Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[kaz]

People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians

Human nature, as it stands right now, prevents a non-violent, Stateless society. I am completely willing to revert back to violence every 3-4 years, just to remind the masses the reason that we live in society. Useless, greedy, lazy fucks who want the property of the productive will remember that the truce is not an invitation to plunder freely.

We are at the point right now where we are way past the time to suspend the truce. (At least 100 years). The Statists are working feverishly to remove our ability to do so.

Human nature prevents the so-called "limited government" that you propose.

Yes, it also prevents the no-government you propose. That an anarchist is saying we need to get real here is just comic. At least the limited government we want did last for a while from 1789 to whenever you want to consider the great experiment ended.

The only anarchy example we have is Somalia which is just a State of feudal warlords, which is what we would have until one of the warlords reconquered the rest of us

 

[bripat9643]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it would require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

 

[kaz]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

You said you hate government and keep repeating it. That's your whole argument.

I said I hate government and gave you a list of the several things that I see no other way to solve since they require general recognition and whatever form that general recognition takes, it's government.

You must for example have property lines that are respected by the community. There cannot be more than one arbiter of property lines.

You haven't for this example given a whiff of a solution to that problem.

I seriously doubt you hate government more than I do as someone who's owned five businesses. Maybe as much, but I loathe government.

However, that you hate government isn't an argument to specific issues as you seem to believe

He doesn't just say he hates government. He explains why government is evil, and you just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Explanations have been presented to you, but you refuse to read them. You expect us to regurgitate them in essays that are thousands of words long. That's the whole nut of your argument: you refuse to learn about any proposed alternatives. You're a waste of bandwidth.

I didn't dispute that government is evil, I agreed. What I said is saying government is evil is not a replacement for content and it isn't. All of the anarchists agree you can't answer questions either about how things will work and you can't address scenarios.

You're ideologues, I'm a pragmatist.

And saying I'm a waste of bandwidth because I want to talk real solutions and you want to talk concepts is just a joke

I can answer the question in a few words. The solution to government is private security agenies. Of course, that answer isn't going to satisify you. You are going to point out all kinds of supposed problemes with it. Explaining why those criticisms are baseless would take thousands of words, which you obviously refuse to read. I'm pointed you to the information, and you refuse to go there and educate yourself. Then you claim no one has answered your question.

Please spare us another trip around your wheel of circular logic.

Damn, you have more strawmen than a corn field in Iowa.

And what happens when my neighbor and I hire different private security agencies to determine what the line is between our properties?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

That’s fine, but understand that you are personally responsible for those actions, and subject to other’s responses. With law, the average person who would never be so bold as to strom into someone’s house and cage them for having cocaine or an automatic rifle, will do this by proxy via government, with no risk or sense of responsibility. Law adds more violence to a society in this way, not less. Historically, the theft and murder on government’s account renders individual crime nigh unto negligible. Were talking light years apart.

Plus remember that we’re seeking anarchy through a rise in public consciousness, not revolution. People now wouldn’t even accept Wal-Mart doing that, and they’re so lost they can’t even see that taxation is extortion. A society of people who turned their back on government due to a recognition of man’s inherent self-ownership would not shop at a store that cut iff hands, or abide people shooting bad parkers.

 

[Norman]

Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.

Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...

Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...

Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.

So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.

The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.

So what do you do now?

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

 

[kaz]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

 

[bripat9643]

People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians

Human nature, as it stands right now, prevents a non-violent, Stateless society. I am completely willing to revert back to violence every 3-4 years, just to remind the masses the reason that we live in society. Useless, greedy, lazy fucks who want the property of the productive will remember that the truce is not an invitation to plunder freely.

We are at the point right now where we are way past the time to suspend the truce. (At least 100 years). The Statists are working feverishly to remove our ability to do so.

Human nature prevents the so-called "limited government" that you propose.

Yes, it also prevents the no-government you propose. That an anarchist is saying we need to get real here is just comic. At least the limited government we want did last for a while from 1789 to whenever you want to consider the great experiment ended.

The only anarchy example we have is Somalia which is just a State of feudal warlords, which is what we would have until one of the warlords reconquered the rest of us

The Great experiment ended in 1860 when Lincoln made war on the states who refused to comply with arbitrary dictates from Washington. So it lasted a little more than 70 years.

Somalia is an example of fuedalism, not anarchy. The claim that Somalia has no government is absurd. It has dozens of governments. Furthermore, it's a failed Marxist state. Socialism devolves into the kind of chaos they have in Somalia, not capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.

So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.

The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.

So what do you do now?

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

Kaz has his fingers firmly inserted into his ears whenever any answers to his questions are posted.

 

[Norman]

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

I didn't say you need to read it, you are free to do whatever you wish.

Just don't pretend there are no solutions when there are solutions. This discussion has been done to death by now. Also, the short answers were already presented but you have more and more questions so at that point it's just easier to read a damn book than have someone here write it all out for you.

 

[kaz]

Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.

So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.

The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.

So what do you do now?

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

That's a twisting of what I said.

I said the posters on the board have presented no solution other than, read this. And they haven't.

I've read Rothbard, Bastiat and other anarchists and none of them have presented realistic solutions to my specific list of areas that I see no alternative to government. I'd be glad to do further reading as I have time. But posters who provide zero contents and barf links aren't going to convince me to do that.

And yes, being a dick to someone then telling them to read a link isn't going to get any takers. Show anyone on the board, including yourself, who would do that

 

[bripat9643]

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

A gave you the answer. It's private security agencies.

 

[bripat9643]

Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.

Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...

Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...

Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.

So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.

The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.

So what do you do now?

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

I've posted the same link to you several times, and each time you come up with some excuse for refusing to read it.

 

[kaz]

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

Kaz has his fingers firmly inserted into his ears whenever any answers to his questions are posted.

You don't know that since you've never posted an actual answer to a question. Here is a link is not an answer to a question

 

[kaz]

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

I didn't say you need to read it, you are free to do whatever you wish.

Just don't pretend there are no solutions when there are solutions. This discussion has been done to death by now. Also, the short answers were already presented but you have more and more questions so at that point it's just easier to read a damn book than have someone here write it all out for you.

You've provided no solutions, so your claiming there are solutions is dubious

 

[Foxfyre]

Your comment re social contract--also all others who reject the concept--indicate a woeful lack of information as to what social contract is.

Once again, the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.

Some here have indicated good understanding and knowledge of what social contract is and the history behind it. And some have expressed extremely uninformed opinions about it.

Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.

Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.

so·cial con·tract
NOUN

1. an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.

We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.

However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.

I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good

When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.

The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.

That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

 

[bripat9643]

You know what? No. You don’t get to justify an inherently invalid and immoral system of coercive violence until someone on a message board satisfies your concerns about how to deal with life’s problems.

This ain’t a goddam sales call. I’ll talk with you all day long about these issues, but only after you understand and accept that full acknowledgement of man’s natural freedom is not optional, and not a moment before.

Saying you have no idea but government is evil is not an answer. Until you want to discuss specifics, I'll banter with you, but until anarchists are willing to do that, you're just pissing in the wind.

I say I want property rights to be respected. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I say I want my family protected from criminals. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I pick government in those. Fine, then I pick evil. At least I have a live family and clear property rights. You and oddball can live in the trees and pick flies off each other's coats

Private, voluntarily-funded defense organizations. Could be the same guys doing it now, with the same toys and everything, just no more exemption from morality (i.e. authority).

This is just fairy dust and hand waiving. You're going need to be a lot more specific than that. There are 2,000 obvious issues that would need to be overcome to have a military which is funded, staffed and armed without eminent domain or any other government capability

That would take a few chapters in a book to explain, and you don't want to read those. Your position is that you insist on remaining ignorant, and that your ignorance proves there are no alternatives.

Strawman. My position is that your saying to read a book because you can't explain shit yourself is lame

It's hardly a book. It's a short article - probably less than 1000 words.

 

[kaz]

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

A gave you the answer. It's private security agencies.

That isn't even a 50K foot answer, it's a 50K mile answer.

1) What happens when you and your neighbor hires different private security agencies who disagree what the lines between your property should be?

2) What happens when you and your daughter says your neighbor's son raped her and he said she consented and each of your private security agencies agree with their customer?

3) What happens when your private security agency can't get to your house because it goes through your neighbor's yard?

4) What happens when your neighbor's private security agency says you owe him $10K for services rendered you didn't know he provided you?

I look forward to your not addressing any of these questions either

 

[bripat9643]

We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.

However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.

I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good

When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.

The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.

That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended.

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

The first flaw in your theory is that all didn't agree. It's not a valid contract.

You know, insisting that that something does not exist that quite clearly exists reminds me of the King of Siam's children who refused to believe there was such a thing as snow.

 

[Norman]

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?

So now you are refusing to read the answer to your question, because it was presented in an supposedly offensive way?

The problem here doesn't appear to be the lack of solutions but your inability to accept the said solutions. Anyway you can think whatever you wish, but don't pretend that this stuff hasn't been done to death and that there are no solutions, when that is certainly not the case.

That's a twisting of what I said.

I said the posters on the board have presented no solution other than, read this. And they haven't.

I've read Rothbard, Bastiat and other anarchists and none of them have presented realistic solutions to my specific list of areas that I see no alternative to government. I'd be glad to do further reading as I have time. But posters who provide zero contents and barf links aren't going to convince me to do that.

And yes, being a dick to someone then telling them to read a link isn't going to get any takers. Show anyone on the board, including yourself, who would do that

We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.

However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.

I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good

When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.

The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.

That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

So the social contract is not a contract.

And agreeing to this contract is not agreeing to it but being subjugated to it.

Got it! Wait, that's exactly what I was arguing for, I did not consent to it. Now even you agree that I did not consent to it.

These great minds of yours appear to be pawns playing word games. Life is too short for this crap so let's just cut it and call spade a spade.