DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on January 08, 2007, 05:39:09 PM
-
If you have some time to spare today or in the next few days perhaps, I invite you to take a read of a pair of articles. “Society without a State (http://www.mises.org/story/2429)â€, by Murray Rothbard, is long at about 6500 words. “Trading on Reputation (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117079.html)â€, by Christopher Faille, is considerably shorter at only about 1900 words.
When you've had a chance to read one or both of the articles, please feel free to come back and give me your reaction.
-
No takers, eh? Oh well. Here are some excerpts.
From “Society without a State (http://www.mises.org/story/2429)â€, by Murray Rothbard:
In attempting to outline how a "society without a state" — that is, an anarchist society — might function successfully, I would first like to defuse two common but mistaken criticisms of this approach. First, is the argument that in providing for such defense or protection services as courts, police, or even law itself, I am simply smuggling the state back into society in another form, and that therefore the system I am both analyzing and advocating is not "really" anarchism. This sort of criticism can only involve us in an endless and arid dispute over semantics. Let me say from the beginning that I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history. The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction. But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property.
The crucial role of taxation may be seen in the fact that the state is the only institution or organization in society which regularly and systematically acquires its income through the use of physical coercion. All other individuals or organizations acquire their income voluntarily, either (1) through the voluntary sale of goods and services to consumers on the market, or (2) through voluntary gifts or donations by members or other donors. If I cease or refrain from purchasing Wheaties on the market, the Wheaties producers do not come after me with a gun or the threat of imprisonment to force me to purchase; if I fail to join the American Philosophical Association, the association may not force me to join or prevent me from giving up my membership. Only the state can do so; only the state can confiscate my property or put me in jail if I do not pay its tax tribute. Therefore, only the state regularly exists and has its very being by means of coercive depredations on private property.
Neither is it legitimate to challenge this sort of analysis by claiming that in some other sense, the purchase of Wheaties or membership in the APA is in some way "coercive." Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term "coercion" can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it "physical violence or the threat thereof," with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument. What anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the state, that is, to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion.
It need hardly be added that the state habitually builds upon its coercive source of income by adding a host of other aggressions upon society, ranging from economic controls to the prohibition of pornography to the compelling of religious observance to the mass murder of civilians in organized warfare. In short, the state, in the words of Albert Jay Nock, "claims and exercises a monopoly of crime" over its territorial area.
The second criticism I would like to defuse before beginning the main body of the paper is the common charge that anarchists "assume that all people are good" and that without the state no crime would be committed. In short, that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society. I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view. I assume with most observers that mankind is a mixture of good and evil, of cooperative and criminal tendencies. In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the "nature of man," given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
We cannot of course deal here with the numerous arguments in favor of anarchism or against the state, moral, political, and economic. Nor can we take up the various goods and services now provided by the state and show how private individuals and groups will be able to supply them far more efficiently on the free market. Here we can only deal with perhaps the most difficult area, the area where it is almost universally assumed that the state must exist and act, even if it is only a "necessary evil" instead of a positive good: the vital realm of defense or protection of person and property against aggression. Surely, it is universally asserted, the state is at least vitally necessary to provide police protection, the judicial resolution of disputes and enforcement of contracts, and the creation of the law itself that is to be enforced. My contention is that all of these admittedly necessary services of protection can be satisfactorily and efficiently supplied by private persons and institutions on the free market.
From “Trading on Reputation (http://www.reason.com/news/show/117079.html)â€, by Christopher Faille:
As Greif tells it, the Fatimids had a weak bureaucracy that saved itself administrative trouble by relying on community associations. If the newcomers wanted to govern their own affairs among themselves, they were welcome so to do. And they did. The émigrés developed a new identity. In time, they came to write casually of “our people, the Maghribis, the travelers.†These travelers proved very successful, claiming a niche of expertise in long-distance commerce. Greif gives an example of their influence when he describes how, around the year 1050, “the Muslim ruler of Sicily imposed a 10 percent tariff (instead of the 5 percent tariff specified by Islamic law) on goods imported to Sicily by the Maghribi traders. The traders responded by imposing an embargo and sending their goods to the rival trade center, Tunisia. The embargo was effective; after a year the Sicilian ruler removed the extra tariff.â€
Some of the Maghribi traders’ success came from avoiding the judicial system of the Fatimids. The Maghribis had access to two legal systems, the Muslim or the Jewish. As residents of the Islamic world, they could sue within the Muslim legal system. Separately, the Fatimid caliphate recognized the Jewish legal system as having authority over those who chose to use it. But the Maghribi traders saw both as inefficient, uninformed, and time-consuming.
In a paper published in the American Economic Review 13 years ago, Greif elaborated more on this point than he does in his most recent book. That paper cited one of the rare occasions when Maghribis did invoke the courts. The original plaintiff’s grandchildren were still seeking redress on their grandfather’s behalf 50 years later. No wonder the Maghribis generally avoided such a Jarndycean fate, preferring what Greif calls an “informal code of conduct.†They relied, to put it simply, on each other’s handshakes.
[...]
Beyond the evidence of history, Greif offers a game theory argument that the Maghribi model isn’t replicable because it only works within a small community, one where everybody can know everyone else and have a sense of who deserves shunning, through a process akin to that of small-town gossip. As long as “the Maghribi traders coalition survived,†he writes, “its functioning crucially depended on maintaining an appropriate size.…[A] larger coalition implies a slower circulation of information and hence delayed punishment.†Any delay of punishment is a discount in its value and accordingly a decrease in its effectiveness. Even if the small town is spread out through much of the Mediterranean, from Gibraltar to Asia Minor, it still retains its narrow demographic limits. Given those limits, it is inevitable that at some point any actual such coalition will be outflanked and outlasted.
But the considerations that require smallness of such a coalition, in Greif’s model, were quite specific to the period. They are technology-dependent. The speed of communication is an obvious example. An increase in the number of people on my email list doesn’t slow the speed with which I can communicate with all of them. Similarly, Greif tells us it was difficult for medieval parties to “retaliate collectively against a cheater not personally known to them…due to the challenge of describing him to those who were not cheated.†Does this amount to saying that the courts of a sovereign were necessary in a world without photography?
Furthermore, it obviously isn’t the case that Maghribi only did business with Maghribi. They only entered into agency relations (requiring promises and trust) with one another, and they dealt in cash on the barrelhead with the rest of the world. But common experience indicates that dealings of the latter sort can become dealings of the former sort, or at the very least that they could become sufficiently habitual and amicable to constitute the glue of a broader coalition. In some ways—some ways—you could compare the Maghribis with certain Anabaptist communities in the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries. Mennonites and the Amish typically have informal, “horizontal†relations with one another, enforce their internal norms through ostracism, and try to avoid outsiders’ court systems. These traits have not prevented them from fruitful interchange with the surrounding society. The Maghribis, of course, were much more outward-looking than the Amish.
Greif is an indefatigable researcher and a wonderfully acute thinker, and I recommend his work highly. But he may have erred in treating the Maghribi way as a road to nowhere. It might be better conceived as a road not taken.
Please feel free to offer your reactions. Like it? Don't like it? Think this is all crazy? Or do you just want to insult me for daring to bring up the very idea of society without a state? I don't care. Tell me what you think.
-
Well, I can't read the whole thing right now but I really want to because I don't understand how you could be interested in this article but give nothing but disdain and dismissal to all things RBE that I post. What annoys me right off is that having read part of the first article, I find the author is proposing nothing short of a total destruction of the "way things work" right now in favor of a totally different system (a non-system, if you will) that is, at heart, an economic system.
When I propose the RBE, I am constantly bombarded with the assertion that an economic system can't change the way people are. Yet here is this supposed scholar doing that very thing and I can only assume you agree with him. What the heck, dude?
Here is a point I want to address specifically though.
This point can be made more philosophically: it is illegitimate to compare the merits of anarchism and statism by starting with the present system as the implicit given and then critically examining only the anarchist alternative. What we must do is to begin at the zero point and then critically examine both suggested alternatives. Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: "We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family. In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other." I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state. When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of "who will guard the guardians?" becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
No one would suggest such a thing as handing over all the power to settle disputes to one particular group. We don't do that now. In fact, as a group of customers, Americans pay people to be judges and policemen while at the same time, Americans can always settle disputes outside of a court of law. In a democracy (like we allegedly live in), "watching the Watchmen" is the province of the likes of Internal Affairs and Congressional Oversight. And so, who watches those Watchmen. Well, guess what? It's the voters. You and me. That's how its supposed to work.
If I imagine an anarchistic society, I see a world of people going without. The middle class would be decimated because the rich would simply get richer because they would be able to buy the best lawyers and no one would consider that unfair or distasteful because everyone has to pay for everything. The rich ride on the best roads. The rich get the best healthcare. The rich get the best police protection. The rich will take whatever they want for a pittance because if you don't sell them what they want at the price they deem the best price, they will simply use their militia they picked up on militiasRus.com to take your stuff. And who are you going to appeal to? Their judge? Their police force? Your police force went in to bankruptcy and you haven't had the time or money to pay someone to go out and research which police force is the best you can get for your money. You don't have the time or the money 'cause you gotta work 23 hours a day to make enough to pay for all the bare necessities of life.
I'll try to read this whole thing tonight and have a more cohesive response but I really don't see this idea being big with Joe and Suzie Q Public. The state actually takes a lot of labor off of them and when they hear that they will now have to pay a police force or fire department directly and there are now going to be lots of private companies providing this stuff and they won't be adhering to any set of rules or regulations, Joe and Suzie are going to freak.
-
Wow, that lighthouse thing.
How amazing is it that a question that came to mind regarding that scenario of pre-paid lighthouse use is to wonder how do you stop other ships in the area from using the light that those who pre-paid are using? I can't imagine that there is light that is only visible to people who have a receipt of some kind.
And that just leads to the inevitability of people wanting to prosecute someone for using the lighthouse's light without paying for it. And doesn't that just sound crazy?
And in a society where everyone is paying third party arbitrators to help reach decisions in disputes, I see rampant corruption and arbitration going in favor of the highest bidder.
And what then happens when someone is so convinced they are right in the dispute that the third party arbitration doesn't work for him? In a global economy like we have now, when a guy can set up shop on Rhode Island do anything he wants, make money without laws or honor until arbitration catches up with him and they use ostracization as his punishment (which is simply a mamby pamby way of putting someone in jail in a statist society, in other words forcing him to "be good" or forcing him to "do the right thing" in regards to society's mores that have been adopted by all the anarchists that have taken over) and then move to Mexico and do the same thing all over again? Nothing. That's why you need states that keep records of crimes and such.
And so, what we've learned so far is that if you are for an anarchist society, you run into the same kind of questions that I run into with an RBE world but the difference is that everyone in the RBE is actually freed from the slavery of capitalism and in an anarchist world they sink into a tar pit of capitalism that puts every aspect of life in a show window with a price tag on it.
-
And so, what we've learned so far is that if you are for an anarchist society, you run into the same kind of questions that I run into with an RBE world but the difference is that everyone in the RBE is actually freed from the slavery of capitalism and in an anarchist world they sink into a tar pit of capitalism that puts every aspect of life in a show window with a price tag on it.
Not exactly - there are examples of functioning anarchist societies:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/bookchin/sp001642/toc.html
I still haven't seen a working example of RBE...
-
Well, I can't read the whole thing right now but I really want to because I don't understand how you could be interested in this article but give nothing but disdain and dismissal to all things RBE that I post.
Obviously I agree more with Rothbard than I do with you.
What annoys me right off is that having read part of the first article, I find the author is proposing nothing short of a total destruction of the "way things work" right now in favor of a totally different system (a non-system, if you will) that is, at heart, an economic system.
Anarchy as proposed by people like Rothbard is at heart a social/political concept, not an economic one. And I'd say what Rothbard proposed is not a destruction of the way things work as much as a modification of the way things work.
When I propose the RBE, I am constantly bombarded with the assertion that an economic system can't change the way people are. Yet here is this supposed scholar doing that very thing and I can only assume you agree with him. What the heck, dude?
Rothbard did not at all suggest that an economic system can or should change the way people are. Rothbard did not suggest anything about changing the way people are. What he suggested was "that, given the 'nature of man,' given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad."
No one would suggest such a thing as handing over all the power to settle disputes to one particular group. We don't do that now. In fact, as a group of customers, Americans pay people to be judges and policemen while at the same time, Americans can always settle disputes outside of a court of law.
You're not the first person to point that out, but I would say that only gives credence to Rothbard's article and damages your insistence that Rothbard proposed a total destruction of the way things work.
In a democracy (like we allegedly live in), "watching the Watchmen" is the province of the likes of Internal Affairs and Congressional Oversight. And so, who watches those Watchmen. Well, guess what? It's the voters. You and me. That's how its supposed to work.
I'm not sure if that is a joke or not. Mr. Conspiracy is telling me that the voters watch the watchers. And of course, you're also one of the people who tell me that customers have no influence on business and corporations. So I'm not sure how seriously to take you on this.
If I imagine an anarchistic society, I see a world of people going without. The middle class would be decimated because the rich would simply get richer because they would be able to buy the best lawyers and no one would consider that unfair or distasteful because everyone has to pay for everything. The rich ride on the best roads. The rich get the best healthcare. The rich get the best police protection. The rich will take whatever they want for a pittance because if you don't sell them what they want at the price they deem the best price, they will simply use their militia they picked up on militiasRus.com to take your stuff. And who are you going to appeal to? Their judge? Their police force? Your police force went in to bankruptcy and you haven't had the time or money to pay someone to go out and research which police force is the best you can get for your money. You don't have the time or the money 'cause you gotta work 23 hours a day to make enough to pay for all the bare necessities of life.
I have no idea why you think voters can keep government under control but somehow no one is going to stand in the way of super-rich people and corporations simply doing anything they please. This makes zero sense. Government, with the force of law and law enforcement to take and do anything it pleases is somehow at the mercy of voters, but consumers have no way to act against businesses or to protect themselves from the wealthy? Do you not see the complete absurdity of what you're suggesting?
I'll try to read this whole thing tonight and have a more cohesive response but I really don't see this idea being big with Joe and Suzie Q Public. The state actually takes a lot of labor off of them and when they hear that they will now have to pay a police force or fire department directly and there are now going to be lots of private companies providing this stuff and they won't be adhering to any set of rules or regulations, Joe and Suzie are going to freak.
Your thinking in this matter seems extremely limited. I suggest you should attempt to apply some of the optimism for how people will respond to life in your RBE society to the ideas that Rothbard has put forth.
-
Wow, that lighthouse thing.
How amazing is it that a question that came to mind regarding that scenario of pre-paid lighthouse use is to wonder how do you stop other ships in the area from using the light that those who pre-paid are using?
I don't know. Maybe there isn't a way. But maybe there is. Maybe it becomes not a matter of light, but of digital information fed to computers. I have no idea. I don't plan to have one. I expect those who deal with such issues to work it out.
And that just leads to the inevitability of people wanting to prosecute someone for using the lighthouse's light without paying for it. And doesn't that just sound crazy?
No.
And in a society where everyone is paying third party arbitrators to help reach decisions in disputes, I see rampant corruption and arbitration going in favor of the highest bidder.
You're apparently assuming that such arbitration will be the only kind available and that people will never do anything to oppose it. Why you would assume this, I have no idea, because it is a really stupid assumption.
And what then happens when someone is so convinced they are right in the dispute that the third party arbitration doesn't work for him?
Read the whole article.
In a global economy like we have now, when a guy can set up shop on Rhode Island do anything he wants, make money without laws or honor until arbitration catches up with him and they use ostracization as his punishment (which is simply a mamby pamby way of putting someone in jail in a statist society, in other words forcing him to "be good" or forcing him to "do the right thing" in regards to society's mores that have been adopted by all the anarchists that have taken over) and then move to Mexico and do the same thing all over again? Nothing. That's why you need states that keep records of crimes and such.
What? Are you saying only governments can keep records of such things? No one else could possibly do it? Come on, Brass, I know you're not that stupid.
ostracization as his punishment (which is simply a mamby pamby way of putting someone in jail in a statist society, in other words forcing him to "be good" or forcing him to "do the right thing" in regards to society's mores that have been adopted by all the anarchists that have taken over)
It is not forcing him to do anything. It is simply the people not doing business with him. That's all. You seem to have a really twisted concept of what it means to force someone to do something.
And so, what we've learned so far is that if you are for an anarchist society, you run into the same kind of questions that I run into with an RBE world but the difference is that everyone in the RBE is actually freed from the slavery of capitalism and in an anarchist world they sink into a tar pit of capitalism that puts every aspect of life in a show window with a price tag on it.
Um, no. Not even close. One of your most obvious and ridiculous assumptions is that an anarchist society must wholly be capitalist. You're so busy trying to tie Rothbard's ideas on anarchy to the mostly unfounded notions you consider to be the worst of capitalism that you're missing the bigger picture. In an anarchist society, essentially no one is going to stop you from establishing a communist or RBE community. They might stop you from imposing your communist or RBE ideas on everyone else, but they would have no reason to stop you and others choosing for yourselves to make a community where no one uses any money. And then you could shine the glory of your RBE for all the world to see.
I have to say though, watching you defend government use of force on the one hand and denounce the "slavery" of capitalism on the other is really funny. Funny-ironic, yes, but funny-ha-ha as well. You apparently want to free people from the liberty of choosing their own lives by telling them all how to live. You have, it would seem, adopted "Freedom Is Slavery" and turned it into a genuine political philosophy. It really is quite funny.
-
(1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.
A minor point, but I would argue that this is a limited definition of a state considering that it completely ignores any aspect of international recognition or sovereignty of the teritorial borders. Consider that this anarchist experiment means little if your neighboring despot decides he's bored and crushes your "non-state" and the rest of the world doesn't care.
On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of an individual. Anarchists oppose the state because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights.
Note that "coercive aggression" is narrowly defined here. It is left as primarily a purview of the now defunct state. Yet, what of Microsoft and Wal Mart? Will Microsoft's pushing of an inferior product (IE) be allowed to push other products out of the market, is that "aggression? Will Wal-Mart's inferior products at cheaper bulk rates be allowed to push small mom & pops out of the market? Is that aggression?
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history.
Characteristics such as having a leader (or leaders, or board of executives), having a capitol, having a central building or location to meet are also "generally acknowledged" throughout history but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.
The state, by its use of physical coercion, has arrogated to itself a compulsory monopoly of defense services over its territorial jurisdiction.
True, though historically that has not always been the case in all states.
But it is certainly conceptually possible for such services to be supplied by private, non-state institutions, and indeed such services have historically been supplied by other organizations than the state. To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways.
Very true. Two questions:
1. Who's to say that when police protection is supplied by a private company that they will not abuse their position? Who's to say they'll accept being relieved of duty once their contract is terminated or expired (after all, they have the weapons and the authority)?
2. What makes the currency that is minted worth anything? The current value of currency is based primarily on the collective consumer's belief that a dollar will buy a dollar's worth of goods or services (discounting notwithstanding). Much of that value is founded on the stability of the United States government. Where would you get that value from in your nely privately minted non-state currency?
Only the state can do so
Through a Lockian social contract agreement, the author is not being completely fair. The mafia can do it as well, but through a much different agreement.
Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term "coercion" can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it "physical violence or the threat thereof," with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument.
False dichotomy.
I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view.
Interesting because he later does indeed adopt a view very similar to this one [i.e. that anarchists believe man is basically good] and also this is the view of Naural Law given by Thomas Hobbes in perhaps one of the most famous political treatises ever written - Leviathon. I'd wager that the author does know where this view comes from and his simple denial is a poor defense considering the heavy intellectual weight he needs to counter in defending his theory against Hobbes. For my money he does a poor job here.
In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal.
How? And exactly how does focusing almost entirely on the individual create a society?
If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
No explanation of how, just a nearly utopic statement that doing away with the state will somehow mollify nearly all criminal activity. The state is portrayed as the "engine of crime." And notice the very big "if" statement.
Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection.
Well, yeah. So?
The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
It will? Why?
-
This is an interesting set of ideas Prince. I have a very good friend who has argued the fact that a people can exist without a state, he has been advocating this idea for many years, even going so far at one point as to draw up a plan of how a foreign policy apparatus would function in such a non-state. It was a very insightful paper and I wish to hell that I could find it now for you. The basis of his thought (on the foreign policy issues) was a form of realpolitik melded with internationalism, a way to gain recognition for the non-state through neutrality (similar to that of the Swiss and Swedish, less like that of the Vatican).
As I was reading your articles, a thought occurred to me as to whether this would pose as an evolution of government or regression of it. I think that most modern governments are the byproducts of monarchical systems, which have their origins in primeval strongmen.
Sadly, as much as I would like to the creation of a non-state, even with the resultant destabilization that would inevitably occur, I don't think that this nation would ever fall that way. Can you imagine all the people screaming about Social Security and the lack of a social safety net, and, OMG, personal accountability? Not going to happen here, though I think it could be possible in a small, modern, European backwater.
-
A minor point, but I would argue that this is a limited definition of a state considering that it completely ignores any aspect of international recognition or sovereignty of the teritorial borders. Consider that this anarchist experiment means little if your neighboring despot decides he's bored and crushes your "non-state" and the rest of the world doesn't care.
I don't know for sure at this point, but I would guess that Rothbard would have made a distinction between a nation and a state. I guess also that it depends on whether or not one thinks a nation can exist without a government.
Note that "coercive aggression" is narrowly defined here. It is left as primarily a purview of the now defunct state. Yet, what of Microsoft and Wal Mart? Will Microsoft's pushing of an inferior product (IE) be allowed to push other products out of the market, is that "aggression? Will Wal-Mart's inferior products at cheaper bulk rates be allowed to push small mom & pops out of the market? Is that aggression?
Perhaps you could argue that it is aggression, but it is not coerced aggression. Rothbard did not say he was against aggression. Rothbard was specific. Taxation is, by Rothbard's definition, coerced aggression. Taxes are taken by force, with no choice on the part of the person taxed. Microsoft has no such power. It cannot stop you from using Netscape or Firefox or from buying products from companies in competition with Microsoft. It cannot stop you from getting free software or using open source products like Linux. Microsoft cannot confiscate your property if you do not buy from them or use their product. Likewise, Wal-Mart does not have thugs forcing you to shop at Wal-Mart. You are free to choose where you shop. And Wal-Mart does not force smaller stores out of business. It competes in the marketplace by offering lower prices. No one who does not like Wal-Mart is forced to shop there. My parents, for example, refuse to shop at Wal-Mart (because they dislike the experience, not the prices) and instead shop at Target and Publix. To date, no representative of Wal-Mart has arrived at their door demanding their property, or insisting that they will either shop at Wal-mart or be forcibly punished. The government, on the other hand, does not provide anyone with a choice about paying for government services. Either one pays, or one gets jail-time and/or property confiscated. Which is what Rothbard has called coerced aggression. The distinction is not insignificant.
Nor is our definition of the state arbitrary, for these two characteristics have been possessed by what is generally acknowledged to be states throughout recorded history.
Characteristics such as having a leader (or leaders, or board of executives), having a capitol, having a central building or location to meet are also "generally acknowledged" throughout history but that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.
Having a leader? You mean, like a CEO? Or maybe a Board of Directors? Having a central building or location? You mean like Microsoft being headquartered in Redmond, Washington? Yet, Microsoft is not a state.
Who's to say that when police protection is supplied by a private company that they will not abuse their position? Who's to say they'll accept being relieved of duty once their contract is terminated or expired (after all, they have the weapons and the authority)?
There is no more likelihood of a private company abusing its position than there is of a government run police force from abusing its position. And we both know that can happen. With privately owned companies, however, there is such a thing as competition, and if the customer doesn't like Company A, he can go to Company B or C or D if he so choses. Or he can simply withdraw and give none of them his business. But there is also another scenario, of insurance companies rather than individuals dealing directly with private police protection companies. But I don't want to chase that tangent just now. Suffice it to say for now that there is more than one way to handle the situation.
What makes the currency that is minted worth anything? The current value of currency is based primarily on the collective consumer's belief that a dollar will buy a dollar's worth of goods or services (discounting notwithstanding). Much of that value is founded on the stability of the United States government. Where would you get that value from in your nely privately minted non-state currency?
Where money in the past got its value. From precious metals. For example, the Liberty Dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar).
Anyone who is still unhappy with this use of the term "coercion" can simply eliminate the word from this discussion and substitute for it "physical violence or the threat thereof," with the only loss being in literary style rather than in the substance of the argument.
False dichotomy.
Why?
I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge. Whatever other schools of anarchism profess — and I do not believe that they are open to the charge — I certainly do not adopt this view.
Interesting because he later does indeed adopt a view very similar to this one [i.e. that anarchists believe man is basically good] and also this is the view of Naural Law given by Thomas Hobbes in perhaps one of the most famous political treatises ever written - Leviathon. I'd wager that the author does know where this view comes from and his simple denial is a poor defense considering the heavy intellectual weight he needs to counter in defending his theory against Hobbes. For my money he does a poor job here.
Whoa there. You're confusing believing that people are generally good with believing that all people are good. And you seem to be ignoring what he says later: "in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are 'good' in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos." Are you tossing that aside and by implication suggesting that is not the case? Are you suggesting most people are bad, are intent on assaulting and robbing their neighbors and are only held in check by the existence of a state with coercive power?
In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal.
How? And exactly how does focusing almost entirely on the individual create a society?
Who said anything about focusing almost entirely on the individual? Perhaps you missed the word 'cooperative'. Anyway, to your question of how an anarchist society maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal, the most basic answer (and that is all we have time and space for at the moment) is that it encourages and enables free cooperation and it delegitimizes and deters coercive aggression. How does it do that? By leaving people free from the coercion and over-regulation of the state. I'm oversimplifying, but perhaps we can go into more discussion on this specific topic another time. People have written books about this, I simply do not have the skill to distill it all down into a few sentences for this discussion.
If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
No explanation of how, just a nearly utopic statement that doing away with the state will somehow mollify nearly all criminal activity. The state is portrayed as the "engine of crime." And notice the very big "if" statement.
You're doing a bang-up job of mischaracterizing what Rothbard said. He did not say the state was the engine of crime. He said referred to it as an engine of crime. And he did not say doing away with the state would somehow mollify nearly all criminal activity. What he said was that if the state was a source of crime on a massive scale, as the anarchist claims, then eliminating the state would be a good thing. This seems like a straightforward comment. And yes, please do notice the 'if'. It is a simple, logical statement. If he is right about the nature of the state, then his solution is desirable one. Even if you do not agree with him, it is still a logical statement.
Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection.
Well, yeah. So?
So "[t]he anarchist view holds that, given the 'nature of man,' given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society."
The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
It will? Why?
That is something that Rothbard addresses, if only in part, with the rest of the article.
-
The basis of his thought (on the foreign policy issues) was a form of realpolitik melded with internationalism, a way to gain recognition for the non-state through neutrality (similar to that of the Swiss and Swedish, less like that of the Vatican).
I have seen similar ideas before. Perhaps you could talk your friend into joining the discussion, or at least posting some of his ideas here.
Sadly, as much as I would like to the creation of a non-state, even with the resultant destabilization that would inevitably occur, I don't think that this nation would ever fall that way. Can you imagine all the people screaming about Social Security and the lack of a social safety net, and, OMG, personal accountability? Not going to happen here, though I think it could be possible in a small, modern, European backwater.
True, there are conceptions about our government operated "social safety net" that need to be countered. That will take time, but I think it can be done. By the way, have you heard about the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/)?
-
I've read up on the FSP Prince, and it is certainly a laudable objective. My problem though, is that I would miss the woods and mountains of my native NW Washington State, and though the climate of NH is agreeable to me, the lack of wide open forests and mountains is not. IF the FSP were centered in Maine, I would almost certainly go.
-
Heh. Most people who like the FSP but object have the objection that they don't want to live in New Hampshire. It's too cold or too this or something. There is a similar project called Free State Wyoming (http://www.freestatewyoming.org/), if you're interested. I am, unfortunately, not in a position where I am able to commit to either.
-
Likewise, Wal-Mart does not have thugs forcing you to shop at Wal-Mart. You are free to choose where you shop. And Wal-Mart does not force smaller stores out of business. It competes in the marketplace by offering lower prices. No one who does not like Wal-Mart is forced to shop there.
Who would prevent them from adopting such a model if we adopted your non-state? More to the point you illustrate examples of overt coercion. What about collusion? Monopolistic practices? If Target and Wal-Mart agree to divide up certain regions and force other companies (Kohl's, Penney's, etc) out then your choices are limited without the "gun to the head" model you've provided. Of course collusion and price-fixing agreements have taken place in business. For example there was a price fixing scandal among chemical companies that produced vitamin E. (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/vitamins/index.html)
With privately owned companies, however, there is such a thing as competition, and if the customer doesn't like Company A, he can go to Company B or C or D if he so choses. Or he can simply withdraw and give none of them his business. But there is also another scenario, of insurance companies rather than individuals dealing directly with private police protection companies.
Somehow throwing insurance companies in to replace elected city councilmen doesn't make me feel better UP. I think I could trust Bt to make honest decisions on my behalf and give me a straight answer or two when things don't go as planned. Can I trust an insurance company headquartered elsewhere with operators in India to make decisions and give me answers about my local police company? You honestly expect me to buy into that? And you fail to answer the question.
Who makes them stand down if they don't want to? Suppose the non-state hires Southern Defences LLC. to guard our border with Nutzonia. What prevents them from striking a hell of deal with Nutzonia that allows the Nutzonian military to walk right in and conquer our little utopic non-state? It isn't as if we have an elected assembly with even a token notion that the will of the people oppose such a move. Southern Defences LLC might become the new Nutzonian Imperial Guard or they might just want to take the non-state for themselves. Are we supposed to believe an insurance company is going to prevent that?
Where money in the past got its value. From precious metals. For example, the Liberty Dollar.
A pipe dream that does not reside in the economic reality of the 21st century. I don't mean that to be offensive, but the days of the gold standard and Bretton Woods are over. With the exception of a few ivory tower Austrian school folks and an occasional monetarist or two (why are they still around?) the idea of backing currency with gold (or another suitable metal) is just not a realistic notion. It is a bit like the Laffer Curve...only at least the gold standard did once exist and actually worked at one time.
Why?
The author presumes there are only two legitimate views of the situation when there are quite clearly more.
Whoa there. You're confusing believing that people are generally good with believing that all people are good.
No, I wasn't.
And you seem to be ignoring what he says later: "in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are 'good' in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos." Are you tossing that aside and by implication suggesting that is not the case? Are you suggesting most people are bad, are intent on assaulting and robbing their neighbors and are only held in check by the existence of a state with coercive power?
No. I'm saying that intellectually he offers a poor argument. Quite clearly there were two gigantic philosophical treatises on this issue (there were more, but two that stick out to most western people today) and those are the versions of Natural Law given by Locke and Hobbes. Instead of taking Hobbes on and acknowledging that the counterpoint to his view is quite clearly Hobbes and Leviathon he decided to say: "I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge."
My point UP is that his choice to do that here is academically weak. If anarchism is such a sure bet and clearly it is in this author's view, then take Hobbes on. You're accusing me of making a judgement. I'm not, I'm simply calling the author out for basically being an intellectual coward.
As for your last question, no. I think most people have the potential for good, but often refer to indifference. I think people have the ability to be devestatingly cruel and evil as well. If you'd like to discuss the Holocaust, the Dirty War, the murder of priests and nuns in El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the Second Congolese Civil War, the Armenian Genocide, the Yugoslav Wars, the Rape of Nanking, the slave trade, the diamond trade (want to base your money on those?) and other ways humans can be evil to their fellow man, then let's do it. By all means, blame it all (or even most of it) on state institutions, but I bet I can provide some damn chilling examples of it having nothing to do with governments.
So "[t]he anarchist view holds that, given the 'nature of man,' given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society."
From where do anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man?"
-
Wern't early lighthouses built by citys that wanted to encourage trade?
Later ones too.
Thinking ofthe Ship as the counstomer is just half of the picture.
-
Likewise, Wal-Mart does not have thugs forcing you to shop at Wal-Mart. You are free to choose where you shop. And Wal-Mart does not force smaller stores out of business. It competes in the marketplace by offering lower prices. No one who does not like Wal-Mart is forced to shop there.
Who would prevent them from adopting such a model if we adopted your non-state?
Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them. Yes, I was being sarcastic again. I honestly do not understand this bit where people equate anarchy with people never defending themselves in any fashion. It is as if you just assume that without government people would all be left powerless in the face of corporations, which must be invading aliens from Planet X and not actually organizations of human people. What stops Wal-Mart now from forcing people to shop at Wal-Mart? Oh duh, the police. What stops Wal-Mart from partnering with the government to pass a law stating that all people must shop at Wal-Mart? Nothing really. Whatever laws we might have to stand in the way could be rewritten. And I'm sure we could find some asinine "for the good of the people" campaign to push it through. Tell me, how could you stop it? Here's a further question, what stopped the government of England from abusing the rights of the people of the English colonies in the New World? People did. Who would prevent Wal-Mart from adopting a policy of forcing people into Wal-Mart stores? The people. Duh. Whether it's people standing up to Wal-Mart thugs or privately contracted militia groups, or an insurance company's police force, some people would seek and find a way.
Contrary to how you're trying to paint this, neither Rothbard nor I have said that an anarchist society is going to be free of people trying to do bad things. This proposal is far, far from a utopia, and so far in this discussion the only people trying to claim otherwise are people objecting to it. There are many proposals out there concerning how to handle security issues in an anarchist society. If you want to discuss one of them, I'll see what I can find and start a new thread. But let's not bog this particular discussion down in ridiculous notions that somehow no one would have a way to stand up to corporations in a stateless society.
More to the point you illustrate examples of overt coercion. What about collusion? Monopolistic practices? If Target and Wal-Mart agree to divide up certain regions and force other companies (Kohl's, Penney's, etc) out then your choices are limited without the "gun to the head" model you've provided.
You mean it would be as bad as the taxation we face now? Maybe. But just exactly how are Wal-Mart and Target going to force other companies out? Kohl's and Sears and the other stores are just going to roll over and die because Wal-Mart and Target make some sort of agreement? Collusion and monopolistic practices I expect other companies to fight.
But it's funny to me that you're asking what about monopolistic practices. Monopolistic practices by the government is exactly what Rothbard is complaining about. Why are monopolistic practices okay for government but not for anyone else?
Of course collusion and price-fixing agreements have taken place in business. For example there was a price fixing scandal among chemical companies that produced vitamin E. (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/vitamins/index.html)
And they got caught. And right now, governments have fixed the price you and I pay for police protection. And you and I cannot do one damn thing about it. If you don't like a particular police practice, say, SWAT teams being used to serve warrants or to arrest people on suspicion of possessing marijuana, you don't get to find someone else to pay. You're locked into a monopoly and you cannot choose not to pay them. If you should try not to pay them, they will come to get you. So tell me, how do you stop that?
Somehow throwing insurance companies in to replace elected city councilmen doesn't make me feel better UP. I think I could trust Bt to make honest decisions on my behalf and give me a straight answer or two when things don't go as planned. Can I trust an insurance company headquartered elsewhere with operators in India to make decisions and give me answers about my local police company? You honestly expect me to buy into that?
Well, I don't know about your insurance company. Many insurance companies, like State Farm, have local representatives. So would you trust BT to make honest decisions and give you straight answers as a local representative of government but not as a local representative of an insurance company? But the point of bringing up the possibility of insurance companies was to illustrate that there is more than one possible way to handle the situation.
And you fail to answer the question.
Who makes them stand down if they don't want to?
No, I did answer the question. You seem to be assuming that there will only be one private company for people choose. I'm suggesting there will be more than one company, and that a person will be able to hire, in one fashion or another, a second company to handle possible abuses.
Suppose the non-state hires Southern Defences LLC. to guard our border with Nutzonia. What prevents them from striking a hell of deal with Nutzonia that allows the Nutzonian military to walk right in and conquer our little utopic non-state?
Um, the answer to this seems extremely obvious to me. The answer being the other private companies. Southern Defences LLC will be in competition with Western Security, Armadillo Police Services, Damn Yankee Security, Two Gun Sam Enterprises, Washington's Army Inc., Liberty for All Services, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And of course, there will be those general citizens who have chosen to own assault rifles and other weaponry (for there will be no government telling them they can't own such things). That may not prevent Southern Defences LLC from making such a deal, but it will certainly help prevent the Nutzonian military from conquering our decidedly non-utopic non-state.
It isn't as if we have an elected assembly with even a token notion that the will of the people oppose such a move. Southern Defences LLC might become the new Nutzonian Imperial Guard or they might just want to take the non-state for themselves. Are we supposed to believe an insurance company is going to prevent that?
An insurance company, or several insurance companies if they have security forces or have contracted with security companies, yes. Even if, say, All for One Insurance has a contract with Souther Defences LLC, AOI can decide it doesn't want to do business with Southern Defences LLC, drop them and take up business with another company.
Where money in the past got its value. From precious metals. For example, the Liberty Dollar.
A pipe dream that does not reside in the economic reality of the 21st century. I don't mean that to be offensive, but the days of the gold standard and Bretton Woods are over. With the exception of a few ivory tower Austrian school folks and an occasional monetarist or two (why are they still around?) the idea of backing currency with gold (or another suitable metal) is just not a realistic notion. It is a bit like the Laffer Curve...only at least the gold standard did once exist and actually worked at one time.
You say all this, but you fail to provide a single reason why backing currency with a metal is not a realistic notion. It certainly seemed to have worked just fine. And without it we have now never ending inflation as the government just prints more and more money without any need to back it up with anything substantial at all.
The author presumes there are only two legitimate views of the situation when there are quite clearly more.
I don't recall that he said that at all. What are the other legitimate views in the context of his comments and this discussion?
No. I'm saying that intellectually he offers a poor argument. Quite clearly there were two gigantic philosophical treatises on this issue (there were more, but two that stick out to most western people today) and those are the versions of Natural Law given by Locke and Hobbes. Instead of taking Hobbes on and acknowledging that the counterpoint to his view is quite clearly Hobbes and Leviathon he decided to say: "I confess that I do not understand the basis for this charge."
So you're saying the basis for the charge "that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society" comes from Hobbes? Where did Hobbes get it? Rothbard did not say he did not understand the historical existance of of the charge. He said he did not understand where it comes from because neither he nor any other anarchist he knew of held that position. Regardless of whether Hobbes said it first, last or merely most promenently, Rothbard answers the charge directly without a long, drawn out philosophical discussion.
My point UP is that his choice to do that here is academically weak. If anarchism is such a sure bet and clearly it is in this author's view, then take Hobbes on. You're accusing me of making a judgement. I'm not, I'm simply calling the author out for basically being an intellectual coward.
I'm sure Rothbard could honestly be called many things, but I am fairly certain that intellectual coward is not among them. Why should Rothbard spend a lot of time and space discussing Hobbes when the point of the article was not Hobbes or Hobbesian ideas? What you call academically weak here seems more like pertinency to me.
As for your last question, no. I think most people have the potential for good, but often refer to indifference. I think people have the ability to be devestatingly cruel and evil as well. If you'd like to discuss the Holocaust, the Dirty War, the murder of priests and nuns in El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the Second Congolese Civil War, the Armenian Genocide, the Yugoslav Wars, the Rape of Nanking, the slave trade, the diamond trade (want to base your money on those?) and other ways humans can be evil to their fellow man, then let's do it. By all means, blame it all (or even most of it) on state institutions, but I bet I can provide some damn chilling examples of it having nothing to do with governments.
I would be interested in seeing you provide examples of the Holocaust having nothing to do with government. But if your point is that people not in government still do bad things, no one is denying that. And of course, that non-government people do bad things does nothing to mitigate the bad things done by governments. How ever bad the Mafia or drug lords might be, it does not excuse criminal behavior on the part of the state. Wouldn't you agree, even if you disagree on what constitutes that criminal behavior?
So "[t]he anarchist view holds that, given the 'nature of man,' given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society."
From where do anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man?"
From wherever the frak they feel like.
-
Likewise, Wal-Mart does not have thugs forcing you to shop at Wal-Mart. You are free to choose where you shop. And Wal-Mart does not force smaller stores out of business. It competes in the marketplace by offering lower prices. No one who does not like Wal-Mart is forced to shop there.
Who would prevent them from adopting such a model if we adopted your non-state?
Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them.
Sorry Prince, but I gotta agree with him.
After all, if this prick had it his way, and I think he will eventually, what stops him from forcing you into his Universal Health Care Plan? Sure, maybe you can refuse treatment, but let's see what happens when you refuse to pay for services you don't need or want.
And when it comes, that's exactly what will happen. Maybe a few cranks will resist. Other than that, yep, most everyone will pony up when they file their 1040's, whether they want the service their getting or not. Even if they grumble a little.
And my fellow libertarians wonder how I can be anti-immigration. Maybe it's because I know that when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country, you can kiss any possibility of a libertarian society goodbye.
Even Rothbard understood that, even if Reason magazine doesn't.
-
what stops him from forcing you into his Universal Health Care Plan? Sure, maybe you can refuse treatment, but let's see what happens when you refuse to pay for services you don't need or want.
Hence the argument against government.
And when it comes, that's exactly what will happen. Maybe a few cranks will resist. Other than that, yep, most everyone will pony up when they file their 1040's, whether they want the service their getting or not. Even if they grumble a little.
Perhaps. I think Wal-Mart forcing people to shop at its stores would result in a different reaction from people. Yes, I know that we have gradually marched toward socialist policy, but there are people who are trying to resist that motion, and I think it is possible that progress can be made against it, even though that too will likely come gradually.
And my fellow libertarians wonder how I can be anti-immigration. Maybe it's because I know that when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country, you can kiss any possibility of a libertarian society goodbye.
I understand the objection, I just think you're blaming the wrong people. It's ridiculous to offer handouts to the public and then be offended when people you don't know want some too. People trying to get by via less effort on their part is a natural tendency in humans. And to say but we can't stop the handouts so we have to stop the strangers is exactly that tendency in action. It is easier to try to stop the symptom than it is to try to stop the source of the problem. If everyone who said they believed the problem was the handouts would stop trying to punish the immigrants and move that effort and outrage to the problem, then maybe we might see some progress. But most of them won't. And so we're left with the ugly issue of trying to stop immigration. Or just to make immigration really hard, if you prefer.
Even Rothbard understood that, even if Reason magazine doesn't.
My problem with the objection to immigration on private property grounds, as I believe Rothbard objected, is that if you're going to argue that immigration from nation to nation should be restricted to invitation only, then don't you also have to argue that immigration from state to state within the country also should be restricted to invitation only? Seems to me you would, but I never see any American libertarian making that argument. Most them would no doubt object. If you don't believe me, look at their objections to a national I.D. card. (Just for the record, I don't like the idea of a national I.D. card either.) It's okay to stop those people, but don't get in my way, apparently.
People travel everyday all over this country. I live in South Carolina, and I can drive down to Atlanta, Georgia if I so please, and no one will stop me at the border to check my papers or to make sure I'm just visiting. If I were to buy a house in, say, Wyoming, I could do so with little worry that the state government would try to stop me. And I could move myself and belongs to that house in Wyoming with little to no concern about being prevented from entering Wyoming. Is this a great wrong in our country? Should we start limiting immigration from state to state? What about from city to city? Shall we have checkpoints on all roads to make sure no one is violating this supposedly private property based objection to immigration? No, I think we should not. I think that would be an abridgment of basic liberty and result in a massive growth of both size and power of government.
By that same measure, I believe people from Mexico or wherever should have very little to stand in their way of coming to America to find work or trade. The more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. So on this issue, I have to disagree with you and Rothbard.
And due to the nature of this thread, I feel I should point out that an anarchist society would not have a central government to oppose immigration to the nation. In that situation, then there would be private property issues involved in immigration because pretty much all land would be privately owned. But even then, I think one would be hard pressed to make a libertarian argument that someone from Mexico should be barred from freely trading with someone in America for work or for property. He might have to travel on private land to get there, but are you then going to argue that he should be any more hindered in that than you would expect to be?
There is one more thing I want to add. The notion that we ought to stop people from coming to America because of what they think ("when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country") is something with which I am extremely uncomfortable. I don't want this country to get into that kind of gatekeeper/thought police mentality. That is a frightening path, and I would rather not go there, thank you very much. I know you probably did not mean your comment in that way, but I am bothered by the apparent emphasis many people seem to put on keeping immigrants out because of the political/societal philosophies of the immigrants. It seems a short step from there to another version of "yellow peril" nonsense.
-
http://www.mises.org/story/2429
I have been to arbitration or Mediation on three important occaions widely seaprated and diffret in nature.
The first time seemed to go well and seemed to be heading twards a middle ground , but the opposite side was not satisfied and we went to court and my side lost.
The second time I was in a mediation setting everything went well except for one point , and the opposite side decided to go to
court and won that point.
The thrd arbitration I was going to never got of the ground , the witnesss for both sides showed up but the Arbiter did not, seems that it was the opposite side that was responsible for telling him to come and they didn't get around to it.
Does arbitration depend on both sides being good sports?
-
I understand the objection, I just think you're blaming the wrong people. It's ridiculous to offer handouts to the public and then be offended when people you don't know want some too.
We must be reading different forums. The problem isn't that we just have people showing up at the picnic for the free beer, they're also demanding the turkey dinner be made available for their consumption as well. Even the Reasonistas (http://reason.com/blog/show/116978.html) were (finally) forced to concede the point.
People trying to get by via less effort on their part is a natural tendency in humans. And to say but we can't stop the handouts so we have to stop the strangers is exactly that tendency in action. It is easier to try to stop the symptom than it is to try to stop the source of the problem. If everyone who said they believed the problem was the handouts would stop trying to punish the immigrants and move that effort and outrage to the problem, then maybe we might see some progress. But most of them won't. And so we're left with the ugly issue of trying to stop immigration. Or just to make immigration really hard, if you prefer.
Here's the part you need to explain - how do you propose to stop the handouts while importing a population that supports handouts? You sound as if you think a nation's political system is extraneous to it's population's values and culture. Politics doesn't occur in a vacuum. You can quote me all the fine-sounding theories of liberty you like. But as a matter of practical politics, you're proposing two mutually exclusive goals.
In any event, explain what's so "ugly" about controlling or managing immigration?
My problem with the objection to immigration on private property grounds, as I believe Rothbard objected, is that if you're going to argue that immigration from nation to nation should be restricted to invitation only, then don't you also have to argue that immigration from state to state within the country also should be restricted to invitation only? Seems to me you would, but I never see any American libertarian making that argument. Most them would no doubt object. If you don't believe me, look at their objections to a national I.D. card. (Just for the record, I don't like the idea of a national I.D. card either.) It's okay to stop those people, but don't get in my way, apparently.
People travel everyday all over this country. I live in South Carolina, and I can drive down to Atlanta, Georgia if I so please, and no one will stop me at the border to check my papers or to make sure I'm just visiting. If I were to buy a house in, say, Wyoming, I could do so with little worry that the state government would try to stop me. And I could move myself and belongs to that house in Wyoming with little to no concern about being prevented from entering Wyoming. Is this a great wrong in our country? Should we start limiting immigration from state to state? What about from city to city? Shall we have checkpoints on all roads to make sure no one is violating this supposedly private property based objection to immigration?
Probably because it's a disingenuous argument. You might as well be arguing that because I have an obligation to support my wife and children, I also have an obligation to support your wife and children. All wives and children are equal, aren't they?
They may very well be, but my relationship to them is different. I owe obligations to my family, my religion and my community I don't owe to your family, your religion and your community. Likewise, the relationship between the states is different than the relationship between the United States and other countries.
Your analogy works only if you ignore that different relationships have different moral priorities. The relationship between the states is spelled out in the Constitution. No such relationship exists between the states and any foreign country. The governments of the states owe the citizens of the United States obligations they don't owe to citizens of other countries.
No, I think we should not. I think that would be an abridgment of basic liberty and result in a massive growth of both size and power of government.
Why? When and where has there ever been any such right to go wherever you want, whenever you want been recognized? And why is a sovereign nation's right to exclude non-citizens from it's territory any less legitimate than a private property owner's right to exclude non-owners?
By that same measure, I believe people from Mexico or wherever should have very little to stand in their way of coming to America to find work or trade. The more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. So on this issue, I have to disagree with you and Rothbard.
Even most libertarians will concede the first and foremost duty of government is defending the shores and the borders. If the government isn't even going to do that, then there's not much point in having a government at all. Which might be all very well, but...
And due to the nature of this thread, I feel I should point out that an anarchist society would not have a central government to oppose immigration to the nation.
It isn't the central government that's opposing immigration. The central government is permitting it over the wishes of the states and the citizenry. If the federal government abdicated it's role in controlling the borders to the states, and the people, per the 10th amendment, I suspect the Texas National Guard would be a lot more efficient about putting boots to butts than the INS has been.
You're damn right there wouldn't be a central government controlling immigration in an anarchist society. If the anarchists felt strongly enough about it, I suspect they'd be chasing the aspiring immigrants off at the ends of pitchforks and burning torches, no government required.
In that situation, then there would be private property issues involved in immigration because pretty much all land would be privately owned. But even then, I think one would be hard pressed to make a libertarian argument that someone from Mexico should be barred from freely trading with someone in America for work or for property. He might have to travel on private land to get there, but are you then going to argue that he should be any more hindered in that than you would expect to be?
All very well. Except that is not the situation that exists.
There is one more thing I want to add. The notion that we ought to stop people from coming to America because of what they think ("when you let enough of these clowns who think you owe them something just for getting born on the same planet into the country") is something with which I am extremely uncomfortable. I don't want this country to get into that kind of gatekeeper/thought police mentality. That is a frightening path, and I would rather not go there, thank you very much. I know you probably did not mean your comment in that way, but I am bothered by the apparent emphasis many people seem to put on keeping immigrants out because of the political/societal philosophies of the immigrants. It seems a short step from there to another version of "yellow peril" nonsense.
Let me ask you this - would you be equally uncomfortable about excluding a population that you knew to be largely composed of communists, white supremacists, or Nazis or just plain violent criminals if they were immigrating here in sufficient numbers to skew your political system?
-
Could a change twards open borders be unilateral?
Could the citzens of the less prosperous nation cross the border to harvest the better earning condiions then return past a hard border to winter in a socilist environment?
This would see to be a sort of diode , or conveyor belt that would drain the more fair system in favor of the less fair .
-
We must be reading different forums. The problem isn't that we just have people showing up at the picnic for the free beer, they're also demanding the turkey dinner be made available for their consumption as well.
Yes, I understand that. So what? That does not change my basic argument.
Here's the part you need to explain - how do you propose to stop the handouts while importing a population that supports handouts? You sound as if you think a nation's political system is extraneous to it's population's values and culture. Politics doesn't occur in a vacuum. You can quote me all the fine-sounding theories of liberty you like. But as a matter of practical politics, you're proposing two mutually exclusive goals.
For one thing, I'm not talking about importing anybody. I'm talking about getting out of the way of people coming to trade their labor and time, or coming to trade their goods, or maybe just simply looking for another place to live. I did not say we should send out buses and bring people in. I just want to stop unfairly and needlessly getting in people's way. What I propose regarding immigration is not fundamentally different than what I propose be done about ordinary domestic policy. Just leave people alone unless someone's or some group's rights as individuals are being or have been violated. My rights are not abridged by Mexicans coming to America to look for work just as my rights are not abridged by New Yorkers looking for work in South Carolina. So I see no reason to interfere with the Mexicans much more than the New Yorkers. I certainly see no reason to perpetuate a situation wherein people find facing death in the desert an option preferrable to wading through the insane amount of red tape that hinders the legal immigration process.
For another thing, I do not see anything mutually exclusive about fighting socialist policy and getting out of people's way, regarding immigration or anything else. The essence of socialist policies is to get in people's way as a means of controlling and supposedly protecting society. What are the arguments against open immigration? That we need to get in people's way so that we can control and protect our own society. I am of the opinion that the only way to protect society is to stop trying to control it. We cannot stand against the authoritarianism of socialism by being authoritarian as well, because we will be what we are fighting against. The answer to socialism is not closed borders but liberty.
In any event, explain what's so "ugly" about controlling or managing immigration?
For starters, as I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. That in itself is bad enough. But along with that come the arguments that opposing immigration is necessary to protect ourselves, that those immigrants are bad because they are not like the ones who came before or because they are lazy or they steal jobs or they take money out of the country or, if we go far enough down, that they are simply not like us and so therefore our very way of life is at stake. All those arguments have been made for as long as the U.S. has existed as a country. And we keep trying to both ignore the benefits of liberty and deny them to others in the name of protecting our country from those who would come here and supposedly ruin it for all of us. Nothing about that is not ugly. And I haven't even mentioned how ugly our immigration law must be to make the ugliness of death in the desert seem more attractive by comparison.
My problem with the objection to immigration on private property grounds, as I believe Rothbard objected, is that if you're going to argue that immigration from nation to nation should be restricted to invitation only, then don't you also have to argue that immigration from state to state within the country also should be restricted to invitation only? Seems to me you would, but I never see any American libertarian making that argument.
Probably because it's a disingenuous argument. You might as well be arguing that because I have an obligation to support my wife and children, I also have an obligation to support your wife and children. All wives and children are equal, aren't they?
They may very well be, but my relationship to them is different. I owe obligations to my family, my religion and my community I don't owe to your family, your religion and your community. Likewise, the relationship between the states is different than the relationship between the United States and other countries.
Your analogy works only if you ignore that different relationships have different moral priorities. The relationship between the states is spelled out in the Constitution. No such relationship exists between the states and any foreign country. The governments of the states owe the citizens of the United States obligations they don't owe to citizens of other countries.
Um, no. What I am saying is not remotely close to arguing that because you have an obligation to support your wife and children, you also have an obligation to support someone else's wife and children. I'm saying that if we're going to argue that a government should treat its territory as private property, then how can would you hold only the national government to that standard? You speak of relationships between people being different. Yes, they are, because choose to make them so. And the relationship between our nation and another nation is what it is because those who we choose for our leaders have chosen to make it so. And they can choose for it to change, as they did when they passed NAFTA. Also, I am not talking about supporting other nations. I'm talking about getting out of the way of individuals. There is a difference between actively doing something for someone else, supporting them, and merely not placing hindrance in someone else's way.
When and where has there ever been any such right to go wherever you want, whenever you want been recognized?
I am surprised that you would ask. You've been so busy defending the situation of relatively free travel within the U.S. that you have apparently forgotten what you were talking about. But let's be clear here. I did not say anything about people having a right to go wherever they want whenever they want. In fact, I would say people do not have that right. I would say, however, that people have a general right to trade with whom they choose. Which means that a Mexican has the same right to trade his labor for money that an American does. A Mexican has the same right to exchange his money for land and/or buildings that an American has. An employer has a right to choose for himself which prospective employee would be the best investment for the employer. In general terms this might be called freedom of association. A freedom that, for the most part, we have here in America. It is a liberty our government has no more business (which is to say, none at all) abridging than the freedom of religion or the right of peaceable assembly.
I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to go anywhere they please whenever they please. I'm not saying you or anyone else should be forced to house or hire or employ or feed immigrants. All I'm suggesting is that the government ought to get out of the way.
And why is a sovereign nation's right to exclude non-citizens from it's territory any less legitimate than a private property owner's right to exclude non-owners?
First of all, we have not established that a nation has such a right. But more directly to your question, a nation is not private property. The government does not own the nation. So I question the validity of the comparison of the government to a citizen owner of private property.
Even most libertarians will concede the first and foremost duty of government is defending the shores and the borders. If the government isn't even going to do that, then there's not much point in having a government at all.
Some libertarians will concede that. But there is a difference between defending the shores and borders of the country, and building a fence of metal and laws to keep people out. A fairly significant difference I should say. Defending in this case means, or at least implies, protection from an attacking and/or invading force. The immigrants coming to work here are neither attacking nor invading. They're called immigrants because they're immigrating.
It isn't the central government that's opposing immigration. The central government is permitting it over the wishes of the states and the citizenry.
The wishes of some, perhaps, but not all.
You're damn right there wouldn't be a central government controlling immigration in an anarchist society. If the anarchists felt strongly enough about it, I suspect they'd be chasing the aspiring immigrants off at the ends of pitchforks and burning torches, no government required.
And as long as that ended at the property line of the anarchists, there would be little wrong with that.
Let me ask you this - would you be equally uncomfortable about excluding a population that you knew to be largely composed of communists, white supremacists, or Nazis or just plain violent criminals if they were immigrating here in sufficient numbers to skew your political system?
Communists, yes I would be. Nazis, probably less so, but you're not going to see me chasing the Aryan Nation with pitchforks and torches any time soon. Violent criminals are another matter. That involves more than discrimination against a person for having a different political philosophy. Violent crime involves action that violates the rights of individuals. Holding a belief in communism does not violate someone else's rights. But here again, I think you're focusing on a symptom rather than the problem. That people in mass numbers can influence the political progress of a democratic republic is inherent in the very nature of having a government with a democratic structure. It seems quite the opposite of democratic ideals to say that other people who might not vote the way we like should be kept out of the country. Some would argue this is an illustration of one of the flaws of democracy. In any case, it is as I said before, the answer to socialism is not closed borders but liberty.
-
Could the citzens of the less prosperous nation cross the border to harvest the better earning condiions then return past a hard border to winter in a socilist environment?
This would see to be a sort of diode , or conveyor belt that would drain the more fair system in favor of the less fair .
But while they work here, they provide labor, which produces goods and services. You're assuming the exchange is only one way and that money is the only benefit of the exchange.
-
Does arbitration depend on both sides being good sports?
After a fashion, yes, I suppose so.
-
Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them. Yes, I was being sarcastic again.
I'm not going to debate it if we're going to degenerate into this.
what stopped the government of England from abusing the rights of the people of the English colonies in the New World? People did.
I think your history needs a little work. First, the French Government played a major role. Second, there weren't a great deal of "rights" the English were infringing upon. The fact was that the American colonies had gotten somewhat spoiled to a very hands off approach from the Crown. Third, were the first actions taken by the Revolutionaries in order to win the war? Forming a government and building an army. I would hardly use the American Revolution as an example for supporting an anarchist agenda.
Contrary to how you're trying to paint this, neither Rothbard nor I have said that an anarchist society is going to be free of people trying to do bad things. This proposal is far, far from a utopia, and so far in this discussion the only people trying to claim otherwise are people objecting to it.
Perhaps not, but it is a near-utopic vision and the language is certainly there. Look at both the author's and your discussion of maximizing the opportunities for good and minimizing the opportunities for bad. Though I agree, this is not a utopic vision, most modern political philosophies don't venture into that.
But just exactly how are Wal-Mart and Target going to force other companies out?
The Big Three did it for decades. Why would it be so difficult?
Collusion and monopolistic practices I expect other companies to fight.
And if they cannot? Who fights it then?
And they got caught. And right now, governments have fixed the price you and I pay for police protection. And you and I cannot do one damn thing about it.
They got prosecuted by government authorities. Who will stop them and prosecute them in our non-state?
So would you trust BT to make honest decisions and give you straight answers as a local representative of government but not as a local representative of an insurance company?
BT would be representing his constituents. Who would the insurance agent be representing?
No, I did answer the question. You seem to be assuming that there will only be one private company for people choose. I'm suggesting there will be more than one company, and that a person will be able to hire, in one fashion or another, a second company to handle possible abuses.
I don't assume that at all. I assume that there will be plenty of them. I'm just curious how many times people will have to get the community together with their weapons to run the assholes out when they don't want to go.
So you're saying the basis for the charge "that anarchism assumes that with the abolition of the state a New Anarchist Man will emerge, cooperative, humane, and benevolent, so that no problem of crime will then plague the society" comes from Hobbes?
*sigh*
You did read what I said about Locke and Hobbes and Natural Law. I assume we are allowed to go beyond mere literal interpretation. If not, then the phrase "academically weak" is very appropriate.
You say all this, but you fail to provide a single reason why backing currency with a metal is not a realistic notion. It certainly seemed to have worked just fine. And without it we have now never ending inflation as the government just prints more and more money without any need to back it up with anything substantial at all.
There are libraries of books on the failure of Bretton Woods Prince, if you really want to get into an economics discussion we can, but I'm not sure we need to. As for inflation, your argument is absolutely false. There most certainly was inflation during the gold standard. In the current years inflation has not been a problem (in fact it has been historically low in western economies and far stabler than under the gold standard). The truth is that modern economic expansion cannot exist under a gold standard or the similar Bretton Woods scheme. As I said, if you want to delve into the reasons why we can, but there are economics tomes written about this.
I would be interested in seeing you provide examples of the Holocaust having nothing to do with government. But if your point is that people not in government still do bad things, no one is denying that. And of course, that non-government people do bad things does nothing to mitigate the bad things done by governments. How ever bad the Mafia or drug lords might be, it does not excuse criminal behavior on the part of the state. Wouldn't you agree, even if you disagree on what constitutes that criminal behavior?
Criminal behavior is never excused, unless it is forces as a moral behavior.
From wherever the frak they feel like.
Interesting.
-
After all, if this prick had it his way, and I think he will eventually, what stops him from forcing you into his Universal Health Care Plan? Sure, maybe you can refuse treatment, but let's see what happens when you refuse to pay for services you don't need or want.
Wow, there's a way to win people to your cause. Libertarians are all about choices and rights, unless you disagree with them and suddenly "reason" has nothing to do with it. It quickly degenerates into name calling and everyone becomes a jackbooted thug.
Prince is an exception. And if you have followed more discussions you might realize that I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate in this debate. I don't disagree with all of the points (though I do with some). Moreover, you and fatman come here and whinge and cry about people who want government benefits, etc, which blatantly points a finger at the left, who often support a broader social safety net. Yet, the right wing has often been a major supporter of Government as well. Historically "Conservatives" came from monarchists and continue to this day as those who wish to see a broad Government used to provide "safety and security" against what they perceive as "threats" to the people.
Or in your case, perhaps they support a bigger state to keep out those with "undesirable views." What a sad thought as Martin Luther King Junior's holiday approaches.
-
Could the citzens of the less prosperous nation cross the border to harvest the better earning condiions then return past a hard border to winter in a socilist environment?
This would see to be a sort of diode , or conveyor belt that would drain the more fair system in favor of the less fair .
But while they work here, they provide labor, which produces goods and services. You're assuming the exchange is only one way and that money is the only benefit of the exchange.
That is so , the Georgia onion harvest shut down when the Immagration authoritys cracked down on it one year.
But the labor of Mexico remains cheap decade after decade , is thi an effect of their socialist form of government , or is there another cause?
I once dug some ditch as a scond job to improve my childrens Christmass , I don't think I could do that again for the cheapness of other unskilled labor and because my back is not as strong as it was then.
-
Oh gee, I guess nothing at all. Not a single person would stand up to them. Everyone would just meekly let Wal-Mart abuse them. Yes, I was being sarcastic again.
I'm not going to debate it if we're going to degenerate into this.
Okay. I suppose I should not have been sarcastic in that manner, but frankly your question of who would prevent Wal-Mart from adopting adopting a policy of forcing people to shop at Wal-Mart in an anarchist society struck me as really lame. Why are people in an anarchist society going to suddenly all become meek lambs never doing anything to defend themselves? And why are businesses suddenly going to start forming armed groups of thugs to force people into their stores?
I would hardly use the American Revolution as an example for supporting an anarchist agenda.
You missed the point. People decided to do something to stop what they considered abuses of their basic rights, and the found a way to throw off the British government. The point being people can and probably will find a way to stop abuses of basic rights.
Perhaps not, but it is a near-utopic vision and the language is certainly there. Look at both the author's and your discussion of maximizing the opportunities for good and minimizing the opportunities for bad. Though I agree, this is not a utopic vision, most modern political philosophies don't venture into that.
It is not near-utopic either. No one is promising a perfect society or nearly a perfect society. A different society, yes, one that some people think would be an improvement. Why? Because they think it would maximize the opportunities for good and minimize the opportunities for bad. Isn't that why we have a democratic republic? Because some people thought it would maximize the opportunities for good and minimize the opportunities for bad? It certainly doesn't seem nearly so utopian to me as the idea that socialism would lead us all into a communistic anarchy of peace and love, and most socialists I've talked to tell me that is the ultimate goal of socialism. No one has said that Rothbard's idea of a stateless society would be perfect or make all men better. I believe his argument was merely that it would be better than what we have now. Is that all it takes to sound utopian?
But just exactly how are Wal-Mart and Target going to force other companies out?
The Big Three did it for decades. Why would it be so difficult?
You didn't answer my question. How are they going to force other companies out?
Collusion and monopolistic practices I expect other companies to fight.
And if they cannot? Who fights it then?
People. You keep talking as if all that has to happen is companies make an agreement and everyone else just gives up. Maybe you're right. No one seems to fight the monopolistic practices of the government. And if the government decided to nationalize various industries, who would stop them? Let's say the government decided to take over the retail industry and standardize all retail stores. At which point you would be forced to do your shopping at a monopolized business. Who would stop this? The black market would likely boom, but then the government would have to crack down on it. Would that be wrong? Would you want to stop it? Of course, all this leads me back to another question you did not answer. Why are monopolistic practices okay for government but not for anyone else? Maybe I should ask it another way. Why are monopolistic practices wrong for everyone except the government?
And they got caught. And right now, governments have fixed the price you and I pay for police protection. And you and I cannot do one damn thing about it.
They got prosecuted by government authorities. Who will stop them and prosecute them in our non-state?
Again the answer is people. There is no reason why privately owned watchdog groups could not perform their own investigations, and no reasons why private organizations could not sue the companies for abuses.
So would you trust BT to make honest decisions and give you straight answers as a local representative of government but not as a local representative of an insurance company?
BT would be representing his constituents. Who would the insurance agent be representing?
What makes you think BT or someone else in government would not be representing the interests of the government as clearly happened in New London, Connecticut? What makes you think that an insurance agent whose prosperity and job security depended keeping customers well served is not going to represent his customers?
I'm just curious how many times people will have to get the community together with their weapons to run the assholes out when they don't want to go.
I don't know. That depends, I guess, on whether Rothbard is right and the security business depends on keeping customers happy or whether you're right and people all become assholes in the absence of government.
You did read what I said about Locke and Hobbes and Natural Law. I assume we are allowed to go beyond mere literal interpretation. If not, then the phrase "academically weak" is very appropriate.
At some point going beyond literal interpretation has to be reigned in by what someone actually said. And as I pointed out before, clearly Rothbard's goal was not to write a refutation of Hobbes. Does every anarchist, every time he decides to put forth anarchist ideas, have to refute Hobbes?
There are libraries of books on the failure of Bretton Woods
And Rothbard could have written one. I did not say a return to the Bretton Woods standard. I'm talking about a return to what might be called a classical gold standard, examples of which would require going back to before World War I.
In the current years inflation has not been a problem (in fact it has been historically low in western economies and far stabler than under the gold standard). The truth is that modern economic expansion cannot exist under a gold standard or the similar Bretton Woods scheme.
With the gold standard that existed prior to World War I, as I understand it, prices generally went down, not up. And I cannot discover a single reason why modern economic expansion cannot exist in that situation. The economy would function somewhat differently, yes, if that is what you mean. But that does not mean economic expansion could not occur.
Criminal behavior is never excused, unless it is forces as a moral behavior.
Would you please clarify that statement?
[anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man"] From wherever the frak they feel like.
Interesting.
Did you think I was going to make some sort of blanket statement about anarchists? There are atheist anarchists and Christian anarchists and all sorts of anarchists. I have no way to answer a question about where anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man".
-
For one thing, I'm not talking about importing anybody. I'm talking about getting out of the way of people coming to trade their labor and time, or coming to trade their goods, or maybe just simply looking for another place to live. I did not say we should send out buses and bring people in.
Look, if you don't mind spending the time to type this kind of hair-splitting, I don't mind reading it. It's your time. But effectively, what would be the difference between opening the border and actively busing people in?
I just want to stop unfairly and needlessly getting in people's way.
I still don't see where you get "unfair". It's not like any aspiring immigrant is being deprived of anything that is legitimately his.
The right of a nation to define who may enter or who may not enter exists on exactly the same basis as any individual property right. That is, on custom and concensus. If it comes to that, where is there any inherent right to individual property? What makes one man's assertion of his right to property any more axiomatically correct than another man's assertion that all property is theft?
What I propose regarding immigration is not fundamentally different than what I propose be done about ordinary domestic policy. Just leave people alone unless someone's or some group's rights as individuals are being or have been violated. My rights are not abridged by Mexicans coming to America to look for work just as my rights are not abridged by New Yorkers looking for work in South Carolina. So I see no reason to interfere with the Mexicans much more than the New Yorkers. I certainly see no reason to perpetuate a situation wherein people find facing death in the desert an option preferrable to wading through the insane amount of red tape that hinders the legal immigration process.
Absolutely none of the above is true. Your rights are only as good as the willingness of the society you live in to honor them. Does a Mexican coming to work in America directly violate your rights? No. But given a sufficient influx of voters who don't recognize those rights as existant, guess what? At some point, government will cease to recognize them, too.
As per your example of migrations from New York to South Carolina re your rights, that's a pretty horrible example. Why do you think native residents of New Hampshire refer to migrants from Massachusetts as "Massholes"? Why do native Colorodans and Nevadans hate migrants from California? Why are natives of Indiana starting to hate the migrants from Illinois?
For the very reason that when those populations reach critical mass, they skew the local politics such that government violating the rights of the citizenry is exactly what they do.
For another thing, I do not see anything mutually exclusive about fighting socialist policy and getting out of people's way, regarding immigration or anything else. The essence of socialist policies is to get in people's way as a means of controlling and supposedly protecting society. What are the arguments against open immigration? That we need to get in people's way so that we can control and protect our own society. I am of the opinion that the only way to protect society is to stop trying to control it. We cannot stand against the authoritarianism of socialism by being authoritarian as well, because we will be what we are fighting against. The answer to socialism is not closed borders but liberty.
Let's cut to the chase here - point blank, what would be the political consequences of inviting a large collectivist minded population into the country? You have California as an example.
You support open borders in the name of liberty, but liberty for who? Certainly, it will be more liberty for the aspiring immigrants. But will the result of that policy result in an increase of liberty for American citizens? I think that anyone who was paying any attention to the actual consequences would say not. See my signature - I chose it for a reason:
When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.
This is where libertarianism, at least of the modal variety, falls apart. Yes, laws and government can be overbearing and intrusive and inhibitors of liberty. Unfortunately, they are also the tools we have available to ensure what liberty we've got. Absolute liberty is possible only on a desert island.
"I speak of civil, social man under law, and no other."
--Edmund Burke
A writer name Karl Jass once wrote that the problem with libertarianism is that no libertarian had ever proposed anything that would actually have the consequence of increasing anyone's liberty. I'm beginning to see what he means.
You are essentially proposing a political order that would self-destruct. Why even bother?
For starters, as I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen.
Hand over what power? Every national government on earth already has the power to control it's country's borders. Governments have that power a priory. Else they usually won't remain the government for long.
As I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen. That in itself is bad enough. But along with that come the arguments that opposing immigration is necessary to protect ourselves, that those immigrants are bad because they are not like the ones who came before or because they are lazy or they steal jobs or they take money out of the country or, if we go far enough down, that they are simply not like us and so therefore our very way of life is at stake. All those arguments have been made for as long as the U.S. has existed as a country.
Yes, and for my money, those arguments have been repeatedly proven correct.
The greatest influx of immigrants into this country was between 1890 and 1920. Guess when most of the changes in the relationship of between the citizenry and the government that libertarians find so odious occurred?
I am surprised that you would ask. You've been so busy defending the situation of relatively free travel within the U.S. that you have apparently forgotten what you were talking about.
That is correct. I have the right to unrestrained travel in the country of which I am a lawful citizen. That does not make my "right" to travel unlimited. I can't just march into China and claim a right to travel there. Nor of any other country I'm aware of. And this is fitting and proper - the governments of those countries are responsible for the interests of their own citizens - not the interests of citizens of the United States.
-
All this crap about the competition in the marketplace is highly overrated.
Just TRY to negotiate better terms on a rental contract or a mortgage.
Particularly on the rental contract, this never happens. It's first and last month, plus another month security deposit, and the landlord sets the rent.
The best you can do is to pay one month less than this upfront. This has been standard in Miami since the 1970's.
Competition does not affect the rental contract one whit.
With mortgages, perhaps they look competitive, but then at the end of 15 years payment, there is a huge balloon payment, or somesuch crap like that..
-
Just TRY to negotiate better terms on a rental contract or a mortgage.
Particularly on the rental contract, this never happens. It's first and last month, plus another month security deposit, and the landlord sets the rent.
I paid security deposit, and half a month rent the first month for this house - the last month's rent will be paid on the last month. The landlord had someone break their lease, and apparently skipped out on the rent, so I guess he thought some money for the month was better than none.
With mortgages, perhaps they look competitive, but then at the end of 15 years payment, there is a huge balloon payment, or somesuch crap like that..
Only if you get a balloon mortgage. If you have a conventional 15 year mortgage, at the end of 15 years, you own the house free and clear. If you have an ARM, they can adjust the interest rate at pre-defined intervals, within the limits written into the contract. Regardless, on past mortgages I have adjusted the terms when it suited me.
-
But effectively, what would be the difference between opening the border and actively busing people in?
What is the difference between unlocking a door and bringing someone into your house?
I just want to stop unfairly and needlessly getting in people's way.
I still don't see where you get "unfair". It's not like any aspiring immigrant is being deprived of anything that is legitimately his.
Except his liberty to trade.
The right of a nation to define who may enter or who may not enter exists on exactly the same basis as any individual property right.
You're equating individual property rights to the "right" of a nation, more accurately the government, to define who may or may not enter. So, you're saying the government owns the entire nation? Upon what do you base this idea?
The right of a nation to define who may enter or who may not enter exists on exactly the same basis as any individual property right. That is, on custom and concensus. If it comes to that, where is there any inherent right to individual property? What makes one man's assertion of his right to property any more axiomatically correct than another man's assertion that all property is theft?
Okay, and now you're saying that rights exist only on the basis of custom and consensus. In other words, you do not consider rights to be unalienable. The answer to your questions is based in a concept often called natural law. You apparently do not accept this concept. That's fine, but I do. In my opinion, it starts with a person owning himself. From there, because a person owns himself, he also owns his life, his time, his labor, and his mind. In our society that means people may exchange their time, labor, et cetera for other things of value, like money. That money can then be exchanged for other things. So if a person owns himself, then he owns that for which he has exchanged part of his life. This is an extremely simple presentation of the idea, but there are whole books that attempt to answer the questions you asked, and I have not the time to write one here now. Not that it matters, because you apparently do not hold to the idea that rights are inherent and unalienable. So someone could decide for you that property is theft. That's too bad.
Your rights are only as good as the willingness of the society you live in to honor them.
Imo, that is true of liberty, but not of rights.
Does a Mexican coming to work in America directly violate your rights? No. But given a sufficient influx of voters who don't recognize those rights as existant, guess what? At some point, government will cease to recognize them, too.
Which is one reason for Rothbard's belief in anarchy. A government cannot abridge one's rights if it does not exist. Of course, we can say that if government doesn't exist then can't protect one's rights either, but I believe Rothbard's position is that it is not going to protect one's rights because it inherently has to abridge some to exist. In any case, you're illustrating again one of the flaws of living in a democratic republic. What I do not understand is why you're willing to fight to close the border to protect your rights based on consensus, but not willing to fight the political choices that immigrants would make that would cause the abridgment of your rights which are built on the sand of custom. If socialists native born and raised here in America started a national campaign and began to influence policy, would you want them thrown out? Would you try to fight their ideas at all? Just where do you draw the line?
As per your example of migrations from New York to South Carolina re your rights, that's a pretty horrible example. Why do you think native residents of New Hampshire refer to migrants from Massachusetts as "Massholes"? Why do native Colorodans and Nevadans hate migrants from California? Why are natives of Indiana starting to hate the migrants from Illinois?
For the very reason that when those populations reach critical mass, they skew the local politics such that government violating the rights of the citizenry is exactly what they do.
So if the people within states of the U.S. have the same concerns about their rights under threat from immigrants, then why don't state governments have the same responsibility to protect their citizens from immigrants as the national government does?
Let's cut to the chase here - point blank, what would be the political consequences of inviting a large collectivist minded population into the country? You have California as an example.
Again, I'm not talking about inviting anyone in. And I am talking about fighting against the socialist policies that are creating such a favorable environment for the immigrants. The socialist policies are the actual problem in this case.
You support open borders in the name of liberty, but liberty for who?
Everyone.
Certainly, it will be more liberty for the aspiring immigrants. But will the result of that policy result in an increase of liberty for American citizens? I think that anyone who was paying any attention to the actual consequences would say not. See my signature - I chose it for a reason:
When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.
So which one is your principle? To give or to take freedom. Based on your arguments, I think your principle is to take freedom. You seem unwilling to fight against socialist policy, and yet you want to keep out people who might promote more of it. You seem less concerned with liberty than you are your own sense of security, and in that cause you are, apparently, willing to abridge the liberty of others. So how are you different from those who promote socialism?
This is where libertarianism, at least of the modal variety, falls apart. Yes, laws and government can be overbearing and intrusive and inhibitors of liberty. Unfortunately, they are also the tools we have available to ensure what liberty we've got. Absolute liberty is possible only on a desert island.
Who said anything about absolute liberty? I did not. Anyway, how can government be a tool for protecting liberty if you are unwilling to fight against government abridging your liberty? You are opposing immigration of those who might hold socialist ideas, but you seem to believe fighting socialist trends that already exist in your government is useless. How can you expect to stop ideas by stopping people? If you are unwilling to try to stop the ideas themselves, you have a futile double standard. Futile because the ideas will come to dominate the customs and consensus that you believe form the basis of your rights eventually because you tried to stop the people but not the ideas. You speak of libertarianism falling apart but frankly your position is so weak that it is falling down around you though you seem to not see it.
A writer name Karl Jass once wrote that the problem with libertarianism is that no libertarian had ever proposed anything that would actually have the consequence of increasing anyone's liberty. I'm beginning to see what he means.
Much depends on what you consider increasing one's liberty. You seem to be proposing the unhindered progress of socialist trends within our government while opposing immigration of people because they have, you say, socialist values. None of this will result in the increase of anyone's liberty. So I am doubting your ability to judge what would be the consequences of libertarian ideas. And of course, much of the time when people say libertarian ideas would not result in increased liberty, what they mean is libertarian ideas would not result in increasing their sense of security. And your arguments are basically about that. Due to the nature of America's political structure, open borders leaves America vulnerable to the influence of those who come into the country with ideas you don't like. This makes you feel unsafe. So you ignore that this is a problem with your political structure and object to the immigrants.
You are essentially proposing a political order that would self-destruct. Why even bother?
You seem not to comprehend the basic nature of what I'm talking about. You're trying to isolate this one concept of open borders and say, it will ruin everything for us because it will result in socialism. To isolate it, you dismiss that the actual nature of my position, that the socialist policies are the problem and not the immigrants. And then you say, I am proposing a political order that would self-destruct. No, I am proposing that we address the real issue, the socialist policies. Reduce the socialist policies and the risks you and others bring up about the dangers of immigration will also be reduced. Reducing the number of immigrants does nothing to reduce the socialist policies or to stop the progress of socialist ideas. If immigrants coming in bring socialist ideas with them and this is a threat to our culture, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. We Americans are the ones who have created the situation that brings us these consequences. We Americans vote for the politicians who fuel the progress of socialist ideas. We Americans vote for the politicians who promote and support Welfare and Medicare and Social Security. We are the ones who allow it to continue. We chose to not fight for liberty. We Americans chose not to hold politicians accountable for saying they want small government and then acting to expand the government. The immigrants are a scapegoat, and getting in their way will not solve our problems. It will only make things worse. Your path is the one heading to self-destruction. That is why I bother.
For starters, as I said before, the more we demand the government do something to hinder immigration, the more power we have to hand over to the government to make that happen.
Hand over what power? Every national government on earth already has the power to control it's country's borders. Governments have that power a priory. Else they usually won't remain the government for long.
They do? So the government can do anything it wants in the name of controlling the borders? I'm pretty sure that is not the case. I'm starting to wonder why you're concerned about the influx of socialist immigrants. You seem not to be concerned about any abridgment of your rights. Your rights are just customs and the government already has all the power it needs to do whatever it wants. What exactly is it that you think is going to be protected by keeping out immigrants?
Yes, and for my money, those arguments have been repeatedly proven correct.
The greatest influx of immigrants into this country was between 1890 and 1920. Guess when most of the changes in the relationship of between the citizenry and the government that libertarians find so odious occurred?
I'm sure you're talking about the 1930s and 40s, but the changes began long before then. But if you're going to start blaming all or almost all immigrants for socialist progress in this country, I'm left wondering just how strict you expect immigration control to be. Last I checked, this country would not exist if not for immigrants. So just what do you expect the government to do about immigration? Stop it altogether? Have all foreigners entering the country take an ideology test? Wear armbands? What?
I have the right to unrestrained travel in the country of which I am a lawful citizen.
You do? Why? Upon what grounds do you claim this "right"?
That does not make my "right" to travel unlimited. I can't just march into China and claim a right to travel there. Nor of any other country I'm aware of. And this is fitting and proper - the governments of those countries are responsible for the interests of their own citizens - not the interests of citizens of the United States.
I don't recall advocating a "right" to unlimited travel. Nor do I recall saying countries should be expected to be responsible for the interests of foreigners. You seem to be treating this as if I expect the U.S. government to do something for foreign immigrants. I'm not expecting the government to do anything, except get out of the way. If you want to go from point A to point B, and someone is in your way, he does not transport you to point B by getting out of your way. All getting out of your way accomplishes is to lessen your effort in getting yourself from A to B.
You want the government to stand in the way of immigration so that you might be protected from the influence of socialist foreigners. The socialist influence in your government, because this is a democratic republic, is your responsibility to combat. It is your government, elected by you and your fellow citizens. You're not going to stop that influence by expecting the government to do it for you. It won't go away even if immigration is somehow brought under control to your satisfaction.
-
You missed the point. People decided to do something to stop what they considered abuses of their basic rights, and the found a way to throw off the British government. The point being people can and probably will find a way to stop abuses of basic rights.
And what of all the revolutions that failed? I don't necessarily disagree, but how many people are willing to die to be able to shop in a more competetive environment?
Why are people in an anarchist society going to suddenly all become meek lambs never doing anything to defend themselves? And why are businesses suddenly going to start forming armed groups of thugs to force people into their stores?
I don't believe either will be true. I do believe that with no regulation, business will look after only their interests, which may include actions that are harmful to others (businesses, employees, and people).
It certainly doesn't seem nearly so utopian to me as the idea that socialism would lead us all into a communistic anarchy of peace and love, and most socialists I've talked to tell me that is the ultimate goal of socialism
Well, there are many who claim to be socialists who are in fact leftists who float from cause to cause and support anything that remotely seems like a cause. I'm sure there are similar anarchists as well. Though there are different strains of socialism (as there are anarchism) Marx especially loathed the utopic socialists.
Note, I didn't make a judgement that utopian was a bad thing. No need to be defensive. If you like I will strike the notion of Rothbard's Anarchism as being utopic or near-utopic.
That depends, I guess, on whether Rothbard is right and the security business depends on keeping customers happy or whether you're right and people all become assholes in the absence of government.
That's unfair. I think most people will remain their basically decent, indifferent selves. I think defense companies will be in a position to seek power. By definition Rothbard's non-state creates a power vacuum. Of course, if everyone holds an anarchist's view that vacuum is forever left unfilled (or filled via the free-market). I'm just pointing out that other's might see an opportunity to take advantage of that. Historically you must admit that large states with central organisation (i.e. government) have taken advantage of smaller, less organised states. And no, I'm not saying that the people would be meek and roll over, but organised infantry and armour divisions do tend to work a bit better than Jim with his gun show piece meal AK-47 (and I have been to a number of gun shows before anyone asks). Though I must admit that Iraq and Lebanon may be proving this theorem less and less true.
With the gold standard that existed prior to World War I, as I understand it, prices generally went down, not up.
Is that an international comparison over how many years? Do you really want to discuss this in detail?
Would you please clarify that statement?
I don't believe criminal behavior is excused unless it is moral behavior. For example, it was criminal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus, but it was morally justified. Much of the ANC's actions were criminal, but justified in my belief.
Did you think I was going to make some sort of blanket statement about anarchists? There are atheist anarchists and Christian anarchists and all sorts of anarchists. I have no way to answer a question about where anarchists derive their views on the "nature of man".
Unlike others you may be used to debating Prince, I had no specific reply in mind when I asked the question.
I have a couple of questions for you though.
1. From where do the laws of this non-state derive their justification?
2. Are Trades Unions allowed to exist and will worker's rights be protected?
-
Just TRY to negotiate better terms on a rental contract or a mortgage.
Particularly on the rental contract, this never happens. It's first and last month, plus another month security deposit, and the landlord sets the rent.
I paid security deposit, and half a month rent the first month for this house - the last month's rent will be paid on the last month. The landlord had someone break their lease, and apparently skipped out on the rent, so I guess he thought some money for the month was better than none.
=========================================================================
Well, good for you. Perhaps like Yogi, you are brighter than the average bear.
In a large city like Miami, most available rental places are huge buildings rented by companies, and the terms are nearly always the same. First month, last month, and a month security deposit. That is usually more than $2,000. They will throw in that extra 40 channels of cable for six months, maybe.
There are only small percentage of homes owned by individuals you can negotiate with.
When you look for a house, the realtor always tries to stick you into a place just beyond what you can afford. Then they do their thing with the creative financing.
When I bought my house in 1977, I noticed that many houses were being sold for $30K or less. So this is what I told the various brokers, who told me that there were NO houses for that price, none. I heard this so much I gave up on brokers completely and assumed a mortgage. But it took several weeks of looking and God knows how much time taliking to all manner of fools, swindlers and morons.
My observation is that you can get most anything you want, but you will have to outwit the system. The system is well-equipped to beat the average clown into submission.
I do not always blame landlords for being so greedy. About half of those seeking to rent actually are decent tenants. The other half are the sort that gets thrown out for non payment or for being generally bad tenants every four months or so. And they are indistinguishable unless you pay for some serious research.
-
In a large city like Miami, most available rental places are huge buildings rented by companies, and the terms are nearly always the same. First month, last month, and a month security deposit. That is usually more than $2,000. They will throw in that extra 40 channels of cable for six months, maybe.
You just contradicted yourself with your own story:
When I bought my house in 1977, I noticed that many houses were being sold for $30K or less. So this is what I told the various brokers, who told me that there were NO houses for that price, none. I heard this so much I gave up on brokers completely and assumed a mortgage. But it took several weeks of looking and God knows how much time taliking to all manner of fools, swindlers and morons.
My observation is that you can get most anything you want, but you will have to outwit the system. The system is well-equipped to beat the average clown into submission.
The simple fact is that you can negotiate if you want. For most people, it's not worth their time, and they just take things priced as is. I like to negotiate, and do it all the time. Anything I buy that costs more than $100, I will attempt to negotiate the price down. Many times, I'll do it for items under $100 as well. I bought a window air conditioner once that was advertised (on sale) at like $289. I talked the manager down to $190, even though it was on sale already. Every game convention I go to, I negotiate prices with the vendors in the dealer room. My best tactic is to hit them on Sunday, when they're packing to go home, and offer to take a few cases off their hands, usually at about 20 cents on the dollar (so they don't have to transport it back home and restock it into their warehouse).
It's not "outwitting" the system, however. It's a part of the system.
-
And what of all the revolutions that failed? I don't necessarily disagree, but how many people are willing to die to be able to shop in a more competetive environment?
You make it sound petty. People fighting to shop. To be honest, I don't know how things would play out if Wal-Mart decided to force people to shop there and people tried fighting back. Part of my problem is that I have no idea what the societal structure will look like. I'm sure there are several stories that could be told about this basic idea, but the environment surrounding the story would play a significant part, imo. So we can only speculate so far on this before we get into complete guessing.
Why are people in an anarchist society going to suddenly all become meek lambs never doing anything to defend themselves? And why are businesses suddenly going to start forming armed groups of thugs to force people into their stores?
I don't believe either will be true. I do believe that with no regulation, business will look after only their interests, which may include actions that are harmful to others (businesses, employees, and people).
That may be. But it can, and I think should, be argued that customer service and fair dealings would be in the interests of the businesses. Some business owners may see that and some may not, but I think the ones that do are ultimately going to have longer and better success than those that do not.
Note, I didn't make a judgement that utopian was a bad thing. No need to be defensive.
Okay. When terms like utopia and utopian are used, they are, in my experience, used generally as derogatory terms. "Utopian" usually means "impractical fantasy", and I don't believe that is what Rothbard has proposed at all.
If you like I will strike the notion of Rothbard's Anarchism as being utopic or near-utopic.
Thank you.
That depends, I guess, on whether Rothbard is right and the security business depends on keeping customers happy or whether you're right and people all become assholes in the absence of government.
That's unfair.
Yes it was. I should give you more credit. You are one of the best debaters here, and I sometimes get the impression that you're not necessarily arguing points you believe as much as engaging in the discussion of the ideas, which is why I am here in the first place. So my apologies. I should know better.
I think most people will remain their basically decent, indifferent selves. I think defense companies will be in a position to seek power. By definition Rothbard's non-state creates a power vacuum. Of course, if everyone holds an anarchist's view that vacuum is forever left unfilled (or filled via the free-market).
Yes, but I want to say here that one of the things I find most persuasive about the notion of an anarchist society is that there is no requirement for everyone to agree. For those that desire a central authority, they can essentially have one if they desire, like a socialist commune, they just wouldn't be able to force their central authority on everyone else. This may not be exactly what Rothbard had in mind, but I see this as a possibility in an overall anarchist society. It would possibly function not unlike the way the Amish communities exist within our current society.
I'm just pointing out that other's might see an opportunity to take advantage of that. Historically you must admit that large states with central organisation (i.e. government) have taken advantage of smaller, less organised states. And no, I'm not saying that the people would be meek and roll over, but organised infantry and armour divisions do tend to work a bit better than Jim with his gun show piece meal AK-47 (and I have been to a number of gun shows before anyone asks). Though I must admit that Iraq and Lebanon may be proving this theorem less and less true.
Historically, the larger states have had better resources and better trained soldiers. More recently, private groups are proving able to acquire the latest weapons and to train people as well as most militaries.
With the gold standard that existed prior to World War I, as I understand it, prices generally went down, not up.
Is that an international comparison over how many years? Do you really want to discuss this in detail?
I think that is internationally, and over a period of at least 100 years. But no, I'm not interested in getting into a lot of detail, because I'm not an economist, and my understanding is fairly general.
I don't believe criminal behavior is excused unless it is moral behavior. For example, it was criminal for Rosa Parks to sit at the front of the bus, but it was morally justified. Much of the ANC's actions were criminal, but justified in my belief.
Okay, I'll agree with that for the most part. But I think what Rothbard means by talking about criminal behavior is confiscation of property, mass murder, the abuse of human rights, et cetera. I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean civil disobedience or fighting against tyrannical oppression.
Unlike others you may be used to debating Prince, I had no specific reply in mind when I asked the question.
Okay. That's fair enough. I am probably falling back on habits of responding here when I really have no cause to do so. I shall endeavor to step up.
I have a couple of questions for you though.
1. From where do the laws of this non-state derive their justification?
2. Are Trades Unions allowed to exist and will worker's rights be protected?
1. From the people really. I think most people would end up agreeing on a common law basis of non-aggression against people and property. Various groups might have their own preferences for what should be considered law in their own community, and there are all kinds of issues involved here like how to two or more parties from different groups handle legal differences. But that is where Rothbard's notion of arbitration really enters the scene.
2. I see no reason why trade unions would not be allowed to exist. Like now, employers may or may not decide to hire union employees, but employees would also be free to not work in such places. As for workers' rights, well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by workers' rights. Some people think government banning smoking all over the place is protecting workers' rights. Such bans would not exist in an anarchist society. If we're talking about more basic rights, like not being abused, not being forced to work, et cetera, yes, I think those rights would be protected. I think there would be watchdog groups and the like that would help protect people from such abuses.
There are a couple of things I feel I should say here. One is that I am not genuinely an anarchist. I think a government can still play a legitimate role in society, but I would prefer a smaller government and perhaps one structured a bit differently. But I also think Rothbard had some genuinely good ideas. The other thing is that I'm no academic, and I don't have all the details of an anarchist society worked out, so I can end up presenting ideas in a simplified manner, but then I do not believe I need to work out all the details of how an anarchist society would work any more than I need to work out all the details of how a democratic republic society works. The details get worked out by others and it all seems to function without me being able to answer for every conceivable contingency. It doesn't always function as everyone would like, but it works. And all of this means, I'm not here to say I have all the answers. I'm just here to discuss the ideas.
-
One of the things that dismays me about the society we live in is the huge number of Men we are locking up.
One of the appealing things about Libertrian policys is the reduction in the number of reasons to lock a guy up , I like that myself.
Our society does work though, I wonder at what point we will have so many people locked up that our society does no longer operate , or becomes a society within the fenses as much as outside.
To reverse this problem what means is there to determine the minimum number of guys we must have locked up?
If everyone were doing just as we please I suppose that strong majority of us would continue to be decen observers of the golden rule , but a single crimanal can create misery for hundreds of ordinary decent persons , so I suppose that a system for getting these intolerable sorts out of the hair of the rest of us would remain a necessity.
So I wonder what sort of system would be present in the optimum Lbertarian society?
-
But effectively, what would be the difference between opening the border and actively busing people in?
What is the difference between unlocking a door and bringing someone into your house?
Again, you've managed to avoid the point of the question, so I'll rephrase it again. Whether massive immigration is accomplished by busing in the immigrants, throwing open the border and yelling, "Come on in! It's Art Linkletter's house party!" or immigrants are transported by UFO to Area 51, opening the borders would result in a massive influx of immigrants.
Now, for the 3rd time, what would the practical political consequences of a massive influx of immigrants to the United States be?
This isn't rocket science. You already have any number of examples to look at. None that I'm aware of, either in the United States or Europe, have resulted in a political climate that facilitated greater liberty in the aggregate.
I just want to stop unfairly and needlessly getting in people's way.
I still don't see where you get "unfair". It's not like any aspiring immigrant is being deprived of anything that is legitimately his.
Except his liberty to trade.
Really? I have a house full of stuff made in China, Mexico, Korea and other countries, presumably made by people who, for the most part, have never set foot in the US.
Doing business with Wal-Mart does not necessarily imply I have the right to set up camp in their warehouse.
The right of a nation to define who may enter or who may not enter exists on exactly the same basis as any individual property right.
You're equating individual property rights to the "right" of a nation, more accurately the government, to define who may or may not enter. So, you're saying the government owns the entire nation? Upon what do you base this idea?
I didn't say the government owned the entire nation. The government does have certain prerogatives regarding the territory it governs.
Your property rights are not absolute. Look at the deed to your house. It's doubtful you own the mineral rights, and you certainly don't own the air rights to your property. Your rights to your property don't include the right to declare it a sovereign state and implement your own body of law. For example, you can't declare it legal to molest children or commit serial killings on your property. So yes, the government does retain certain rights with regard to even private property.
The right of a nation to define who may enter or who may not enter exists on exactly the same basis as any individual property right. That is, on custom and concensus. If it comes to that, where is there any inherent right to individual property? What makes one man's assertion of his right to property any more axiomatically correct than another man's assertion that all property is theft?
Okay, and now you're saying that rights exist only on the basis of custom and consensus. In other words, you do not consider rights to be unalienable. The answer to your questions is based in a concept often called natural law. You apparently do not accept this concept. That's fine, but I do. In my opinion, it starts with a person owning himself. From there, because a person owns himself, he also owns his life, his time, his labor, and his mind. In our society that means people may exchange their time, labor, et cetera for other things of value, like money. That money can then be exchanged for other things. So if a person owns himself, then he owns that for which he has exchanged part of his life. This is an extremely simple presentation of the idea, but there are whole books that attempt to answer the questions you asked, and I have not the time to write one here now. Not that it matters, because you apparently do not hold to the idea that rights are inherent and unalienable. So someone could decide for you that property is theft. That's too bad.
I'm very much familiar with natural law, thankyouverymuch. And natural law, like every other theory of law, relies on axiomatic assumptions. You own yourself? Sez who? For most of history, and even today, there have been people owned by other people.
The point here being that simply because you accept the axiom that your rights are unalienable doesn't necessarily mean everybody else accepts your particular set of axioms.
So yes, the set of axioms a society accepts will largely be a consequence of custom and consensus.
Does a Mexican coming to work in America directly violate your rights? No. But given a sufficient influx of voters who don't recognize those rights as existant, guess what? At some point, government will cease to recognize them, too.
Which is one reason for Rothbard's belief in anarchy. A government cannot abridge one's rights if it does not exist.
That's all very nice. Now, how do you hope to achieve this stateless society when you propose to facilitate the entry of a terrific number of people who are supporters of the state?
What I do not understand is why you're willing to fight to close the border to protect your rights based on consensus, but not willing to fight the political choices that immigrants would make that would cause the abridgment of your rights which are built on the sand of custom. If socialists native born and raised here in America started a national campaign and began to influence policy, would you want them thrown out? Would you try to fight their ideas at all? Just where do you draw the line?
Quite simply, because allowing aspiring immigrants participation in our political process is not an obligation I owe them. I do owe it to other citizens.
Where I draw the line is "citizen". C-I-T-I-Z-E-N.
Again, my relationship to my fellow citizens has a moral priority over my relationship to non-citizens.
As per your example of migrations from New York to South Carolina re your rights, that's a pretty horrible example. Why do you think native residents of New Hampshire refer to migrants from Massachusetts as "Massholes"? Why do native Colorodans and Nevadans hate migrants from California? Why are natives of Indiana starting to hate the migrants from Illinois?
For the very reason that when those populations reach critical mass, they skew the local politics such that government violating the rights of the citizenry is exactly what they do.
So if the people within states of the U.S. have the same concerns about their rights under threat from immigrants, then why don't state governments have the same responsibility to protect their citizens from immigrants as the national government does?
It might be nice if they could, but per the constitution, they agreed to allow free migration of United States citizens as a condition of admittance to the Union.
Again, that's an obligation owed by state governments to citizens of the United States. It is not an obligation owed by the United States to non-citizens. You keep trying to obscure the distinction between what obligations a government owes to it's citizens, as opposed to obligations it owes to non-citizens. It is, in fact, a rather large distinction.
You support open borders in the name of liberty, but liberty for who?
Everyone.
Really? I've lived in the southwest, and I assure you, few people there are feeling liberated by the federal government's failure to secure the borders. Anything but.
Certainly, it will be more liberty for the aspiring immigrants. But will the result of that policy result in an increase of liberty for American citizens? I think that anyone who was paying any attention to the actual consequences would say not. See my signature - I chose it for a reason:
When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.
So which one is your principle? To give or to take freedom.
Both and neither. It's a reminder that not all appeals to freedom are necessarily legitimate. Do I find it a contradiction that I propose to limit the freedom of people who propose to use it to restrict mine? No, I don't. Let me put it this way - would a respect for life inhibit you from killing a murderer who meant to kill you and your family? Obviously, contingent on your choice, somebody's life will be lost. From where I'm sitting, I prefer the murderer lose his than I lose mine. Likewise, if I have to chose between restricting the freedom of migration for non-citizens, to whom I have no obligation whatsoever, or sacrificing the freedom enjoyed by myself and my fellow citizens, then the non-citizens are just SOL. Sorry.
Based on your arguments, I think your principle is to take freedom. You seem unwilling to fight against socialist policy, and yet you want to keep out people who might promote more of it. You seem less concerned with liberty than you are your own sense of security, and in that cause you are, apparently, willing to abridge the liberty of others. So how are you different from those who promote socialism?
So now you're equating any law at all with socialism? Exactly, what is "socialist" about border control?
Further, I submit that your assertion that the freedom to trade == the right to migrate has a rather dubious libertarian lineage. Of all the libertarians of consequence I can think of, that is, Rothbard, Mises, Friedman, Ron Paul, Hoppe, Hayek et al, not one of them ever endorsed open borders.
This is where libertarianism, at least of the modal variety, falls apart. Yes, laws and government can be overbearing and intrusive and inhibitors of liberty. Unfortunately, they are also the tools we have available to ensure what liberty we've got. Absolute liberty is possible only on a desert island.
Who said anything about absolute liberty? I did not. Anyway, how can government be a tool for protecting liberty if you are unwilling to fight against government abridging your liberty? You are opposing immigration of those who might hold socialist ideas, but you seem to believe fighting socialist trends that already exist in your government is useless.
Which socialist trends in government am I endorsing? I'm all for rolling back socialist practices of our government.
I just don't think increasing the strength of their supporters by adding to their numbers is a particularly effective way to do that. Do you?
How can you expect to stop ideas by stopping people? If you are unwilling to try to stop the ideas themselves, you have a futile double standard. Futile because the ideas will come to dominate the customs and consensus that you believe form the basis of your rights eventually because you tried to stop the people but not the ideas. You speak of libertarianism falling apart but frankly your position is so weak that it is falling down around you though you seem to not see it.
Well, guy, my defense against ideas largely consists of what is called "culture". It appears to be a foreign word in the libertarian vocabulary. In India, eating insects is a common practice. While the idea may well spread, I do not think it will find much currency in the United States because our cultural conditioning is such that we find eating insects revolting. Now, import a billion Indians to the United States, and my money says that a fairly substantial portion of the population will be eating insects.
A writer name Karl Jass once wrote that the problem with libertarianism is that no libertarian had ever proposed anything that would actually have the consequence of increasing anyone's liberty. I'm beginning to see what he means.
Much depends on what you consider increasing one's liberty. You seem to be proposing the unhindered progress of socialist trends within our government while opposing immigration of people because they have, you say, socialist values.
Again, unless you're asserting that laws are by definition socialist, I'd like to know what socialist trends I'm promoting.
None of this will result in the increase of anyone's liberty. So I am doubting your ability to judge what would be the consequences of libertarian ideas. And of course, much of the time when people say libertarian ideas would not result in increased liberty, what they mean is libertarian ideas would not result in increasing their sense of security. And your arguments are basically about that. Due to the nature of America's political structure, open borders leaves America vulnerable to the influence of those who come into the country with ideas you don't like. This makes you feel unsafe. So you ignore that this is a problem with your political structure and object to the immigrants.
And again, you're proposing altering the political structure of the country while endorsing a policy that will have the most likely result of creating a political environment that will be hostile to that alteration.
I could grow oranges at the south pole if it were 80 degrees year round. Except that it isn't.
You are essentially proposing a political order that would self-destruct. Why even bother?
You seem not to comprehend the basic nature of what I'm talking about. You're trying to isolate this one concept of open borders and say, it will ruin everything for us because it will result in socialism. To isolate it, you dismiss that the actual nature of my position, that the socialist policies are the problem and not the immigrants. And then you say, I am proposing a political order that would self-destruct. No, I am proposing that we address the real issue, the socialist policies. Reduce the socialist policies and the risks you and others bring up about the dangers of immigration will also be reduced. Reducing the number of immigrants does nothing to reduce the socialist policies or to stop the progress of socialist ideas.
Tell that to the Californians. When I lived in California in the '70s, it's political climate was largely a libertarian leaning conservatism. I don't think "libertarian" is a word many people would associate with California today.
If you want to know how immigration will effect our political climate, that is your test case. You are giving me pious platitudes. I am giving you real-world examples. When you can show me a counter-example to bolster your case, you might actually have a case.
-
Yes, but I want to say here that one of the things I find most persuasive about the notion of an anarchist society is that there is no requirement for everyone to agree. For those that desire a central authority, they can essentially have one if they desire, like a socialist commune, they just wouldn't be able to force their central authority on everyone else. This may not be exactly what Rothbard had in mind, but I see this as a possibility in an overall anarchist society. It would possibly function not unlike the way the Amish communities exist within our current society.
I have to admit, I find this an appealing possibility.
From the people really. I think most people would end up agreeing on a common law basis of non-aggression against people and property. Various groups might have their own preferences for what should be considered law in their own community, and there are all kinds of issues involved here like how to two or more parties from different groups handle legal differences. But that is where Rothbard's notion of arbitration really enters the scene.
The problem here, that I see, is the amount of time and expenses that will have to be put into arbitration and mediation. For example, what if you walk into some Midwestern town and step in a cowpie and say an obscenity. They might arrest you or fine you an obscene amount of money. In theory they could argue that your language was harmful to the people in their community. I know it is a silly example, but let's be honest, people have enacted some inane laws - even at the will of the people. Prohibition, for example, was an initiative not started by the government, but begun by the people. Making certain drugs illegal (this is an area where we might agree) was pushed by groups of people at first, not by politicians, who only picked it up later.
In fact, morphine was at first beloved by none other than church leaders and housewives. To them it was a wonderful substitute for alcohol. You didn't have an angry drunk out on the town causing trouble, or coming home hitting his wife. Instead, you had a very passive (even depressed) morphine addict at home staring out of a window. So an early push for morphine was from the very people who a couple decades later would fight against it.
I'm not saying this for a lesson on illicit drugs (I want to legalise them) but for a point that I could envision a lot of arbitration and mediation.
I appreciate the discussion UP. Sometimes it seems counterintuitive, but I find that we have more common ground than Democrats and Republicans at times.
-
So I wonder what sort of system would be present in the optimum Lbertarian society?
That depends on which libertarian you ask. One guy who thinks he knows the answer is Stefan Molyneux. He seems to spend a lot of thought on how an anarchist society might work. If you go to the LewRockwell.com archive of his columns (http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux-arch.html) you can find his explanations about how criminals would be handled. The one most directly answering your question is a column titled "Stateless Prisons: Containing Danger Without Enslaving Citizens (http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux19.html)", though that builds on ideas he put forth in earlier columns. At the archive, the earliest columns are at the bottom of the list. I recommend starting with "The Stateless Society (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html)" I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, just that his ideas are one possible solution.
-
But effectively, what would be the difference between opening the border and actively busing people in?
Now, for the 3rd time, what would the practical political consequences of a massive influx of immigrants to the United States be?
I submit that those are two different questions with two different answers.
Whether massive immigration is accomplished by busing in the immigrants, throwing open the border and yelling, "Come on in! It's Art Linkletter's house party!" or immigrants are transported by UFO to Area 51, opening the borders would result in a massive influx of immigrants.
Now, for the 3rd time, what would the practical political consequences of a massive influx of immigrants to the United States be?
That depends on the immigrants. I get that you're trying to push the notion that a massive influx of immigrants is going to result in American becoming socialist, and so then you get your grounds for punishing Mexicans who want to come here and work. But I don't intend to support your position.
This isn't rocket science. You already have any number of examples to look at. None that I'm aware of, either in the United States or Europe, have resulted in a political climate that facilitated greater liberty in the aggregate.
I also have a number of examples of government strictly controlling the content of their populations at which to look, and none of them has a result of greater liberty in the aggregate. In fact they tend to result in severely curtailed liberty.
I have a house full of stuff made in China, Mexico, Korea and other countries, presumably made by people who, for the most part, have never set foot in the US.
I'm sure that is true, but it does nothing to counter my point. Restricting immigration as you suggest interferes with someone from Mexico trading directly with someone in America. And conversely, it also limits the pool of potential employees from which a business might choose. There is more to trade than products. Services and labor can also be traded.
Doing business with Wal-Mart does not necessarily imply I have the right to set up camp in their warehouse.
Of course not. But to exchange labor for money generally requires a person to be able to be present at the work site.
I didn't say the government owned the entire nation.
I know. You merely equated the property rights of individuals with the "right" of a government to control borders. Which implies that the government owns the nation.
The government does have certain prerogatives regarding the territory it governs.
I'm curious as to why you seem to treat these "prerogatives" more absolute than the rights of individuals.
Your property rights are not absolute. Look at the deed to your house. It's doubtful you own the mineral rights, and you certainly don't own the air rights to your property. Your rights to your property don't include the right to declare it a sovereign state and implement your own body of law. For example, you can't declare it legal to molest children or commit serial killings on your property. So yes, the government does retain certain rights with regard to even private property.
The government has acquired to itself certain authority over private property, but that is not the same as a right. Liberty and rights are not the same thing.
I'm very much familiar with natural law, thankyouverymuch. And natural law, like every other theory of law, relies on axiomatic assumptions. You own yourself? Sez who? For most of history, and even today, there have been people owned by other people.
A violation of rights. Upon what other grounds would it be considered wrong?
The point here being that simply because you accept the axiom that your rights are unalienable doesn't necessarily mean everybody else accepts your particular set of axioms.
So yes, the set of axioms a society accepts will largely be a consequence of custom and consensus.
That is a different argument. Though I would argue that either rights are unalienable or they are not, regardless of whether everyone accepts one position or other. That some people might not agree rights exist does not mean those rights do not exist.
That's all very nice. Now, how do you hope to achieve this stateless society when you propose to facilitate the entry of a terrific number of people who are supporters of the state?
The same way as always. By promoting the idea.
Quite simply, because allowing aspiring immigrants participation in our political process is not an obligation I owe them. I do owe it to other citizens.
Where I draw the line is "citizen". C-I-T-I-Z-E-N.
Again, my relationship to my fellow citizens has a moral priority over my relationship to non-citizens.
A moral priority? Why? Based on what moral principle?
So if the people within states of the U.S. have the same concerns about their rights under threat from immigrants, then why don't state governments have the same responsibility to protect their citizens from immigrants as the national government does?
It might be nice if they could, but per the constitution, they agreed to allow free migration of United States citizens as a condition of admittance to the Union.
Okay. So? The Constitution can be changed. Why are you not arguing that the states should be allowed to control their borders in the manner you expect the national government to control its border?
Again, that's an obligation owed by state governments to citizens of the United States. It is not an obligation owed by the United States to non-citizens. You keep trying to obscure the distinction between what obligations a government owes to it's citizens, as opposed to obligations it owes to non-citizens. It is, in fact, a rather large distinction.
On the contrary, I am simply arguing that I believe the obligations of the government are different than what you assert are the obligations of government. I find it interesting that you keep saying rights are open to change, but you treat these supposed obligations of government as absolute. How can both be true?
I've lived in the southwest, and I assure you, few people there are feeling liberated by the federal government's failure to secure the borders. Anything but.
Feeling liberated or feeling safe? The two are not the same. I find when people talk of liberty in terms of the government protecting them from something, they really mean not liberty but a sense of safety. And I'm sure plenty of people are scared of this new version of the "yellow peril". I expect any day now to see books or television mini-series about what might happen if socialists from Latin America invaded the country.
Do I find it a contradiction that I propose to limit the freedom of people who propose to use it to restrict mine? No, I don't. Let me put it this way - would a respect for life inhibit you from killing a murderer who meant to kill you and your family?
Wow. Now you're comparing socialist ideas to murder. And by implication suggesting that immigrants are a threat to your life because they have different ideas. Wow.
Let me put it this way - would a respect for life inhibit you from killing a murderer who meant to kill you and your family? Obviously, contingent on your choice, somebody's life will be lost.
That depends on the situation. If he posed a direct threat to me and my family, like being in my house, then yes, I would shoot him. I would not, however, go hunt the man down and shoot him in his house. That would make me no less a murderer then he was.
Likewise, if I have to chose between restricting the freedom of migration for non-citizens, to whom I have no obligation whatsoever, or sacrificing the freedom enjoyed by myself and my fellow citizens, then the non-citizens are just SOL. Sorry.
What freedom enjoyed by you right now is under threat from the immigrants. And I mean, what freedom exactly?
Based on your arguments, I think your principle is to take freedom. You seem unwilling to fight against socialist policy, and yet you want to keep out people who might promote more of it. You seem less concerned with liberty than you are your own sense of security, and in that cause you are, apparently, willing to abridge the liberty of others. So how are you different from those who promote socialism?
So now you're equating any law at all with socialism?
Um, no. I'm comparing your desire to abridge the freedom of others with the socialist desire to abridge the freedom of others, and I'm questioning your commitment to liberty. So I ask the question again, how are you different from those who promote socialism?
Exactly, what is "socialist" about border control?
Socialism restricts liberty in the name of the public good. You want border control to restrict liberty in the name of the public good. You may not see it as socialist, but from my perspective, there seems to be little practical difference between them.
Further, I submit that your assertion that the freedom to trade == the right to migrate has a rather dubious libertarian lineage. Of all the libertarians of consequence I can think of, that is, Rothbard, Mises, Friedman, Ron Paul, Hoppe, Hayek et al, not one of them ever endorsed open borders.
One of the cool things about libertarians is that we do not all agree on everything. I am free to make my own opinion on the matter.
Which socialist trends in government am I endorsing?
I don't recall saying you were endorsing them. Just that you were seemingly not willing to oppose them.
I'm all for rolling back socialist practices of our government.
Then where is your argument of opposition to socialist ideas? So far in this conversation you have talked a lot about opposing socialists but not a word yet about opposing socialist ideas.
I just don't think increasing the strength of their supporters by adding to their numbers is a particularly effective way to do that. Do you?
Let's just say I do not believe countering authoritarianism by advocating authoritarianism is a sensible fight.
Well, guy, my defense against ideas largely consists of what is called "culture". It appears to be a foreign word in the libertarian vocabulary. In India, eating insects is a common practice. While the idea may well spread, I do not think it will find much currency in the United States because our cultural conditioning is such that we find eating insects revolting. Now, import a billion Indians to the United States, and my money says that a fairly substantial portion of the population will be eating insects.
No, libertarians are quite familiar with the word and concept of culture. Most of us, however, are not nearly so opposed to culture changing as you seem to be. I've heard insects can be quite high in protein.
Again, unless you're asserting that laws are by definition socialist, I'd like to know what socialist trends I'm promoting.
Again, I don't recall saying you were promoting socialist trends. Merely that you seem willing not to fight them beyond this desire to control the borders.
And again, you're proposing altering the political structure of the country while endorsing a policy that will have the most likely result of creating a political environment that will be hostile to that alteration.
You made me laugh. We are already in a political environment that is hostile to that alteration.
I could grow oranges at the south pole if it were 80 degrees year round. Except that it isn't.
Oddly enough, I have a similar opinion of your desire to control the borders to save us all from socialism.
When I lived in California in the '70s, it's political climate was largely a libertarian leaning conservatism. I don't think "libertarian" is a word many people would associate with California today.
Neither is California entirely socialist. And I doubt seriously that the alteration in California's political climate is due mostly to immigration. But if you can support that change is due mostly to immigration, I'd like to see it. And no, saying that immigration must be the cause because California seems more liberal now does not prove your case. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not enough.
If you want to know how immigration will effect our political climate, that is your test case. You are giving me pious platitudes. I am giving you real-world examples. When you can show me a counter-example to bolster your case, you might actually have a case.
This probably doesn't really bolster my case as such, but I have heard that immigration is one of the things damaging the socialist economy in Sweden. The the growing diversity of the population is causing a strain on the socialist system there, and the government of Sweden has, in the past decade or so, had to embrace somewhat more capitalistic and therefore more liberty-centered policies. You claim that immigrants will come and demand socialist policies, I can only ask how that will be different than what we have now. People, citizens mind you, C-I-T-Z-E-N-S, already demand socialist policies. Already citizens are campaigning for government run universal health care, expanded public education services, higher taxes on the "rich", strengthening "Social Security", and you're sitting there, telling me that we have to stop the immigrants because they're going to make all this happen. It is like saying that we need to keep flammable materials out of already burning buildings because the buildings might catch fire. And so far, efforts to stop immigration have served to do little more than make the immigrants coming in illegally (most of whom should not have to come in illegally) work harder to avoid detection. Your real-world examples fall flat. And so far, the opposition to socialist policies in this country is lamentably weak. Supposedly small-government politicians elected to the U.S. Congress do little if anything to oppose socialist policy and seem willing to do much to expand and protect existing socialist policies. So I have a serious lack of faith in your plan to save us all from socialism. As I said before, your position is so weak that it is falling down around you though you seem to not see it.
-
The problem here, that I see, is the amount of time and expenses that will have to be put into arbitration and mediation.
I don't really see how that would be much different than now. I mean, some people spend years with a single case in civil courts. Some people spend decades trying to prove innocence in criminal courts. If you're trying to say the simpler matters would take longer and cost more money, I'm not inclined to agree. I suppose initially there would be some time of adjustment where in matters like you discuss might take a while to arbitrate, but I think things would smooth out as precedents and standards were established.
I appreciate the discussion UP. Sometimes it seems counterintuitive, but I find that we have more common ground than Democrats and Republicans at times.
I have appreciated our discussion as well. I know sometimes I can be needlessly sarcastic or aggressive here, but I'm trying to change that. And in any case, you have helped me reevaluate some of my positions, and for that I thank you. Someday I'll have to force myself to read more than a little Hobbes and Marx and then maybe we can have a more thorough debate about the issues you keep bringing up in our conversations.
I agree that you and I seem to have a lot of common ground. And I'm glad that we do.
-
The worst case scenirio for immagration is haveing a very nearly libertarian society overwhelmed by a more numerous or more determined bunch.
Who then proceed to change the rules detrimentally to the original bunch.
There are lots of historical examples in various places in the world .
Includeing right here.
Perhaps the best reason we have to emulate the Spartans is fear that the Spartans will come around
-
The worst case scenirio for immagration is haveing a very nearly libertarian society overwhelmed by a more numerous or more determined bunch.
[...]
Perhaps the best reason we have to emulate the Spartans is fear that the Spartans will come around
To protect ourselves from the ideas we oppose we should adopt the ideas we oppose? Um, no. I cannot agree.
-
I would point out that the European nations do not imprison nearly as high a percentage of the population as we do, nor do they suffer from as high of a crime rate.
And no, I can't point to one single reason why that's true. But you can walk down the streets of comparable sized European (and Canadian) cities without any worries.
-
I would point out that the European nations do not imprison nearly as high a percentage of the population as we do, nor do they suffer from as high of a crime rate.
My first guess as to why that might be so is a difference in laws and law enforcement, but that is only a guess.
-
I would point out that the European nations do not imprison nearly as high a percentage of the population as we do, nor do they suffer from as high of a crime rate.
And no, I can't point to one single reason why that's true. But you can walk down the streets of comparable sized European (and Canadian) cities without any worries.
Is this really Chicken and egg?
Or do high crime rates require high incarceration rates?
-
And no, I can't point to one single reason why that's true. But you can walk down the streets of comparable sized European (and Canadian) cities without any worries.
Of course, in the US you can walk around anywhere outside of the major urban centers and see less violence and crime than Europe.
The US crime rate is driven almost purely by urban violence in high population centers. Outside of these areas, the crime rate is virtually non-existant.
-
My first guess as to why that might be so is a difference in laws and law enforcement, but that is only a guess.
Could be. Of course our laws, in general, developed from English common law, but the divergence since then is likely substantial. I'm not very knowledgable on law enforcement differences to be honest.
Of course, in the US you can walk around anywhere outside of the major urban centers and see less violence and crime than Europe.
The US crime rate is driven almost purely by urban violence in high population centers. Outside of these areas, the crime rate is virtually non-existant.
Perhaps, but Europe is far more urban than the United States and that still doesn't explain the difference in Canada, who has a massive rural and urban population.
Also, a bit of commonsense plays a part here too. For criminal activity one needs opportunity. For opportunity one likely needs other people nearby. Hence, urban areas will simply offer more opportunity in a far smaller area.
It is still interesting, to me, that crime is more of a problem here than there (and you're right that violent crime is especially much higher).
-
canada is not all that crimeless
it`s just that the factors that causes crime is less.
remember more people can actually afford things in canada than the U.S.
while here people have negative finances and more likely never will have money.
the majority of most crimes tend to be economic
canadians are not rich people ,but alot of us have homes
americans can`t exactly say that
-
canada is not all that crimeless
it`s just that the factors that causes crime is less.
remember more people can actually afford things in canada than the U.S.
while here people have negative finances and more likely never will have money.
the majority of most crimes tend to be economic
canadians are not rich people ,but alot of us have homes
americans can`t exactly say that
Home ownership as a percentage of the population in the USA has been riseing for a long time , I don't think this is the diffrence.
-
canadians are not rich people ,but alot of us have homes
americans can`t exactly say that
Why can't Americans say that? A lot of Americans do have homes.