Trying to eliminate the threadjack of the SC credibility watch thread to continue the conversation here.

To be honest, I don't disagree with the fact that being born in a country involuntarily makes you under their control. Control which is maintained through force. These aren't arguable points. The arguable point is that the protection given to us is worth the cost and that actual freedom doesn't really exist.

If you weren't controlled by the government, you'd just be controlled by someone with more guns than you.

Another thing I'd like to address:

Quote :

"It does a poor job at protecting those sitting in jail for victimless crimes."

By which I'm assuming he means drug convictions.
Tell me how victimless drug crimes are after taking a look at the violence and oppression in South America, northern Mexico and Afghanistan as a result of American demand for drugs.

I actually agree that a person should be able to put whatever they want in their bodies. But if people have to die to get you your fix then it's not moral and not worth it. It would be amazing if the gov't grew the weed or opium and regulated it all, but the real world doesn't work that way currently.

Also

Quote :

"Millions have died by the hand of the U.S. military."

And how many people have been saved by the U.S. military's actions? How many people who had no chance of living free or educated lives were protected and given a chance by our intervention? We're not innocent of blood by any stretch of the imagination but to paint every U.S. military action as pointless killing is laughable.

1/26/2011 1:34:29 AM

Im not sure if im interpreting this correctly because i generally agree with your posts....

But please tell me you arent saying using drugs isn't victimless because people are dying trying to supply you with drugs?

Those crimes are only happening because the US govt has created a black market for drugs.

If drugs werent illegal the entire business model would change and violence would give way to more efficient means of production and distribution.

If anything, the US govt is the cause of such violence.

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 1:51 AM. Reason : edit]

1/26/2011 1:50:53 AM

I'd guess that's a fair point but I'd like to explore it a bit further. Would legalizing drugs in America eliminate the demand for drugs from other countries? I'm not certain of that.

Would legalizing drugs in the U.S. change the methods by which drug cartels operate? Aside from having easier avenues to export into the U.S? I see no reason to think they would become legitimate non-violent organizations. If we could produce enough drugs that we wouldn't need to import them, sure, that would do a lot of damage, but isn't that in itself a concession that U.S. demand is the problem?

1/26/2011 8:51:45 AM

oh wait, i forgot you are a troll

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 9:18 AM. Reason : trolly troll troll]

1/26/2011 8:55:51 AM

Quote :

"And how many people have been saved by the U.S. military's actions? How many people who had no chance of living free or educated lives were protected and given a chance by our intervention? We're not innocent of blood by any stretch of the imagination but to paint every U.S. military action as pointless killing is laughable."

Well said.

1/26/2011 9:26:44 AM

The only thing we can control is our demand for drugs from forgeign countries. If drugs were legalized alot of the production would move inside US borders and most demand would be filled by internal manufacturers. That might cause less violence in other countries or it might cause more violence due to poverty caused by the loss of export revenue.

But thats not our problem. The only thing we can do is control what happens inside our borders. The same arguments were made for prohibition and they're also made for gun control, but both were and are massive failures.

If you want to look at why this stuff exists, follow the money. Drug offenders fill up prisons which is big $$$. Anti-drug policy is a very simple appeal to the hysteria of the masses which is big $$$ for politicians. It also means the fed can demonize drug offenders without having to look at why they started doing drugs in the first place and without helping them fix their lives. That means more power and $$$ for the fed.

Drug policy in the US is all about using authoritarianism to line the pockets of private contractors. Just like the medicare, the military, and homeland security.

1/26/2011 9:40:24 AM

Canabis is the only drug that merits legalization, and it can most definitely be produced locally dirt cheap. The difficulty of growing it without law enforcement noticing is the only reason why it gets smuggled from other, less vigilant nations.

^"Gun control is a massive failure"....self-eviden truth right?

1/26/2011 10:16:23 AM

Quote :

"If you weren't controlled by the government, you'd just be controlled by someone with more guns than you."

No, not necessarily. I hit on this in the other thread, but as almost all anarchists believe, "anarchy" is utopia. Perfect equality is only possible through perfect liberty. However, unless the people can maintain a healthy respect for liberty, government will always arise out of anarchy. Private defense companies could easily do the job that law enforcement attempts to do now. The only difference is that no one would pay to a private defense company to lock up a bunch of pot smokers.

Quote :

"By which I'm assuming he means drug convictions. Tell me how victimless drug crimes are after taking a look at the violence and oppression in South America, northern Mexico and Afghanistan as a result of American demand for drugs."

You conveniently (and, more than likely, intentionally) picked this quote, and not the one where I talk about the violence that is a direct result of prohibition and the black market. The only reason we see that kind of drug-related violence in Central and South America is because there's a demand in the United States/Canada for drugs, but it's much harder to cultivate those drugs here without getting caught, whereas in Columbia, you can get away with making cocaine. Legalize all drugs (allowing people to fuck up their lives if they choose to do so), and the violence associated with drug smuggling disappears virtually overnight.

Following up on your next point, which is connected to my explanation above, it's not necessary for innocent people to die in order for people to get their drugs. Your point is, essentially, "it's illegal, so people get killed in the process, therefore, let's keep the laws as they are."

Quote :

"And how many people have been saved by the U.S. military's actions? How many people who had no chance of living free or educated lives were protected and given a chance by our intervention? We're not innocent of blood by any stretch of the imagination but to paint every U.S. military action as pointless killing is laughable."

I don't know, how many people have been saved? How many could have been saved if we, instead, pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy? We "liberated" the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and installed new, (more) corrupt versions of Democracy, where bribery was the norm. Hundreds of thousands of people got killed in the process.

The fact is, we've intervened all over the world, always in the name of humanitarianism. The consequences are far reaching, though. We've created an entire generation of terrorists that hate us, and rightfully so, from their perspective. We've engaged in a perpetual, worldwide peace keeping mission that is not financially viable in the long term, which means when it does come falling down, the people we were supposedly helping will be even worse off than before.

Quote :

"Canabis is the only drug that merits legalization, and it can most definitely be produced locally dirt cheap. The difficulty of growing it without law enforcement noticing is the only reason why it gets smuggled from other, less vigilant nations."

I've never heard of anyone getting weed from other countries, except maybe Canada. The vast majority is grown, sold, and consumed within the United States.

All drugs should be legal. It's the only humanitarian way to go about things. Here's an excellent piece on Meth from a few days ago: http://mises.org/daily/4971. Some of these horrible drugs that ruin lives would never be used or made in a world where prohibition was ended.

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2011 12:32:07 PM

Quote :

"No, not necessarily. I hit on this in the other thread, but as almost all anarchists believe, "anarchy" is utopia. Perfect equality is only possible through perfect liberty. However, unless the people can maintain a healthy respect for liberty, government will always arise out of anarchy. Private defense companies could easily do the job that law enforcement attempts to do now. The only difference is that no one would pay to a private defense company to lock up a bunch of pot smokers."

But then who would protect us from the private defense companies?

Quote :

"The only reason we see that kind of drug-related violence in Central and South America is because there's a demand in the United States/Canada for drugs, but it's much harder to cultivate those drugs here without getting caught, whereas in Columbia, you can get away with making cocaine. Legalize all drugs (allowing people to fuck up their lives if they choose to do so), and the violence associated with drug smuggling disappears virtually overnight."

It does? The control of the drug supply from South America suddenly becomes non-violent because....?

You said it yourself, it's the demand that's the problem. All of this could conceivably be fixed by (which I have already admitted) producing the entirety of America's demand internally. Is that possible? Or are you relying on economics to prove that all of the heavy drug users will magically switch to marijuana if it was legalized? And marijuana will be the only drug ever produced?

Quote :

"I don't know, how many people have been saved? How many could have been saved if we, instead, pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy? We "liberated" the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and installed new, (more) corrupt versions of Democracy, where bribery was the norm. Hundreds of thousands of people got killed in the process. "

Western Europe comes to mind. Japan and southeast Asia. Korea. You think Europe would have been better off as the Third Reich?

Quote :

"We've engaged in a perpetual, worldwide peace keeping mission that is not financially viable in the long term, which means when it does come falling down, the people we were supposedly helping will be even worse off than before."

How does this logically follow? How do you know they "will be even worse off than before?" Do you honestly feel the people of Iraq are worse off now than being ruled by Saddam? You confuse me sometimes. Our government is a tyranny, but when we take down an actual tyrant, you cry foul.

1/26/2011 1:10:34 PM

Quote :

"I've never heard of anyone getting weed from other countries, except maybe Canada. The vast majority is grown, sold, and consumed within the United States."

as a point of fact, millions of pounds of marijuana are seized at our borders. and that's just what they find, so it would follow that the amount actually entering is probably higher. and the majority comes from south of us, not the north (columbia, mexico, jamaica, belize, etc...).

1/26/2011 1:20:18 PM

Quote :

"We "liberated" the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and installed new, (more) corrupt versions of Democracy, where bribery was the norm."

That people so often say idiotic shit like this, especially about Iraq, but even about Afghanistan, really solidifies my view that most people have absolutely no clue what they're talking about with respect to our involvement there - but that of course does not keep them from opining away as if they did.

[Edited on January 26, 2011 at 1:23 PM. Reason : ]

1/26/2011 1:20:59 PM

Quote :

"Would legalizing drugs in the U.S. change the methods by which drug cartels operate? Aside from having easier avenues to export into the U.S? I see no reason to think they would become legitimate non-violent organizations. If we could produce enough drugs that we wouldn't need to import them, sure, that would do a lot of damage, but isn't that in itself a concession that U.S. demand is the problem?"

Likely they wouldn't go away, but at least some of them would go out of business, and the others would have to seek other things. While the problems we created with prohibition never went away completely, after alcohol was legalized again, it certainly cut down on the violence in the alcohol trade. You don't exactly here of turf wars over budweiser distribution these days. But these cartels operate the way they do in large part because the black market for their product exists, and we keep upping the stakes higher and higher meaning theres more money to be made.

Quote :

""Gun control is a massive failure"....self-eviden truth right?"

Self evident to anyone who's honest with themselves, yes.

1/26/2011 1:48:50 PM

^ I don't really have a position on the success of gun control, but I know that it's failure is not a given fact like the failure of Prohibition.

1/26/2011 2:53:30 PM

cont. from other thread

Quote :

"I would say that if you have worked that land, and/or obtained that land through legitimate means from someone that did, you own it."

So this means that if you "use something" or buy it legally (from someone who may or may not have owned it), you own it? The first is quite obviously wrong, when I steal something, it doesn't become mine just because I use it. The second is quite obvious as well, you don't necessarily own something just because you bought it. Try as you might, you will not be able to justify property rights without ambiguity and logical inconsistence.

Quote :

"The fact is, though, that if a guy shows up to your house with a gun, and there doesn't happen to be a cop right in front of your house, you're gonna get robbed. Unless you also have a gun, in which case, you might have a chance."

Hopefully I will either have the safeguards to prevent him from getting inside until the police come, or I will peacefully allow him to rob me, in both situations I stand a far lesser chance to be killed than getting in a shootout with him.

Quote :

"However, unless the people can maintain a healthy respect for liberty, government will always arise out of anarchy."

As much as you are about "human nature", it would seem that enforcing one's will upon others and socialization are far more prevalent in human societies than even greed.

Quote :

"The only difference is that no one would pay to a private defense company to lock up a bunch of pot smokers."

Why wouldn't they? Most people now do not support legalization of pot, who is to say that plenty of organizations would take it into their own hands?

Quote :

"The only reason we see that kind of drug-related violence in Central and South America is because there's a demand in the United States/Canada for drugs, but it's much harder to cultivate those drugs here without getting caught, whereas in Columbia, you can get away with making cocaine. Legalize all drugs (allowing people to fuck up their lives if they choose to do so), and the violence associated with drug smuggling disappears virtually overnight."

Diamonds have been legal here in the US, yet the violence related to them still occurred in africa. I would suggest that crime, corruption, and violence would be more as a result of the large swift income of money rather than the laws in a foreign country.

1/26/2011 3:56:35 PM

Quote :

"So this means that if you "use something" or buy it legally (from someone who may or may not have owned it), you own it? The first is quite obviously wrong, when I steal something, it doesn't become mine just because I use it."

At least in the first case, one of the original concepts of land ownership came from use. If you didn't use the land, you didn't own it. In a way, we still have this in the form of adverse possession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession)

1/26/2011 7:20:28 PM

Quote :

"But then who would protect us from the private defense companies?"

Entire books have been written on this, but I'll try to provide the short version. Under anarcho-capitalism, private defense, as well as private courts, would be paid for through private insurance. The goal of this theoretical PDA (private defense agency) is going to be a combination of cost minimization, while also fulfilling their obligation to the insurance company, which to apprehend (or intervene upon) the aggressive criminal.

In anarchy, you'd have multiple PDAs. As such, they're all going to be competing to minimize costs. Thus, the nature of all these PDAs will be towards defensive actions. The PDA that attempts to apprehend and incarcerate drug users or prostitutes will quickly go under, as they'll be unable to compete, especially since they themselves will have committed an aggressive act, and will then come under attack from every other competing PDA. It's simply not cost effective to go after people that have not infringed upon others rights - the only reason the state can do it is because they have a monopoly on force, and they have an unlimited pit of resources from which to draw from - taxes and inflation.

Quote :

"It does? The control of the drug supply from South America suddenly becomes non-violent because....?"

If prohibition is ended, legitimate companies can manufacture/grow/cultivate drugs. There's no need to smuggle them at that point, they can be shipped in legally. Why aren't there violent corn cartels? Motherboard cartels? Chocolate cartels? The answer is obvious: there's very little (if any) black market activity there. When something is made to be contraband, anyone trading it becomes a criminal, which tends to attract a certain kind of unsavory individual.

Quote :

"You said it yourself, it's the demand that's the problem. All of this could conceivably be fixed by (which I have already admitted) producing the entirety of America's demand internally. Is that possible? Or are you relying on economics to prove that all of the heavy drug users will magically switch to marijuana if it was legalized? And marijuana will be the only drug ever produced?"

No, people will always seek stimulants, which marijuana, of course, is not. The demand isn't the problem, per se. The actual prohibition is the problem. Demand would be satisfied internally, at least to a greater degree, if drugs were legal, sure, but like all products made now, I'm sure some would come from international sources. See previous post.

Quote :

"Western Europe comes to mind. Japan and southeast Asia. Korea. You think Europe would have been better off as the Third Reich?"

You're saying we saved the people living in those countries at the time? I'm not all convinced by that. The intense hostility between North and South Korea is, at least part, due to our police action. We unnecessarily killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese, and based on my research, I don't think it was actually necessary. The Third Reich never would have or could have taken a permanent hold of the region - it would have seen an economic demise first. Though, for what it's worth, Hitler's rise was only made possible by pursuing the same economic policies that we are currently pursuing in the United States.

Quote :

"How does this logically follow? How do you know they "will be even worse off than before?" Do you honestly feel the people of Iraq are worse off now than being ruled by Saddam? You confuse me sometimes. Our government is a tyranny, but when we take down an actual tyrant, you cry foul."

At least it was their leader. There are a lot of tyrants all over the globe, that doesn't mean we should overthrow them. Instead, we've invited terrorists and Iranians into the country, and they're wreaking havoc. When and if we leave, it'll be a shit storm. We're not even free in this country, how are we in the position to bomb/maim/kill countries until they choose to become "free" as well?

Quote :

"That people so often say idiotic shit like this, especially about Iraq, but even about Afghanistan, really solidifies my view that most people have absolutely no clue what they're talking about with respect to our involvement there - but that of course does not keep them from opining away as if they did."

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. Corruption is rampant in both the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments. If we leave, it'll get worse. The leaders and ministers in both countries are getting rich in any way they can while the Americans are still occupying and maintaining order.

Quote :

"So this means that if you "use something" or buy it legally (from someone who may or may not have owned it), you own it? The first is quite obviously wrong, when I steal something, it doesn't become mine just because I use it. The second is quite obvious as well, you don't necessarily own something just because you bought it. Try as you might, you will not be able to justify property rights without ambiguity and logical inconsistence."

You have to be using it and have obtained it legitimately. You can't buy something from someone that doesn't own it, that's just fraud. There's no ambiguity or logical inconsistency, just unfamiliarity with Rothbardian property rights on your end.

Quote :

"As much as you are about "human nature", it would seem that enforcing one's will upon others and socialization are far more prevalent in human societies than even greed."

No, I wouldn't say that. Greed is quite natural - hardly anyone is satisfied with what they have. People will enforce their will upon others, but if the vast majority of people respect the code of "live and let live," and I think in many societies they do, there is a potential to have a stateless society.

Quote :

"Why wouldn't they? Most people now do not support legalization of pot, who is to say that plenty of organizations would take it into their own hands?"

It wouldn't be financially viable. Someone would have to pay for the arrest and incarceration of the drug offenders, as well as defending against other defense agencies that had a problem with that.

Quote :

"Diamonds have been legal here in the US, yet the violence related to them still occurred in africa. I would suggest that crime, corruption, and violence would be more as a result of the large swift income of money rather than the laws in a foreign country."

The violence there is not related to smuggling or laws prohibiting diamonds. Governments have a history of nationalizing diamond mines, and of course, creating cartels or outright monopolies. The other part of the problem there is people's obsession with(and restricted supply of) a shiny gem that is not actually in short supply.

1/26/2011 7:37:02 PM

Quote :

"No, not necessarily. I hit on this in the other thread, but as almost all anarchists believe, "anarchy" is utopia."

Ok... Who cares what an anarchist believes? Their beliefs are fundamentally flawed.

Quote :

"Perfect equality is only possible through perfect liberty. However, unless the people can maintain a healthy respect for liberty, government will always arise out of anarchy."

So you're an idealist who admits he's an idealists who still continues to try to push your bullshit beliefs on everyone else. Wanting perfection isn't bad, but at some point, you have to grow the fuck up and open your eyes to our human flaws.

Quote :

"Private defense companies could easily do the job that law enforcement attempts to do now."

So what dictates what a private defense company can and can't do? Who do they answer to? The person who is paying? Who is paying? Is it a single person? Then that single person has power, then don't they? Is this single person supposedly morally good with the best interests of everyone in heart? Congratulations, you just started a dictatorship/monarch.

The second you start allowing other people to control other people's actions, a government is established. Whether you like it or not. The private defense company can only (supposedly) arrest/punish people based on laws. Someone has to give them these laws. If everyone is aware of these laws and they were accepted by everyone as being self-evident then why need a private defense company? Because realistically, people are opportunistic and self-serving.

Quote :

"The only difference is that no one would pay to a private defense company to lock up a bunch of pot smokers."

And why not? What if the person who hired the private defense company doesn't like the smell, and they want to protect their nostrils from the putrid smell and their lungs from second hand smoke?

1/26/2011 8:02:04 PM

Quote :

"Ok... Who cares what an anarchist believes? Their beliefs are fundamentally flawed."

I think your beliefs are fundamentally flawed. You assume there should be a state. What if there doesn't need to be a monopoly on force? What if, with ample education, the state can be rolled back and people can be left to live and let live? What if that's utopia, and history has been nothing but a long story of one tyrannical government after another, slowly progressing towards more freedom but never making it all the way there?

Quote :

"So you're an idealist who admits he's an idealists who still continues to try to push your bullshit beliefs on everyone else. Wanting perfection isn't bad, but at some point, you have to grow the fuck up and open your eyes to our human flaws."

I'm an idealist in the sense that I can think upon principle, and determine how things should be. That doesn't mean I'm unable to see reality for what it is. Clearly, we are nowhere near what I would consider ideal, and there are many complications that come up when we're forced to use government controlled means to roll back government.

Quote :

"So what dictates what a private defense company can and can't do? Who do they answer to? The person who is paying? Who is paying? Is it a single person? Then that single person has power, then don't they? Is this single person supposedly morally good with the best interests of everyone in heart? Congratulations, you just started a dictatorship/monarch."

Cost minimization is the thing that "dictates" what a private defense company can and can't do. When there isn't a monopoly on force, there's competition in the market. Since it tends towards lower cost, PDAs will do the bare minimum, as required by their contractors, the private insurance companies. Private courts, too, will aim for lower costs. All parties wish to avoid conflict, because a battle between PDAs, I would imagine, would be very costly.

Dictatorships are only allowed to take hold when a small group is granted a monopoly on force. As long as competition is allowed to exist between private defense and security, your scenario isn't likely.

Quote :

"The second you start allowing other people to control other people's actions, a government is established. Whether you like it or not. The private defense company can only (supposedly) arrest/punish people based on laws. Someone has to give them these laws. If everyone is aware of these laws and they were accepted by everyone as being self-evident then why need a private defense company? Because realistically, people are opportunistic and self-serving."

People are self-serving. It would not be "laws" that a PDA would enforce - it would be rights violations. Their intervention would be "triggered" by a sort of private insurance. PDAs, when their behavior is called into question, will face two options: war, which is not a viable business model for anyone except a nation state, or diplomacy - arbitration by way of private courts.

Quote :

"And why not? What if the person who hired the private defense company doesn't like the smell, and they want to protect their nostrils from the putrid smell and their lungs from second hand smoke?"

If any one of these pot smokers happened to have insurance, the PDAs use of force would be questioned. Perhaps a civil suit would be applicable, if the pot smoker in question was trespassing and refused to leave. I don't think it would be worth anyone's time and money to imprison millions of people that did not actually harm them, if the people doing the imprisoning have a bottom line.

1/27/2011 2:12:58 AM

d357r0y3r's historical analysis:

- Iraq's current government is more corrupt and less democratic than the Saddam Hussein regime.

- The Nazi's did not threaten to conquer Europe (bonus fact: The US is becoming the Third Reich)

- The United States is to blame for tensions on the Korean peninsula.

If some of this sounds like the kind of crackpot nonsense expected from people with severe mental abnormalities, sociopaths, and drug addicts, fear not - these claims are solidly based on his "research."

1/27/2011 8:36:32 AM

I disagree with the implication that it's possible to be free from coercion. There will always be externalities that prevent true liberty.

Quote :

"What if, with ample education, the state can be rolled back and people can be left to live and let live?"

I don't think this is possible for human beings. Human nature does not allow it.

Quote :

"As long as competition is allowed to exist between private defense and security, your scenario isn't likely."

Why would competition be allowed to exist? What makes you think the strongest wouldn't just kill or coerce the weakest. You are describing mercenaries and warlords.

1/27/2011 9:47:03 AM

just take a look at somalia, people are reasonable and can work out their issues without a government. somalia is currently undergoing the greatest economic boom in the history of the country, the people have access to more food and have more rights than ever before. there are absolutely no power struggles or oppression; every man, woman, and child in somalia has access to any future that they choose. its an example that should be heralded for how well things work when there is a power and leadership vacuum.

1/27/2011 10:21:06 AM

^ Old information. The stateless experiment of Somalia has been crushed by the U.S. funded invaders and warlords.

1/27/2011 10:47:02 AM

so in a perfect libertarian societies there are never outside governments or organizations looking to inject their influence? interesting, sign me up. or are you pointing out the need for a government to protect from that kind of thing?

1/27/2011 10:49:00 AM

Quote :

"d357r0y3r's historical analysis: - Iraq's current government is more corrupt and less democratic than the Saddam Hussein regime. - The Nazi's did not threaten to conquer Europe (bonus fact: The US is becoming the Third Reich) - The United States is to blame for tensions on the Korean peninsula. If some of this sounds like the kind of crackpot nonsense expected from people with severe mental abnormalities, sociopaths, and drug addicts, fear not - these claims are solidly based on his "research.""

We've discussed these issues too many times to count. You're a bloodthirsty imperialist, and you'd have us invade every country on Earth if you could get away with it. Any government that exists solely due to invasion and the subsequent invasion is inherently less democratic than what was there before. By your standards, we should be invading China, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran right now, and reforming all of their governments with taxpayer money. Your blood lust knows no bounds.

Quote :

"don't think this is possible for human beings. Human nature does not allow it."

No, I reject that. I think it's possible, but far away. Settling for the status quo and saying, "you know, fuck it, people are dumb, so let's have government regulate every aspect of our lives," is not how we'll progress though. The progressives of today are, in fact, not progressive, but regressive - they wish to implement the same old price controls and interventions that have been tried for centuries. Real progress is giving power back to the people, not taking more away and giving it to the government.

Quote :

"Why would competition be allowed to exist? What makes you think the strongest wouldn't just kill or coerce the weakest. You are describing mercenaries and warlords."

It's not that simple. Private defense isn't designed to investigate, apprehend, arrest, and imprison every criminal. If that were the case, it'd just be a private version of government. Private defense is still geared towards cost minimization, as they're contracted out by the insurance. Keep in mind, though, that this all rests upon the people believing in the tradition of liberty - which you don't believe is possible.

1/27/2011 11:02:41 AM

Quote :

"It's not that simple. Private defense isn't designed to investigate, apprehend, arrest, and imprison every criminal. If that were the case, it'd just be a private version of government. Private defense is still geared towards cost minimization, as they're contracted out by the insurance. Keep in mind, though, that this all rests upon the people believing in the tradition of liberty - which you don't believe is possible."

What is going to keep the strongest defense contractor from taking what it wants by force? "Belief in the tradition of liberty"?

1/27/2011 12:06:35 PM

Even the strongest defense agency would be unable to maintain force over the entire country in the long-term. National defense (and really, all government operations), as it exists today, relies on a few things: tax money (collected by force), indoctrination (instilling nationalism in children from a young age, having them recite a pledge of allegiance in classes - in short, making sure that government schools produce students loyal to the state), and control over the money supply.

As I mentioned before, the state can only wage the wars it wages and punish innocent people because it has no mechanism by which to control costs. Certainly, Congress is not doing it's job. The treasury sells whatever bonds it has to in order to cover costs, and if no one is buying, they'll sell to the central bank. Cost minimization has never been a stated goal of the government.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 12:19 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2011 12:19:03 PM

Quote :

"Any government that exists solely due to invasion and the subsequent invasion is inherently less democratic than what was there before."

... because it's sometimes funny to quote crazy people.

Yo, d357r0y3r, what is government if words have no meaning?

1/27/2011 12:30:09 PM

If you believe in the creed "the people get the government they deserve," then you'd agree that the Iraqi people had the government they deserved. Our government gave the Iraqis a government that [our government] thought Iraqis deserved: one that would funnel resources to the United States and protect (what TBTB perceived as) U.S. interests.

Genuine democracy comes about when the people say "we've had enough" and hold their leaders accountable, not when a band of foreigners shows up and tells them it's time to honor democratic principles.

1/27/2011 12:48:02 PM

lazarus: Oh no! My preconceived notions of interventionism and democracy have been challenged! Must attempt to discount the other party by calling them crazy because I have no legitimate argument.

1/27/2011 12:51:48 PM

Quote :

"There's no ambiguity or logical inconsistency, just unfamiliarity with Rothbardian property rights on your end."

Rothbardian property rights are begging the question. If you arrive on earth, first person here, what right do you have to the capital that exists here? You didn't make it. Let's suppose you arrive with someone else, how do you divide the capital? By use? In that case should I not own land if you purchased it but I use it? You only explain one side of the equation, EVERYTHING is a product of labor and capital, you can't claim ownership by labor alone.

Quote :

"Greed is quite natural - hardly anyone is satisfied with what they have."

I don't see animals hoarding and stealing massive amounts of food, more often they just take what they need, I do, however, frequently see them imposing their wills upon one another, thus I would argue that imposing one's will upon others is far more natural than greed. Greed is a learned behavior, imposing one's will on others is not.

Quote :

"It wouldn't be financially viable."

Why not. Most parents don't want drug users living around them, thus most likely they would be willing to pay someone to imprison them.

Quote :

"as well as defending against other defense agencies that had a problem with that"

What defense agency would care about drug users with no money, family, or friends? No one is going to protect them.

Quote :

"Governments have a history of nationalizing diamond mines, and of course, creating cartels or outright monopolies. The other part of the problem there is people's obsession with(and restricted supply of) a shiny gem that is not actually in short supply."

Irrelevance. I gave you an example of how violence had nothing to do with prohibition but more with money.

Quote :

"The other part of the problem there is people's obsession with(and restricted supply of) a shiny gem that is not actually in short supply."

If diamonds were not in short supply, why would they demand such a high price. What you are saying goes against the very concepts of supply and demand.

1/27/2011 1:45:16 PM

Quote :

"If diamonds were not in short supply, why would they demand such a high price."

The diamond supply is controlled by DeBeers and co-conspirators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Legal_issues_on_monopolizing_and_fixing_prices

1/27/2011 1:59:54 PM

Quote :

"The diamond supply is controlled by DeBeers and co-conspirators."

True, but irrelevant. It is still a small supply. If the supply were not small, they would not demand a high price.

1/27/2011 2:06:59 PM

Quote :

"I don't see animals hoarding and stealing massive amounts of food, more often they just take what they need"

Then you have never seen lions and hyenas fighting it out in Africa.

1/27/2011 2:12:45 PM

Quote :

"Then you have never seen lions and hyenas fighting it out in Africa."

Not really, I believe hyenas generally avoid that situation and mostly take food that the lion would leave rather than steal food he is eating.

1/27/2011 2:20:00 PM

Quote :

"Even the strongest defense agency would be unable to maintain force over the entire country in the long-term. National defense (and really, all government operations), as it exists today, relies on a few things: tax money (collected by force), indoctrination (instilling nationalism in children from a young age, having them recite a pledge of allegiance in classes - in short, making sure that government schools produce students loyal to the state), and control over the money supply."

I'm asking you, without a strong federal government and standing army, what keeps the strongest "defense contractor" from doing what it wants?

1/27/2011 2:23:53 PM

or another government with a standing army and overlapping interests

1/27/2011 2:37:30 PM

This has got to be the weirdest thread this board has seen in a while.

If I were a moderator, I would lock it, and probably ban half the people in it.

But I'm not, so you guys just keep kickin' that hardcore knowledge.

1/27/2011 2:40:34 PM

Quote :

"Not really, I believe hyenas generally avoid that situation and mostly take food that the lion would leave rather than steal food he is eating."

Not quite. If the hyenas have the lions outnumbered by 2 to 1, then they will attack and drive off the lions. Lions obey the opposite requirement before deciding to drive hyenas away from a kill. Meanwhile, every one steals from the solitary cats (Cheetahs, Leopards) when they find them and everyone steals from wild dogs regardless of their numbers. On National Geographic, a wild dog pack a dozen strong lost their meal and the lives of two of their members to two hyenas.

Animals did not evolve stupid. If they can steal food and get away with it, they will.

Quote :

"I'm asking you, without a strong federal government and standing army, what keeps the strongest "defense contractor" from doing what it wants?"

America effectively had no standing army for decades during the 19th century. The answer to your question, I guess, is the police department and armed civilians of whatever political jurisdiction the defense contractor is trying to mess up. After-all, if the defense contractors try to seize Chicago, the owners will be arrested in their New York offices.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/27/2011 2:43:55 PM

Quote :

"True, but irrelevant. It is still a small supply. If the supply were not small, they would not demand a high price."

It's not a small supply. It's just tightly controlled by a small number of people.

1/27/2011 3:01:28 PM

Quote :

"After-all, if the defense contractors try to seize Chicago, the owners will be arrested in their New York offices. "

Who is going to arrest them, there is no government

1/27/2011 4:12:46 PM

Quote :

"If I were a moderator, I would lock it, and probably ban half the people in it. But I'm not, so you guys just keep kickin' that hardcore knowledge."

Start by banning yourself

1/27/2011 4:18:41 PM

^^ You did not say that. All you said was "without a strong federal government and standing army". Any human environment will have authority of some kind, be it mob rule, private security firms, or a city council. Take your pick.

1/27/2011 4:29:45 PM

Quote :

"If they can steal food and get away with it, they will."

Sure, and I never meant to say the wouldn't steal, I only wanted to point out that they will only steal when hungry, while a human goes after much more than just eating. Avarice isn't wanting what you need to survive, it's wanting more, which is an unnatural concept.

Quote :

"It's not a small supply. It's just tightly controlled by a small number of people."

No, it is a small supply. The monopolists might manipulate that supply, but it is still small. If it were not small, diamonds would not be expensive.

1/27/2011 4:48:04 PM

^^ i never said any of that

dnumbers thinks any government is bad

1/27/2011 4:49:46 PM

^^^ No, I said that, and you're missing the point: If the strongest military forces are not controlled by elected officials, what stops them from doing what they want?

1/27/2011 4:58:31 PM

Quote :

"No, it is a small supply. The monopolists might manipulate that supply, but it is still small. If it were not small, diamonds would not be expensive."

Rubies, emeralds and sapphires are all rarer than diamonds. DeBeers is sitting on the supply, and has marketed the shit out of diamonds. It has little to do with the rarity and everything to do with (manufactured) demand.

1/27/2011 5:16:19 PM

Quote :

"Rothbardian property rights are begging the question. If you arrive on earth, first person here, what right do you have to the capital that exists here? You didn't make it. Let's suppose you arrive with someone else, how do you divide the capital? By use? In that case should I not own land if you purchased it but I use it? You only explain one side of the equation, EVERYTHING is a product of labor and capital, you can't claim ownership by labor alone."

What right does a bird have to the air? What right does a fish have to the ocean? You're talking about natural rights. We have a right to our labor, or the products of our labor, by virtue of the fact that we live here and have a vested interest in surviving. If you think no one has a right to anything, you should probably suffocate yourself now.

Quote :

"I don't see animals hoarding and stealing massive amounts of food, more often they just take what they need, I do, however, frequently see them imposing their wills upon one another, thus I would argue that imposing one's will upon others is far more natural than greed. Greed is a learned behavior, imposing one's will on others is not."

Animals hoard and steal.

Quote :

"Why not. Most parents don't want drug users living around them, thus most likely they would be willing to pay someone to imprison them."

Really? They'd be willing to pay the cost of apprehending, arresting, clothing, feeding, and housing a marijuana smoker? Having all drug users in jail would be worth giving up a massive chunk of their own quality of life? No, I don't think so.

Quote :

"True, but irrelevant. It is still a small supply. If the supply were not small, they would not demand a high price."

No, that's not how it works. Diamonds are not actually scarce - there's a lot of them, and they can be created in a lab. A monopoly has formed that allows one company to control the supply, and as such, control the price.

Quote :

"This has got to be the weirdest thread this board has seen in a while. If I were a moderator, I would lock it, and probably ban half the people in it. But I'm not, so you guys just keep kickin' that hardcore knowledge."

That's a good approach. "I don't understand what's been discussed. Therefore, let's silence the people doing the discussing, and make sure they can't discuss anything else either." I'm not at all surprised that your political beliefs are what they are.

It wasn't 6 months ago that I was arguing against ghotiblue, saying that at least a minimal state was needed. Now, I'm here arguing that no state is needed. I believe that aggression, or coercion, is always bad. A state cannot exist without aggression. If you believe that sometimes, aggression is warranted, then...well, yeah. I disagree with you, and there are a ton of implications that come with that belief, but hey.

Quote :

"dnumbers thinks any government is bad"

It is. There never has been, and never will be, a "good" government. There can only be a "less bad" government.

^^Okay, think of it like this. Defense is a form of service. You're worried about one PDA obtaining a monopoly on force.

You could just as easily ask, "Why doesn't Wal-mart buy every department store, and run a monopoly? Why don't they lower their prices so much that no one can compete?" It's because no monopoly can be maintained long-term. As long as people can access the market, new agencies will arise, and all agencies will be looking to maximize profit and minimize costs. Even the strongest military force is not going to be able to operate profitably if they have to fight off every other competitor in the market.

The real question is, if elected officials do control the strongest military force, who stops them from doing what they want? The answer is no one. Should the right elected official get in power, the entire human race could be wiped out. Centralized power is the greatest threat to our species.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2011 5:22:07 PM

Quote :

"Sure, and I never meant to say the wouldn't steal, I only wanted to point out that they will only steal when hungry, while a human goes after much more than just eating. Avarice isn't wanting what you need to survive, it's wanting more, which is an unnatural concept."

And again, you are incorrect. A leopard with two kills on the ground will kill a third on instinct if it can manage it. And no predator waits until it is starving to go hunting. When prey is plentiful, predators hunt because they are bored.

Quote :

"If the strongest military forces are not controlled by elected officials, what stops them from doing what they want?"

What makes you think they are controlled by elected officials? Many a government state has found itself with an army beholden to interests other than elected officials, elected officials beholden to interests other than the citizenry, or a citizenry beholden to interests other than good governance.

[Edited on January 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

1/27/2011 5:30:32 PM

Quote :

"The real question is, if elected officials do control the strongest military force, who stops them from doing what they want? The answer is no one. Should the right elected official get in power, the entire human race could be wiped out. Centralized power is the greatest threat to our species."

Luckily, our founding fathers chose to spread power amongst many elected officials, such that it would be extremely unlikely that one person would be able to seize all power. The US military has been designed the same way.

In any case, power is going to get centralized. You can't stop that from happening. The only thing you can do is push the reset button, and hope you get better cards. Americans did that in 1783, and we got a pretty good hand.

1/27/2011 6:35:07 PM

Indeed. They set up a constitutional system of checks and balances. We see how well that worked out. The military is a case where there are no longer checks and balances. Congress is supposed to declare war, but in the two wars we've started this decade, the President declared war.

I agree with the second part. As Thomas Jefferson stated, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." You also talk about a reset button. Thomas Jefferson also said that every generation needed its own revolution. I agree with that - in order for liberty to be secured, every generation has to beat back the state, in whatever form it takes. That's the crux of my argument: the people must be educated, informed, motivated, and empowered. Otherwise, the chances of any genuinely free and lasting society are...not so great.

1/27/2011 6:54:00 PM