Quote :

"Kidnapping is absurdly rare"

It is here, where we have a powerful and stable government. Strangely if you go somewhere without this, kidnapping rates skyrocket.

Quote :

"a sizable percentage of all attempted crimes are thwarted due to potential victims being armed"

In africa guns are much easier and cheaper to find, yet crime is lower in places with more government.

Quote :

"The rest of us recognize that it was only through government that Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot managed to kill millions of their fellow countrymen. What non-government entity could ever hope to achieve such heights of mass murder?"

You ask the wrong question. The right question is "That kind of shit will happen, what kind of non-government entity could ever hope to stop them?"

I also find it funny that death is fine as long as it wasn't just one guy that did it all, give all the indy, underground mass-murderers a chance!

11/11/2010 12:24:08 AM

Quote :

"In africa guns are much easier and cheaper to find, yet crime is lower in places with more government."

Wow. wrong on both accounts. To buy a gun that works requires spending several years worth of median income. Not what I would call cheap. Also, these places tend to spend about the same percentage of GDP on government as we do, not exactly ungoverned spaces. To me, many failed 3rd world states look more like government run amoke.

Quote :

""That kind of shit will happen, what kind of non-government entity could ever hope to stop them?" "

Your defense of Government is that nothing can defend us from Government?

11/11/2010 1:18:27 AM

Isn't this track of conversation somewhat pointless since I'm fairly sure that every libertarian here agrees that some small level of government is necessary, and it's particular legitimate function is protecting the rights of individuals from others who would usurp them? Even under a purely libertarian form of government, kidnapping would still be illegal.

11/11/2010 7:26:31 AM

Quote :

"Wow. wrong on both accounts. To buy a gun that works requires spending several years worth of median income. Not what I would call cheap"

dude, no.

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no4/154arms.htm

Quote :

"Millions of light arms -- lightweight, highly portable, and devastatingly effective in the hands of even young or poorly trained users -- were shipped to Africa during the Cold War to equip anti-colonial fighters, newly independent states and superpower proxy forces alike. The collapse of the Soviet bloc saw a new flood of small arms entering Africa as manufacturers put additional millions of surplus Cold War-era weapons on the international arms market at cut-rate prices. Years later, these durable killing machines fight on in the hands of insurgents, local militias, criminal organizations and ordinary people left vulnerable to violence by ineffective policing and simmering civil conflict. In some parts of Africa, a Soviet-designed AK-47 assault rifle, coveted for its simplicity and firepower, can be purchased for as little as $6, or traded for a chicken or sack of grain . . . . . . "

11/11/2010 8:18:49 AM

^^
Exactly. Are we talking about libertarianism or anarchy?

Why is there a whole page talking about slavery?

11/11/2010 8:56:56 AM

^^ha

11/11/2010 9:12:48 AM

Quote :

"can be purchased for as little as $6, or traded for a chicken or sack of grain . . . . . ."

Quote :

"In 2000, Chad's nominal GDP was estimated at just over $1.43 billion with per capita income at approximately $188."

In a country where the per-capita income is 52 cents a day, $6 is a lot when most of the population earns far less than the average (subsistence farmers, the most common occupation, have no monetary income at all). Also, I believe the reporter that found the gun for $6 didn't try firing it. But I do concede that the Government of the Soviet Union made assault rifles much cheaper in some places than they otherwise would be.

It is a common mistake for people to say things are cheap in Mexico, when the fact is they are not cheap for Mexicans who have far lower income prospects than Americans.

[Edited on November 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/11/2010 10:00:54 AM

I understand the people are poor, but I'd still say that small arms are obtainable for a large percentage of Africans.

11/11/2010 10:33:34 AM

They are clearly accessible for many. But there was a reason the vast majority of the dead in Rwanda were killed with sharp objects and clubs. My guess, based upon no research, is that guns are cheap because they become worthless given the high cost of ammunition. While the Soviet Union probably flooded Africa with both guns and ammunition, the ammunition gets used up and must be replaced with imports which must be paid for with hard currency.

11/11/2010 2:14:57 PM

Quote :

"Wow. wrong on both accounts."

Actually, right on both accounts. I can link you to a similar article, but I figure it's not neccesary, and percent GDP spent on government does not mean more stable government, but even besides that, they do not spend the same percentage of GDP, something else you seem to completely made up, they're spread throughout the spectrum, some a lot, some not so much, and some in the middle.

Quote :

"Your defense of Government is that nothing can defend us from Government?"

Other governments, which would inevitably happen. Your argument was that governments have caused bad things, my response is that governments have stopped bad things.

Quote :

"They are clearly accessible for many."

Quite a backpedal from just two posts earlier where you suggested I was outright wrong for saying guns were accessible.

Quote :

"My guess, based upon no research, is that guns are cheap because they become worthless given the high cost of ammunition. While the Soviet Union probably flooded Africa with both guns and ammunition, the ammunition gets used up and must be replaced with imports which must be paid for with hard currency."

What a lovely display of mental gymnastics you are able to play. Most of the guns that come into africa come from israel and china.

11/11/2010 5:41:24 PM

Quote :

"Most of the guns that come into africa come from israel and china."

I was operating based upon what was said in TerdFerguson's article. If you disagree, take it up with them. But I guarantee Israel and China are not selling guns to Africans at $6 a pop. So, either guns are fresh imports and therefore expensive, which makes me originally right, or they are not, which makes you wrong now. Either way, I get to declare internet forum victory.

Quote :

"Other governments, which would inevitably happen. Your argument was that governments have caused bad things, my response is that governments have stopped bad things."

So you agree with us. Government is so terrible that it should only ever be tolerated in order to defend us from the evils of Government.

Quote :

"they're spread throughout the spectrum, some a lot, some not so much, and some in the middle."

So according to you, some high crime areas have a lot of government, some not so much, and some in the middle? Almost as if government is not at all correlated with crime, making your statement earlier that "crime is lower in places with more government" wrong. It is almost as if crime is better correlated with something other than "more government", perhaps culture?

11/11/2010 7:22:49 PM

Quote :

"So you agree with us. Government is so terrible that it should only ever be tolerated in order to defend us from the evils of Government."

Every government requires people to function. People will always attempt to get more for themselves, if they can get away with it. As such, government will expand no matter how well its constitution is designed. There are three ways to escape that cycle, that I can think of: perpetual revolution, anarchy, or an educated population. If an ideal libertarian world is ever realized, I imagine it will be all three at the same time.

11/11/2010 7:34:58 PM

Quote :

"If you disagree, take it up with them. But I guarantee Israel and China are not selling guns to Africans at $6 a pop. So, either guns are fresh imports and therefore expensive, which makes me originally right, or they are not, which makes you wrong now."

Good job excluding the middle, you are getting kind of desperate.

Quote :

"Government is so terrible that it should only ever be tolerated in order to defend us from the evils of Government."

I did not in any way indicate it was the only reason for having a government, it's simply one of many, you're two for two on fallacies already.

Quote :

"some high crime areas have a lot of government, some not so much, and some in the middle?"

Are you having trouble reading? I stated that they spend varying percentages of GDP on their government (which is completely irrelevant). They all do not have a stable government.

11/11/2010 7:35:25 PM

Haven't been on here in a while but I think there's definitely a trend toward more people starting to understand and respect individual rights. It's good to see. In the future I think people will look back at our current societies and question how we could support the things we support much the same as we look back at other egregious rights violations that were commonly supported in other points in history. Unfortunately many people (Kris is an obvious example) still believe that systematic violence is the best way to structure a society.

Also, the problem isn't "government", per se, but the monopolistic governments we have today. I am always baffled by people who are terrified of any one corporation having too much power, yet fully endorse a complete monopoly of violence, defense, and law.

11/15/2010 12:18:24 AM

Where did Kris support systematic violence?

And can you really consider something a monopoly if you regularly vote on it's members?

11/15/2010 12:29:14 AM

wolves and sheep voting on dinner?

11/15/2010 1:35:53 AM

Quote :

"Where did Kris support systematic violence?"

Everywhere that he talks about the greatness of government or advocates more socialism. Not to mention when he says that he doesn't care about individual liberty, because if we let people make their own decisions they'll just screw it up, so obviously people who know better should run their lives for them.

So, I'm going to guess that's most of his posts?

Quote :

"And can you really consider something a monopoly if you regularly vote on it's members?"

Do we have the option of using a different organization for the services they provide? No? Then of course it's a monopoly. And even worse than a corporate monopoly, this one compels support through violence. At least with a corporate monopoly you could choose to stop buying the product altogether without being locked away or shot.

11/15/2010 9:41:58 AM

Quote :

"still believe that systematic violence is the best way to structure a society"

It's a fact of reality. You can get rid of the government and violence will still rule your society, you're a fool if you think otherwise.

Quote :

"yet fully endorse a complete monopoly of violence, defense, and law."

There's a country directly to our south that has the same kind of competition you are asking for. It's government does not have a monopoly on violence, many groups are actively competing for that title, and it's been leaving suffering, death, and ruin in it's wake.

Quote :

"wolves and sheep voting on dinner?"

Better than the wolves telling you what will be for dinner. I'm not a huge fan of democracy, but it's better than nothing.

Quote :

"Do we have the option of using a different organization for the services they provide? No? Then of course it's a monopoly. And even worse than a corporate monopoly, this one compels support through violence. At least with a corporate monopoly you could choose to stop buying the product altogether without being locked away or shot."

The American founding fathers would disagree with you. That's because they didn't like to whine about thier helplessness and constantly play the victim as you liberitarians do. You have the right of revolution. You will always have a choice.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM. Reason : ]

11/15/2010 10:12:31 AM

We are only really able to consider a completely libertarian model because the opposite has made us such a stable country and already built our infrastructure

11/15/2010 11:09:30 AM

Quote :

"It's a fact of reality. You can get rid of the government and violence will still rule your society, you're a fool if you think otherwise."

Will violence always exist in society? Of course. Will sanctioned institutionalized violence always be supported? I think as society evolves it will no longer be tolerated. Fortunately for us all not everyone is as closed-minded as you are.

Quote :

"You have the right of revolution. You will always have a choice."

Revolution starts by shifting the mindset of the population. It is not something one person does on their own. Slavery was abolished because society evolved to a point where they could see that it was wrong to violate individual rights in that way. Once people accept that our current system is outdated and similarly immoral, change will happen.

Quote :

"We are only really able to consider a completely libertarian model because the opposite has made us such a stable country and already built our infrastructure"

The opposite? The opposite of libertarianism I guess would mean a dictatorial communist system with absolutely no regard for individual rights (including human life). The US historically has been much closer to libertarian ideals than the opposite of those ideals. However, society will continue to evolve as it has throughout history. It really is just a question of which direction is best for us to move in?

11/15/2010 11:45:22 AM

Quote :

"Will violence always exist in society? Of course. Will sanctioned institutionalized violence always be supported? I think as society evolves it will no longer be tolerated. Fortunately for us all not everyone is as closed-minded as you are."

I'm wondering (and I imagine Kris is as well) is why you think that plain old violence is somehow preferred to sanctioned institutionalized violence. What's the difference? If the argument is that gov't creates violence, but violence would be there anyway, what is the argument again? We might as well just streamline the process so I can shoot people to take their shit unless they have enough guns to stop me?

11/15/2010 12:31:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm wondering (and I imagine Kris is as well) is why you think that plain old violence is somehow preferred to sanctioned institutionalized violence. What's the difference?"

The difference is simply the fact that one is sanctioned. Neither is preferable, and neither should be tolerated. Society does not tolerate "plain old violence", yet institutionalized violence is widely supported. I'm not pushing for one type of violence over another, I'm just suggesting that people should reject all types of violence.

11/15/2010 12:51:51 PM

Quote :

"Once people accept that our current system is outdated and similarly immoral, change will happen."

You were saying you had no option, I was pointing out that you have options.

Quote :

"The US historically has been much closer to libertarian ideals than the opposite of those ideals. However, society will continue to evolve as it has throughout history."

Perhaps in the beginning, but it has progressed, as all governments have, from chaos to order. There is no reason to think that chaos will suddenly win out over order, which has been dominating the worldwide field of economic and political systems.

Quote :

"I'm wondering (and I imagine Kris is as well) is why you think that plain old violence is somehow preferred to sanctioned institutionalized violence."

That's a good way of phrasing a question I would like to hear him answer. From arguing with him previously I believe his reasoning is to focus on the "monopoly on violence" and to imply that we don't have any control over it, ignoring that the government now can't do much of anything without a response from it's citizens.

11/15/2010 12:58:49 PM

Quote :

"The difference is simply the fact that one is sanctioned. Neither is preferable, and neither should be tolerated. Society does not tolerate "plain old violence", yet institutionalized violence is widely supported. I'm not pushing for one type of violence over another, I'm just suggesting that people should reject all types of violence."

But you've admitted yourself that it will exist independent of government's involvement. The question then becomes, in terms of the quantity and severity of violence, is the government helping or hurting?

I'd suggest that it helps. I'm not as worried about someone killing me to take my wife and my things because we have laws and the police (the institutionalized violence). So is the fact that we receive a lower severity of violence when we tolerate it and a higher amount when we do not suggest that the mere ideal of not tolerating institutionalized violence is worth it?

11/15/2010 1:28:59 PM

Quote :

"Once people accept that our current system is outdated and similarly immoral, change will happen."

how can we change it if we don't have options? you said that not having options was a condition of a monopoly and that the government was a monopoly.

11/15/2010 2:29:59 PM

Quote :

"But you've admitted yourself that it will exist independent of government's involvement. The question then becomes, in terms of the quantity and severity of violence, is the government helping or hurting? I'd suggest that it helps. I'm not as worried about someone killing me to take my wife and my things because we have laws and the police (the institutionalized violence). So is the fact that we receive a lower severity of violence when we tolerate it and a higher amount when we do not suggest that the mere ideal of not tolerating institutionalized violence is worth it?"

Yes, random acts of violence will always exist. This is true with or without government. However, this is a small fraction of the total violence against individuals today. Government exists solely through the use of violence, and is the largest organization ever seen. The amount of violence that individuals commit against other individuals is miniscule in comparison to violence committed by the state, and this is true for all of history.

Also, I never said there should be no laws or police. The services just should not be forced on anyone, and should be open to competition.

The bottom line is that if people stopped supporting violence against individuals, the majority of it would disappear. You are attempting to justify violence against individuals by saying that it is the only way that our society can function. Slavery was justified in the same ways just before it was finally abolished. But it is still immoral. The ends do not justify the means. Society adjusted to life after slavery and is better off for it. If people stood up for each other and no longer tolerated violence against individuals, the small instances when violence does pop up would be dealt with quickly and effectively.

Quote :

"how can we change it if we don't have options? you said that not having options was a condition of a monopoly and that the government was a monopoly."

Are you trolling or is this a serious response? The lack of options refers to individuals, not society as a whole. Society always has the option to do whatever it wants if enough people join together for a common purpose. However, when that common purpose includes controlling others using violent force or the threat thereof, then the purpose is immoral and should be fought against.

11/15/2010 3:16:00 PM

Quote :

"Yes, random acts of violence will always exist. This is true with or without government. However, this is a small fraction of the total violence against individuals today. Government exists solely through the use of violence, and is the largest organization ever seen. The amount of violence that individuals commit against other individuals is miniscule in comparison to violence committed by the state, and this is true for all of history."

Just so we're clear here, is it your claim that in any given year in the United States, more violent crimes were committed by law enforcement officers on citizens than citizens on other citizens? I think you'd have to have an extremely warped view of violence to make that work. Are you considering being detained an act of violence? Is being pulled over for a traffic stop violent?

Or are you lumping in the military and just saying in general "the state" executes more violence than the individuals of that state. I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. Maybe if you had an army and other armies were threatening you we could see how an individual does by comparison to the state.

Quote :

"The bottom line is that if people stopped supporting violence against individuals, the majority of it would disappear. You are attempting to justify violence against individuals by saying that it is the only way that our society can function. Slavery was justified in the same ways just before it was finally abolished. But it is still immoral. The ends do not justify the means. Society adjusted to life after slavery and is better off for it. If people stood up for each other and no longer tolerated violence against individuals, the small instances when violence does pop up would be dealt with quickly and effectively."

It's the prisoner's dilemma, pure and simple. Everyone has to stop supporting violence at the same time for this to work.

Before I respond to the rest of your post, I'd like you to clarify what "violence against individuals" means exactly. Can you give some examples of the least extreme forms of "violence against individuals" perpetrated by the state that are immoral?

11/15/2010 3:26:25 PM

The state is responsible for a good deal of violence, but usually it doesn't have to take things to that extreme. The threat of violence is just as effective, if not more effective, than actual violence. If you refuse to pay your taxes, or abide by the legislatures codified morality, or pick up arms and fight when the government requests, you will be put in prison. We all know what happens if you refuse.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 3:57 PM. Reason : ]

11/15/2010 3:55:00 PM

Undeinably. My claim never was that the state doesn't perpetrate violence. Otherwise it wouldn't work, obviously.

The question is why anyone would think private security would work for the general population of the United States of America. How could you guarantee consistency?

11/15/2010 4:03:48 PM

Quote :

"The state is responsible for a good deal of violence, but usually it doesn't have to take things to that extreme. The threat of violence is just as effective, if not more effective, than actual violence."

It's this threat of violence that keeps so many more injustices from happening, thus giving us the stable, safe, orderly world everyone but you has come to love.

11/15/2010 4:26:53 PM

Quote :

"The question is why anyone would think private security would work for the general population of the United States of America. How could you guarantee consistency?"

The idea is that justice would be consumer driven. That is, when you could demonstrate to a private defense firm that your rights had been infringed upon, they would do whatever it takes to make you whole. I don't know what would keep private defense firms from making wrong-headed laws, though. Couldn't religious fundamentalists make their own defense firms, and put people in jail for making porn? Would they pay to have that done? Probably. A bill of rights seems necessary to me.

Quote :

"It's this threat of violence that keeps so many more injustices from happening, thus giving us the stable, safe, orderly world everyone but you has come to love."

Indeed, that threat is a very effective deterrent for crimes that we all consider to be harmful. Murder, theft, arson, fraud - these are all crimes that very clearly harm another person or their property. The problem is that our current set of laws creates a whole other slew of injustices that would not be there otherwise. Drug laws, for instance, create a massive underground black market, and innocent people get hurt in the process. Prostitution laws put people in jail for providing a service for an agreed upon price. Immigration laws put people in jail or forcefully moves them to another location because they crossed an arbitrary line without permission.

[Edited on November 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/15/2010 5:21:01 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that our current set of laws creates a whole other slew of injustices that would not be there otherwise. Drug laws, for instance, create a massive underground black market, and innocent people get hurt in the process. Prostitution laws put people in jail for providing a service for an agreed upon price. Immigration laws put people in jail or forcefully moves them to another location because they crossed an arbitrary line without permission."

Not having drugs, prostitution, and immigration without forms seems like a small price to pay to prevent crimes like murder, theft, and rape, but if those issues are that important, why not focus on changing those laws rather than scrapping the whole system? It seems that having an organized system of violence rather than a chaotic one is not only valuable, but necessary for the continued growth of mankind.

11/15/2010 6:30:57 PM

That's my goal. I don't want to scrap the whole system, I just want to do away with unjust laws. At least for now.

11/15/2010 6:37:01 PM

You just randomly picked three that were the least crazy and least discussed on this board?

11/15/2010 6:40:17 PM

I was giving examples of injustices that result from our set of laws.

11/15/2010 9:35:47 PM

Quote :

"Before I respond to the rest of your post, I'd like you to clarify what "violence against individuals" means exactly. Can you give some examples of the least extreme forms of "violence against individuals" perpetrated by the state that are immoral?"

A more accurate term than "violence" in this discussion would probably be "aggression", because I would include the threat of violence against peaceful people. Basically in talking about violence perpetrated by the state, I mean any use of aggressive physical force or threat of force in order to compel an individual to comply against their will. For instance, if I point a gun at you and tell you to give me some money, that would count. Even if I don't actually shoot you. However, force used in defense of one's life or property would not be aggression.

Every action that the state takes is backed by violence. Would people pay taxes if they were not threatened with violence? Every law is enforced by violence, even those arbitrary laws in which no harm was done to any other person or property. There is nothing that the state can do that is not dependent on violence, because no part of it is voluntary.

Quote :

"Or are you lumping in the military and just saying in general "the state" executes more violence than the individuals of that state. I'm not sure this is a fair comparison. Maybe if you had an army and other armies were threatening you we could see how an individual does by comparison to the state."

Why would the military not count toward violence committed by the state? Who else would be responsible for the violence of the military?

Quote :

"It's the prisoner's dilemma, pure and simple. Everyone has to stop supporting violence at the same time for this to work."

Not really. The less people support violence, the less it will be tolerated. It doesn't have to disappear overnight to move in that direction.

Quote :

"The question is why anyone would think private security would work for the general population of the United States of America. How could you guarantee consistency?"

How could one massive monopolistic government, existing solely through the use of force and with no accountability, possibly be less of a threat than an infinite number of smaller "governments" that rely on voluntary funding and thereby are held in check by the people they serve as well as the other "governments" around them? I'd imagine you would completely reject this idea were we talking about any other industry.

11/17/2010 9:42:47 AM

Quote :

"Every action that the state takes is backed by violence."

So the state sells stamps through violence?

Quote :

"The less people support violence, the less it will be tolerated. It doesn't have to disappear overnight to move in that direction."

Without the government the less violence that others use, the more incentive there is for me to use it.

Quote :

"How could one massive monopolistic government, existing solely through the use of force and with no accountability"

Our government does have some level of accountability to its citizens. Your idea of smaller "governments" however would not have any accountability, and would have nothing stopping them from just taking whatever they want.

11/17/2010 10:50:00 AM

^^Ahhh, now your statement make sense. You consider the existence of government and the enforcement of laws a constant infinite act of violence.

Quote :

" So the state sells stamps through violence?"

No, it's when you decide to not pay for the stamps and they put you in jail against your will.


[Edited on November 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2010 10:50:21 AM

Quote :

"So the state sells stamps through violence?"

Maintaining a monopoly on the selling of stamps certainly requires violence. If people had another alternative, would they use the governments' service? Possibly, but currently if you try to compete by selling your own stamps, you are threatened.

Quote :

"Our government does have some level of accountability to its citizens. Your idea of smaller "governments" however would not have any accountability, and would have nothing stopping them from just taking whatever they want."

Our government can do whatever it wants with little regard for its citizens. The only thing that really keeps them in check is the possibility of violent revolt, which becomes more and more difficult as their power grows. So how exactly are they held accountable, and why would a smaller, voluntary government not have this accountability, plus more?

Quote :

"Ahhh, now your statement make sense. You consider the existence of government and the enforcement of laws a constant infinite act of violence."

Because it is violence. I explained how it is and you have not refuted it.

11/17/2010 11:33:49 AM

Quote :

"Maintaining a monopoly on the selling of stamps certainly requires violence. If people had another alternative, would they use the governments' service? Possibly, but currently if you try to compete by selling your own stamps, you are threatened."

Ok then, bonds.

Quote :

"Our government can do whatever it wants with little regard for its citizens."

Tell that to the former democratically controlled congress.

11/17/2010 11:47:56 AM

Quote :

"Tell that to the former democratically controlled congress."

Oh yeah, we get to vote. That will show them.

You really think voting is accountability? So if somebody screws everyone over worse than everyone else, in a few years he might lose his position? Most likely everything he enacted will remain, he still gets paid (from money that we are forced to pay him), and someone else will come in to screw everyone over. Wow, what accountability.

The current system is pathetic, and it's equally pathetic that you're so defensive of it that you can't admit it.

11/17/2010 12:02:39 PM

Quote :

"Because it is violence. I explained how it is and you have not refuted it."

No one here is saying that it is not violence. What we're saying is we like institutionalized threat of violence to enforce just laws more than anarchy.

11/17/2010 12:17:57 PM

Quote :

"Maintaining a monopoly on the selling of stamps certainly requires violence. If people had another alternative, would they use the governments' service? Possibly, but currently if you try to compete by selling your own stamps, you are threatened."

So messenger services, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. don't exist?

Or are you saying that it is bullshit that I cannot create and sell stamps for you to use to send items through the USPS?

As for another thing about selling stamps, I just bought some stamps at Harris Teeter. They managed to sell them to me without the government bashing in the door and arresting anyone.

11/17/2010 12:43:37 PM

Quote :

"No one here is saying that it is not violence. What we're saying is we like institutionalized threat of violence to enforce just laws more than anarchy."

Well, when you say

Quote :

"Ahhh, now your statement make sense. You consider the existence of government and the enforcement of laws a constant infinite act of violence."

it implies that you disagree.

The thing is, there is no reason that just laws cannot be enforced without resorting to institutionalized violence against innocent people. It is absurd that an organization must force protection on us. The entire concept is contradictory.

Quote :

"So messenger services, UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc. don't exist? "

These services do not deliver first class mail. Besides, the entire US postal service is running at a deficit and would likely be out of business already were it not supported by government money (taken by force). If it did not have a legal monopoly, and had to make a profit like private business, it would not be able to compete.

11/17/2010 1:13:09 PM

Quote :

"The thing is, there is no reason that just laws cannot be enforced without resorting to institutionalized violence against innocent people."

The thing you haven't explained is why institutionalized violence is worse than regular violence except to say that "all violence is bad" which is irrelevant to which is worse.

11/17/2010 2:27:52 PM

Quote :

"The thing you haven't explained is why institutionalized violence is worse than regular violence except to say that "all violence is bad" which is irrelevant to which is worse."

It's all violence. Why would either be worse than the other? If you're murdered by the government or by some random dude on the street, does it matter to you? Aggressive violence is wrong no matter who it is committing it. I don't understand why you think one would be preferable over the other.

11/17/2010 2:43:01 PM

It is preferable because it prevents an even more violent, less stable existence. See Northern Mexico or Somalia. If you remove the biggest stick, you'll just end up with smaller sticks.

Quote :

"The thing is, there is no reason that just laws cannot be enforced without resorting to institutionalized violence against innocent people. It is absurd that an organization must force protection on us. The entire concept is contradictory."

I welcome the alternative suggestion. We know what exists and works. What are you suggesting that will work better? How do you enforce laws without the threat of violence?

Quote :

"It's all violence. Why would either be worse than the other? If you're murdered by the government or by some random dude on the street, does it matter to you? Aggressive violence is wrong no matter who it is committing it. I don't understand why you think one would be preferable over the other."

You're diluting your message. We're not the ones saying that non-government is preferable to government. You are.

11/17/2010 2:53:45 PM

Quote :

"These services do not deliver first class mail. Besides, the entire US postal service is running at a deficit and would likely be out of business already were it not supported by government money (taken by force). If it did not have a legal monopoly, and had to make a profit like private business, it would not be able to compete."

Is there really that marked of a difference between first class mail and an overnight document from FedEx, or UPS that arrives long before the USPS would even deliver a piece of first class mail, or between first class mail and a messenger service that will get me my document within the hour?

You are grasping at straws when you complain that only the USPS can do first class mail, when other alternatives exist. Furthermore, "Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

read your fucking constitution.

11/17/2010 3:23:06 PM

I don't think the Constitution is valid in his eyes because it requires the threat of force to enforce.

11/17/2010 3:49:37 PM

There is a difference between setting up post offices, such as places where none would otherwise exist, and enforcing a monopoly in uban areas where first class service would exist otherwise. It would be well within the constitution for privatization of the system with rural areas served through explicit subsidy.

11/17/2010 3:55:40 PM