Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the current system of waiting for an agent of the state to come help you, the national average response time for police arriving from a 911 emergency call is ~10 minutes.
In the 2nd Amendment, castle doctrine friendly system, the response time is however long it takes you o get your weapon in your hand, aim on target and pull the trigger.
The stateless society would use the 2nd Amendment friendly system, what with self-defense against initiations of force being a natural individual right and all.
Remember the rule, StateBoy - when seconds matter, the police will be there in 10 minutes.
Quite possibly the most ignorant quote ever written on the nature of government.
Government, by definition, IS A MONOPOLY on initiating force and violence within a defined geopolitical boundary. The members of the government come and go, but the framework never changes.
Monopoly=same PEOPLE IN CHARGE, not"framework"
.framework is not in CHARGE people are....
If framework is in CHARGE:
Are you suggesting that trumps "framework" is the same as obamas?
Sounds like a different "framework is at hand....lol
I support the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms, this has nothing to do with a private profiteering Corporation running the police department.
In fact I would suggest It would be within the corporate interest to cut off Americans ability to defend themselves therefore increasing their dependence on armed police response services
In modern society you don't have to worry about the state initiating violence against you if you play by the rules and follow the law... obviously you've never lived in a third world country if you have such an attitude about this permissive relaxed free country you're living in now.
When I worked as a police dispatcher the response times were lightning quick.
No...really.
Nobody ever thought about the correlation between slow response times and the decreased likelihood of "finding a crime" which meant
A. No need to file a report.
B. Less crimes reported on the UCR at the end of the year
Cops never did that. I swear. And political pressure to give the appearance of less crimes by encouraging slow response times never occurred. I swear by that too.
Did I convince you?
You convinced me that in a profiteering system that armed police response units would be even less likely to solve or prevent crimes since there is no profit in it.
In fact they would be motivated to create crime because crime is good for business
it's not as if they have to worry about an election every few years or anything like that
... I've worked in public safety for over a decade and I've never been encouraged to delay my response time, if people aren't happy with the Police Services they won't vote for the politicians in charge next time...mayor, commissioner, chief.
if a private Corporation is in charge they don't give a damn about your vote
the politician comes and goes via vote but the corporation remains forever maintaining their Monopoly....ever heard of "blackwater...err I mean Xe Services....or is it Academi....coming soon who knows.
they may have to change their name once in awhile but the same fat cats stay in charge year after year
What we know private Armed Forces will definitely do is Lobby for harsher sentences and increased enforcement of things like the drug war and civil asset forfeiture
Things aren't perfect now in fact they're much worse than they used to be but don't be fooled into handing your government over to a corporation because things have gone downhill since we opened up our system to Total corporate bribery of our politicians
No_Recess obviously isn't taking you seriously, and I get that rebeldor's approach offends you, but it's not incompetence.
I gave a definition of property. It's something you're the rightful owner of. That's not an accurate definition?
Not at all for the purposes of a legal framework. There is no premise. Its kind of why most works on the subject is not "be free".
The law regarding lunar settlements is as follows:
....
Done.
Quote:
And on the bold...we're very clear about what we're against. Initiating force and violating property rights. Do you believe in those principles or not? I'm honestly asking. Maybe you would personally resort to force to make your neighbor fund the things you want.
Not without a proper definition. As I said the labor theory of property is a good start. However there are others like personal space , where on is stetted and so on. The classical liberals discussed this and nowhere do I see any of their comments ....
There are other forms of extortion besides direct aggression.It is in the management of these ever changing valuable spaces that all the theory must hang. Spaces have values and how are they to be owned or not owned respectively?
But you at least seem to have a pulse in what is otherwise a mortuary.
Property is only as secure as the government allows it to be, ask a white South African farmer...thats why its SUPER important not to allow any corrupt behavior like bribery
Libertarians may be living in the land of make believe much like the wealthy conservatives from whenst they sprang.... the theory that a society can exist under "self rule" is just an aristocratic wet dream.
Or perhaps they are smart enough to know that "self rule" is just a fantasy but sells well to the fadeing old ritch folks and the angry white men but is in fact just regular old DEREGULATION AGENDA 101, Wealthy insulated few fleecing the poor ignorant masses and aristocratic fear of the growing mass of poor brown people using DEMOCRACY to unseat them from atop their throne
Spoken like a true authoritarian. "We need wise overlords dictating how we live, because we're unfit to make our own decisions."
Spoken like a true authoritarian. "We need wise overlords dictating how we live, because we're unfit to make our own decisions."
Again how can you speak in such loose language? There is authoritarianism of a sort like a despot Then there are constitutional types. There is the Roman system of two Consuls for a year. There is peer based force. There are binding agreements between peers. Can groups of people freely surrender their authority ? If not then on what authority can they not?
Saying one is against authoritarianism is just weak. If one is to appeal to natural law then organ systems and defense then the nature of things is readily apparent.
How to you prevent the Praetorian effect? How do you prevent a few thousand men from domination of the rest with muh freedoms? How will you prevent the natural selective processes that will elevate a tyrant over a helpless leaderless mass ?
Scale matters
Proportion of the military force, to the number of the people
THE power of the sword is more sensibly felt in an extensive monarchy than in a small community. It has been calculated by the ablest politicians, that no state, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above the hundredth part of its members in arms and idleness. But although this relative proportion may be uniform, the influence of the army over the rest of the society will vary according to the degree of its positive strength. The advantages of military science and discipline cannot be exerted, unless a proper number of soldiers are united into one body, and actuated by one soul. With a handful of men, such an union would be ineffectual; with an unwieldy hosts it would be impracticable; and the powers of the machine would be alike destroyed by the extreme minuteness, or the excessive weight, of its springs. To illustrate this observation we need only reflect, that there is no superiority of natural strength, artificial weapons, or acquired skill, which could enable one man to keep in constant subjection one hundred of his fellow creatures: the tyrant of a single town, or a small district, would soon discover that an hundred armed followers were a weak defence against ten thousand peasants or citizens; but an hundred thousand well disciplined soldiers will command, with despotic sway, ten millions of subjects; and a body of ten or fifteen thousand guards will strike terror into the most numerous populace that ever crowded the streets of an immense capital. Edward Gibbon
We have seen this over and over again. Asiatic farmer on the steppe , meet the Golden Hoard.
This is why the US and the 13 colonies was ideal . A confederacy of small scale units that could not agree on an offensive scheme but would agree to a common defense. Yet in the face of a hug threat some sort of authority was all that ever could oppose the Hoards , the Huns, the Tatars, and the Saracen swarms .
Not at all for the purposes of a legal framework. There is no premise. Its kind of why most works on the subject is not "be free".
The law regarding lunar settlements is as follows:
....
Done.
Not sure what the bold is supposed to mean... we've never been for absolute freedom if that's what you're trying to imply.
Quote:
Not without a proper definition. As I said the labor theory of property is a good start. However there are others like personal space , where on is stetted and so on. The classical liberals discussed this and nowhere do I see any of their comments ....
There are other forms of extortion besides direct aggression.It is in the management of these ever changing valuable spaces that all the theory must hang. Spaces have values and how are they to be owned or not owned respectively?
But you at least seem to have a pulse in what is otherwise a mortuary.
If you're saying that our current understanding of property theory should be refined, okay...could be true, I'm not sure. There should always be continuous discussion to try and fix errors in our thinking.
What I would say is that we have a working definition of property, even if there are gray areas. The purpose of establishing property is to determine who has the highest claim to something, which is the best way to resolve a dispute without it turning violent.
At the very least, the labor theory of property, understanding of homesteading, trade, or gift as ways to rightfully acquire property, etc. can get the job done in most cases. If there's a better theory out there, great, I'd like to hear it.
The general idea still stands that if you acquire something honestly, someone else shouldn't have any right to take it from you if they did nothing to earn it.
Not sure what the bold is supposed to mean... we've never been for absolute freedom if that's what you're trying to imply.
If there were no constraints what need is there to suggest anything else. Lets all be free.
Quote:
If you're saying that our current understanding of property theory should be refined, okay...could be true, I'm not sure. There should always be continuous discussion to try and fix errors in our thinking.
There is no libertarian position without it that is not subject to mockery.
Quote:
What I would say is that we have a working definition of property, even if there are gray areas. The purpose of establishing property is to determine who has the highest claim to something, which is the best way to resolve a dispute without it turning violent.
At the very least, the labor theory of property, understanding of homesteading, trade, or gift as ways to rightfully acquire property, etc. can get the job done in most cases. If there's a better theory out there, great, I'd like to hear it.
The general idea still stands that if you acquire something honestly, someone else shouldn't have any right to take it from you if they did nothing to earn it.
Let me get right to the point. Who owns the best land? How much per person ? May I build a crap house on a highway?
Not a problem in sparsely populated pioneer states. In progressive states its a big problem.
Again how can you speak in such loose language? There is authoritarianism of a sort like a despot Then there are constitutional types. There is the Roman system of two Consuls for a year. There is peer based force. There are binding agreements between peers. Can groups of people freely surrender their authority ? If not then on what authority can they not?
Saying one is against authoritarianism is just weak. If one is to appeal to natural law then organ systems and defense then the nature of things is readily apparent.
How to you prevent the Praetorian effect? How do you prevent a few thousand men from domination of the rest with muh freedoms? How will you prevent the natural selective processes that will elevate a tyrant over a helpless leaderless mass ?
Scale matters
Proportion of the military force, to the number of the people
THE power of the sword is more sensibly felt in an extensive monarchy than in a small community. It has been calculated by the ablest politicians, that no state, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above the hundredth part of its members in arms and idleness. But although this relative proportion may be uniform, the influence of the army over the rest of the society will vary according to the degree of its positive strength. The advantages of military science and discipline cannot be exerted, unless a proper number of soldiers are united into one body, and actuated by one soul. With a handful of men, such an union would be ineffectual; with an unwieldy hosts it would be impracticable; and the powers of the machine would be alike destroyed by the extreme minuteness, or the excessive weight, of its springs. To illustrate this observation we need only reflect, that there is no superiority of natural strength, artificial weapons, or acquired skill, which could enable one man to keep in constant subjection one hundred of his fellow creatures: the tyrant of a single town, or a small district, would soon discover that an hundred armed followers were a weak defence against ten thousand peasants or citizens; but an hundred thousand well disciplined soldiers will command, with despotic sway, ten millions of subjects; and a body of ten or fifteen thousand guards will strike terror into the most numerous populace that ever crowded the streets of an immense capital. Edward Gibbon
We have seen this over and over again. Asiatic farmer on the steppe , meet the Golden Hoard.
This is why the US and the 13 colonies was ideal . A confederacy of small scale units that could not agree on an offensive scheme but would agree to a common defense. Yet in the face of a hug threat some sort of authority was all that ever could oppose the Hoards , the Huns, the Tatars, and the Saracen swarms .
On the bold, sure, but they can't make that decision for others.
On the quote, I completely agree. A stateless society would have an incentive to organize for mutual defense. The reason I wouldn't call it a state is because it's done by choice, whereas a state is a ruling group dictating it on everyone within the territory they claim authority over...but that's just semantics. If no initiation of force against peaceful people is occurring, we don't have a problem with it.
On the bold, sure, but they can't make that decision for others.
On the quote, I completely agree. A stateless society would have an incentive to organize for mutual defense. The reason I wouldn't call it a state is because it's done by choice, whereas a state is a ruling group dictating it on everyone within the territory they claim authority over...but that's just semantics. If no initiation of force against peaceful people is occurring, we don't have a problem with it.
You are to be praised for defining critical terminology :
a state is a ruling group dictating it on everyone within the territory they claim authority over
That clears things up.
However you are not scoring too highly in my mind on and abuse of the terminology . A state is merely a political organization. A state is not necessarily of the despotic type.
: a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign
b : the political organization of such a body of people
c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character
a police state
the welfare state
Were it not for this we would find much more common ground.
If there were no constraints what need is there to suggest anything else. Lets all be free.
I don't know of anyone advocating for no constraints, because that would be naive. Libertarians/ancaps 100% believe in restraints against aggressors.
Quote:
There is no libertarian position without it that is not subject to mockery.
Let me get right to the point. Who owns the best land? How much per person ? May I build a crap house on a highway?
Not a problem in sparsely populated pioneer states. In progressive states its a big problem.
Whoever got to it first and made use of it owns it, or if they traded with the original owner or had it given to them as a gift. There's no set amount that anyone is limited to. You can build a crap house on a highway if you own that property, or if the owner allows it.
Do you have an alternative to that? One that is internally consistent and non-arbitrary?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
