Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[ding]

You mean you're an imbecile.

^ dunning effect

 

[kaz]

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.

If you need to refer to a link to explain your views, they aren't your views. You're exactly like the Democrats parroting their politicians

I've posted the explanation:

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

Try reading it before you shoot off your mouth.

So you think cutting and pasting from another link is different than just linking to it to explain your views? LOL

 

[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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

"How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery." Now that's a load of crap. Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may or may not be justified, but redistribution of wealth is wrong 100% of the time. Of course it is, what a load of crap. And BTW, you're not an anarchist, at least you said you're not

It all goes into the same pot, so what it's spent on is irrelevant.

 

[ding]

Given that bripat9643 spent his entire day posting on an online forum, something tells me he doesn't have to worry about the federal government garnishing his wages.

I home with the shingles, dumbass.

Sounds like you are stealing from your employer to me.

 

[kaz]

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.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

Or why don't YOU show me this contract and the exact place where I signed it? If it truly exists as a contract and I consented to it, then this should be an easy task.

Absolute maddening stupidity. This person clearly took the class, because no one could come to conclusions as silly as this if they actually thought with their own brain for a minute.



Next they will tell you to take it up the ass, after all you consented. It's written in the skies.

That's a lame response that you didn't sign it. You participate in it, that is agreeing to it.

Bullshit. He participates only in the same sense that the victim "partipates" in a mugging.

Why do statists always try to change the meaning of "consent?" The answer is simple: because they know accurate definitions condemn their statist dogma as nothing more than tyranny.

Bripat should be good reading it. He constantly posts links to things that other people wrote and says here, this is what I think ...

So what?

I already answered that question

 

[kaz]

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

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

 

[bripat9643]

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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

The statists have never really thought about why they believe what they believe. Thus, they have no answers when you point out the flaws in their arguments.

If you want to call a small government libertarian a statist and lump us with Marxists, then your words lose all meaning as they are simply hyperbole

You endorse the state, so by definition you are a statist.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, we know you can find a definition that conforms to your prejucides. However, the only defintion that matters is the one that anarchists use. Anarchy means absense of government.

We aren't opposed to "authority" no matter what the form. We are only opposed to authority backed by coercion. Unless you want to discuss the topic based on that definition of the term, then go fuck yourself. I'm not interested in playing your word games.

Ok, lets flesh this out then...

explain how authority works without coercion.

Let's say that you get your way and there is no more government. Since there is no government there are no laws, so the guy down the street starts raping women on a daily basis. What authority stops him from doing so without coercion?

or let's say you own 20 acres of land and someone keeps dumping their trash on it every week. What authority gets them to stop that does not include coercion?

No government does not mean no laws. That's your bogus theory. The English common law was not established by the king or the parlaiment. It was the product of hundreds of years of settling disputes privately
It's an example of private law.

I've already posted the explanation to your question. Go back a few pages and read the answer.

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

Went back through the thread and there is not a single example of authority being enforced without coercion.

Now that we have that out of the way, please explain how you will stop someone from dumping trash on your land without the use of coercion

 

[kaz]

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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

The monkey is throwing his feces from the trees. Go ahead and run away from the question

 

[kaz]

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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

You're right about that. His position isn't consistent.

Yours is. You're committing the fallacy of assuming that men want to be free and reach reasonable agreements. They don't.

And I've clearly stated my standard. Tell me where I have contradicted it.

Hint. Disagreeing with you is not contradicting my standard

 

[bripat9643]

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

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

 

[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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

"How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery." Now that's a load of crap. Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may or may not be justified, but redistribution of wealth is wrong 100% of the time. Of course it is, what a load of crap. And BTW, you're not an anarchist, at least you said you're not

It all goes into the same pot, so what it's spent on is irrelevant.

Sure, spending money on defending the country is the same as giving it to an illegal alien who walked across the border. Got it.

Wow, that's stupid. Even for you

 

[bripat9643]

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

You're right about that. His position isn't consistent.

Yours is. You're committing the fallacy of assuming that men want to be free and reach reasonable agreements. They don't.

And I've clearly stated my standard. Tell me where I have contradicted it.

Hint. Disagreeing with you is not contradicting my standard

I've already explained how unreasonable people are dealt with. You simply refuse to comprehend it. You aren't convincing anyone of the rightness of your position by playing stupid.

 

[kaz]

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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

The statists have never really thought about why they believe what they believe. Thus, they have no answers when you point out the flaws in their arguments.

If you want to call a small government libertarian a statist and lump us with Marxists, then your words lose all meaning as they are simply hyperbole

You endorse the state, so by definition you are a statist.

That isn't what statist means. Apparently in your anarchy world they don't have dictionaries either?

 

[kaz]

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

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

 

[kaz]

Consent.

Consent is why one form of taxation would be deemed robbery and another not.

So I have a choice to not pay redistribution of wealth taxes? Bam! Can you point me to that box on my tax form?

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

You're right about that. His position isn't consistent.

Yours is. You're committing the fallacy of assuming that men want to be free and reach reasonable agreements. They don't.

And I've clearly stated my standard. Tell me where I have contradicted it.

Hint. Disagreeing with you is not contradicting my standard

I've already explained how unreasonable people are dealt with. You simply refuse to comprehend it. You aren't convincing anyone of the rightness of your position by playing stupid.

You stated that his security agency will dump him. But you are begging the question as to how you know that.

Since you're not very smart, that means you didn't answer the question, you just repeated they will dump him.

How are you going to ensure they do that? Notice you haven't answered that

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If you need to refer to a link to explain your views, they aren't your views. You're exactly like the Democrats parroting their politicians

I've posted the explanation:

Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

Try reading it before you shoot off your mouth.

So you think cutting and pasting from another link is different than just linking to it to explain your views? LOL

So you think refusing to read what is posted means your position is correct?

Playing stupid isn't a winning debate tactic. You only make people believe that you're a jackass.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

 

[bripat9643]

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

 

[bripat9643]

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

Sounds an awful like like coercion to me.

No, it's self defence.