Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 92

Thread: Contract Enforcement in Ancapistan

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Because contract enforcement in society is perfect, good, or even adequate in many cases today. What we are posturing is that nothing is perfect. Not every scenario could be seen or solved as there is not an incentive to solve them.
    I didn't ask ancaps to explain how stateless contract enforcement would be perfect.

    I asked them to explain how it would work at all.

    Their response was: it won't (and it doesn't matter).

    Why don’t you share some of your proposals to fix this joke of a system with regards to contract enforcement.. or any other matter for this time?
    Anarchy cannot exist at all, except as a (nasty) transitional phase between the collapse of one state and the emergence of another.

    As for states, the one most likely to respect property rights is a monarchy, then an oligarchy, with democracy in last place.

    Because clearly the warlord, not propped up by the supposed legitimacy of the state, could acquire such power without a bullet.
    LOL, what do you think the state is? How did it come about in the first place?

    How about a simple version. I own me. I own my $#@!. You own you. You own your $#@!. Do business with who you know, with who has a reputation for holding their word. There would be market solutions such as arbitration, various ratings/reviews, collateralized and/or insured loans. The solutions are endless.
    Again, that's not a solution for contract enforcement; that's an acknowledgement that it won't work.

    And, in the bigger picture, outside contract enforcement, there's the impossibility of anarchy altogether.

    There can be no market solutions to violence as the market presupposes the absence of violence.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I didn't ask ancaps to explain how stateless contract enforcement would be perfect.

    I asked them to explain how it would work at all.

    Their response was: it won't (and it doesn't matter).

    I operate outside of the state, and I don't need a outside entity to enforce contracts for me. Is it really a free market if you have government involed? No .


    Anarchy cannot exist at all, except as a (nasty) transitional phase between the collapse of one state and the emergence of another.

    Same old canard ie man has not flown, therefore man cannot fly, the earth is flat because nobody has circled the globe, yada, yada, yada.

    As for states, the one most likely to respect property rights is a monarchy, then an oligarchy, with democracy in last place.

    lol, if you say so. I'm not convinced the difference is worth measuring.


    LOL, what do you think the state is? How did it come about in the first place?



    Again, that's not a solution for contract enforcement; that's an acknowledgement that it won't work.

    And, in the bigger picture, outside contract enforcement, there's the impossibility of anarchy altogether.

    again, opinion stated as fact
    There can be no market solutions to violence as the market presupposes the absence of violence.

    You acknowledge yourself the state is violence. I conduct my affairs outside of the state without their benevolence yet you say it can't be done. All you are saying is you're unable to conduct your own affairs therefore the rest of us should suffer under the tyranny you desire.
    My resposes in bold, too much of a pain to do it otherwise on a tablet. Computer down...

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Some example contracts to consider:

    Contract #1
    : "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. Either party may unilaterally void the contract."

    Contract #2: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. Smith may unilaterally void the contract."

    Contract #3
    : "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, the parties agree to submit to binding arbitration by Justice, Inc." (Smith is the sole owner of Justice, Inc.)

    Contract #4: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, each party has the right to try to enforce it against the other, as he sees fit."

    Contract #5: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, each party has the right to try to enforce it against the other, as he sees fit." (Smith owns a security company. Jones is a ballet dancer).

    What's wrong with these contracts, with respect to enforcement?

    How would you rewrite the loan agreement between Smith and Jones to solve the problem (in an ancap society)?
    Anarchists love this type of question because it avoids the ultimate unanswerable question for anarchists. Contract enforcement is merely a watered down version of criminal enforcement which is merely a watered down version of national defense. So the ultimate question, in its clearest form, is how can anarchists provide for national defense. The answer is that it's not possible.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Anarchists love this type of question because it avoids the ultimate unanswerable question for anarchists. Contract enforcement is merely a watered down version of criminal enforcement which is merely a watered down version of national defense. So the ultimate question, in its clearest form, is how can anarchists provide for national defense. The answer is that it's not possible.
    That's exactly right.

    Here I was trying to get them to address one, narrower aspect of the problem.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's exactly right.

    Here I was trying to get them to address one, narrower aspect of the problem.
    I agree, but I think the answer to contract enforcement is not nearly as obvious as national defense. Neither is possible without government and for the same reason. Sometimes force is required to counteract force. But it's much more obvious with national defense.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I agree, but I think the answer to contract enforcement is not nearly as obvious as national defense. Neither is possible without government and for the same reason. Sometimes force is required to counteract force. But it's much more obvious with national defense.
    The basic problem in both cases is that the force-wielding entity is expected to forgo using that force for profitable aggression.

    ...I guess out of zeal for liberty.

    With national defense, there's the additional problem that the service is non-excludable.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Do you feel the same about enforcing property right in general?

    E.G. Is it unnecessary to force vandals to compensate their victims?
    Before we move on...
    Do you recognize my #53 post relating to an idea about your scenario of Smith and Jones to be wise or not?

    If you don't see it as sharing wisdom, please give me your understanding of how your scenario of borrowing is better/preferred to Smith and Jones not lending/ borrowing and introducing enforcement.

    Thanks.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    Before we move on...
    Do you recognize my post relating to an idea about your scenario of Smith and Jones to be wise or not?

    If you don't see it as sharing wisdom, please give me your understanding of how your scenario of borrowing is better/preferred to Smith and Jones not lending/ borrowing and introducing enforcement.

    Thanks.
    The post you're referring to:

    Quote Originally Posted by you
    Smith can't afford to lose money he lends out? Smith shouldn't loan money.
    Jones doesn't have a support system in place so he has to rely on Smith? Jones isn't making wise life choices.

    Ancapistan is a way of living that recognizes man's nature, and therefore doesn't go looking to create more "enforcement" issues.

    Smith and Jones are obviously living in the wrong neighborhood if they can't or won't humble themselves to some wisdom 101.
    A world in which contracts can't be enforced is a world where far fewer contracts are made (because the risk to the lender is much higher).

    That means fewer mutually beneficial exchanges.

    I don't know how anyone could think that's a good thing.

    P.S. To elaborate: If enforcement is left to the contracting parties, you're only going to see contracts between peers, i.e. parties with roughly equal ability to enforce the contract against each other, and even then not very many (risks/costs are still much higher than in a state system). You'll see hardly any contracts between asymmetrically powerful parties, at least not where the stronger party is the obligor. Similarly, in the black market today, you might see some contracts between different mafia families, but you don't see individuals loaning money to the mafia (they know they have no way of making the mafia pay).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-14-2017 at 12:20 PM.

  11. #69


    One little problem with RPF - nobody is blind.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The post you're referring to:



    A world in which contracts can't be enforced is a world where far fewer contracts are made (because the risk to the lender is much higher).

    That means fewer mutually beneficial exchanges.

    I don't know how anyone could think that's a good thing.
    About how fewer, ya figure?
    Like fewer than in a pay to play enforcement environment world?

    The quantity vs quality insight helps me understand where you're coming from. Thanks.

    Some folks value mutually beneficial exchanges based on relationships that don't beg for enforcement rather than mutually beneficial relationships that do beg for enforcement.

    Ancapistan doesn't already have enough mutually beneficial exchanges without contract enforcement?
    As a part-time resident of Ancapistan, *ahem*, I am not buying that.

    As for your vandal question-
    In Ancapistan, you can forgive a vandal as much as you like. There is no mandatory vandal forgiveness requirement.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    About how fewer, ya figure?

    Like fewer than in a pay to play enforcement environment world?
    If you mean that plaintiffs have costs in a state system, sure, but lower than they'd be in a stateless society. Moreover, our current system is far from the model for a state system. The major driver of cost is lawyers' fees, which could be dramatically lower if legal licensure were abolished. Beyond that, go to loser-pays, and the successful plaintiff has no costs at all beyond the trivial taxes required to support the court itself (and even that could be eliminated by going to user-fees).

    Some folks value mutually beneficial exchanges based on relationships that don't beg for enforcement rather than mutually beneficial relationships that do beg for enforcement.

    Ancapistan doesn't already have enough mutually beneficial exchanges without contract enforcement?
    As a part-time resident of Ancapistan, *ahem*, I am not buying that.
    Both parties always agree on the contract at the time it's made. But the whole point of a contract is to hold both parties to their agreement over time. If you can't do that, you don't have contracts at all for all practical purposes. There may be (evidently are) people who are willing to abandon contracts altogether in exchange for statelessness, but - as I said earlier - those people are putting anarchism before liberalism, which is all about property rights, including property rights established by contract.

    As for your vandal question-
    In Ancapistan, you can forgive a vandal as much as you like. There is no mandatory vandal forgiveness requirement.
    The question was: how does a victim of a vandal (or any other property rights violator) get compensated?

    If property rights enforcement is left to the parties, how does a weak victim get a strong violator to pay compensation?

    To answer my own question: he won't (just like a weak obligee won't be able to force a strong obligor to honor his contract).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-14-2017 at 01:19 PM.

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you mean that plaintiffs have costs in a state system, sure, but lower than they'd be in a stateless society. Moreover, our current system is far from the model for a state system. The major driver of cost is lawyers' fees, which could be dramatically lower if legal licensure were abolished. Beyond that, go to loser-pays, and the successful plaintiff has no costs at all beyond the trivial taxes required to support the court itself (and even that could be eliminated by going to user-fees).



    Both parties always agree on the contract at the time it's made. But the whole point of a contract is to hold both parties to their agreement over time. If you can't do that, you don't have contracts at all for all practical purposes. There may be (evidently are) people who are willing to abandon contracts altogether in exchange for statelessness, but - as I said earlier - those people are putting anarchism before liberalism, which is all about property rights, including property rights established by contract.



    The question was: how does a victim of a vandal (or any other property rights violator) get compensated?

    If property rights enforcement is left to the parties, how does a weak victim get a strong violator to pay compensation?

    To answer my own question: he won't (just like a weak obligee won't be able to force a strong obligor to honor his contract).
    Here, let me help you...
    So simply take forgiveness the other direction and you see the instant respect that property rights get. I answered your question, I must assume that you just don't care for the implications of the most honest way to secure property rights.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    Here, let me help you...
    So simply take forgiveness the other direction and you see the instant respect that property rights get. I answered your question, I must assume that you just don't care for the implications of the most honest way to secure property rights.
    I really don't know what you mean.

    Are you suggesting that there doesn't need to be compensation, and people should just forgive?

    If so, then I'll say once again, that's not a solution, but an admission that there is no solution. This line of thinking is reminiscent of the communist response to economists pointing out the problems with communist production: namely, since communism will produce very little, people should just want less.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-14-2017 at 01:45 PM.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I really don't know what you mean.

    Are you suggesting that there doesn't need to be compensation, and people should just forgive?

    If so, then I'll say once again, that's not a solution, but an admission that there is no solution. This line of thinking is reminiscent of the communist response to economists pointing out the problems with communist production: namely, since communism will produce very little, people should just want less.
    What I am suggesting is, if I vandalize your property, worst case scenario, I forfeit my life.
    You as the victim will make the call, and that's okay by me.

    Ancapistan, where you don't have to dick around just to look busy.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    What I am suggesting is, if I vandalize your property, worst case scenario, I forfeit my life.
    You as the victim will make the call, and that's okay by me.
    I'll take that as your acknowledgement that victims unable to personally protect their rights have no recourse.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'll take that as your acknowledgement that victims unable to personally protect their rights have no recourse.
    You'd be acknowledging that based on how you want to understand my comments, so whatever floats your individual life boat.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'll take that as your acknowledgement that victims unable to personally protect their rights have no recourse.
    And that he prefers tribal warfare, the law of the jungle and vendetta feuds to the rule of law.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    You'd be acknowledging that based on how you want to understand my comments, so whatever floats your individual life boat.
    I don't know how else your comments could be understood (I asked you for clarification, you didn't say very much). If you want to take another crack at explaining how a weak victim is supposed to extract compensation from a strong criminal (contra forgiving the criminal), I'm all ears.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And that he prefers tribal warfare, the law of the jungle and vendetta feuds to the rule of law.
    Evidently

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't know how else your comments could be understood (I asked you for clarification, you didn't say very much). If you want to take another crack at explaining how a weak victim is supposed to extract compensation from a strong criminal (contra forgiving the criminal), I'm all ears.



    Evidently

    So reacting differently to the Law of the Jungle is what you consider as preferring the Law of the Jungle?

    Yeah, I think I'm done trying to explain to your "all ears".
    Thanks for your efforts in trying to make Ancapistan safe for liberty.

    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by bunklocoempire View Post
    So reacting differently to the Law of the Jungle is what you consider as preferring the Law of the Jungle?

    Yeah, I think I'm done trying to explain to your "all ears".
    Thanks for your efforts in trying to make Ancapistan safe for liberty.

    That's fine.

    If you change your mind, I'm always up for discussing this issue.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    how a weak victim is supposed to extract compensation from a strong criminal
    Is this a thing that is resolved by the existence of the State, sir? If so, please do provide evidence.

    Cheers.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Is this a thing that is resolved by the existence of the State, sir? If so, please do provide evidence.

    Cheers.
    See: any civil suit by an individual against a large company, or by an ordinary individual against a rich individual.

    The state is generally neutral in civil disputes.

    Unless one party is a big campaign contributor or the like, the state has no interest in the outcome.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    See: any civil suit by an individual against a large company, or by an ordinary individual against a rich individual.

    The state is generally neutral in civil disputes.

    Unless one party is a big campaign contributor or the like, the state has no interest in the outcome.
    Interesting. You're suggesting that the State - the entity which must be controlled by at least a single person under the best of circumstances - will act "neutrally" in adjudicating contract disputes, presumably even where the State itself is involved? And this is to be preferable over market forces?

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Interesting. You're suggesting that the State - the entity which must be controlled by at least a single person under the best of circumstances - will act "neutrally" in adjudicating contract disputes, presumably even where the State itself is involved? And this is to be preferable over market forces?
    All except for the underlined.

    In civil disputes where neither the state itself nor a big campaign contributor etc is involved, state courts are quite neutral.

    The state doesn't know you or the general contractor you hired to put in the pool. It doesn't care one way or the other who wins.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    All except for the underlined.

    In civil disputes where neither the state itself nor a big campaign contributor etc is involved, state courts are quite neutral.

    The state doesn't know you or the general contractor you hired to put in the pool. It doesn't care one way or the other who wins.
    Your position is that the State is preferable to free market contract dispute resolution or more broadly, contract enforcement. Yet here you acknowledge that there is a structural bias in the Statist contract enforcement model.

    The answer to your question, broadly, is that in a free market arbitrators will rely upon their reputations as fair and even-handed contract dispute resolvers to accumulate market share. In other words, people will seek out their services because they will have reputations for reliable contract-dispute resolution. This is of course to be differentiated preferably from the Statist solution of a reliance upon the imposition of force for no legitimate reason.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Your position is that the State is preferable to free market contract dispute resolution or more broadly, contract enforcement.
    If only the strong can enforce their property rights (in relation to contracts or otherwise), that isn't a free market.

    Statelessness =/= Free Market

    Yet here you acknowledge that there is a structural bias in the Statist contract enforcement model.
    Of course, but the question is which is better (or less bad), in terms of securing property rights.

    The answer to your question, broadly, is that in a free market arbitrators will rely upon their reputations as fair and even-handed contract dispute resolvers to accumulate market share. In other words, people will seek out their services because they will have reputations for reliable contract-dispute resolution. This is of course to be differentiated preferably from the Statist solution of a reliance upon the imposition of force for no legitimate reason.
    Which people?

    Why would a property rights violator in a position to simply refuse to make his victim whole ever submit to arbitration?

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If only the strong can enforce their property rights (in relation to contracts or otherwise), that isn't a free market.

    Statelessness =/= Free Market
    To be clear here, you're stating that you do not favor a free market? Or maybe you're stating that you do not believe that a free market can exist? Or that - interestingly - you believe that a free market can only exist with the intervention of the State?

    Inquiring minds want to know...

    Again it seems that your position is that the State - the unprovoked initiation of force - is preferable to a free market in contract dispute resolution... a "free market" being an environment in which individuals are free to contrive and competitively sell their innovative goods and services to other individuals without intervention and in which other people are free to choose those goods and services... rather, you favor some particular good and service based upon... what, exactly?

    That's called "the Pretense of Knowledge". Also, "hubris". Ladies and gentlemen, bow before the one individual who can know better that not only the currently 7 billion human beings alive on the planet, but also all of those who are to come.

    Of course, but the question is which is better (or less bad), in terms of securing property rights.
    I think that matter has been sufficiently addressed...

    Which people?

    Why would a property rights violator in a position to simply refuse to make his victim whole ever submit to arbitration?
    You're right. Also, how can unemployed people ever sustain themselves and their families without a job (thus we must have unemployment insurance, and welfare); also, why would a corporation ever admit wrong-doing without an over-arching State to keep it in line; also, what if people wreck their lives by using alcohol and other chemicals; etc., etc.

    Who are you, Charles Dickens?

    You see, you're strolling down a lane which leads inexorably to the Total State. It's surprising that you do not see this.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    To be clear here, you're stating that you do not favor a free market?
    I'm stating just what I plainly stated: statelessness =/= free market.

    Or maybe you're stating that you do not believe that a free market can exist?
    The closest possible approximation to a free market occurs under minarchism - i.e. a free market except for minor taxation.

    The situation that would exist in a stateless society would be further from a free market than the above.

    Again it seems that your position is that the State - the unprovoked initiation of force - is preferable to a free market in contract dispute resolution
    No, my position is (again) that statelessness does not make for a free market; it makes for a less free market than exists under a minimal state.

    There would be more aggression, less secure property rights.

    You're right. Also, how can unemployed people ever sustain themselves and their families without a job (thus we must have unemployment insurance, and welfare); also, why would a corporation ever admit wrong-doing without an over-arching State to keep it in line; also, what if people wreck their lives by using alcohol and other chemicals; etc., etc.
    I've said that anarchists aren't really liberals; that they aren't really interested in liberty (which means property rights): that they simply want to abolish the state, come what may. You post here, which equates securing property rights with welfare schemes, confirms that. The absolute disdain which the ancaps in this thread have shown for property rights would have Rothbard spinning like a top. You've missed the whole point.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-14-2017 at 08:26 PM.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I'm stating just what I plainly stated: statelessness =/= free market
    You go on to make your case, but it is entertaining that you put it in quasi-mathematical terms...

    The closest possible approximation to a free market occurs under minarchism - i.e. a free market except for minor taxation.
    In other words, "a free market, except that it's not a free market".

    The situation that would exist in a stateless society would be further from a free market than the above.

    No, my position is (again) that statelessness does not make for a free market; it makes for a less free market than exists under a minimal state.
    Others have pointed out that the minimal state doesn't exist in the real world... or that, in fact, we in the US currently live in someone's conception of a "minimal state"... or that - obviously, and a fact which has been borne out by the historical record - there is NO SUCH THING AS A MINIMAL STATE... we're left to wonder what exactly you mean by a "minimal state", and how "we" are supposed to attain it? That of course begs the question, how do we attain statelessness... but, as the gentleman said to the lady, "you first".

    There would be more aggression, less secure property rights.

    I've said that anarchists aren't really liberals; that they aren't really interested in liberty (which means property rights): that they simply want to abolish the state, come what may. You post here, which equates securing property rights with welfare schemes, confirms that.
    The above bolded is nonsense, and you know it. Please don't be disingenuous.

    Advocates of statelessness believe that the unprovoked initiation of force is illegitimate. All bets are off after force is initiated. It really isn't a whole lot more complicated than that. That's why you get push-back from us - because you advocate for the unprovoked initiation of violence. That's a hang-up.

    You like to think that you can cypher what comes next... we understand that. You can't. You can only imagine what comes next. From that you presume to initiate violence upon the rest of humanity... but it is entirely based upon a presumption - not a reality.

    That's no way to order a society. That order of society ensures chaos and violence.

    Take a look around you.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    In other words, "a free market, except that it's not a free market".
    Less aggression is better than more aggression.

    [there's no such thing as a minimal state
    Any average state makes for more secure property rights than civil war (i.e. statelessness).

    The above bolded is nonsense, and you know it. Please don't be disingenuous.
    You equated my concern for the inability of the weak to secure their property right to leftist calls for unemployment benefits et al.

    Advocates of statelessness believe that the unprovoked initiation of force is illegitimate. All bets are off after force is initiated. It really isn't a whole lot more complicated than that. That's why you get push-back from us - because you advocate for the unprovoked initiation of violence. That's a hang-up.
    Advocates of statelessness do not care about the incidence of aggression.

    They want to abolish the state, period, regardless of the consequences.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 58
    Last Post: 03-15-2013, 05:50 PM
  2. Ancapistan in Honduras built by Friedman and Thiel
    By mediahasyou in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-08-2011, 07:55 PM
  3. Contract Insurance
    By Elwar in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2009, 09:13 AM
  4. GOP: The Contract
    By Elwar in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 06:01 PM
  5. contract with BLACKWATER
    By Cinderella in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 08:59 PM

Posting Permissions

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