Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to CCRPG Community. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Break Away Topic; From Israeli-Army Topic
Topic Started: 16 Oct 2009, 03:34 AM (366 Views)
Lundymaphone
Member Avatar
Premier
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This is for Ryan, Ben and I (and anyone else), and also to preserve the spirit of the topic without it going too far off course.

Ryan I never claimed that a single army would exist I simply said that all that has to happen is that a single "force" can cause a lot of damage, and many forces can cause even more. And no offense Ryan but I do not think you are at the level of academia (which itself does not guarantee the truth) to be questioning my understanding of economics compared to yours. Edit: I make no claim that I know more then you (as I have little backing) I simply do not believe you are in a position to compare our knowledge/reasoning skills.

And on another note, I do not want to see (from anyone anymore) the argument that "just because it has been written in a book (or multiple books) makes it a valid fact". If you believe that because you think you've read more books then I (which I highly doubt) then remember that I have first hand experience in dealing with economics in an outside of the classroom setting, in accounting offices, consulting firms and even the TSX, I see how people behave around wealth, money and power, and not through the TV or threw a book.

It would be like if I thought that my stock picking abilities were superior to a certain billionaires (we all know who) simply because I thought more about the market and read more books then he did.

Ben basically made the point but I will augment/repeat what he said in my own words.

Without enforcement rules are essentially worthless, I think everyone can agree on that. And in a Libertarian, or Anarcho-Capitalist, whatever you want to call it society there is no entity that represents all people (the state), therefore everyone essentially represents themselves OR groups together in a communal sense, either way the following is the same. This essentially means that every group can make its own rules and abide them as they see fit.

The biggest deal-breaker in Anarcho-Capitalism is even if society somehow gets its act together to agree on basic principals that all will follow what mechanism is there to prevent others from breaking or creating new rules? You either have to resort to violence or economic isolation, or even simply putting up with the morally questionable rules.

All three routes have massive issues associated with them.

Here is an example.

There is a poor community and a break-in has occurred, the thief is running down the street and the private police decide to catch him, one way or another they find their way back to the house the break-in has occurred. The police present the thief and his stolen property and tell the resident they must pay for the police officers service. The resident states that he cannot afford to pay for the arrest. Remember this society has no government to pay for capture, prosecution and imprisonment of those who break the law, all of these require people and services, all of which cost money.

Now the police officers, being good guys give the stolen property back to the resident free of charge but release the thief because who is going to "pay for him".

The next day the thief steals from the same resident. The resident phones the police and gives his name and address. Now being that these private police are not idiots they keep records on all those people they come in contact with. The police reply that since they know that the resident cannot pay for their services that they will not apprehend the criminal. Now you can say that "the market will have a low-wage police force in place for such people" but there is a bottoming out that has to occur since there is a base minimum cost for everything, and there will be many who cannot even afford the dollar store cops.

The same can be applied for firefighting, healthcare, just about anything. If someone is unable to pay for firefighting services should their house burn down? or should someone die simply because they cannot afford to pay for tamaflu?

If history has taught us anything is that when left to their own devices those with wealth or power (under any system) will simply accumulate more wealth. Ie they already have the power/wealth and that power means they have the means to acquire more power/wealth.

Anarcho-Capitalism works great if the world were run by computers, those that follow logical pathways and will always do the "right thing". Even if the vast majority of people were moral and logical it would work. But the majority of people are horribly greedy, they lie, and the cheat when given the chance.

And do not state "the market will regulate itself" that is an unsubstantive ideological line that is just used as an excuse for those that are backed into an intellectual corner and are unable to come up with a proper logical answer.

One thing everyone should constantly keep in mind. 1000 years ago almost every university professor, teacher, and intellectual on earth KNEW the world was flat. You should take anyones word with a grain of salt, I think we grossly overvalue and overestimate both the intelligence and knowledge of our so called "Intellectual Elite".

If I may be so bold, I believe that you have been taken in by Anarcho-Capitalism's majesty and optimism (a world without a government seems like a godsend). I honestly believe that this has nothing to do with your intelligence nor your knowledge base you simply have a need or weakness filled by such theories (just like I have a need/weakness for cultural pride or Coca-Cola). I am using you as an example because I know you are mature/man enough to take it in an adult fashion but this applies to many other people regardless of political affiliation.

I just want to finish by saying that I know many mid-20's early 30's professionals (ie went to university) and a good chunk were Anarcho-Capitalists and sounded just like you Ryan, but later in life they came to realize the insurmountable faults and conceded that as far as humanities moral/civilization related goals are concerned, State Capitalism is basically the best route (or as I like to call it the least crappy route). I think peoples fascination with Communism or State Capitalism is a result of the "grass is always greener" syndrome.
in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello
In peace, like a wise man, he appropriately prepares for war
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Alkeni Synair
Member Avatar
Redefining Evil
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Omfg........

AHH! We agree!

:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Work in progress.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryan
Member Avatar
Imperator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, I have quite a task before me.

Allow me to preface my defense by saying that it is impossible to establish an entire ideology, outline an entire concept, or plan against every single refutation of any of my points or refute an entire argument in a single forum post. Thus, I have no choice but to resort to shorthand and "sloganizing," because I want to get my message across yet I can't write a book on it to fully explain all that I mean. As a result, it has to come out rather polemically, and I have to rely on people to take issue with specific statements of mine so I can elaborate on them in future debate instead of an initial description of my position.

For that, I apologize to all - I am imperfect and I really ought to restrain myself more. I am a political person and I must express myself occasionally. I do not claim a monopoly on truth, I have merely come to the conclusions that I have based on experience and knowledge, and that they are the most logical conclusions I have yet found. Unlike most people, I do not close my mind to the potential opportunity for another set of beliefs to be logically superior to mine to come along and convert me. However, I have yet to find one. And for that method, I do NOT apologize.

For many reasons, this will be my last post in the Politics Board. There's too much for me to say as to why I don't want to put up with the things that go on here anymore, as well as how all political discussion will be moved to GrassR00Ts and the hell away from CCRPG.

I am not, however, attempting to get the "last word," so I would love to stay and debate the fineries of these points.

Lundy, you and I are both mature rational people - we've had our disagreements in the past but both of us mutually know that we can have a civil debate on anything. We still are capable of doing that here and I am not accusing you of anything - but I begin to take issue when you not only seem to question my cognizance and my motives, but you "diagnose" my problems from some pretentiously scientific position. I would just rather we stick to the problem at hand and debate the points of the issue and not analyze each other's personalities and motives, lest we fall into argumentum ad hominem.

Having said that, allow me to turn to the subject at hand.

Quote:
 
Ryan I never claimed that a single army would exist I simply said that all that has to happen is that a single "force" can cause a lot of damage, and many forces can cause even more.


Multiple forces must compete against each other. That is the beauty of the market system - as they are competing for customers, they will have incentives not only to keep violence and breach of decorum to a minimum (lest they lose reputation, and thus clientele and profits), acts of violence are also highly costly, and they also have to worry about competing with other firms.

But I can answer more of this later on in this post.

Quote:
 
And no offense Ryan but I do not think you are at the level of academia (which itself does not guarantee the truth) to be questioning my understanding of economics compared to yours.


I apologize, I commit acts of presumption myself sometimes. The only reason I mention something along these lines is because the knowledge is accessible to EVERYONE. I simply have jumped at the opportunity to learn and master it myself unlike 99% of Americans. Thus, I am not lying when I say that I know more economics than the vast majority of America. And when the entire mainstream view of Economics - NeoKeynesian, neoclassical, Chicagoite - is WRONG, I can rightly say that I know more economics than the professors who teach it. Why are they "wrong" and am I "right?" Because economics is an objective science of human action, it is logically deductive, and all rational people are capable of realizing economic truths, but the mainstream disregards this and comes out with DEMONSTRABLY FALSE models. I'm opening up a whole can of worms here - as I can easily have an entire debate on the role of the economist and his methodology.

Quote:
 
And on another note, I do not want to see (from anyone anymore) the argument that "just because it has been written in a book (or multiple books) makes it a valid fact".


Again, if I made that claim (I don't believe I did), it was because I had to provide shorthand to demonstrate that I don't pull propositions straight out of my ass. Does reading a book make things true? Of course not!

I know that pulling claims out of a book (like, say, the Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital) doesn't mean that they are true and you know "the truth." Things are empiracally testable, not to mention the social sciences of human action - economics, is logically deducible by all who possess reason. Thus, if a book lines up logically with the axioms and laws of existence, it can be said to be true. If not, then it is false. If you can think rationally and can read, then anyone can decide as to whether a book is "true" or not. But it is NEVER the fact that a book is true per se. C'mon Lundy, you know I know that.

Quote:
 

Without enforcement rules are essentially worthless, I think everyone can agree on that.

Of course! I never said they aren't enforced. In fact, I believe I MADE SURE I said that they must be enforced. I'm not stupid, I know violence is necessary and only utopians believe they can get rid of violence.

Quote:
 
And in a Libertarian, or Anarcho-Capitalist, whatever you want to call it society there is no entity that represents all people (the state), therefore everyone essentially represents themselves OR groups together in a communal sense, either way the following is the same. This essentially means that every group can make its own rules and abide them as they see fit.

First of all, the State is not the people. The State is a parasitic group of people that exploit and expropriate the productive people. "We" are not "the State." If "we are the State," then we don't have to worry about the national debt or deficits since "we owe it to ourselves." But you and I both know that we are the ones who are forced to pay it TO THE STATE, through taxes, inflation, etc.

Second, people represent themselves as individuals. They can CHOOSE to collectively organize themselves in business firms, collectives, townships, governments, whatever - so long as it is voluntary (allowing free entry and exit, and without the use of violence). If people chose to have a State-like entity VOLUNTARILY, that is, they could leave and secede at will, that would be fine. Although that could probably never happen - since a State can only arise via one violent gang dominating a society.

Third, as I mentioned before, there WOULD BE LAW - the Libertarian NonAggression Axiom - that all are free to live however they desire so long as they do not aggress against another. Those committing force and fraud are punished. It also does not follow that you need a STATE to enforce this law - why not through independently competing firms (call them DROs, Insurance Companies, Private Defense Companies, as you wish) on a market for protection services, arbitration services, and judicial proceedings.

Quote:
 
The biggest deal-breaker in Anarcho-Capitalism is even if society somehow gets its act together to agree on basic principals that all will follow what mechanism is there to prevent others from breaking or creating new rules?

They would have to follow the nonaggression axiom for any just law. It's as simple as that - a law providing for any violent assault on person or property is null and void. There are two trends of thought as to how law would be produced on the free market. It's pointless to describe them (essentially the adaption of Anglo-Saxon common law, or allow a market for law creation) because they both arrive at the same end with similar means:

PRIVATE law has emerged out of free competition for ages. It is only a recent invention that PUBLIC LAW has dominated society so that a Parliament or a Congress are able to violate PRIVATE law. The private law has emerged in England (Anglo-Saxon common law) to allow free production and markets for goods and services. In Mideival Europe, merchants would go to the private courts, NOT THE KING'S COURT to settle disputes with a neutral (yet PRIVATE) arbitrator.

The laws that emerge would be few but far reaching, as in any just society. Once they begin to allow force or fraud (PUBLIC law is, by definition, granting force and fraud onto a single sector of a society but punishing all others) it is against the interests of all society - for there are winners and losers. No one would trade with those who commit force or fraud - their reputation would drive them out of the market until they either banish themselves, or make amends for their behavior.

Quote:
 
Your Example

Well each person would choose as to whether they want to purchase protection or insurance from whatever agencies exist. The cost would actually be immensely cheap in comparison to State "services." The competition in the market would drive down the profits that result from a monopoly that the State has (and the inefficiency and lacking product quality which results from monopoly).

Police forces, unless they have made an agreement in their contract with their customer, would only serve their constituent customers and not those of other agencies (or those independents who chose not to associate with one). If the offender is a member of an agency, that agency, fearing loss of clientele, reputation, and profits, would have to apprehend him accordingly. If NEITHER victim nor offender is a part of an agency, there would be no police force - they would have full power (as ALL individuals do in the free society) to "take the law into their own hands." Obviously there are risks involved in doing so, but it is permitted so long as they do not commit additional aggression against the nonaggression axiom.

But we could have a whole conversation of "what ifs..."

Quote:
 

If history has taught us anything is that when left to their own devices those with wealth or power (under any system) will simply accumulate more wealth. Ie they already have the power/wealth and that power means they have the means to acquire more power/wealth.

And how have they gotten that way? From seeking privileges from the State! Monopoly privileges, anti-trust legislation, subsidies, tax breaks, etc. The wealthy, in any non-free society, do not get wealthy by themselves, or without the use of force and fraud. It is conceivable that without a State for society to tear each other's throats out to get access to in order to plunder everybody else, there would be a much narrower distribution of wealth.

That way, those that get wealthy truly merit it, for they are truly serving their fellow man, and it has been made in a just way from beginning to end.

In a society with a State - it is like a zero-sum game. Everybody profits at the expense of everybody else - because they use the State to violate others' rights, and grant themselves additional privileges.

In a society without a State - it is a non-zero-sum game. The "Invisible Hand" works so that all gain at the gain of all.

Quote:
 
And do not state "the market will regulate itself" that is an unsubstantive ideological line that is just used as an excuse for those that are backed into an intellectual corner and are unable to come up with a proper logical answer.

Again, I can't explain everything every time I post so I must abbreviate occasionally. Look at ALL the above instances. I could have easily said "the market regulates itself" for these are all instances where it is self-correcting and self-adjusting. You know I don't have an intellectually barren answer, I have yet to find myself in a corner.

So let me repeat and expand: The market forces, in a free society, have perfect ability to regulate themselves. If one person gains a profit, other people see there is profit in the industry and enter into it out of self interest until there is no more profit. If one firm is losing money, they are squandering resources and the market kicks them out of business, freeing up resources and capital for those who are more competent of serving their fellow brethren by gaining profits. Profits mean that people are willing and able to purchase something that you have to offer them. Without profits and losses, there can be no rational calculation, and resources and capital are squandered. With them, society is at its most efficient, AND, more importantly, its most just.

Again, I can go on for a while about the "market regulating itself." There's the entire Invisible Hand concept - of one person serving others through his own self interest, so that when all do this, the world is in harmony through "selfish, wicked," means. But I won't, unless you want me to.

Again, I see no excuse for a lack of intellect here. Do you?

Quote:
 
The Rest


Again, I have never said that the Free Market (aka Anarcho-Capitalism) is PERFECT, that it is UTOPIAN, and that we'll all sing Kumbaya with no violence and no poor. Simply put, the free market is the most ethical and efficient society to live in for an imperfect man in an imperfect world.

While I have been going through line by line and defending or refuting your attacks, I want to prove that I am capable, able, and willing to argue over anything you can come up with.

However, I refuse to respond to your "diagnosis" of my "condition."
George Mason University '15
Ph.D Economics


Sporder.net - Complex Problems, Emergent Solutions

COUNTRIES:
2012: The Q'ylerian Freehold
Version 5: The Most Serene Republic of Crælia
Version 4.2: The Ellic Kingdom/Ellic (Etremian) Empire
Version 4: The Ellic Tribes/Kingdom/Republic
Version 3: The United States of Rezelia;

The only use of nuclear weapons in CCRPG; The only use of nerve gas
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Conqueror
Member Avatar
Senator
[ *  *  *  * ]
Lundymaphone
Oct 16 2009, 02:34 AM
This is for Ryan, Ben and I (and anyone else), and also to preserve the spirit of the topic without it going too far off course.

Ryan I never claimed that a single army would exist I simply said that all that has to happen is that a single "force" can cause a lot of damage, and many forces can cause even more. And no offense Ryan but I do not think you are at the level of academia (which itself does not guarantee the truth) to be questioning my understanding of economics compared to yours. Edit: I make no claim that I know more then you (as I have little backing) I simply do not believe you are in a position to compare our knowledge/reasoning skills.

And on another note, I do not want to see (from anyone anymore) the argument that "just because it has been written in a book (or multiple books) makes it a valid fact". If you believe that because you think you've read more books then I (which I highly doubt) then remember that I have first hand experience in dealing with economics in an outside of the classroom setting, in accounting offices, consulting firms and even the TSX, I see how people behave around wealth, money and power, and not through the TV or threw a book.

It would be like if I thought that my stock picking abilities were superior to a certain billionaires (we all know who) simply because I thought more about the market and read more books then he did.

Ben basically made the point but I will augment/repeat what he said in my own words.

Without enforcement rules are essentially worthless, I think everyone can agree on that. And in a Libertarian, or Anarcho-Capitalist, whatever you want to call it society there is no entity that represents all people (the state), therefore everyone essentially represents themselves OR groups together in a communal sense, either way the following is the same. This essentially means that every group can make its own rules and abide them as they see fit.

The biggest deal-breaker in Anarcho-Capitalism is even if society somehow gets its act together to agree on basic principals that all will follow what mechanism is there to prevent others from breaking or creating new rules? You either have to resort to violence or economic isolation, or even simply putting up with the morally questionable rules.

All three routes have massive issues associated with them.

Here is an example.

There is a poor community and a break-in has occurred, the thief is running down the street and the private police decide to catch him, one way or another they find their way back to the house the break-in has occurred. The police present the thief and his stolen property and tell the resident they must pay for the police officers service. The resident states that he cannot afford to pay for the arrest. Remember this society has no government to pay for capture, prosecution and imprisonment of those who break the law, all of these require people and services, all of which cost money.

Now the police officers, being good guys give the stolen property back to the resident free of charge but release the thief because who is going to "pay for him".

The next day the thief steals from the same resident. The resident phones the police and gives his name and address. Now being that these private police are not idiots they keep records on all those people they come in contact with. The police reply that since they know that the resident cannot pay for their services that they will not apprehend the criminal. Now you can say that "the market will have a low-wage police force in place for such people" but there is a bottoming out that has to occur since there is a base minimum cost for everything, and there will be many who cannot even afford the dollar store cops.

The same can be applied for firefighting, healthcare, just about anything. If someone is unable to pay for firefighting services should their house burn down? or should someone die simply because they cannot afford to pay for tamaflu?

If history has taught us anything is that when left to their own devices those with wealth or power (under any system) will simply accumulate more wealth. Ie they already have the power/wealth and that power means they have the means to acquire more power/wealth.

Anarcho-Capitalism works great if the world were run by computers, those that follow logical pathways and will always do the "right thing". Even if the vast majority of people were moral and logical it would work. But the majority of people are horribly greedy, they lie, and the cheat when given the chance.

And do not state "the market will regulate itself" that is an unsubstantive ideological line that is just used as an excuse for those that are backed into an intellectual corner and are unable to come up with a proper logical answer.

One thing everyone should constantly keep in mind. 1000 years ago almost every university professor, teacher, and intellectual on earth KNEW the world was flat. You should take anyones word with a grain of salt, I think we grossly overvalue and overestimate both the intelligence and knowledge of our so called "Intellectual Elite".

If I may be so bold, I believe that you have been taken in by Anarcho-Capitalism's majesty and optimism (a world without a government seems like a godsend). I honestly believe that this has nothing to do with your intelligence nor your knowledge base you simply have a need or weakness filled by such theories (just like I have a need/weakness for cultural pride or Coca-Cola). I am using you as an example because I know you are mature/man enough to take it in an adult fashion but this applies to many other people regardless of political affiliation.

I just want to finish by saying that I know many mid-20's early 30's professionals (ie went to university) and a good chunk were Anarcho-Capitalists and sounded just like you Ryan, but later in life they came to realize the insurmountable faults and conceded that as far as humanities moral/civilization related goals are concerned, State Capitalism is basically the best route (or as I like to call it the least crappy route). I think peoples fascination with Communism or State Capitalism is a result of the "grass is always greener" syndrome.

Not really wanting to get involved, but it sounds like you Lundy feel you are superior to us since you have "real world experience", there is the chance that you have been following around completely incompetent economists. Chances are not, especially since economics is a science where few are right, and where everyone agrees to disagree. As for if capitalism is the ultimate economic system, I have my doubts, the more I learn about it and talk to others about it, the more I realize how much it can be improved. Many, including my economics prof(well, it seems this way) directly blames capitalism for the recent economic collapse in the states.
Wealth, Dominance, Power!
My Country Home
Go Canucks Go!!!
Engage PC - All about PCs, games and technology
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benthamus
Freedom lover
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm disappointed there was not refuting of my points. This was getting interesting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryan
Member Avatar
Imperator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Benthamus
Oct 16 2009, 07:28 PM
I'm disappointed there was not refuting of my points. This was getting interesting.

Post them here so I can refute them if you please. Sorry I was just addressing the ones that were visibly in front of me. :P
George Mason University '15
Ph.D Economics


Sporder.net - Complex Problems, Emergent Solutions

COUNTRIES:
2012: The Q'ylerian Freehold
Version 5: The Most Serene Republic of Crælia
Version 4.2: The Ellic Kingdom/Ellic (Etremian) Empire
Version 4: The Ellic Tribes/Kingdom/Republic
Version 3: The United States of Rezelia;

The only use of nuclear weapons in CCRPG; The only use of nerve gas
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Benthamus
Freedom lover
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The Oxford Dictionary defines the state as " nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". It then defines government as "the action or manner of governing a state, organisation, or people". Now first let me state I have used definitions that work towards my argeument but nonetheless they are still legitamte definitions of these words.

Should "the State" disappear what will occur? The most likely result will be groups of people combining together for their own common security and welfare. They will require a method to govern themselves as a group and thus a set of rules to work out disputes. Lets say they all hypothetically agree to the concept of democracy and, using the power of referendum, agree on a set of rules, a constitution if you will. Now this constituion rules over a set of territory and has thus become the State. We are back to the beginning.

However lets look at other hypotheticals regarding your example Ryan. The free market will provide court, police and arbitration services to curtail crime. What if I refuse to recognise one court and accept another? What if my opponent does likewise? In this hypothetical we are stuck at a standstill. Which one will prevail? What if the arbitration services engage in extreme brutality. If it were the police there might be an enquiry, with a private service the only oversight might be the contract they signed. If they are the ones who are supposed to enforce contracts and they break them, how is going to stop them except another arbitration service which will in many cases result in "war".

Now if this set of courts, police and arbitration are sold on a communal basis rather than individuals than as shown above they are selling themselves to a State. Thus negating the entire arguement.

The argument "if the State were to disappear tomorrow it would be the war of all against" is a valid argument except among idealist who believe in a utopia. You're attempted anolgy is quite incorrect. The following would be better.

You and me both own ships. They are both similar in design and features and the crew is paid in advance. On my ship I have a group of Marines who represent the State. If my crew run off after being paid the Marines will hunt them and arrest them. On your ship there are no Marines. The crew can get paid in advance and go "screw this, I'm out of here". Now many might not, but there will eventually be a group that will.

In the end in theory your ideas work perfectly but it's much like International Law. This nice system as long as everybody plays by the rules. Oh wait I forgot first there are no rules, and second there is no way to enforce people from following it.

-----
Now regarding services. The Commonwealth of Australia has invested alot into me since I was born. They have ensured collective security whilst providing an economic atmosphere that has allowed me to grow up with all the benefits of Industrialised Civilisation. I know that if I sign a contract and the other party breaks it the State will intervene and force them using its monopoly on force. As payment I pay my taxes, but we must remember Israel is essentially surrounded by enemies. This girls got to grow up in a safer enviroment because the Israeli military is on vigilant guard all the time.

Yes the military is simply legally sanctioned instrument of mass-murder, but I bet you were glad the US Army was around during the Second World War. I'll remember next time I talk to a Second World War veteran to ask the police to charge them with murder. You may attempt to talk your way around this but in my eyes you have essentially made that claim.

You've also done one the things in the world I hate the most. Blaming the soldiers instead of the government. Soldiers do as their told if they don't they are charged and punished. Yes many armies are all-volunteer like that of my own nations, but those rules have to be there. Without discipline the army collapses and imagine if it collapsed at the moment it was most direly needed just because a bunch of people didn't want to fight.

You're statement that I probably don't has made me realise it's true. I don't like the State but I love my country. By State I mean the actual governing mechanisms, but the country meaning the people and institutions, I do love with all my heart which is why I am proud to serve.

KamikazeCow: Yes I don't know why the would fight and maintain an army after 1948, 1967, 1973 and all the constant mortor and bombing attacks against them, There is a large group of people who hate Israeli's because of Israel. They are stuck in the position of no comprimise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryan
Member Avatar
Imperator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The Oxford Dictionary defines the state as " nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". It then defines government as "the action or manner of governing a state, organisation, or people". Now first let me state I have used definitions that work towards my argeument but nonetheless they are still legitamte definitions of these words.


There are TWO definitions of "State" that are quite different. One discussing the POLITY, that is just the society of individuals - a country more or less (although there are differences.) The other, to which I ALWAYS refer, is the human institution with a legal monopoly of violence over a given territory. That is the definition that all political scientists use, and it comes from Max Weber, I'm not just making it up.

You are probably referring to the first, where you really should use the term COUNTRY instead of STATE. Otherwise it leads to confusion as you will accuse me of being against my country or my society, which is unfair and logically unsound because you are simply equivocating.

Quote:
 
Should "the State" disappear what will occur? The most likely result will be groups of people combining together for their own common security and welfare.

Sure, sounds fine so far.

Quote:
 
They will require a method to govern themselves as a group and thus a set of rules to work out disputes. Lets say they all hypothetically agree to the concept of democracy and, using the power of referendum, agree on a set of rules, a constitution if you will. Now this constituion rules over a set of territory and has thus become the State. We are back to the beginning.


First, it does not follow that because there are a group of people they need to confer a monopoly of violence onto one group. What you are saying is thus:

Imagine a large group of people become stranded on a desert island. They all have a decent amount of wealth and possessions, and they decide that in order to protect their property and lives and to make rules, they decide to set up a government. One person says, "Let's give all of our weapons to the Jones family, let's give absolute and unlimited power to make laws, punish all of us, print our money, and punish any of us who violate these provisions or who try to suggest other provisions to live our lives by. They can take a portion of our possessions each month as they see fit for themselves. Let's hope they rule us wisely." Now who on Earth would agree to that?

Democracy also violates rights. It's called the tyranny of the majority. It violates the nonaggression axiom. There's nothing sacred about a majority. If 90% of the people decide to murder and enslave the remaining 10%, whether it's "legal" or not, it's still murder and slavery, and still obscenely wrong. The lynch mob is a majority.

A State is anything that requires (a) a monopoly of legal violence, and (b) obtains its funds by forcible taxation. Even in your scenario, a GOVERNMENT could emerge, but so long as it is voluntary, did not have a legal monopoly on anything, and did not forcibly collect taxes, it would NOT be a State. [There's a big difference - a government is simply a body presently and temporarily overseeing an institution. I am not against a voluntary government, but only against the State]

Quote:
 
However lets look at other hypotheticals regarding your example Ryan. The free market will provide court, police and arbitration services to curtail crime. What if I refuse to recognise one court and accept another? What if my opponent does likewise? In this hypothetical we are stuck at a standstill. Which one will prevail?


First, the whole point of a market is to have MULTIPLE firms competing for service, so you wouldn't have just one (like a State). So people would naturally subscribe to different companies.

Second, everyone would obviously be partial towards their own firm, and it would be conceivable that they would disregard all other firms' authority, you are indeed correct. There are twp ways, self-regulating market mechanisms that would prevent "all hell from breaking loose" in this scenario:

1. The firms have chosen (in advance, or on the spot) to use a neutral, third party firm, as arbitrator over any dispute that should arise between their clients. Now, mind you, again there are hundreds, if not thousands of firms, so there would be many firms to choose from (and not just one - so don't argue that the State would be that third party). The rule of any third court would be taken as binding.

2. Firms have a disincentive to "take it out" on each other, i.e. start mini "wars" between firms. Among other reasons:

(a) War is expensive. Firms are by definition out for profit and do not want to fight costly wars. They want the dispute to be resolved in a quick, orderly manner. Being quasi-insurance companies, they want to earn premiums and want to pay as LEAST damages and recompensations as possible.

(b) War also increases risk. Insurance companies, by definition, are risk averse. You don't know if you are going to win or lose. Losing implies a loss of money, but even more a loss of reputation, clientele, and profits.

© War damages reputation. Keep in mind (as funny and strange as this concept sounds) this is the MARKET FOR JUSTICE, and so people looking for justice typically aren't going to prefer the one with a violent tendencies. They want the one where their agents say "have a nice day," etc.

Quote:
 
What if the arbitration services engage in extreme brutality.

Again, they have a disincentive to do so (see above). In addition, if any members of any firm aggress upon their clients or another, that is violating the law and they are to be punished. [Similarly, unlike today, if there would be any police fraud or invasiveness in obtaining evidence for example, if the suspect is innocent, the police would go to jail for violating his rights.]

Again, we are also pursuing a just society. Obviously, in the (unlikely event) in which the police agencies become criminal themselves and were to take over society, thus establishing a State, again it wouldn't be just.

Quote:
 
Now if this set of courts, police and arbitration are sold on a communal basis rather than individuals than as shown above they are selling themselves to a State. Thus negating the entire arguement.

I don't get what you mean here...

Quote:
 
Analogies

I'm simply pointing out that in my argument, you can't say that anarchism is disproved per se because there would be a power vacuum if we were to immediately rip out the State without any warning. Thus, I don't see how it is incorrect - I think you are confusing the analogies.

Quote:
 

In the end in theory your ideas work perfectly but it's much like International Law. This nice system as long as everybody plays by the rules. Oh wait I forgot first there are no rules, and second there is no way to enforce people from following it.


Um, yes there are rules...its called the nonaggression axiom. And yes they are enforced by the insurance companies should you choose to subscribe to one.

Everyone would have the right to take the law into their own hands, but few people would. It is very dangerous for you to attempt to do so, what if someone is stronger than you? You have an incentive to protect yourself by subscribing to an agency, and most likely a part of the contract is to agree not to take the law into your own hands, and leave it to the procedures and police of the agency.

Thus, there WILL be law, and there WILL be enforcement. Don't put words in my mouth please.

The international system itself is anarchic and is an example (not the best, because States are by definition unjust) of everyday functioning anarchy. I've got more examples if you want to discuss them.

Quote:
 
Now regarding services. The Commonwealth of Australia has invested alot into me since I was born. They have ensured collective security whilst providing an economic atmosphere that has allowed me to grow up with all the benefits of Industrialised Civilisation. I know that if I sign a contract and the other party breaks it the State will intervene and force them using its monopoly on force. As payment I pay my taxes, but we must remember Israel is essentially surrounded by enemies. This girls got to grow up in a safer enviroment because the Israeli military is on vigilant guard all the time.


It's not voluntary AT ALL in any sense of the term. Thus it's already unjust. You have no (realistic) option to leave. And when did you give the Australian State your consent to follow their laws, "pay" your taxes, etc?

Quote:
 
Yes the military is simply legally sanctioned instrument of mass-murder, but I bet you were glad the US Army was around during the Second World War. I'll remember next time I talk to a Second World War veteran to ask the police to charge them with murder. You may attempt to talk your way around this but in my eyes you have essentially made that claim.

You can't pick out one instance (WWII) and declare all of my beliefs on a topic (war) to be wrong or stupid based on one instance, that's a logical fallacy. I could easily argue that if aggressive acts x, y, and z hadn't happened (WWI as an easy example), we wouldn't have ever had WWII, and so forth. This makes your argument a moot point.

It is murder, plain and simple, you can't deny that. And I don't apologize for that claim. If it was a just war, which it was not, (look at the level of unproportional aggression the Allies committed) then the murder would have been sanctioned and justified. But yes, they are murderers. Am I calling for their punishment? No, because it was the system itself that told them to murder. It is the SYSTEM which is unjust and needs to be destroyed/punished.

Stop pointing to a specific thing and trying to make me look ridiculous by saying that my claim that X, which is CAUSED by Y, is unjust and I am stupid for saying it, when in fact we both know it is caused by Y, which is the real root of injustice.

Quote:
 
You've also done one the things in the world I hate the most. Blaming the soldiers instead of the government. Soldiers do as their told if they don't they are charged and punished.

Ben, where have I EVER done that? You know I do just the opposite, look at what I just said!

Quote:
 
I don't like the State but I love my country. By State I mean the actual governing mechanisms, but the country meaning the people and institutions, I do love with all my heart which is why I am proud to serve.

And I have absolutely no problem with that, I feel the same way about the US. It is possible to absolutely hate your State/Government and call for its abolition while still loving your country, culture, heritage, etc, because it is that awful State that is RUINING your great country.

"A true patriot must be prepared to defend his country against his government."
-Edward Abbey
George Mason University '15
Ph.D Economics


Sporder.net - Complex Problems, Emergent Solutions

COUNTRIES:
2012: The Q'ylerian Freehold
Version 5: The Most Serene Republic of Crælia
Version 4.2: The Ellic Kingdom/Ellic (Etremian) Empire
Version 4: The Ellic Tribes/Kingdom/Republic
Version 3: The United States of Rezelia;

The only use of nuclear weapons in CCRPG; The only use of nerve gas
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Via Domus created by Steve of the ZetaBoards Theme Zone