Pencil," by Leonard Read.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    One point I would make before even trying to give any specifics is that I would deny that my position requires me to be able to know the answers to any of those questions. And, even if I suggested any possible answers, it would be safe to assume that the actual solutions to the problems that would emerge in a free market would be very different from my suggestions and vastly superior to them. The same is true of any other solutions that any other theorist in the world might ever come up with. Furthermore, without even knowing what the free market solutions would be, we can always take for granted that they will be vastly superior to anything any centrally managed bureaucracy of the state could come up with.

    That's one of the chief features of the free market, and it should always be a selling point for it that we aren't afraid to use: the solutions that will arise as a result of the collective brain-power of millions of people interacting with each other according to their own determinations of what constitutes their own self-interest, will always accomplish things that no organization could ever accomplish by dictating to a whole population of individuals how things must be.

    To illustrate this, I always mention, "I, Pencil," by Leonard Read.
    I think the point of the OP is that in order for the free market to operate, you need to have some respect for property rights and some means of enforcement. This is why men have instituted governments in the past. But it has always devolved. So the question for you, is how to allow the free market to operate to achieve what we all believe it does?
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    to my knowledge, #7 was the primary reason that our founders moved away from the articles of CONfederation.
    It wasn't the real reason, but they used it as a pretext. The real reason was to accrue more power to themselves. But as we see repeatedly throughout history, those who wish to accrue such power to themselves, and are successful at doing so, always find that the promise of protection from the threat of foreign military attack is a very useful pretext.

    In actuality, we are more safe from such a thing without a pre-existing centralized regime ruling over the whole USA than we are with one. With such a regime in place, along with all its infrastructure all over the nation, all a foreign power needs to do is conquer that one institution, and the means of ruling the whole nation along with an appearance of legitimacy will come with that. But conquering and maintaining rule over a population of 300 million well-armed individuals who don't recognize any legitimate authority of the conquering power over them, would be impossible for anyone.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    One point I would make before even trying to give any specifics is that I would deny that my position requires me to be able to know the answers to any of those questions.
    Thanks, erowe, you're the only other person I've seen take that position. I think it's obvious... if you could find one person who had all the answers, then the state would work. But we're not here because we're cheerleading for the state, so it naturally follows that everyone here has, at least to some extent, rejected the notion that top-down planning can work.

    Of course, the other point I like to make ad nauseum is...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?
    There's already a band of thugs going around robbing people and they're untouchable. Even a mild escalation of force in their direction can result in firebombing your entire neighborhood resulting in a slaughter which includes children. And since these robbers are who they are, nobody will even know it happened for three decades.
    In a stateless construct, there is no blessed gang of robbers against whose misdeeds there is no defense. In a stateless construct, you shoot the bastards, and if they get you first, then it's no different from what we have now... but if you get THEM first, then nobody is coming to lock you up in a rape cage for the rest of your life.
    It's quite simple: statelessness is an improvement over what we have.

    2) One of your loved ones is murdered, how do you seek justice? How do you know you have the right person?
    So what happens now? The state takes a report, makes mental note of anything YOU'VE done wrong since they're in your house, and in all likelihood, they're too busy handing out traffic tickets to do any real investigation into the murder, and unless there's a target of opportunity (see the very next item you brought up!) then nothing happens.
    I have a coworker whose mother-in-law was likely murdered many years ago. Just last year they found her remains. They did a pretty good job identifying her and notifying her next of kin. And that's it.
    How many times have people of any political persuasion thought "gee if you guys spent a quarter of the effort you spend on traffic violations on real crimes, then we'd get a lot of those crimes solved"? That's likely true even in the massively inneficient, bloatedly bureaucratic monster called the state. Let people how to figure out how to assign value to the solution of murder cases, and you'll find that the value will be more than what it is now, which is close to zero.

    3) Someone falsely accuses you of a crime, how do you defend yourself? Who decides your fate?
    You mean like how the police go after soft and easy targets all day, every day, since the invention of police, because it makes their stats go up? I thought we all knew here that this is their M.O.: crime dramas are exactly that, TV shows which bear no resemblance to reality. If our current system cared whether there was objective truth being presented in a case, then we wouldn't be able to pick from myriad cases where they conclusively demonstrated that they in fact do not care.
    FFS, I thought this was the place where we're all aware that a lot of time all it takes is a 911 accusation to get somebody straight up iced on the sidewalk. No accusation or trial and the knothead in a uniform is the only one who gets to decide your fate.
    I'll take my chances in any other situation where that knothead doesn't exist.

    4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?
    So is this a baby fence, like one of those foldable deals that you can pack up for use at the park? Or is it a FENCE, with 24" deep concrete footers and several thousand pounds of lumber fastened together, which generally take days or weeks to build, let alone move?
    I suppose it's possible you go on a European vacation for a month and come back to your fence being moved, but what is it about plats and surveyor reports which will suddenly stop existing with the elimination of the state?
    It just occurred to me that I have a real world example to offer, because my neighbors have a fence that is 12 whole inches over the property line. They had a surveyor screw up the survey prior to building it. I could have been a jerk about it and chose not to, and we've not had to involve authorities of any kind. Sure, stateless systems will develop ways to be a thorn in your neighbor's ass over minor inconveniences, because there will unfortunately be a market for it. But there will also be a lot more people like me who choose not to pick fights over it and end up drinking beers in each others' driveways for the next decade as a result. I'm sure if the county found out about their fence they'd demand it get moved yesterday, despite the fact that I really don't care. In a stateless system I will have a protected right not to care.

    5) Your private security firm turns corrupt and robs you, how do you deal with the situation?
    See my response to #1: we have this now, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Any change in the rules is preferable to what we have now.

    6) Your access path to your water supply is now fenced off as private property as someone moved into the area and needed farm land. How do you deal with the situation?
    So you were getting free water from land that wasn't yours, and it went away, and now what is supposed to happen about that, exactly?
    Something?
    Does this mean every time in the 1980's and 90's when we were mistakenly getting free cable, and then they caught on and cut us off, we could have called the cable company and bitched until we got our free cable back?

    7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?
    I am not concerned of an invading army from a far-away land.
    Is there such an army? Who is it? When are they planning to invade?
    The question is phrased in a way that assumes there is one answer, when there currently isn't even a problem to analyze.
    For over a century our one answer has been to create massive military forces. As the adage goes, if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We've been hammering screws for a century. The answer is not to reevaluate whether a hammer is the right tool. The answer is to recognize that not every problem is a screw, either, and that individual problems warrant individual solutions.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  30. #26
    +1 to erowe and fisharmor. Having read through the link/synopsis I posted earlier, The not so wild west, it seems the book should be an even better read. In it are many ways in which those that traveled outside the bounds of the federal and state governments were able to co-exist in a voluntary social construct.

    ETA: Here is also a piece on the West by DiLorenzo

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...west-(article)

    http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/t..._dilorenzo.pdf
    Last edited by phill4paul; 04-15-2016 at 12:15 PM.

  31. #27
    I will bail out the anarchists since they are not too familiar with the material. Keep in mind, this is all best case scenario:

    1) A band of thugs is going around robbing people, how do you defend your home from invasion?

    Private police, gun ownership, alarm system etc

    2) One of your loved ones is murdered, how do you seek justice? How do you know you have the right person?

    Every community would have a monopoly jurisdiction coercive court system of last resort to decide.

    3) Someone falsely accuses you of a crime, how do you defend yourself? Who decides your fate?

    Your lawyer, arguing in front of a private court. You better hope you paid your court fees and have money for an attorney, of course, unlikely that you will be covered otherwise.

    4) A neighbor moves the fence marking the property line between you two, in his favor of course, how do you prove what land was yours?

    Land Records at the private monopoly court

    5) Your private security firm turns corrupt and robs you, how do you deal with the situation?

    Move, if you can afford it. Otherwise, try to petition the community to hire a new one.

    6) Your access path to your water supply is now fenced off as private property as someone moved into the area and needed farm land. How do you deal with the situation?

    Lawsuit, hopefully the laws are in your favor.



    7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?
    solicit investment in expanding the security force


    The question is, is this situation better than what we have now or have had in the past?
    Last edited by ArrestPoliticians; 04-15-2016 at 02:37 PM.
    Carthago Delenda Est

  32. #28
    7) You are concerned of an invading army from a far-away land, how do you prepare?
    In a stateless society this is a non-issue, because the invading army wouldn't get very far without roads.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Well, in my utopia, it would be no problem at all for you not to purchase fire services or security services for your property.
    As I'd mentioned, I'd rather just put out my own fire. There is that water hole. Remember? Why my options gotta be limited to the parameters of your particular model? Or maybe I'd rather let it burn and rebuild. Depends on how feel at the time. Of course, your group remain free to organize and make rules for yourselves so long as it doesn't prevent me and my clique from equally doing the same.


    This is all escalating very quickly.

    Yep. Happens. Give a feller a rope and he want to be a cowboy.




    If the subdivision next to mine wants to create a little socialist utopia - and a lot already do that, as far as I'm concerned, with homeowners associations, I don't give a crap as long as they keep it on their block.
    There are no sub-divisions in a voluntary socialist structure. But if we say there are just for giggles, what if the other clique doesn't keep their opinions on their block? Would your clique give a crap, then? If so, how would they handle it? Like if their little socialist Utopia was a different vision of your little socialist Utopia.

    It seems like you're imagining an apocalyptic situation.
    Nope. I was just asking questions relative to the inevitable. Best to think things through all the way.


    Yes, it's a good thing he has the police to protect him.
    No, the store owner was paying the local gang/clique some protection money so that the local gang/clique wouldn't take his wealth and property without his consent. Gang leader who collects and manages the protection money may, however, have some sort of status trinket that would equate to a badge from within his group. Maybe a jacket with insignia or a stripe on it or something. Lawlessnses none the less.



    I would say you're in charge of your own property and you should promptly tell anyone who tells you otherwise to $#@! off.
    Right. So, then, that's why I'd mentioned that I'd just put out my own fire. Of course, the clique paid into a fire company. So, then, I was just wondering if they'd also use the security they paid into to guard the water hole so I couldn't use the water to put out my own fire.



    Why on earth would your neighbors do that?
    My neighbors are self-rightous jerks. The kind of people that think because they got together and paid into a fund to hire a fire brigade that all of the water belongs to them.

    Geez, get out there, talk to your neighbors
    I do. That's how I know they're self-rightous jerks that think because they got together and paid into a fund to hire a fire brigade that all of the water belongs to them.
    .

    make friends with them.
    I tried. They had their own clique.


    I believe most people are decent and just want to be left alone.
    Opinions vary.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 04-19-2016 at 11:48 PM.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    One point I would make before even trying to give any specifics is that I would deny that my position requires me to be able to know the answers to any of those questions. And, even if I suggested any possible answers, it would be safe to assume that the actual solutions to the problems that would emerge in a free market would be very different from my suggestions and vastly superior to them. The same is true of any other solutions that any other theorist in the world might ever come up with. Furthermore, without even knowing what the free market solutions would be, we can always take for granted that they will be vastly superior to anything any centrally managed bureaucracy of the state could come up with.

    That's one of the chief features of the free market, and it should always be a selling point for it that we aren't afraid to use: the solutions that will arise as a result of the collective brain-power of millions of people interacting with each other according to their own determinations of what constitutes their own self-interest, will always accomplish things that no organization could ever accomplish by dictating to a whole population of individuals how things must be.

    To illustrate this, I always mention, "I, Pencil," by Leonard Read.
    ...So the question for you, is how to allow the free market to operate to achieve what we all believe it does?
    Precisely

    The question isn't whether anarcho-capitalism would work given a free market in security services.

    Of course it would.

    The question is whether there could be a free market in security services in the first place.

    ...when there would be people willing and able to undermine it.

    e.g. a security firm which realizes it would be more profitable to extort money from their customers than to serve them

    P.S. "I, Pencil" is a must read for anyone interested in economics, regardless of the anarchism/minarchism debate.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •