Blame Canada

[CDP45]

OK.  I've got the thrust of your argument, which is that government is bad.  But without government, how do you propose that the society self regulates in a manner acceptable?

As I previously asked but didn't receive an answer to, what if there is no clear majority on a question . . . say, on the question of abortion?  Abortion can be viewed as murder, or a woman's choice over her body.  If you view it as the former, it's something that should be stopped . . .. if the latter, then it's not hurting anyone.  Either way people will have strong opinions and are likely to violently oppose one another.  How do you keep the peace?

What if a large sub group of people decide that something clearly wrong like child molestation is OK (This has in fact happened . . . look at fundamentalist mormons or NAMBLA for real life examples)?  Do you just stand back and let them molest kids, or do you impose some form of rule of law?

I appreciate you asking honest, specific questions here. I will give my opinions. I am personally pro-life, BUT I do not have the right to make that a "law". Does that make sense? So we have to go with the attitudes of society. If a society values life, they will not have an abortion. If they do not, they will abort. One thing I do know, is that making a "law" does not stop human fulfilling their desires. People can only choose to condone or condemn behavior and ostracize those accordingly.

With child abuse.. generally we as a society see that as sick behavior.. some groups may not. So in case of protecting a person, there can be rule or law to forbid that aggression against an individual. This is different from a woman who is pregnant, as it involves her AND the child. But when it comes to the child, I think society has a responsibility to defend them against particular aggression like that.

OK.  So we have agreed that child abuse is a behaviour that needs to be controlled.  How do you prevent pedophiles from abusing children without restricting their freedoms (creating laws that prevent them from being near children), some form of police (to ensure that the pedophiles stay away from children), and some form of legal framework?

Is murder acceptable in your society?  I'm going to assume that it's not.  This creates a dilemma here . . . the argument would be made by people who don't agree with it that abortion is murder.  How will you get the large population of people who believe this to buy in to your governing group?  In their eyes you treat some murders as crimes, and others as no issue.  In effect, by not preventing abortion you would be tacitly accepting murder (in the eyes of these people).

Without forming a governing body and some form of legal framework, how do you propose to answer these questions in a manner fair to all people in your land?

I think to prevent aggressive behaviors there needs to be consequences. But I also believe crime is most strongly correlated with wealth, and just like it may not have been possible in the past for FIRE without investible assets that produce a return, it may be tougher to have a voluntary society in very poor areas.

We are part of many voluntary contracts/governments today, and imagine a large hoa where people voluntarily move but agree to conditions that restrict/govern their behavior. Typically there is some sort of deposit or insurance that has a financial consequence against violating that contract. I think this analogy is a workable system, and those who were egregious violators would forfeit deposits or have insurance claims against them and basically would be excluded from large swaths of land.

I think at this point the government is subsidizing criminals with welfare so they can feed themselves without being productive members of society. Incarceration sure doesn't seem to work.

We're already seeing a lot of this with large industrial parks owned by property managers, private watch groups, and the growth of HOAs. 

[matchewed]

Frankly you don't know what my ideology is. I lean much more towards practical discussions and reality which is why I've been asking how your ideology would even function. You don't even have an answer for what to do with the "BAD PEOPLE" as you put it. You simply mock it as if bad people don't exist.

I'm not sure what you're finding comical. The reason that I didn't want to engage is because you are treating government as an ideological battle of some sort. Much like discussing gay marriage with people who have religious objections to it, you can't fight an ideology. I will engage in any practical discussion regarding taxation; what is taxed, how it is spent...etc. But like I said nothing I can say will make you even consider the idea that people accept paying taxes. You literally cannot fathom that idea. It is meaningless to you. Even when I freely admit to having no qualms with paying taxes you have to step in and make a claim for me that it is just coercion, I'm some how incapable of saying I don't mind paying taxes, that I'm not facing the same moral reality that is so clear to you. Well a distinct inflexible moral code that you exhibit is a hallmark for ideology.

No my argument is summarized by saying that people who drone on and on about government being bad and taxes equal theft have no alternative that they can offer. No thought out system for any of the things they take for granted simply because they take those things for granted. That it is an ill thought out concept that is nothing but conceptual.

If you appreciate honest specific questions I had a couple for you.

If a crime is committed how do you determine who is guilty in a voluntary society? How do you determine appropriate punishment if someone were found guilty? What is a crime in this society?

If another voluntary society wants the resources that your voluntary society has how does your voluntary society defend itself?

You advocate the use of force and violence as a means for governing people and society. THAT is your ideology. And the fact you do not see it as violence means there is really no point in discussing a voluntary society with you. You can't even admit the violence inherent in the existing structure, how can you objectively understand one that does not rely on it?

If you really want to learn more, I suggest Rothbard's Anatomy of the State, Bastiat's The Law and Larken Rose's The Greatest Superstition.

The problem with the state, and it's believers like yourself, is that you want me to live in your world through extortion, where I'm not forcing you to live in mine.

But I can quickly answer your questions as I see fit.

Crime is any aggression against a person or property. A simple way of putting it is if there is no victim there is no crime. However, threats can be judged by intent and capability. If my neighbor says he's going to shoot my head off and has a gun, I have ever right to defend myself and use equal force upon him. The same with pollution, if they harm someones property, they are liable. But the corporations you say? Corporations are govt created fictions. So they have govt protection under the "law". In a free society there is no such protection for corps. If you own a business, you yourself are personally liable for any aggression as are the employees. If someone is guilty the society is to judge their punishment, much like a jury of peers today.

I'm actually not forcing you to live in my world. You're choosing to remain in it. However I'm guessing you'll twist that into another "Love it or leave it" statement but I'm not telling you to leave or stay, I'm just telling you that you have options. I'm not sure if you're seeing the nuance in what I'm saying. You as an individual are making a conscious decision to remain and participate in this society under a pretense of force. You keep making the same claim we are. In my world you're not being forced to live in it.

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

[CDP45]

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

How does your society determine guilt?

There's a lot more private "justice" today that people voluntarily enter into called Arbitration (non-government courts basically). Also the vast majority of insurance claims are resolved without any government involvement, hell most police departments won't respond to car accidents anymore. So you would file a claim against them with your insurance company who would pay you and then subrogate against the person who did you the harm. If I were running an HOA (private, voluntary government) would require constant insurance and proof of it if someone wanted to move in.

If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution?

Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't have reviews and/or insurance?
 

[Mr.Macinstache]

I'm actually not forcing you to live in my world. You're choosing to remain in it. However I'm guessing you'll twist that into another "Love it or leave it" statement but I'm not telling you to leave or stay, I'm just telling you that you have options. I'm not sure if you're seeing the nuance in what I'm saying. You as an individual are making a conscious decision to remain and participate in this society under a pretense of force. You keep making the same claim we are. In my world you're not being forced to live in it.

See, this is what I'm saying. Love it or leave is not a valid argument. You are the one who isn't getting the nuance. Humans have the right of self determination, they have the natural right to exist without being forced to pay homage to a ruling class. The ruling class has no legitimate authority to own people or practice extortion, so saying someone can leave has nothing to with the logic and principle of self ownership. But when you believe in these fictitious things like "social contract" it contradicts with the principle that humans are born free and not property of the ruling class and their arbitrary lines on a map.

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

Food and restaurants have an incentive to market food. You can still have a collective group and an organized society and all the power that comes along with that. Look at the non-gmo project. Is that a govt bureaucracy? No, but it holds power over brands to consumers who value that sort of thing. The myth is that sans a govt, no one will organize any initiatives, as if natural desires to be healthy or safe will disappear without a ruling class.

How is guilt determined today? Again there is an incentive for justice in society. That will not disappear sans a ruling class.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Some fun memes that illustrate the absurdity of common claims.

Love it or leave it:


Voting for a ruling class:


But if there's no ruling class, bad people will rule us:


Without a ruling class to protect you, bad people will get you:

[matchewed]

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

How does your society determine guilt?

There's a lot more private "justice" today that people voluntarily enter into called Arbitration (non-government courts basically). Also the vast majority of insurance claims are resolved without any government involvement, hell most police departments won't respond to car accidents anymore. So you would file a claim against them with your insurance company who would pay you and then subrogate against the person who did you the harm. If I were running an HOA (private, voluntary government) would require constant insurance and proof of it if someone wanted to move in.

If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution?

Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't have reviews and/or insurance?

Citations? For any of that. Plus insurance companies go to court all the time. Constantly. And you're talking the elimination of court systems in favor for private arbitration. Who's the arbiter, as I asked before how do you ensure that they are impartial? Why is that system less easy to abuse than the current system? How is it "more free"?

Asking whether I'd eat at a restaurant that that didn't have reviews or insurance doesn't answer the question. How do I get restitution against an organization that has greater resources than myself regardless of what service or product that organization provided? You state arbitration. What if they just ignore me? Who ensures that they provide restitution and why can't they just ignore that given the obvious power imbalance between individuals and organizations?

[matchewed]

I'm actually not forcing you to live in my world. You're choosing to remain in it. However I'm guessing you'll twist that into another "Love it or leave it" statement but I'm not telling you to leave or stay, I'm just telling you that you have options. I'm not sure if you're seeing the nuance in what I'm saying. You as an individual are making a conscious decision to remain and participate in this society under a pretense of force. You keep making the same claim we are. In my world you're not being forced to live in it.

See, this is what I'm saying. Love it or leave is not a valid argument. You are the one who isn't getting the nuance. Humans have the right of self determination, they have the natural right to exist without being forced to pay homage to a ruling class. The ruling class has no legitimate authority to own people or practice extortion, so saying someone can leave has nothing to with the logic and principle of self ownership. But when you believe in these fictitious things like "social contract" it contradicts with the principle that humans are born free and not property of the ruling class and their arbitrary lines on a map.

Saying you have the ability to leave has nothing to do with self ownership... gotcha.

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

Food and restaurants have an incentive to market food. You can still have a collective group and an organized society and all the power that comes along with that. Look at the non-gmo project. Is that a govt bureaucracy? No, but it holds power over brands to consumers who value that sort of thing. The myth is that sans a govt, no one will organize any initiatives, as if natural desires to be healthy or safe will disappear without a ruling class.

How is guilt determined today? Again there is an incentive for justice in society. That will not disappear sans a ruling class.

Sure they have an incentive to market, what does that have to do with my questions? My question was about power imbalances. How do you ensure an organization with greater power doesn't tread on the rights of an individual in your voluntary society? How do you ensure impartiality of courts without government structures?

Guilt is determined today through a legal structure. That legal structure is defined by government laws and government structures. Yet you claim it will not disappear when you remove government. That's a little too hand wavy. How does that happen? How do you have government and not government at the same time?

[GuitarStv]

Prevention can be done various ways.. if they are found guilty, the community is free to publicly shame them and ostracize them as needed. A private database can be made of child abuses. In the age of information, possibilities are endless when it comes this.

The thing is, when a community has to be responsible for its policing they'll do the job as they have the natural desire of self protection and preservation.

Murder is against the law, does it still happen? There's your answer. And it's not a "governing group". If you want to have abortions you're going to be ostracized by people of the community and would be best suited to live among those who find that behavior acceptable. It is her body and if she finds that life form to be invasive she can be considered free to murder her fetus. Of course people are free to persuade her from not doing that, but they can not force her against her will to carry a life form deemed invasive to her. Now once life is independent, all bets are off, she has no right to aggress against it and would be committed of murder if she did. See the difference?

You'll never get people to agree on abortion, but no one can use the aggression principle against anyone else. This is my assessment, others may have a different version. Or there can even be societies in which abortion IS considered murder and those who do so will be asked to leave. There's nothing wrong with free association whether another group agrees with it or not. Thats what voluntary society is about, free association.

So, the pedophiles in your society have people 'shame' them but there's no actual punishment/deterrent/rehabilitation?  How does this prevent them from re-offending?

Murder does happen and is against the law.  That's not an answer though.  Currently the law, police, and prison system exists to remove murderers from the general population (preventing further murders), to provide punishment (deterrent to re-offense), and to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people back into society.  That's a pretty vital purpose.


You also mention asking people to leave a society.  What happens when they don't?  How do you get rid of the pedophile who likes to stick around your communities elementary schools and doesn't care about being ostracized?  How do you prevent the sociopath who enjoys murdering people from murdering?

[Mr.Macinstache]

Prevention can be done various ways.. if they are found guilty, the community is free to publicly shame them and ostracize them as needed. A private database can be made of child abuses. In the age of information, possibilities are endless when it comes this.

The thing is, when a community has to be responsible for its policing they'll do the job as they have the natural desire of self protection and preservation.

Murder is against the law, does it still happen? There's your answer. And it's not a "governing group". If you want to have abortions you're going to be ostracized by people of the community and would be best suited to live among those who find that behavior acceptable. It is her body and if she finds that life form to be invasive she can be considered free to murder her fetus. Of course people are free to persuade her from not doing that, but they can not force her against her will to carry a life form deemed invasive to her. Now once life is independent, all bets are off, she has no right to aggress against it and would be committed of murder if she did. See the difference?

You'll never get people to agree on abortion, but no one can use the aggression principle against anyone else. This is my assessment, others may have a different version. Or there can even be societies in which abortion IS considered murder and those who do so will be asked to leave. There's nothing wrong with free association whether another group agrees with it or not. Thats what voluntary society is about, free association.

So, the pedophiles in your society have people 'shame' them but there's no actual punishment/deterrent/rehabilitation?  How does this prevent them from re-offending?

Murder does happen and is against the law.  That's not an answer though.  Currently the law, police, and prison system exists to remove murderers from the general population (preventing further murders), to provide punishment (deterrent to re-offense), and to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people back into society.  That's a pretty vital purpose.


You also mention asking people to leave a society.  What happens when they don't?  How do you get rid of the pedophile who likes to stick around your communities elementary schools and doesn't care about being ostracized?  How do you prevent the sociopath who enjoys murdering people from murdering?

Of course there's punishment for pedo's and murderers. You lock them up or you deal with them right on the spot, as society deems fit.

If your community didn't want you around and you didn't agree with their ideology, would you stick around? If a loon job does stick around and like to attack people, justice will be delivered, that person is going to die. This happens already... people have killed pedo's and remain free for doing so because society deemed that was justice. It's called self government and there will always be the demand for justice and the incentive for it to be delivered are long as there are evil people.

For example Detroit is like this in many ways. A failed experiment in govt is now left for many people to govern themselves. Since the police force is broke and spread thin, there is demand for private security and there are private companies meeting that demand.

[GuitarStv]

Prevention can be done various ways.. if they are found guilty, the community is free to publicly shame them and ostracize them as needed. A private database can be made of child abuses. In the age of information, possibilities are endless when it comes this.

The thing is, when a community has to be responsible for its policing they'll do the job as they have the natural desire of self protection and preservation.

Murder is against the law, does it still happen? There's your answer. And it's not a "governing group". If you want to have abortions you're going to be ostracized by people of the community and would be best suited to live among those who find that behavior acceptable. It is her body and if she finds that life form to be invasive she can be considered free to murder her fetus. Of course people are free to persuade her from not doing that, but they can not force her against her will to carry a life form deemed invasive to her. Now once life is independent, all bets are off, she has no right to aggress against it and would be committed of murder if she did. See the difference?

You'll never get people to agree on abortion, but no one can use the aggression principle against anyone else. This is my assessment, others may have a different version. Or there can even be societies in which abortion IS considered murder and those who do so will be asked to leave. There's nothing wrong with free association whether another group agrees with it or not. Thats what voluntary society is about, free association.

So, the pedophiles in your society have people 'shame' them but there's no actual punishment/deterrent/rehabilitation?  How does this prevent them from re-offending?

Murder does happen and is against the law.  That's not an answer though.  Currently the law, police, and prison system exists to remove murderers from the general population (preventing further murders), to provide punishment (deterrent to re-offense), and to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people back into society.  That's a pretty vital purpose.


You also mention asking people to leave a society.  What happens when they don't?  How do you get rid of the pedophile who likes to stick around your communities elementary schools and doesn't care about being ostracized?  How do you prevent the sociopath who enjoys murdering people from murdering?

Of course there's punishment for pedo's and murderers. You lock them up or you deal with them right on the spot, as society deems fit.

If your community didn't want you around and you didn't agree with their ideology, would you stick around? If a loon job does stick around and like to attack people, justice will be delivered, that person is going to die. This happens already... people have killed pedo's and remain free for doing so because society deemed that was justice. It's called self government and there will always be the demand for justice and the incentive for it to be delivered are long as there are evil people.

For example Detroit is like this in many ways. A failed experiment in govt is now left for many people to govern themselves. Since the police force is broke and spread thin, there is demand for private security and there are private companies meeting that demand.

OK, so you are using aggression all the time in your society then.  It's used to keep the peace.  Who in this society will be in charge of performing this task?  You have said that you don't support taxes or government, so there will be no budget to pay someone to do the job.  Are you hoping that untrained individuals will do it solely out of the goodness of their hearts?  What happens when they detain the wrong person?  How do you determine if the person executing the 'will of society' is actually doing what people want, and not just power tripping?  Many of the trappings of government that we have today are built in measures to prevent just that sort of issue.  If you want to use private security forces, are they only paid by (and thus only take to heart the interests of) the wealthy individuals who can afford them?

[Mr.Macinstache]

Saying you have the ability to leave has nothing to do with self ownership... gotcha.

Howabout you answer my question now? Am I justified in moving into your house and telling you that you have the "freedom" to leave? That sums up the silliness of your argument.

You and your ruling class can not tell people what to do. How hard is that to figure out? This is the child-like bully mentality.. "If you don't want to give me your milk money, get off my street" Guess what YOU DONT OWN THE STREET or the person.

But if people like you believe a god called "govt", you believe in fairy tales like some people have magical authority and special rights and that others do not, then you do not believe in any human equality at all, which makes your ideology that of a little dictator. The news is, you have no right to force your beliefs on to me, especially when they involve the use of theft and violence.

Sure they have an incentive to market, what does that have to do with my questions? My question was about power imbalances. How do you ensure an organization with greater power doesn't tread on the rights of an individual in your voluntary society? How do you ensure impartiality of courts without government structures?

Guilt is determined today through a legal structure. That legal structure is defined by government laws and government structures. Yet you claim it will not disappear when you remove government. That's a little too hand wavy. How does that happen? How do you have government and not government at the same time?

Justice is enabled through self govt. In society if there is a demand for it, and there will be a service to deliver it. If you don't pay for it, then you can not use it. Organization does not magically disappear when people aren't force to pay for a particular service.

The power imbalance now, which enables companies like Monsanto to write laws to benefit their corporation? We have that already. You're trying to solve a problem with the reason it exists in the first place. I realize your belief in your god called govt contradicts with self government and regulation. Sans a govt, if a company becomes powerful, its not because the "ruled" the people. It's because they deliverer a valuable service and they are beholden to people to ensure their prosperity. Again.. this is your shallow BUT THE BAD GUYS again. Please, take some time to think about it, or refer to the meme above. Expecting a small group of people to protect us from "bad guys" is a total fantasy assuming only "good" people want the power to govern.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Prevention can be done various ways.. if they are found guilty, the community is free to publicly shame them and ostracize them as needed. A private database can be made of child abuses. In the age of information, possibilities are endless when it comes this.

The thing is, when a community has to be responsible for its policing they'll do the job as they have the natural desire of self protection and preservation.

Murder is against the law, does it still happen? There's your answer. And it's not a "governing group". If you want to have abortions you're going to be ostracized by people of the community and would be best suited to live among those who find that behavior acceptable. It is her body and if she finds that life form to be invasive she can be considered free to murder her fetus. Of course people are free to persuade her from not doing that, but they can not force her against her will to carry a life form deemed invasive to her. Now once life is independent, all bets are off, she has no right to aggress against it and would be committed of murder if she did. See the difference?

You'll never get people to agree on abortion, but no one can use the aggression principle against anyone else. This is my assessment, others may have a different version. Or there can even be societies in which abortion IS considered murder and those who do so will be asked to leave. There's nothing wrong with free association whether another group agrees with it or not. Thats what voluntary society is about, free association.

So, the pedophiles in your society have people 'shame' them but there's no actual punishment/deterrent/rehabilitation?  How does this prevent them from re-offending?

Murder does happen and is against the law.  That's not an answer though.  Currently the law, police, and prison system exists to remove murderers from the general population (preventing further murders), to provide punishment (deterrent to re-offense), and to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people back into society.  That's a pretty vital purpose.


You also mention asking people to leave a society.  What happens when they don't?  How do you get rid of the pedophile who likes to stick around your communities elementary schools and doesn't care about being ostracized?  How do you prevent the sociopath who enjoys murdering people from murdering?

Of course there's punishment for pedo's and murderers. You lock them up or you deal with them right on the spot, as society deems fit.

If your community didn't want you around and you didn't agree with their ideology, would you stick around? If a loon job does stick around and like to attack people, justice will be delivered, that person is going to die. This happens already... people have killed pedo's and remain free for doing so because society deemed that was justice. It's called self government and there will always be the demand for justice and the incentive for it to be delivered are long as there are evil people.

For example Detroit is like this in many ways. A failed experiment in govt is now left for many people to govern themselves. Since the police force is broke and spread thin, there is demand for private security and there are private companies meeting that demand.

OK, so you are using aggression all the time in your society then.  It's used to keep the peace.  Who in this society will be in charge of performing this task?  You have said that you don't support taxes or government, so there will be no budget to pay someone to do the job.  Are you hoping that untrained individuals will do it solely out of the goodness of their hearts?  What happens when they detain the wrong person?  How do you determine if the person executing the 'will of society' is actually doing what people want, and not just power tripping?  Many of the trappings of government that we have today are built in measures to prevent just that sort of issue.  If you want to use private security forces, are they only paid by (and thus only take to heart the interests of) the wealthy individuals who can afford them?

No one has a "right" to be protected. That is strictly a desire.

As it is now, your safety is not the responsibility of the govt police force. They are merely law enforcers, the line about "protect and serve" is just a slick package on the product you're forced to pay for.

Yes, aggression is warranted in defense of someone using it on you. If someone wants to pay a subscription for security, they could do that. If someone wants to buy insurance to pay for fire trucks, they could do that. And if I'm not being robbed to the tune of 1000's of dollars every year, I would certainly donate that money to a charity of my choice, one which might secure a close neighborhood or whatnot.

[GuitarStv]

Prevention can be done various ways.. if they are found guilty, the community is free to publicly shame them and ostracize them as needed. A private database can be made of child abuses. In the age of information, possibilities are endless when it comes this.

The thing is, when a community has to be responsible for its policing they'll do the job as they have the natural desire of self protection and preservation.

Murder is against the law, does it still happen? There's your answer. And it's not a "governing group". If you want to have abortions you're going to be ostracized by people of the community and would be best suited to live among those who find that behavior acceptable. It is her body and if she finds that life form to be invasive she can be considered free to murder her fetus. Of course people are free to persuade her from not doing that, but they can not force her against her will to carry a life form deemed invasive to her. Now once life is independent, all bets are off, she has no right to aggress against it and would be committed of murder if she did. See the difference?

You'll never get people to agree on abortion, but no one can use the aggression principle against anyone else. This is my assessment, others may have a different version. Or there can even be societies in which abortion IS considered murder and those who do so will be asked to leave. There's nothing wrong with free association whether another group agrees with it or not. Thats what voluntary society is about, free association.

So, the pedophiles in your society have people 'shame' them but there's no actual punishment/deterrent/rehabilitation?  How does this prevent them from re-offending?

Murder does happen and is against the law.  That's not an answer though.  Currently the law, police, and prison system exists to remove murderers from the general population (preventing further murders), to provide punishment (deterrent to re-offense), and to rehabilitate and reintegrate these people back into society.  That's a pretty vital purpose.


You also mention asking people to leave a society.  What happens when they don't?  How do you get rid of the pedophile who likes to stick around your communities elementary schools and doesn't care about being ostracized?  How do you prevent the sociopath who enjoys murdering people from murdering?

Of course there's punishment for pedo's and murderers. You lock them up or you deal with them right on the spot, as society deems fit.

If your community didn't want you around and you didn't agree with their ideology, would you stick around? If a loon job does stick around and like to attack people, justice will be delivered, that person is going to die. This happens already... people have killed pedo's and remain free for doing so because society deemed that was justice. It's called self government and there will always be the demand for justice and the incentive for it to be delivered are long as there are evil people.

For example Detroit is like this in many ways. A failed experiment in govt is now left for many people to govern themselves. Since the police force is broke and spread thin, there is demand for private security and there are private companies meeting that demand.

OK, so you are using aggression all the time in your society then.  It's used to keep the peace.  Who in this society will be in charge of performing this task?  You have said that you don't support taxes or government, so there will be no budget to pay someone to do the job.  Are you hoping that untrained individuals will do it solely out of the goodness of their hearts?  What happens when they detain the wrong person?  How do you determine if the person executing the 'will of society' is actually doing what people want, and not just power tripping?  Many of the trappings of government that we have today are built in measures to prevent just that sort of issue.  If you want to use private security forces, are they only paid by (and thus only take to heart the interests of) the wealthy individuals who can afford them?

No one has a "right" to be protected. That is strictly a desire.

As it is now, your safety is not the responsibility of the govt police force. They are merely law enforcers, the line about "protect and serve" is just a slick package on the product you're forced to pay for.

Yes, aggression is warranted in defense of someone using it on you. If someone wants to pay a subscription for security, they could do that. If someone wants to buy insurance to pay for fire trucks, they could do that. And if I'm not being robbed to the tune of 1000's of dollars every year, I would certainly donate that money to a charity of my choice, one which might secure a close neighborhood or whatnot.

If someone threatens me, I can call the police force and they'll send an officer out to protect me.  I've had to do this a couple times in the past, so I know that it works pretty well.  How can you tell me that my safety is not the responsibility of the police force we currently have?

In your society, pedophiles are free to rape children without consequences . . . provided they only rape the children of the poor who are unable to pay for a private police force.  This is not a society that I can see many signing up to.  Money in this society buys the right to the protections necessary for freedom, those without money apparently do without protection or freedom.

[matchewed]

Saying you have the ability to leave has nothing to do with self ownership... gotcha.

Howabout you answer my question now? Am I justified in moving into your house and telling you that you have the "freedom" to leave? That sums up the silliness of your argument.

You and your ruling class can not tell people what to do. How hard is that to figure out? This is the child-like bully mentality.. "If you don't want to give me your milk money, get off my street" Guess what YOU DONT OWN THE STREET or the person.

But if people like you believe a god called "govt", you believe in fairy tales like some people have magical authority and special rights and that others do not, then you do not believe in any human equality at all, which makes your ideology that of a little dictator. The news is, you have no right to force your beliefs on to me, especially when they involve the use of theft and violence.

No you don't have the right to move into my house and telling me that I have to get out. But then again your analogy doesn't track. No one has entered into your house and told you to get out. You actually came to be within a country. Lived within it, benefited from the many things for growing up in it, and now make a claim that you don't have to pay taxes because you think it's theft. The closer analogy is a child being born and raised within a home, turning 18 and then suddenly saying they don't have to pitch in. That this one room in the house is theirs and no one has any say about what they do in that house.

Sure they have an incentive to market, what does that have to do with my questions? My question was about power imbalances. How do you ensure an organization with greater power doesn't tread on the rights of an individual in your voluntary society? How do you ensure impartiality of courts without government structures?

Guilt is determined today through a legal structure. That legal structure is defined by government laws and government structures. Yet you claim it will not disappear when you remove government. That's a little too hand wavy. How does that happen? How do you have government and not government at the same time?

Justice is enabled through self govt. In society if there is a demand for it, and there will be a service to deliver it. If you don't pay for it, then you can not use it. Organization does not magically disappear when people aren't force to pay for a particular service.

The power imbalance now, which enables companies like Monsanto to write laws to benefit their corporation? We have that already. You're trying to solve a problem with the reason it exists in the first place. I realize your belief in your god called govt contradicts with self government and regulation. Sans a govt, if a company becomes powerful, its not because the "ruled" the people. It's because they deliverer a valuable service and they are beholden to people to ensure their prosperity. Again.. this is your shallow BUT THE BAD GUYS again. Please, take some time to think about it, or refer to the meme above. Expecting a small group of people to protect us from "bad guys" is a total fantasy assuming only "good" people want the power to govern.

So justice systems spontaneously appear in areas without government, you know I think you're right. And if you're poor you can't afford justice. So poor people get screwed in your voluntary society.

Also companies self regulate because of their valuable service? They have never had any history of treating their workers or customers terribly in the past.. oh wait yeah they have. And in the past they were providing a valuable service and were beholden to people to ensure their prosperity. That doesn't arise because government disappears, it's has been there all along. And companies have done plenty of abuse. So how does self government address that?

I am taking time to think about it. I've fully admitted several times where I've agreed with you and thought you are right. I'm demonstrating that I'm thinking about it by addressing each point you make as much as I'm able to. So let's just give each other the benefit of the doubt that we're actually reading each others response instead of assuming I'm not.

It is not shallow, it is the core of what you're saying as well. I'm asking a legitimate question about protection against organizations violating an individual's rights. Your claim is that taxes are a violation against an individual's rights. You claim voluntary societies are better than the current system. The current system has protections built in for individuals in power imbalances and you have yet to show how your society would address that except to say that it will spontaneously arrive through demand. What makes you think that our current court systems and government aren't the result of that demand?

I'm under no illusion that only good people want power. You seem to think that because I support the concept of government that I only think there are good people in the world. I don't. Don't tack on things I haven't said in order to support your view point.

[CDP45]

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

How does your society determine guilt?

There's a lot more private "justice" today that people voluntarily enter into called Arbitration (non-government courts basically). Also the vast majority of insurance claims are resolved without any government involvement, hell most police departments won't respond to car accidents anymore. So you would file a claim against them with your insurance company who would pay you and then subrogate against the person who did you the harm. If I were running an HOA (private, voluntary government) would require constant insurance and proof of it if someone wanted to move in.

If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution?

Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't have reviews and/or insurance?

Citations? For any of that. Plus insurance companies go to court all the time. Constantly. And you're talking the elimination of court systems in favor for private arbitration. Who's the arbiter, as I asked before how do you ensure that they are impartial? Why is that system less easy to abuse than the current system? How is it "more free"?

Asking whether I'd eat at a restaurant that that didn't have reviews or insurance doesn't answer the question. How do I get restitution against an organization that has greater resources than myself regardless of what service or product that organization provided? You state arbitration. What if they just ignore me? Who ensures that they provide restitution and why can't they just ignore that given the obvious power imbalance between individuals and organizations?

Citations for what? That arbitration exists? Ok knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States

Your point is justice and conflict resolution can't exist privately, I'm pointing out it can and already does. The difference between arbiters and courts is they don't use violence to enforce their judgements, that's why it's more free. And please, how do you ensure the current system is impartial which you're defending? In your ideal (what we currently have) apparently rampant corruption is a side affect you're fine with, maybe even a feature?

In the restaurant example, you wouldn't agree to eat there and pay them money without knowing they had insurance if you were harmed. And they should verify you have insurance before letting you onto their premises in case you cause damage or harm. A credit card could show proof of insurance for you, and a little sign or something could show it for the restaurant. Or maybe the restaurant earned entry into an elite group that said if we hurt our customers we will pay for their damages.

If you had damages and incurred costs, you would claim that with your insurer and they would go to the other insurer to recover those costs according to the insuring agreement. You think your own insurance company would ignore you? Whatever imbalance is negated because you have a big insurance company on your side.

Now what's their incentive for being impartial? Because they want their contract to be consistently applied. If you and the restaurant have the same insurer, and you're a great customer of the restaurant and the restaurant has paid lots of premiums for their insurance, they will be quite pissed if the hurt customer wasn't taken care of. This is a bigger deal with companies. How well do you think an insurance company would fare if they didn't pay claims? No one would buy their worthless product and they would be out of business. The insurers would be happy to support impartial arbiters because it would remove them from the appearance of a conflict of interest to satisfy both the restaurant and customers concerns that their losses were dealt with in a fair manner.

Now lets contrast with the current situation where if you didn't have insurance to cover your costs and subrogate on your behalf you'd have to pay additionally for a lawyer and if your damages didn't significantly exceed the lawyers costs, you wouldn't have access to the civil courts.

[CDP45]

It is not shallow, it is the core of what you're saying as well. I'm asking a legitimate question about protection against organizations violating an individual's rights. Your claim is that taxes are a violation against an individual's rights.

That's a fact.

You claim voluntary societies are better than the current system.

Yes due to the aggression and threat of violence, voluntary systems are inherently better morally.

The current system has protections built in for individuals in power imbalances and you have yet to show how your society would address that except to say that it will spontaneously arrive through demand. What makes you think that our current court systems and government aren't the result of that demand?

It doesn't matter until people voluntarily consent to those systems.  I wrote about some current voluntary forms of justice, care to concede they are possible and morally preferable?

[matchewed]

I actually agree with you on the concept of what would constitute a crime (simplistic but without going into detail... whatevs). But I think you glossed over something at the end there. You haven't stated how you determine guilt and jumped straight to the punishment. That isn't actually my concern. Human history has shown that we're incredibly good at the punishment side of things and kinda okayish (sometimes) at the determining guilt thing. How does your society determine guilt? How do you determine what is a victimless crime or not? If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution? If it's an organization and it's just my word vs. their word how is the responsibility determined? If it is determined that they're at fault how do I ensure I get my restitution? Why can't they just ignore me and keep doing what they're doing? My point is there is a distinct advantage for a collective group of people to organize in such a way to ensure these things get done. That organization of people to protect other people is government. That organization you seem to think will comprise solely of people who volunteer for those positions? How do you construct impartiality to these systems? How do you pay for the codification of defining what is a crime and what isn't? If these systems are unnecessary then you haven't described yet what replaces them.

How does your society determine guilt?

There's a lot more private "justice" today that people voluntarily enter into called Arbitration (non-government courts basically). Also the vast majority of insurance claims are resolved without any government involvement, hell most police departments won't respond to car accidents anymore. So you would file a claim against them with your insurance company who would pay you and then subrogate against the person who did you the harm. If I were running an HOA (private, voluntary government) would require constant insurance and proof of it if someone wanted to move in.

If I eat some food prepared by another person or organization, since I can't say corporation, and get sick how do I get restitution?

Would you eat at a restaurant that didn't have reviews and/or insurance?

Citations? For any of that. Plus insurance companies go to court all the time. Constantly. And you're talking the elimination of court systems in favor for private arbitration. Who's the arbiter, as I asked before how do you ensure that they are impartial? Why is that system less easy to abuse than the current system? How is it "more free"?

Asking whether I'd eat at a restaurant that that didn't have reviews or insurance doesn't answer the question. How do I get restitution against an organization that has greater resources than myself regardless of what service or product that organization provided? You state arbitration. What if they just ignore me? Who ensures that they provide restitution and why can't they just ignore that given the obvious power imbalance between individuals and organizations?

Citations for what? That arbitration exists? Ok knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States

Your point is justice and conflict resolution can't exist privately, I'm pointing out it can and already does. The difference between arbiters and courts is they don't use violence to enforce their judgements, that's why it's more free. And please, how do you ensure the current system is impartial which you're defending? In your ideal (what we currently have) apparently rampant corruption is a side affect you're fine with, maybe even a feature?

In the restaurant example, you wouldn't agree to eat there and pay them money without knowing they had insurance if you were harmed. And they should verify you have insurance before letting you onto their premises in case you cause damage or harm. A credit card could show proof of insurance for you, and a little sign or something could show it for the restaurant. Or maybe the restaurant earned entry into an elite group that said if we hurt our customers we will pay for their damages.

If you had damages and incurred costs, you would claim that with your insurer and they would go to the other insurer to recover those costs according to the insuring agreement. You think your own insurance company would ignore you? Whatever imbalance is negated because you have a big insurance company on your side.

Now what's their incentive for being impartial? Because they want their contract to be consistently applied. If you and the restaurant have the same insurer, and you're a great customer of the restaurant and the restaurant has paid lots of premiums for their insurance, they will be quite pissed if the hurt customer wasn't taken care of. This is a bigger deal with companies. How well do you think an insurance company would fare if they didn't pay claims? No one would buy their worthless product and they would be out of business. The insurers would be happy to support impartial arbiters because it would remove them from the appearance of a conflict of interest to satisfy both the restaurant and customers concerns that their losses were dealt with in a fair manner.

Now lets contrast with the current situation where if you didn't have insurance to cover your costs and subrogate on your behalf you'd have to pay additionally for a lawyer and if your damages didn't significantly exceed the lawyers costs, you wouldn't have access to the civil courts.

Citations for police not responding to accidents anymore. That there is no government involvement in the vast majority of insurance claims. Hell the government seems pretty damn entrenched in insurance to make sure that the insurance provider isn't there to screw their customers. Why are they suddenly an angelic savior? My point is not that justice and conflict can't exist privately. My point is that government serves a function to balance out inequity during conflicts.

So insurance for everything is the solution? Rather than a government bureaucracy you're advocating an insurance bureaucracy. This unfairly targets poor people and poor organizations. To lay all conflict resolution at the feet of insurance is a mighty big jump. One I don't think can swallow that one. It would be an innately imbalances system that favors the already in power. Given that impartiality is already compromised. The insurance companies would just always rule in favor of whoever pays them more money.

Who ensures that the insurance companies have enough funds, that they just don't screw people over? More insurance companies?

Are we just going to have a system of insurance for insurance for insurance for insurance, ad infinitum

[CDP45]

Citations? For any of that. Plus insurance companies go to court all the time. Constantly. And you're talking the elimination of court systems in favor for private arbitration. Who's the arbiter, as I asked before how do you ensure that they are impartial? Why is that system less easy to abuse than the current system? How is it "more free"?

Asking whether I'd eat at a restaurant that that didn't have reviews or insurance doesn't answer the question. How do I get restitution against an organization that has greater resources than myself regardless of what service or product that organization provided? You state arbitration. What if they just ignore me? Who ensures that they provide restitution and why can't they just ignore that given the obvious power imbalance between individuals and organizations?

Citations for what? That arbitration exists? Ok knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States

Your point is justice and conflict resolution can't exist privately, I'm pointing out it can and already does. The difference between arbiters and courts is they don't use violence to enforce their judgements, that's why it's more free. And please, how do you ensure the current system is impartial which you're defending? In your ideal (what we currently have) apparently rampant corruption is a side affect you're fine with, maybe even a feature?

In the restaurant example, you wouldn't agree to eat there and pay them money without knowing they had insurance if you were harmed. And they should verify you have insurance before letting you onto their premises in case you cause damage or harm. A credit card could show proof of insurance for you, and a little sign or something could show it for the restaurant. Or maybe the restaurant earned entry into an elite group that said if we hurt our customers we will pay for their damages.

If you had damages and incurred costs, you would claim that with your insurer and they would go to the other insurer to recover those costs according to the insuring agreement. You think your own insurance company would ignore you? Whatever imbalance is negated because you have a big insurance company on your side.

Now what's their incentive for being impartial? Because they want their contract to be consistently applied. If you and the restaurant have the same insurer, and you're a great customer of the restaurant and the restaurant has paid lots of premiums for their insurance, they will be quite pissed if the hurt customer wasn't taken care of. This is a bigger deal with companies. How well do you think an insurance company would fare if they didn't pay claims? No one would buy their worthless product and they would be out of business. The insurers would be happy to support impartial arbiters because it would remove them from the appearance of a conflict of interest to satisfy both the restaurant and customers concerns that their losses were dealt with in a fair manner.

Now lets contrast with the current situation where if you didn't have insurance to cover your costs and subrogate on your behalf you'd have to pay additionally for a lawyer and if your damages didn't significantly exceed the lawyers costs, you wouldn't have access to the civil courts.

Citations for police not responding to accidents anymore. That there is no government involvement in the vast majority of insurance claims. Hell the government seems pretty damn entrenched in insurance to make sure that the insurance provider isn't there to screw their customers. Why are they suddenly an angelic savior? My point is not that justice and conflict can't exist privately. My point is that government serves a function to balance out inequity during conflicts.

So insurance for everything is the solution? Rather than a government bureaucracy you're advocating an insurance bureaucracy. This unfairly targets poor people and poor organizations. To lay all conflict resolution at the feet of insurance is a mighty big jump. One I don't think can swallow that one. It would be an innately imbalances system that favors the already in power. Given that impartiality is already compromised. The insurance companies would just always rule in favor of whoever pays them more money.

Who ensures that the insurance companies have enough funds, that they just don't screw people over? More insurance companies?

Are we just going to have a system of insurance for insurance for insurance for insurance, ad infinitum

Straight from the horse's mouth:  How has LVMPD changed its accident response? Officers will no longer investigate or write reports on non-injury accidents.

Haha! NOTE: The LAPD does not respond to traffic accidents that do not involve injuries. Involved parties should exchange information (driver's license/insurance company info) and notify their insurance companies. (If injuries are reported, transfer the caller to the Fire Dept. for medical attention)

Looks like we are already laying it at the feet of insurance companies.

And gee, how do the poor fare in our current system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

Plus the government doesn't actual provide any goods and only limited services, it's the productive sectors of society that do. Govt just steals money and gives it out again for the most part, with the side affect of enriching their cronies and broadening their scope of aggression.

[matchewed]

It is not shallow, it is the core of what you're saying as well. I'm asking a legitimate question about protection against organizations violating an individual's rights. Your claim is that taxes are a violation against an individual's rights.

That's a fact.

It's a claim, not a fact. A fact is a verifiable. A person who is a willing payer of taxes is not having their rights violated correct? They're participating in it with full knowledge. Therefore taxes are not always a violation against an individual's rights. Just calling something a fact does not make it so.

You claim voluntary societies are better than the current system.

Yes due to the aggression and threat of violence, voluntary systems are inherently better morally.

So moral considerations are the primary considerations of a society? Action X is moral so it is automatically better.

The current system has protections built in for individuals in power imbalances and you have yet to show how your society would address that except to say that it will spontaneously arrive through demand. What makes you think that our current court systems and government aren't the result of that demand?

It doesn't matter until people voluntarily consent to those systems.  I wrote about some current voluntary forms of justice, care to concede they are possible and morally preferable?

Yes voluntary forms of justice exist. I'm not so sure about morally preferable. What do you mean by that? Couldn't they be just as morally repugnant? Couldn't the person/organization with more resources just pay off an arbitration service? Or better yet just ignore the issue entirely and just say "no I didn't." At least in our current system you can try to have an investigation by a party that is paid for through a group source of funds when something illegal is suspected. In your system you'd have to hire a private detective but there is nothing that says that the person/organization being investigated has to cooperate. There are no warrants in your system. The whole entire justice system pretty much doesn't work in your voluntary society.

So not only is morality the most important aspect of a society but everyone must agree to this morality before the systems are okay to use. And if everyone doesn't agree well they can just waltz off and form their own voluntary society right? I think I've heard that before during these discussions. So what is the difference between that and when we say "you have a choice to remain in this society"?

I think that's where I get stuck. When a society is around saying here is an action we believe is a morally acceptable action, everybody should do this action. And someone comes in and says "Hey that's immoral, only a truly moral society would not have us do that action." You would have me believe that voluntary societies would respond with "feel free to start your own." Yet when us here on the board respond with "feel free to start your own," our response is met with ridicule. I'm sorry if borrowing some of Mr.Macinstache's responses is misrepresenting your position.

Also please define moral for me. I'm not sure we're working with the same definition.

[GrayGhost]

So moral considerations are the primary considerations of a society? Action X is moral so it is automatically better.

Well... yeah, man. I don't know how anyone could argue that immoral actions are better than moral ones. In fact, that may be a priori impossible if by "better" you mean "morally better".

Obviously immoral actions can have better economic or other outcomes for a person or even a group of people, but it's actually shocking to admit and argue that a society or a person ought to do morally wrong things because they have better economic or other outcomes.

[matchewed]

Citations? For any of that. Plus insurance companies go to court all the time. Constantly. And you're talking the elimination of court systems in favor for private arbitration. Who's the arbiter, as I asked before how do you ensure that they are impartial? Why is that system less easy to abuse than the current system? How is it "more free"?

Asking whether I'd eat at a restaurant that that didn't have reviews or insurance doesn't answer the question. How do I get restitution against an organization that has greater resources than myself regardless of what service or product that organization provided? You state arbitration. What if they just ignore me? Who ensures that they provide restitution and why can't they just ignore that given the obvious power imbalance between individuals and organizations?

Citations for what? That arbitration exists? Ok knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States

Your point is justice and conflict resolution can't exist privately, I'm pointing out it can and already does. The difference between arbiters and courts is they don't use violence to enforce their judgements, that's why it's more free. And please, how do you ensure the current system is impartial which you're defending? In your ideal (what we currently have) apparently rampant corruption is a side affect you're fine with, maybe even a feature?

In the restaurant example, you wouldn't agree to eat there and pay them money without knowing they had insurance if you were harmed. And they should verify you have insurance before letting you onto their premises in case you cause damage or harm. A credit card could show proof of insurance for you, and a little sign or something could show it for the restaurant. Or maybe the restaurant earned entry into an elite group that said if we hurt our customers we will pay for their damages.

If you had damages and incurred costs, you would claim that with your insurer and they would go to the other insurer to recover those costs according to the insuring agreement. You think your own insurance company would ignore you? Whatever imbalance is negated because you have a big insurance company on your side.

Now what's their incentive for being impartial? Because they want their contract to be consistently applied. If you and the restaurant have the same insurer, and you're a great customer of the restaurant and the restaurant has paid lots of premiums for their insurance, they will be quite pissed if the hurt customer wasn't taken care of. This is a bigger deal with companies. How well do you think an insurance company would fare if they didn't pay claims? No one would buy their worthless product and they would be out of business. The insurers would be happy to support impartial arbiters because it would remove them from the appearance of a conflict of interest to satisfy both the restaurant and customers concerns that their losses were dealt with in a fair manner.

Now lets contrast with the current situation where if you didn't have insurance to cover your costs and subrogate on your behalf you'd have to pay additionally for a lawyer and if your damages didn't significantly exceed the lawyers costs, you wouldn't have access to the civil courts.

Citations for police not responding to accidents anymore. That there is no government involvement in the vast majority of insurance claims. Hell the government seems pretty damn entrenched in insurance to make sure that the insurance provider isn't there to screw their customers. Why are they suddenly an angelic savior? My point is not that justice and conflict can't exist privately. My point is that government serves a function to balance out inequity during conflicts.

So insurance for everything is the solution? Rather than a government bureaucracy you're advocating an insurance bureaucracy. This unfairly targets poor people and poor organizations. To lay all conflict resolution at the feet of insurance is a mighty big jump. One I don't think can swallow that one. It would be an innately imbalances system that favors the already in power. Given that impartiality is already compromised. The insurance companies would just always rule in favor of whoever pays them more money.

Who ensures that the insurance companies have enough funds, that they just don't screw people over? More insurance companies?

Are we just going to have a system of insurance for insurance for insurance for insurance, ad infinitum

Straight from the horse's mouth:  How has LVMPD changed its accident response? Officers will no longer investigate or write reports on non-injury accidents.

Haha! NOTE: The LAPD does not respond to traffic accidents that do not involve injuries. Involved parties should exchange information (driver's license/insurance company info) and notify their insurance companies. (If injuries are reported, transfer the caller to the Fire Dept. for medical attention)

Looks like we are already laying it at the feet of insurance companies.

And gee, how do the poor fare in our current system? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics_of_incarcerated_African-American_males

Plus the government doesn't actual provide any goods and only limited services, it's the productive sectors of society that do. Govt just steals money and gives it out again for the most part, with the side affect of enriching their cronies and broadening their scope of aggression.

"hell most police departments won't respond to car accidents anymore" != Large cities with larger issues to deal with will not respond to a car accident where no one is hurt.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws in our systems. But there are processes for changing those flaws and addressing them. There are none of those processes in your proposed system. Why does it matter if the government provides goods or not? Yes government provides services. Namely legislation, administration, and, arbitration. All of which you claim will be paid for via private industry. Since private industry is a function of profits the potential abuse is huge. I'll accept the devil I know thank you very much.

[matchewed]

So moral considerations are the primary considerations of a society? Action X is moral so it is automatically better.

Well... yeah, man. I don't know how anyone could argue that immoral actions are better than moral ones. In fact, that may be a priori impossible if by "better" you mean "morally better".

Obviously immoral actions can have better economic or other outcomes for a person or even a group of people, but it's actually shocking to admit and argue that a society or a person ought to do morally wrong things because they have better economic or other outcomes.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying someone should do immoral actions. I'm just saying you seem to have an awful great deal of trust in everyone around you apparently. That and you have a clearer idea of moral superiority in situations. Not everything is so black and white or we'd have no conflicts in this country. What's more moral, abortion or right to life? What's more moral, gay marriage or defining it as between a man and woman? Is the death penalty a moral punishment for a murderer? I'm saying it's awfully easy to say I'm more moral than you are, or that my actions are more moral than yours are, or that my ideology is more moral than yours is. Trying to take the moral high ground is an interesting strategy.

[Mr.Macinstache]

No one has entered into your house and told you to get out.

Ha! If I do not pay the tribute demanded by the king and his men, people in costumes most certainly WILL enter my home and put me in a cage.

So justice systems spontaneously appear in areas without government, you know I think you're right. And if you're poor you can't afford justice. So poor people get screwed in your voluntary society.

Oh Somalia! The predictable, last ditch effort to smear all things anarchy. LOL. Hey, if you love the force of Govt, why don't you move to North Korea? Look at the wonderland THAT place is!

Your arguments are based on fear and emotion. No one is born with the right to have other people protect them. Should we add that to the 2nd amendment? The right to bear arms and have a personal police officer shall not be infringed?

Spare me the cultural marxism and class warfare. You're just parroting all those before you with the same tired fallacies. Unless you can honestly admit the violence inherent the system, there is not point in having a discussion with you. All your beliefs are rooted in the idea that people who wear the badge of govt have the right to molest, steal and murder those whose do not. You're for double standards and 2 sets of jurisprudence. So don't go preaching about "the poor". You aren't for any sort of individual equality.

You can play boogey man about a voluntary society all day long. Too bad all your scary theories actually exist under the system you endorse.

If your beliefs and ideas require the use of force, they are worthless.

[matchewed]

No one has entered into your house and told you to get out.

Ha! If I do not pay the tribute demanded by the king and his men, people in costumes most certainly WILL enter my home and put me in a cage.

So justice systems spontaneously appear in areas without government, you know I think you're right. And if you're poor you can't afford justice. So poor people get screwed in your voluntary society.

Oh Somalia! The predictable, last ditch effort to smear all things anarchy. LOL. Hey, if you love the force of Govt, why don't you move to North Korea? Look at the wonderland THAT place is!

Your arguments are based on fear and emotion. No one is born with the right to have other people protect them. Should we add that to the 2nd amendment? The right to bear arms and have a personal police officer shall not be infringed?

Spare me the cultural marxism and class warfare. You're just parroting all those before you with the same tired fallacies. Unless you can honestly admit the violence inherent the system, there is not point in having a discussion with you. All your beliefs are rooted in the idea that people who wear the badge of govt have the right to molest, steal and murder those whose do not. You're for double standards and 2 sets of jurisprudence. So don't go preaching about "the poor". You aren't for any sort of individual equality.

You can play boogey man about a voluntary society all day long. Too bad all your scary theories actually exist under the system you endorse.

If your beliefs and ideas require the use of force, they are worthless.

So rather than address it you'll just mock it. Yet I'm the one with last ditch efforts here? :) Understood

[Mr.Macinstache]

No one has entered into your house and told you to get out.

Ha! If I do not pay the tribute demanded by the king and his men, people in costumes most certainly WILL enter my home and put me in a cage.

So justice systems spontaneously appear in areas without government, you know I think you're right. And if you're poor you can't afford justice. So poor people get screwed in your voluntary society.

Oh Somalia! The predictable, last ditch effort to smear all things anarchy. LOL. Hey, if you love the force of Govt, why don't you move to North Korea? Look at the wonderland THAT place is!

Your arguments are based on fear and emotion. No one is born with the right to have other people protect them. Should we add that to the 2nd amendment? The right to bear arms and have a personal police officer shall not be infringed?

Spare me the cultural marxism and class warfare. You're just parroting all those before you with the same tired fallacies. Unless you can honestly admit the violence inherent the system, there is not point in having a discussion with you. All your beliefs are rooted in the idea that people who wear the badge of govt have the right to molest, steal and murder those whose do not. You're for double standards and 2 sets of jurisprudence. So don't go preaching about "the poor". You aren't for any sort of individual equality.

You can play boogey man about a voluntary society all day long. Too bad all your scary theories actually exist under the system you endorse.

If your beliefs and ideas require the use of force, they are worthless.

So rather than address it you'll just mock it. Yet I'm the one with last ditch efforts here? :) Understood

Anyone advocating the systemic use of the aggression principle deserves to be mocked. Especially when they somehow deny that it's actually violence. :)

[GrayGhost]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying someone should do immoral actions. I'm just saying you seem to have an awful great deal of trust in everyone around you apparently. That and you have a clearer idea of moral superiority in situations. Not everything is so black and white or we'd have no conflicts in this country. What's more moral, abortion or right to life? What's more moral, gay marriage or defining it as between a man and woman? Is the death penalty a moral punishment for a murderer? I'm saying it's awfully easy to say I'm more moral than you are, or that my actions are more moral than yours are, or that my ideology is more moral than yours is. Trying to take the moral high ground is an interesting strategy.

Again, I don't think you really understand the non-aggression principle, which solves several of the issues you've mentioned.

As far as gay marriage goes, let's just suppose that I oppose it and I think it's ridiculous and a contradiction in terms. A gay couple then decides to get married. I'm certainly free to think it's immoral, but since they haven't aggressed against me, I have no right to threaten or use violence against them.

Abortion is a bit more difficult, since it possibly involves the killing of an innocent human being, but it's far from clear that our current government structures solve the issue more satisfactorily than a voluntaryist society might.

[matchewed]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying someone should do immoral actions. I'm just saying you seem to have an awful great deal of trust in everyone around you apparently. That and you have a clearer idea of moral superiority in situations. Not everything is so black and white or we'd have no conflicts in this country. What's more moral, abortion or right to life? What's more moral, gay marriage or defining it as between a man and woman? Is the death penalty a moral punishment for a murderer? I'm saying it's awfully easy to say I'm more moral than you are, or that my actions are more moral than yours are, or that my ideology is more moral than yours is. Trying to take the moral high ground is an interesting strategy.

Again, I don't think you really understand the non-aggression principle, which solves several of the issues you've mentioned.

As far as gay marriage goes, let's just suppose that I oppose it and I think it's ridiculous and a contradiction in terms. A gay couple then decides to get married. I'm certainly free to think it's immoral, but since they haven't aggressed against me, I have no right to threaten or use violence against them.

Abortion is a bit more difficult, since it possibly involves the killing of an innocent human being, but it's far from clear that our current government structures solve the issue more satisfactorily than a voluntaryist society might.

We weren't talking about the non-aggression principle, just whether morality is the hallmark of society. I fail to see how a voluntary society can actually be more moral than the existing one due to several reasons I've mentioned. It is not as if power differences suddenly vanish with voluntary societies. If someone (or organization) uses their power for aggression I'm being told the resolution will come from private industry. For hire arbitration, for hire law enforcement, for hire court systems...etc. What prevents the more powerful someone or organization from using their power in these for hire versions of our current structures? Nothing. So what is the difference? How is this a more moral society?

It is even more far from clear whether a voluntary society could solve that issue either. They could just as easily lay down their moral superiority one way or another upon an individual and well... round and round we go.

[CDP45]

"hell most police departments won't respond to car accidents anymore" != Large cities with larger issues to deal with will not respond to a car accident where no one is hurt.

So your system of total government bureaucracy isn't all that comprehensive at responding to conflict? I even cited the government who FAILED  to meet the individuals' needs in this situation and is recommending private, non-violent insurance solution to resolve this conflict. Don't worry, it wasn't like I was planning to lead to into that, I had no idea it would be verbatim from the cops.

I'm not saying there aren't flaws in our systems. But there are processes for changing those flaws and addressing them.

Just like what I wrote about voluntary non-violent conflict resolution above.

There are none of those processes in your proposed system.

Well that's a lie, I just wrote about the process above and how it's actually partially in use TODAY in REALITY.

Why does it matter if the government provides goods or not?

Because they were provisioned from theft, and they often ban, with the threat of violence, the private provision of the "goods" they provide.

Yes government provides services. Namely legislation, administration, and, arbitration. All of which you claim will be paid for via private industry. Since private industry is a function of profits the potential abuse is huge. I'll accept the devil I know thank you very much.

And that's the real basis of your argument: Eleutherophobia: fear of freedom. link

"...even in the bible when during the time of Moses, the people grumbled when they experienced difficulty in the dessert and wished for slavery back in the hands of Egyptians rather than being free. This could be due to the fact that these people might have only known the life of being a slave and did not know how to act when they had to do things on their own."

Your fear of a cooperation of individuals is irrational; how many people were incarcerated by corporations in the past century in America (home of the biggest, baddest corporations)? How many people were murdered by corporations in the last century in the USA?  Compare and contrast to government..

[grantmeaname]

I've been trying to stay out of this because it's clear that we're not going to get anything but image macros and childish deflections out of one side of the argument - they say you can't reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themself into. CDP and Mac, it doesn't look good for your philosophy when its only adherents are unwilling to discuss the topic like adults and instead focus exclusively on cheap 'wins' from nitpicking the other side's word choice, ignoring 90% of every post and looking for the 10% you think you have a clever repartee for.

That said, I couldn't stay away from this one:

Citations for what? That arbitration exists? Ok knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States

Your point is justice and conflict resolution can't exist privately, I'm pointing out it can and already does. The difference between arbiters and courts is they don't use violence to enforce their judgements, that's why it's more free.

The reason there isn't any violence in arbitration is that all of the enforcement of judgments happens in the courts! The reason that parties go to arbiters in the first place is that they signed a legal contract agreeing that they would do so in the event of a contingency. They show up to their arbitration date because their contract compels them to. If the arbitration agreement isn't followed, the party who is prejudiced sues for breach of contract in the court.  The teeth of arbitration comes from this enforcement action, and without this enforcement action there's no reason for either party to appear. They go to arbitration because a legal contract compels them to!

You have to myopic in the extreme to pretend that you could pick up a private arbitration system that exists as a limited adjunct to certain actions undertaken by a judiciary with the force of law and the state, plop it down in your voluntary society, and have arbitration look just the same as it does now. Why would literally any defendant show up to their court date if they couldn't be prejudiced anywhere but the court of public opinion by not doing so? It's like you're saying "judges are better than bailiffs because judges order people to act and don't use any force at all". Sure, the judge doesn't exert any force, but that doesn't mean that the order would be followed without the bailiff!

And that's before we consider that arbitration doesn't make new law, doesn't interpret law, and doesn't try criminal cases.

[libertarian4321]

When they actually contribute something to the world other than Celine Dion, let me know.

We gave you Mr. Money Mustache himself.  What more do you want?

You also gave us Justin Bieber, which more than cancels out MMM, lol.

True, and while we are very very sorry, we don't want that kid back.  I'm sure he'll make a wonderful addition to 'House of Former Teen Heartthrobs Season 38', though.

I'm looking forward to seeing Bieber on "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew" in 2018 or so.

Until then, I think we can work out an agreement with the Brits.  We exile Bieber to the Pitcairn Island in exchange for a used aircraft carrier (we have too damned many of the things anyway)  It's a win for everyone (except the poor bastards on Pitcairn Island).

[swiper]

When they actually contribute something to the world other than Celine Dion, let me know.

We gave you Mr. Money Mustache himself.  What more do you want?

You also gave us Justin Bieber, which more than cancels out MMM, lol.

True, and while we are very very sorry, we don't want that kid back.  I'm sure he'll make a wonderful addition to 'House of Former Teen Heartthrobs Season 38', though.

I'm looking forward to seeing Bieber on "Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew" in 2018 or so.

Until then, I think we can work out an agreement with the Brits.  We exile Bieber to the Pitcairn Island in exchange for a used aircraft carrier (we have too damned many of the things anyway)  It's a win for everyone (except the poor bastards on Pitcairn Island).

excellent idea! and if I may: Next, Canada overpays this Brits for this broken carrier (cause you'll part with the worst one you got), to go along with our broken subs.

[wepner]

I've been trying to stay out of this because it's clear that we're not going to get anything but image macros and childish deflections out of one side of the argument - they say you can't reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themself into. CDP and Mac, it doesn't look good for your philosophy when its only adherents are unwilling to discuss the topic like adults and instead focus exclusively on cheap 'wins' from nitpicking the other side's word choice, ignoring 90% of every post and looking for the 10% you think you have a clever repartee for.

It seems like Gray Ghost has the same core ideas as the people you mentioned and I think he/she has  been incredibly mature and informative. Like I think it would be fun to discuss this topic over a beer with them even though I'm pretty sure we would disagree on a fair amount of stuff.

[Mr.Macinstache]

So moral considerations are the primary considerations of a society? Action X is moral so it is automatically better.

Well... yeah, man. I don't know how anyone could argue that immoral actions are better than moral ones. In fact, that may be a priori impossible if by "better" you mean "morally better".

Obviously immoral actions can have better economic or other outcomes for a person or even a group of people, but it's actually shocking to admit and argue that a society or a person ought to do morally wrong things because they have better economic or other outcomes.

So many people have NO problem voting for someone else to commit the murder and carry out the robbery. As long as they personally don't have to do it, they consider themselves to be innocent and the whole thing kosher.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I've been trying to stay out of this because it's clear that we're not going to get anything but image macros and childish deflections out of one side of the argument - they say you can't reason someone out of a position they never reasoned themself into. CDP and Mac, it doesn't look good for your philosophy when its only adherents are unwilling to discuss the topic like adults and instead focus exclusively on cheap 'wins' from nitpicking the other side's word choice, ignoring 90% of every post and looking for the 10% you think you have a clever repartee for.

When you advocate for the aggression principle while denying it is actually aggression, it doesnt look good for your ideology. Where's the reason in that denial?? So there is no point in discussing the minutia of your fear based theories. Recognize the violence first, prove you have the ability to critically think about the force and violence you are advocating for.

[Mr.Macinstache]

For those of you who ask.... "But what will be done about... [BAD GUY]???"

Here's your answer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoKT4dpgLBA

[grantmeaname]

It seems like Gray Ghost has the same core ideas as the people you mentioned and I think he/she has  been incredibly mature and informative. Like I think it would be fun to discuss this topic over a beer with them even though I'm pretty sure we would disagree on a fair amount of stuff.

I absolutely agree.

[Mr. Minsc]

My view of the government:  Flawed, absurdly flawed.

Do I hate the people in the government who make double face palm decisions?  No.

Why?  Because, just like me, they themselves are victims of a flawed system.

What can I do about it?  Strive to be honest and take responsibility for my choices.  Be compassionate, as hard as it is to let go of grudges I know it's for the best.

Before we all go blaming the government or others for our problems it's wise to remember this quote.

"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

[CDP45]

My view of the government:  Flawed, absurdly flawed.

Do I hate the people in the government who make double face palm decisions?  No.

Why?  Because, just like me, they themselves are victims of a flawed system.

What can I do about it?  Strive to be honest and take responsibility for my choices.  Be compassionate, as hard as it is to let go of grudges I know it's for the best.

Before we all go blaming the government or others for our problems it's wise to remember this quote.

"Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Do you feel the same about those government employees who persecuted Dr MLK during the civil rights struggles? When they let loose the dogs and fire hoses they were just victims also? We shouldn't say anything about that because we individually might have also done wrong in the past?

What's right is right, and what's wrong is wrong. Saying nothing in the face of wrong is cowardly.

But thank you for recognizing the flaws of government, so let's change it for the better, and I think the first step is not supporting it's flawed actions, and then speaking out against it.