why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?

[Jose Fly]

CL,

Are you going to answer my questions? The Romney thing was just a side note.

 

[Christian Liberty]

How?


How? Like I said, I refuse to go.


How can they stop me?


There's a larger context there that you're not aware of. My friends and I have had lots of discussions where they preach "personal responsibility". Not only that, they seem pretty oblivious to the rare privilege of having parents who can bail them out with that much money.

Kinda like Mitt Romney's "get your parents to lend you money" thing, where he just assumed everyone in the US has parents who have lots of money.

Privilege is usually pretty oblivious to itself.

Under strict Rothbardian logic (which I think would be accurate in this instance) you couldn't be compelled to go to court unless you were already convicted. You could, however, be tried in absentia if you refused to show up. This is a really minor point that I haven't thought that much about though. There are probably libertarians that would say it would be OK to compel you to go to court with probable cause.

Its really obvious how this works in a minarchist society... just like it does now except the only crimes are acts of violence against people or their property.

Anarcho-capitalism is more complicated, and involves more guesswork, but I think we can guess, assuming you have a PDA that defends you and other people, your PDA will have agreements with the other PDAs that will set instructions for dealing with potential criminals on both sides. Both PDAs will want to protect their customers from criminals who are subscribing to the other PDA, which is an incentive for negotiation.

Now, if our standard for anarcho-capitalism "working" is perfection while the State is simply "assumed" to be the correct choice otherwise, than of course anarcho-capitalism will fail. but I don't think that's really a fair metric to use. That sometimes things will go wrong doesn't mean they generally will. And with the State, we know things generally go wrong.

 

[drbrumley]

it is impossible for anyone to predict voluntary social arrangements, including
the delivery of goods and services, on the free market.

 

[Christian Liberty]

it is impossible for anyone to predict voluntary social arrangements, including
the delivery of goods and services, on the free market.

Agreed. Unfortunately people prefer the devil they know to the devil they don't, even if logical analysis makes the likelihood of the devil you know being worse nearly 100%.

 

[Jose Fly]

Under strict Rothbardian logic (which I think would be accurate in this instance) you couldn't be compelled to go to court unless you were already convicted.

Convicted by who? And again, even if I am convicted (by someone), I don't care. I'm not going.

You could, however, be tried in absentia if you refused to show up. This is a really minor point that I haven't thought that much about though. There are probably libertarians that would say it would be OK to compel you to go to court with probable cause.

How would they compel me?

Its really obvious how this works in a minarchist society... just like it does now except the only crimes are acts of violence against people or their property.

So there would still be police and a court system? If so, how are those things funded?

Anarcho-capitalism is more complicated, and involves more guesswork, but I think we can guess, assuming you have a PDA that defends you and other people, your PDA will have agreements with the other PDAs that will set instructions for dealing with potential criminals on both sides. Both PDAs will want to protect their customers from criminals who are subscribing to the other PDA, which is an incentive for negotiation.

I refuse to do any of that. I continue to import tires and nuclear waste. From my POV, I am providing a needed service and I dispute the claims that my actions are harmful.

Now what?

Now, if our standard for anarcho-capitalism "working" is perfection while the State is simply "assumed" to be the correct choice otherwise, than of course anarcho-capitalism will fail. but I don't think that's really a fair metric to use. That sometimes things will go wrong doesn't mean they generally will. And with the State, we know things generally go wrong.

This isn't about perfection. It gets to a pretty fundamental issue, i.e., how does such a society deal with people like me?

 

[drbrumley]

Convicted by who? And again, even if I am convicted (by someone), I don't care. I'm not going.


How would they compel me?


So there would still be police and a court system? If so, how are those things funded?


I refuse to do any of that. I continue to import tires and nuclear waste. From my POV, I am providing a needed service and I dispute the claims that my actions are harmful.

Now what?


This isn't about perfection. It gets to a pretty fundamental issue, i.e., how does such a society deal with people like me?

Well, if your bent on causing trouble, it doesn't matter if your statist or anarchist, it doesn't really matter does it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, if your bent on causing trouble, it doesn't matter if your statist or anarchist, it doesn't really matter does it?

That's the point. A society with a gov't has a system in place for dealing with trouble makers. I want to see how Christian Liberty's society does it (if at all).

 

[drbrumley]

That's the point. A society with a gov't has a system in place for dealing with trouble makers. I want to see how Christian Liberty's society does it (if at all).

How exactly are you defining an anarachist society?

 

[Jose Fly]

How exactly are you defining an anarachist society?

That's what I'm trying to get out of Christian Liberty. Rather than address a straw man of my own making, I'd rather he explain his vision himself.

 

[aikido7]

This is very strange to me, but then liberals are strange

They always take the side of the evil ones in any discussion

The conservatives take the side of the (true) victims, such as

911 victims. The liberals, on the other hand, say that we should "empathize with our enemies" the terrorists.

HUH? What? :dizzy::dizzy:

and of course, we shouldn't slam the poor dears against the wall or put them in coffins with bugs or waterboard them, even though no one has DIED from those "torture" methods. 911 victims actually died, but that doesn't seem to phaze these people (using the term loosely).

When an abortionist is shot, which unfortunately does not happen very often (OK, ok...), the liberals are just SOOO distraught over this poor man's death, and, as is the MO, totally forget about the babies he has been butchering on a daily basis.

Hey, it was mutilation and murder for a good cause (women like Jillian do not want to mess up their bodies by having... Yikes! Children). So, abortionists are heroes :dizzy:



++

republicanchick, the word "always" in your post's title is an example of a very, very sloppy communication technique.

You should really substitute the word "often" for "always." It is a rare, rare case when anything anywhere "always" happens.

Specificity in our remarks in public help move things along without ruffled feathers. It helps us agree without being disagreeable.

 

[drbrumley]

That's what I'm trying to get out of Christian Liberty. Rather than address a straw man of my own making, I'd rather he explain his vision himself.

CL and I almost believe the same thing on this topic (won't speak for him) so I can take a crack at it.

I do think it is wrong to compare what we are used to; as a given; and only critique what you or anyone for that matter consider to be anarchy in a serious manner. In other words, we need to discuss the merits of both systems. Basically start at a ground zero.

We in agreement thus far?

 

[The Barbarian]

Anarcho-capitalism is more complicated, and involves more guesswork, but I think we can guess, assuming you have a PDA that defends you and other people, your PDA will have agreements with the other PDAs that will set instructions for dealing with potential criminals on both sides. Both PDAs will want to protect their customers from criminals who are subscribing to the other PDA, which is an incentive for negotiation.

Before the rise of national states, and unless there happened to be a particularly powerful warlord, Anglo-Saxon societies went like that. Tribes or clans formed PDAs. Until there was a large disparity of wealth and power, it seems that there wasn't much more violence or abuse of personal liberty (for males, anyway) than there is now.

But societies tend to become specialized, and then powerful people tend to abuse weaker members. For most of our existence as a species, this wasn't a problem. If everyone was more or less the same hunter-gatherer, and there was no land to hold, who could be the oppressor? If little wealth or food could be stored up, what would be the point? Even if he was able to make a claim stick, his fellows would just leave him and go elsewhere.

So how do we prevent that? More to the point, how do we have a technological society that somehow avoids the mess that agriculture made of our species?

I will confess to being emotionally and intellectually drawn to your ideas; in many ways they make more sense than the way things are. I'm just looking for a roadmap to there without us becoming Somalia.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Before the rise of national states, and unless there happened to be a particularly powerful warlord, Anglo-Saxon societies went like that. Tribes or clans formed PDAs. Until there was a large disparity of wealth and power, it seems that there wasn't much more violence or abuse of personal liberty (for males, anyway) than there is now.

But societies tend to become specialized, and then powerful people tend to abuse weaker members. For most of our existence as a species, this wasn't a problem. If everyone was more or less the same hunter-gatherer, and there was no land to hold, who could be the oppressor? If little wealth or food could be stored up, what would be the point? Even if he was able to make a claim stick, his fellows would just leave him and go elsewhere.

So how do we prevent that? More to the point, how do we have a technological society that somehow avoids the mess that agriculture made of our species?

I will confess to being emotionally and intellectually drawn to your ideas; in many ways they make more sense than the way things are. I'm just looking for a roadmap to there without us becoming Somalia.

Good question. I don't have a definitive answer, but some ideas.

1. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the better. Incremental progress is important. Ancaps who wouldn't support Ron Paul annoy me because they are letting the perfect become the enemy of the better. There is a clear difference between a minarchy and an authoritarian society, even if not perfect. I don't think its terribly likely that we'll ever get an ancap society. But if we accept that all aggression is wrong, there is a PRINCIPLED reason, rather than a simple preference, to vote for the tax cut or to vote against a new welfare program or so forth. Similar, if we accept that all collateral damage is wrong, we may never get to a point where our society never knowingly takes action which leads to collateral ddamage, but it gives a PRINCIPLED reason, rather than a simple preference, to try to avoid such whenever physically possible.

2. If one were to try to create an ancap society from the top down through violent revolution, I can see how it would lead to "Somalia". But pretty much no ancaps support doing this for a reason. If (and I realize this is a big "If", but an essential one for an ancap society to work, as I think most ancaps would admit) the idea of aggressive violence became as repulsive in the average person's mind, I don't think abolishing the State would lead to Somalia.

3. If we compare Somalia to the other sub-saharan African countries, it actually did quite well after losing its government. it actually expanded its quality of life in most major areas in those ten years. Mind you, I understand their previous government was highly oppressive, and that it could be argued that its impossible for a first world society to stay so without a government (though I'd disagree with that argument.) But if we actually compare Somalia to other Somalia type countries, I don't think it was that bad. It was certainly bad by American standards, but I don't really think its our government that got us where we are.

 

[WizardofOz]

we need to discuss the merits of both systems. Basically start at a ground zero.

I'd be interested in this conversation as well...

 

[drbrumley]

I'd be interested in this conversation as well...

Im not sure anyone is really interested in this topic. Minds are made up for the most part.

 

[bybee]

Good question. I don't have a definitive answer, but some ideas.

1. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the better. Incremental progress is important. Ancaps who wouldn't support Ron Paul annoy me because they are letting the perfect become the enemy of the better. There is a clear difference between a minarchy and an authoritarian society, even if not perfect. I don't think its terribly likely that we'll ever get an ancap society. But if we accept that all aggression is wrong, there is a PRINCIPLED reason, rather than a simple preference, to vote for the tax cut or to vote against a new welfare program or so forth. Similar, if we accept that all collateral damage is wrong, we may never get to a point where our society never knowingly takes action which leads to collateral ddamage, but it gives a PRINCIPLED reason, rather than a simple preference, to try to avoid such whenever physically possible.

2. If one were to try to create an ancap society from the top down through violent revolution, I can see how it would lead to "Somalia". But pretty much no ancaps support doing this for a reason. If (and I realize this is a big "If", but an essential one for an ancap society to work, as I think most ancaps would admit) the idea of aggressive violence became as repulsive in the average person's mind, I don't think abolishing the State would lead to Somalia.

3. If we compare Somalia to the other sub-saharan African countries, it actually did quite well after losing its government. it actually expanded its quality of life in most major areas in those ten years. Mind you, I understand their previous government was highly oppressive, and that it could be argued that its impossible for a first world society to stay so without a government (though I'd disagree with that argument.) But if we actually compare Somalia to other Somalia type countries, I don't think it was that bad. It was certainly bad by American standards, but I don't really think its our government that got us where we are.

However, the quality of life for women and female children continues to be hazardous at best in Somali.

 

[The Barbarian]

Im not sure anyone is really interested in this topic. Minds are made up for the most part.

Clearly, the model of human society that came out of the rise of agricultural states is messed up. It doesn't work well with the way humans evolved as free beings within a voluntary society.

I get that. What I want to see is a plausible road map from here to there.

What do you have?

 

[Christian Liberty]

However, the quality of life for women and female children continues to be hazardous at best in Somali.

What a shock, life sucks for women and children in sub-saharan African third world country.

BUt the interesting thing is, for that poor and backward region of the world, Somalia is actually better off than most other places in that area.

I'm not saying Somalia is a model for what I'm looking to acheive. I'm just saying that "Somalia lol" isn't a valid response to what I'm advocating. (In fairness to Barbarian, he did honestly ask how we can avoid becoming Somalia, rather than doing what some other people do and saying "move to Somalia.")

Im not sure anyone is really interested in this topic. Minds are made up for the most part.

I am. I doubt I'd ever go back to statism, but it would be an interesting mental exercise nonetheless. WoZ and Barbarian have stated interest as well, so it seems like it would be worth it if it could potentially convince two people.

 

[WizardofOz]

Im not sure anyone is really interested in this topic. Minds are made up for the most part.

I'd be happy to discuss it with you, CL or anyone else who is sincere and not just looking to poke holes in AC or libertarian socioeconomic theories just for the sake of it.

As long as they are willing to answer questions and defend their theories as well, it may just be fruitful.

I find some of the questions being asked interesting and pertinent. I have some myself...

 

[WizardofOz]

CL is far more anarcho-capitalist than myself but I'll take a stab at these as it relates to my understanding of free market government and law enforcement.

Convicted by who?

The government. I can never argue in favor of actual anarchy because of hypotheticals like the ones you are presenting. There will always be a need for a neutral/objective arbitrator.

And again, even if I am convicted (by someone), I don't care. I'm not going.

How would they compel me?

Fines. Your tire burning and waste dumping would impede on the free use of the land owned by those around you. If it were shown that your use of your land was decreasing the value of your neighbors land, hurting their health, etc. the free market dictates that you make them whole. This would be enforced by fining you and those proceeds should go to land owners who's land value, health, well-being is being negatively affected by your actions.

So there would still be police and a court system? If so, how are those things funded?

I would still have both, yes. Much of this could be self-sufficient or funded voluntarily by local residences and businesses.

I refuse to do any of that. I continue to import tires and nuclear waste. From my POV, I am providing a needed service and I dispute the claims that my actions are harmful.

Now what?

I think it could easily be proven that you actions are harmful to your neighbors.