Blame Canada

[Gin1984]

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government.

I am no fan of government, and I don't believe that our rights flow from the government, but I think its a necessary evil. 

Finally, can you really not draw a line between the most prosperous time in human history (now) and representative Democracy being the dominant political system?

Yes there is a correlation between prosperity and the degree which government respects property rights, my argument is causation where wealth cannot be created without some property rights. That's my argument against Canada's greater taxation than the US.

That's how the American revolution ,which created the first democracy , came to be. The settlers had very broad property rights that were eroded over time from what they were used to and rebelled. They came to live in freedom with the fruits of their labor, not start a democracy.

First we are not a democracy, we are republic and second we are not the first republic, the founding fathers took much from the Greek Golden age.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I think Churchill said it best, something along the lines of Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others that have been tried.  If your talking in the philosophical sense, then yes, there is hardly anything "just" about government.  It indeed limits your rights and takes your property. But since some people kind of suck sometimes, yeah, we need a government.  As far as I can tell, its the best thing that we've come up with so far..

Unless your willing to enlighten us on a new path that hasn't been thought of yet?

So your argument is that "people suck, so we need a government"... of people (who hopefully don't suck!)? You're forgetting the laws of nature here. Street thugs who steal your wallet aren't that smart. The real cunning criminals and psychopaths use the function of govt to commit their crimes of theft and violence. They are protected by the intuitions where their crimes are considered "legal" for those who wear the label of govt.

Can I reach down the pants of a TSA worker? Can I drive around with a gun and lights on my car pulling people over for victimless actions? Can I show up on your door step and threaten you if you don't give me money? No no and no. Govt is a guarantee there will be people committing aggression as it, itself relys on and survives on it to exist.

[Mr.Macinstache]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

There is no voluntary govt. That is an oxymoron. There are voluntary societies and there is govt (force). The two are mutually exclusive.

[matchewed]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

There is no voluntary govt. That is an oxymoron. There are voluntary societies and there is govt (force). The two are mutually exclusive.

So in a voluntary society when a conflict occurs how do you settle it? If two people lay claim to the same property how is that decided? If a crime is committed how do you determine who is guilty in a voluntary society? If another voluntary society wants the resources that your voluntary society has how does your voluntary society defend itself? Who builds the roads and maintains them?

Furthermore I'm not the one who came up with the term. Feel free to take it up w/ CDP45 from this post -

And you have yet to provide a clear answer. If government is such a bad thing what is an alternative? Feel free to keep dodging that question though.

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government. Feel free to try and argue that people as you might point out it doesn't exist in a widespread area, but there was a time just a few hundred years ago where there weren't areas free of slavery or there weren't areas where womens' rights were respected. It's like argument against the creation of the internet; clearly you won't address the ideas of it but if this were the 1970s one could say ohh it doesn't exist and it's not possible and think of all the bookstores that would be put out of business.

[thepokercab]

You're forgetting the laws of nature here. Street thugs who steal your wallet aren't that smart.

So basically, it should be survival of the fittest then?  Let the smartest and the strongest rise to the top and fuck everyone else? 

Whatever..  There's no rational argument to be had here. The human race is a social species that has a natural tendency towards creating institutions.  We've been doing it for thousands of years.  And yes, for thousands of years people have tried and been successful at manipulating those institutions to their own end.  You might as well start an argument that we should all stop having sex or eating.   

[Mr.Macinstache]

Here are ten people: a first generation Chinese immigrant, a native american, a KKK member, a gay couple, a southern baptist minister, a muslim imam, a pedophile, a doctor who performs abortions, and a sociopath who enjoys killing people.

How do you get these people from disparate backgrounds, with different interests, and with little in common to agree to work together in a voluntary way on even basic and important issues?

- Should native Americans have special compensation for the damage that was done to their culture and the land that was stolen from them?
- Should Chinese people be allowed the same access to facilities as everyone else?  Should they have to learn the commonly spoken language of the land, or be allowed to keep their mother tongue?
- Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?
- Should sex with young children be allowed?
- What role should religion play in decisions made by the group?
- What is the group's stance on murder?  Is abortion murder?


Governing people is tricky business.  It involves developing answers to tough questions.  It's not possible to have a government that pleases all people, because in pleasing some you inevitably piss off others.  Voluntary government is a nice concept, but can't work in practice.  To take any action a government will annoy some people.  To take no action will annoy some people.  Either way no matter what you do you will lose the 'voluntary' part.

People coexist by themselves voluntarily already. No one is forcing you to live in your neighborhood. Should we mandate each street have racial equality? And then policemen to protect each one, while stealing from them all for the "service"?

Here's the thing with a civilized society, you don't point guns at people and demand money. It's an ancient form of thuggery.

Look at the Amish for example. They mind their own fucking business. Do I agree with their religion? No, but guess what, they aren't forcing me to believe it, or fund it. The same can be said for all societies. If you commit aggression against another, you're going to have a bad time. If you leave people alone and allow them to choose their own path of life, you'll then have a civilized society.

[Kenoryn]

Wow, this thread got weird since I left.

All the Canadians on here seem pretty happy with democracy, so maybe the Americans could just ignore us and let us be happy. ;) For the angry Americans who think that having laws and public services is evil and immoral, there is this fun group of nutbars you should look into called Freeman on the Land. As I recall they believe that if they mail all their government-issued documents back to the government, they no longer have to follow any laws and are free to murder people and not pay taxes and such as they please - as long as they murder people on their own land. You could join, meet some like-minded folks!

Technically, you could just stop using most public services and thereby avoid most taxes. Just become 100% self-sufficient: no money, obviously, because currency is government-regulated. No income, and no income taxes. Produce your own food and all the goods you use from the resources on your own property. Dispose of all your own waste (without affecting anyone else or any other property, needless to say.) Never leave your property, obviously, unless you get the agreement of some other private landowner to cross their land. Voila. You don't want public services like roads or currency, then don't use them, and you won't be taxed. That gets rid of income taxes and sales taxes. Of course, your rights end where someone else's begin, so you still can't murder people and such. Alas. Also you'd still have to deal with annoying people who would still want to save your life if you were injured or if your house was burning down or whatnot. And the government would still be working to keep your air breathable and your water drinkable, since those pesky common resources won't stay put on one person's property.

There's still a bit of trouble with land rights/municipal tax and services, but I hear they have allodial land rights in some form in Texas. Maybe all the Freeman type people could move there and then secede and create a whole country of shotgun-wielding redneck anarchists.

[Mr.Macinstache]

You're forgetting the laws of nature here. Street thugs who steal your wallet aren't that smart.

So basically, it should be survival of the fittest then?  Let the smartest and the strongest rise to the top and fuck everyone else? 

Whatever..  There's no rational argument to be had here. The human race is a social species that has a natural tendency towards creating institutions.  We've been doing it for thousands of years.  And yes, for thousands of years people have tried and been successful at manipulating those institutions to their own end.  You might as well start an argument that we should all stop having sex or eating.   

So you believe only good people will work for govt then? You're the one not being rational. Your argument for a monopoly of theft and violence to prevent theft and violence is a total contradiction.

[thepokercab]

If you commit aggression against another, you're going to have a bad time. If you leave people alone and allow them to choose their own path of life, you'll then have a civilized society.

Huh?  You're going to have a bad time?  What does that even mean?  I agree, if people leave people alone you have a civilized society, but not everyone is going to want to leave you alone.  There are BILLIONS of people on the planet.  How does this not make sense? 

[Mr.Macinstache]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

There is no voluntary govt. That is an oxymoron. There are voluntary societies and there is govt (force). The two are mutually exclusive.

So in a voluntary society when a conflict occurs how do you settle it? If two people lay claim to the same property how is that decided? If a crime is committed how do you determine who is guilty in a voluntary society? If another voluntary society wants the resources that your voluntary society has how does your voluntary society defend itself? Who builds the roads and maintains them?

But if we don't have slavery, who will pick the cotton????

That's the funny thing about beliefs, they seem to stick around way past their expiration date. Hence the reason we still have organized religion believing is "life" but advocation for murdering brown people born in a different geographic boundary.

A voluntary society can organize itself.. generally, those how have homesteaded the land first can lay claim to it. There can be private arbitration services to settle disputes and of course physical force for deterrence if someone wants to aggress against their property. Yes there's going to be conflict.. I'm sure the Amish has squabbles and what not, as do other groups of people. But you deal with aggression appropriately.

Who will build the road???!!!!!
How about the same people who build them now?? LOL. Contractors?

Who will pay the contractors if we don't rob people????
Business can. There are many whose livelihood rely on transportation. Auto makers, the oil and gas makers, retailers, pretty much everyone who does commerce. Instead of a "sales tax" that stolen by a govt, you build the cost into the price itself. I'm reminded of a certain scene in Office Space here... Where there is demand, there will be a functioning service.

[Mr.Macinstache]

If you commit aggression against another, you're going to have a bad time. If you leave people alone and allow them to choose their own path of life, you'll then have a civilized society.

Huh?  You're going to have a bad time?  What does that even mean?  I agree, if people leave people alone you have a civilized society, but not everyone is going to want to leave you alone.  There are BILLIONS of people on the planet.  How does this not make sense?

Not sure what you don't get here. You're assuming people and societies don't have the desire to protect themselves.

[matchewed]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

There is no voluntary govt. That is an oxymoron. There are voluntary societies and there is govt (force). The two are mutually exclusive.

So in a voluntary society when a conflict occurs how do you settle it? If two people lay claim to the same property how is that decided? If a crime is committed how do you determine who is guilty in a voluntary society? If another voluntary society wants the resources that your voluntary society has how does your voluntary society defend itself? Who builds the roads and maintains them?

But if we don't have slavery, who will pick the cotton????

That's the funny thing about beliefs, they seem to stick around way past their expiration date. Hence the reason we still have organized religion believing is "life" but advocation for murdering brown people born in a different geographic boundary.

A voluntary society can organize itself.. generally, those how have homesteaded the land first can lay claim to it. There can be private arbitration services to settle disputes and of course physical force for deterrence if someone wants to aggress against their property. Yes there's going to be conflict.. I'm sure the Amish has squabbles and what not, as do other groups of people. But you deal with aggression appropriately.

So government is an outdated idea but voluntary society is a new wave of human structuring that avoids negative sides of human nature because... MAGIC!

So who guarantees neutrality in the private arbitration services? Who pays these people to do that service? The Amish actually buy land like others do. They pay property taxes and look to government for defining property lines. So could you go further into how this system works beyond "The Amish ->"

Who will build the road???!!!!!
How about the same people who build them now?? LOL. Contractors?

Who determines where the road will go? Why can't I as a person hire a contractor to make sure the road goes to my store and not my competitors? Does the competitor own the road? Do I? If I hired them to build the road and I don't want my competitor to use it how do I make sure that happens?

Who will pay the contractors if we don't rob people????
Business can. There are many whose livelihood rely on transportation. Auto makers, the oil and gas makers, retailers, pretty much everyone who does commerce. Instead of a "sales tax" that stolen by a govt, you build the cost into the price itself. I'm reminded of a certain scene in Office Space here... Where there is demand, there will be a functioning service.

So monopolies form instead as companies who have larger market share then can provide for themselves better infrastructure. What stops these large companies from making a road through my land? They will have way more resources than I will.

I think it's awesome to consider what you're saying as a philosophical exercise but beyond that it's a fantasy.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Wow, this thread got weird since I left.

All the Canadians on here seem pretty happy with democracy, so maybe the Americans could just ignore us and let us be happy. ;) For the angry Americans who think that having laws and public services is evil and immoral, there is this fun group of nutbars you should look into called Freeman on the Land. As I recall they believe that if they mail all their government-issued documents back to the government, they no longer have to follow any laws and are free to murder people and not pay taxes and such as they please - as long as they murder people on their own land. You could join, meet some like-minded folks!

Technically, you could just stop using most public services and thereby avoid most taxes. Just become 100% self-sufficient: no money, obviously, because currency is government-regulated. No income, and no income taxes. Produce your own food and all the goods you use from the resources on your own property. Dispose of all your own waste (without affecting anyone else or any other property, needless to say.) Never leave your property, obviously, unless you get the agreement of some other private landowner to cross their land. Voila. You don't want public services like roads or currency, then don't use them, and you won't be taxed. That gets rid of income taxes and sales taxes. Of course, your rights end where someone else's begin, so you still can't murder people and such. Alas. Also you'd still have to deal with annoying people who would still want to save your life if you were injured or if your house was burning down or whatnot. And the government would still be working to keep your air breathable and your water drinkable, since those pesky common resources won't stay put on one person's property.

There's still a bit of trouble with land rights/municipal tax and services, but I hear they have allodial land rights in some form in Texas. Maybe all the Freeman type people could move there and then secede and create a whole country of shotgun-wielding redneck anarchists.

To me the "nutbars" are people believe in the god called govt and its aggression principle. You claim, sure, just stop paying taxes! And then people like you will advocate for violence against them who are trying to resist theft.

Because without guns pointed at people we just wouldn't have any services like roads or clean water. Crazytown.

[Mr.Macinstache]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

There is no voluntary govt. That is an oxymoron. There are voluntary societies and there is govt (force). The two are mutually exclusive.

So in a voluntary society when a conflict occurs how do you settle it? If two people lay claim to the same property how is that decided? If a crime is committed how do you determine who is guilty in a voluntary society? If another voluntary society wants the resources that your voluntary society has how does your voluntary society defend itself? Who builds the roads and maintains them?

But if we don't have slavery, who will pick the cotton????

That's the funny thing about beliefs, they seem to stick around way past their expiration date. Hence the reason we still have organized religion believing is "life" but advocation for murdering brown people born in a different geographic boundary.

A voluntary society can organize itself.. generally, those how have homesteaded the land first can lay claim to it. There can be private arbitration services to settle disputes and of course physical force for deterrence if someone wants to aggress against their property. Yes there's going to be conflict.. I'm sure the Amish has squabbles and what not, as do other groups of people. But you deal with aggression appropriately.

So government is an outdated idea but voluntary society is a new wave of human structuring that avoids negative sides of human nature because... MAGIC!

So who guarantees neutrality in the private arbitration services? Who pays these people to do that service? The Amish actually buy land like others do. They pay property taxes and look to government for defining property lines. So could you go further into how this system works beyond "The Amish ->"

Who will build the road???!!!!!
How about the same people who build them now?? LOL. Contractors?

Who determines where the road will go? Why can't I as a person hire a contractor to make sure the road goes to my store and not my competitors? Does the competitor own the road? Do I? If I hired them to build the road and I don't want my competitor to use it how do I make sure that happens?

Who will pay the contractors if we don't rob people????
Business can. There are many whose livelihood rely on transportation. Auto makers, the oil and gas makers, retailers, pretty much everyone who does commerce. Instead of a "sales tax" that stolen by a govt, you build the cost into the price itself. I'm reminded of a certain scene in Office Space here... Where there is demand, there will be a functioning service.

So monopolies form instead as companies who have larger market share then can provide for themselves better infrastructure. What stops these large companies from making a road through my land? They will have way more resources than I will.

I think it's awesome to consider what you're saying as a philosophical exercise but beyond that it's a fantasy.

It's only a fantasy because people are so insanely spooked by thought of all these boogey men theories you're putting out there. Govt is a religion and like all religion it thrives on fear. "But if we don't nuke the middle east, the terrorists will come!" "If we don't lock down the the borders muh jobs will be gone!" "Please, steal from me to keep me safe - no one will have any roads or water!" "If we don't have corporations buy off the govt, they will get us all!" It's this crazy religion of fear. Totally irrational.

I'm not saying moving toward a voluntary society will be a utopia, but I think a good start is doing away with legalized theft and despite that stupid, pretentious blog entry I do have a damn right to complain about institutionalized theft by a wasteful monopoly of force.

You can theorize all day long about boogey-men and what conflicts "may" occur, but the fact we NOW have existing, protected, institutionalized theft and violence, negates your theories.

[matchewed]

What is voluntary government? And when does it stop being voluntary? Just when someone disagrees with it?

There is no voluntary govt. That is an oxymoron. There are voluntary societies and there is govt (force). The two are mutually exclusive.

So in a voluntary society when a conflict occurs how do you settle it? If two people lay claim to the same property how is that decided? If a crime is committed how do you determine who is guilty in a voluntary society? If another voluntary society wants the resources that your voluntary society has how does your voluntary society defend itself? Who builds the roads and maintains them?

But if we don't have slavery, who will pick the cotton????

That's the funny thing about beliefs, they seem to stick around way past their expiration date. Hence the reason we still have organized religion believing is "life" but advocation for murdering brown people born in a different geographic boundary.

A voluntary society can organize itself.. generally, those how have homesteaded the land first can lay claim to it. There can be private arbitration services to settle disputes and of course physical force for deterrence if someone wants to aggress against their property. Yes there's going to be conflict.. I'm sure the Amish has squabbles and what not, as do other groups of people. But you deal with aggression appropriately.

So government is an outdated idea but voluntary society is a new wave of human structuring that avoids negative sides of human nature because... MAGIC!

So who guarantees neutrality in the private arbitration services? Who pays these people to do that service? The Amish actually buy land like others do. They pay property taxes and look to government for defining property lines. So could you go further into how this system works beyond "The Amish ->"

Who will build the road???!!!!!
How about the same people who build them now?? LOL. Contractors?

Who determines where the road will go? Why can't I as a person hire a contractor to make sure the road goes to my store and not my competitors? Does the competitor own the road? Do I? If I hired them to build the road and I don't want my competitor to use it how do I make sure that happens?

Who will pay the contractors if we don't rob people????
Business can. There are many whose livelihood rely on transportation. Auto makers, the oil and gas makers, retailers, pretty much everyone who does commerce. Instead of a "sales tax" that stolen by a govt, you build the cost into the price itself. I'm reminded of a certain scene in Office Space here... Where there is demand, there will be a functioning service.

So monopolies form instead as companies who have larger market share then can provide for themselves better infrastructure. What stops these large companies from making a road through my land? They will have way more resources than I will.

I think it's awesome to consider what you're saying as a philosophical exercise but beyond that it's a fantasy.

It's only a fantasy because people are so insanely spooked by thought of all these boogey men theories you're putting out there. Govt is a religion and like all religion it thrives on fear. "But if we don't nuke the middle east, the terrorists will come!" "If we don't lock down the the borders muh jobs will be gone!" "Please, steal from me to keep me safe - no one will have any roads or water!" "If we don't have corporations buy off the govt, they will get us all!" It's this crazy religion of fear. Totally irrational.

I'm not saying moving toward a voluntary society will be a utopia, but I think a good start is doing away with legalized theft and despite that stupid, pretentious blog entry I do have a damn right to complain about institutionalized theft by a wasteful monopoly of force.

You can theorize all day long about boogey-men and what conflicts "may" occur, but the fact we NOW have existing, protected, institutionalized theft and violence, negates your theories.

I agree there are a great many fear based views out there. I think yours is as well.

You absolutely have a right to voice your opinion, no where did I say you don't.

You however are supporting an idea. This idea of "voluntary society" now when your idea is challenged for some obvious flaws in it you want to hand wave them away because you think what is going on is worse when you have nothing to support that claim with. If you can't defend basic criticisms of your "voluntary society" then why should I believe it is any better than today? It's fair to criticize a current system but unfair to criticize yours? Why should I accept the obvious flaws in your ideas but shouldn't accept the flaws in mine?

[GuitarStv]

Here are ten people: a first generation Chinese immigrant, a native american, a KKK member, a gay couple, a southern baptist minister, a muslim imam, a pedophile, a doctor who performs abortions, and a sociopath who enjoys killing people.

How do you get these people from disparate backgrounds, with different interests, and with little in common to agree to work together in a voluntary way on even basic and important issues?

- Should native Americans have special compensation for the damage that was done to their culture and the land that was stolen from them?
- Should Chinese people be allowed the same access to facilities as everyone else?  Should they have to learn the commonly spoken language of the land, or be allowed to keep their mother tongue?
- Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?
- Should sex with young children be allowed?
- What role should religion play in decisions made by the group?
- What is the group's stance on murder?  Is abortion murder?


Governing people is tricky business.  It involves developing answers to tough questions.  It's not possible to have a government that pleases all people, because in pleasing some you inevitably piss off others.  Voluntary government is a nice concept, but can't work in practice.  To take any action a government will annoy some people.  To take no action will annoy some people.  Either way no matter what you do you will lose the 'voluntary' part.

People coexist by themselves voluntarily already. No one is forcing you to live in your neighborhood. Should we mandate each street have racial equality? And then policemen to protect each one, while stealing from them all for the "service"?

Here's the thing with a civilized society, you don't point guns at people and demand money. It's an ancient form of thuggery.

Look at the Amish for example. They mind their own fucking business. Do I agree with their religion? No, but guess what, they aren't forcing me to believe it, or fund it. The same can be said for all societies. If you commit aggression against another, you're going to have a bad time. If you leave people alone and allow them to choose their own path of life, you'll then have a civilized society.

People coexist due to the rules set out by the government.  We have mandated that each street has to treat people equally no matter what their race is, and most of us would agree that this has worked out pretty well.  Can you provide any example of a civilized society in history that works in the manner you've been describing?

You didn't actually address any of the questions from my post, so I'll try again . . .

In my example, if you were to let the pedophile to choose his path in life there are going to be a lot of molested children.  Is this really something that you consider a good idea?

[Mr.Macinstache]

I agree there are a great many fear based views out there. I think yours is as well.

You absolutely have a right to voice your opinion, no where did I say you don't.

You however are supporting an idea. This idea of "voluntary society" now when your idea is challenged for some obvious flaws in it you want to hand wave them away because you think what is going on is worse when you have nothing to support that claim with. If you can't defend basic criticisms of your "voluntary society" then why should I believe it is any better than today? It's fair to criticize a current system but unfair to criticize yours? Why should I accept the obvious flaws in your ideas but shouldn't accept the flaws in mine?

How is pointing out theft and violence inherent in the system fear based? Can you explain that to me?

You can try to criticize a voluntary society all day with your theories.. the thing is, I don't have to solve the worlds problems with more theories. I don't have have to offer perfect solutions and am humble and honest enough to know I don't have them all.

The fact humans roam the earth is a guarantee there will be conflict. But I think it's an ancient, narrow minded excuse to say "Well, pointing guns at people for their money may not be perfect, but its best system we got!" I picture the Mayans saying that about human sacrifice to their gods.

The difference is, I'm not going to try and defend my ideas with the use of force and violence. I'm simply saying it's immoral, unethical and anything but civilized.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Here are ten people: a first generation Chinese immigrant, a native american, a KKK member, a gay couple, a southern baptist minister, a muslim imam, a pedophile, a doctor who performs abortions, and a sociopath who enjoys killing people.

How do you get these people from disparate backgrounds, with different interests, and with little in common to agree to work together in a voluntary way on even basic and important issues?

- Should native Americans have special compensation for the damage that was done to their culture and the land that was stolen from them?
- Should Chinese people be allowed the same access to facilities as everyone else?  Should they have to learn the commonly spoken language of the land, or be allowed to keep their mother tongue?
- Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?
- Should sex with young children be allowed?
- What role should religion play in decisions made by the group?
- What is the group's stance on murder?  Is abortion murder?


Governing people is tricky business.  It involves developing answers to tough questions.  It's not possible to have a government that pleases all people, because in pleasing some you inevitably piss off others.  Voluntary government is a nice concept, but can't work in practice.  To take any action a government will annoy some people.  To take no action will annoy some people.  Either way no matter what you do you will lose the 'voluntary' part.

People coexist by themselves voluntarily already. No one is forcing you to live in your neighborhood. Should we mandate each street have racial equality? And then policemen to protect each one, while stealing from them all for the "service"?

Here's the thing with a civilized society, you don't point guns at people and demand money. It's an ancient form of thuggery.

Look at the Amish for example. They mind their own fucking business. Do I agree with their religion? No, but guess what, they aren't forcing me to believe it, or fund it. The same can be said for all societies. If you commit aggression against another, you're going to have a bad time. If you leave people alone and allow them to choose their own path of life, you'll then have a civilized society.

People coexist due to the rules set out by the government.  We have mandated that each street has to treat people equally no matter what their race is, and most of us would agree that this has worked out pretty well.  Can you provide any example of a civilized society in history that works in the manner you've been describing?

You didn't actually address any of the questions from my post, so I'll try again . . .

In my example, if you were to let the pedophile to choose his path in life there are going to be a lot of molested children.  Is this really something that you consider a good idea?

Of course not! But if he wears the label of govt, say a TSA uniform, they are "legally" protected and able to do so all day long - and it's considered "normal, accepted" behavior! What do you say about that?

[matchewed]

I agree there are a great many fear based views out there. I think yours is as well.

You absolutely have a right to voice your opinion, no where did I say you don't.

You however are supporting an idea. This idea of "voluntary society" now when your idea is challenged for some obvious flaws in it you want to hand wave them away because you think what is going on is worse when you have nothing to support that claim with. If you can't defend basic criticisms of your "voluntary society" then why should I believe it is any better than today? It's fair to criticize a current system but unfair to criticize yours? Why should I accept the obvious flaws in your ideas but shouldn't accept the flaws in mine?

How is pointing out theft and violence inherent in the system fear based? Can you explain that to me?

You can try to criticize a voluntary society all day with your theories.. the thing is, I don't have to solve the worlds problems with more theories. I don't have have to offer perfect solutions and am humble and honest enough to know I don't have them all.

The fact humans roam the earth is a guarantee there will be conflict. But I think it's an ancient, narrow minded excuse to say "Well, pointing guns at people for their money may not be perfect, but its best system we got!" I picture the Mayans saying that about human sacrifice to their gods.

The difference is, I'm not going to try and defend my ideas with the use of force and violence. I'm simply saying it's immoral, unethical and anything but civilized.

Because you choose to view it as theft. You choose to view it as involuntary. That is a fear based viewpoint. It is quite easy for me and the people who've expressed disagreement with your approach to say we are willingly paying taxes. We may not agree with everything that those taxes are spent on but have no issue with paying them. You view government as a criminal activity which is designed to threaten you. We don't.

Yours is fear based, ours is accepting of a social contract that you seem to agree with in concept with your comments on a "voluntary society" but don't like in practice. So you have concocted an alternative  social contract that you have yet to prove how you would do anything at all that the government does in that society without taxation. Your answers so far have been, the Amish (who pay taxes), private industry (which has an even greater potential for corruption and abuse), and... nothing, nothing at all. Just a claim that something is uncivilized (whatever you mean by that) while your idea is... what somehow more civilized? In what way? Again you have yet to show that there is an alternative that exists or can exist.

An interesting philosophical approach at best.

[GuitarStv]

Here are ten people: a first generation Chinese immigrant, a native american, a KKK member, a gay couple, a southern baptist minister, a muslim imam, a pedophile, a doctor who performs abortions, and a sociopath who enjoys killing people.

How do you get these people from disparate backgrounds, with different interests, and with little in common to agree to work together in a voluntary way on even basic and important issues?

- Should native Americans have special compensation for the damage that was done to their culture and the land that was stolen from them?
- Should Chinese people be allowed the same access to facilities as everyone else?  Should they have to learn the commonly spoken language of the land, or be allowed to keep their mother tongue?
- Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?
- Should sex with young children be allowed?
- What role should religion play in decisions made by the group?
- What is the group's stance on murder?  Is abortion murder?


Governing people is tricky business.  It involves developing answers to tough questions.  It's not possible to have a government that pleases all people, because in pleasing some you inevitably piss off others.  Voluntary government is a nice concept, but can't work in practice.  To take any action a government will annoy some people.  To take no action will annoy some people.  Either way no matter what you do you will lose the 'voluntary' part.

People coexist by themselves voluntarily already. No one is forcing you to live in your neighborhood. Should we mandate each street have racial equality? And then policemen to protect each one, while stealing from them all for the "service"?

Here's the thing with a civilized society, you don't point guns at people and demand money. It's an ancient form of thuggery.

Look at the Amish for example. They mind their own fucking business. Do I agree with their religion? No, but guess what, they aren't forcing me to believe it, or fund it. The same can be said for all societies. If you commit aggression against another, you're going to have a bad time. If you leave people alone and allow them to choose their own path of life, you'll then have a civilized society.

People coexist due to the rules set out by the government.  We have mandated that each street has to treat people equally no matter what their race is, and most of us would agree that this has worked out pretty well.  Can you provide any example of a civilized society in history that works in the manner you've been describing?

You didn't actually address any of the questions from my post, so I'll try again . . .

In my example, if you were to let the pedophile to choose his path in life there are going to be a lot of molested children.  Is this really something that you consider a good idea?

Of course not! But if he wears the label of govt, say a TSA uniform, they are "legally" protected and able to do so all day long - and it's considered "normal, accepted" behavior! What do you say about that?

I say you still didn't address the questions from my post.

If you don't want him to molest children, then he is not free to choose his path in life.  How do you propose preventing him from doing what he wants?

[Mr.Macinstache]

I agree there are a great many fear based views out there. I think yours is as well.

You absolutely have a right to voice your opinion, no where did I say you don't.

You however are supporting an idea. This idea of "voluntary society" now when your idea is challenged for some obvious flaws in it you want to hand wave them away because you think what is going on is worse when you have nothing to support that claim with. If you can't defend basic criticisms of your "voluntary society" then why should I believe it is any better than today? It's fair to criticize a current system but unfair to criticize yours? Why should I accept the obvious flaws in your ideas but shouldn't accept the flaws in mine?

How is pointing out theft and violence inherent in the system fear based? Can you explain that to me?

You can try to criticize a voluntary society all day with your theories.. the thing is, I don't have to solve the worlds problems with more theories. I don't have have to offer perfect solutions and am humble and honest enough to know I don't have them all.

The fact humans roam the earth is a guarantee there will be conflict. But I think it's an ancient, narrow minded excuse to say "Well, pointing guns at people for their money may not be perfect, but its best system we got!" I picture the Mayans saying that about human sacrifice to their gods.

The difference is, I'm not going to try and defend my ideas with the use of force and violence. I'm simply saying it's immoral, unethical and anything but civilized.

Because you choose to view it as theft. You choose to view it as involuntary. That is a fear based viewpoint. It is quite easy for me and the people who've expressed disagreement with your approach to say we are willingly paying taxes. We may not agree with everything that those taxes are spent on but have no issue with paying them. You view government as a criminal activity which is designed to threaten you. We don't.

Yours is fear based, ours is accepting of a social contract that you seem to agree with in concept with your comments on a "voluntary society" but don't like in practice. So you have concocted an alternative  social contract that you have yet to prove how you would do anything at all that the government does in that society without taxation. Your answers so far have been, the Amish (who pay taxes), private industry (which has an even greater potential for corruption and abuse), and... nothing, nothing at all. Just a claim that something is uncivilized (whatever you mean by that) while your idea is... what somehow more civilized? In what way? Again you have yet to show that there is an alternative that exists or can exist.

An interesting philosophical approach at best.

Of course people pay taxes, they'd be in jail like everyone else if they didn't. You're just fishing for something to hook onto while I'm presenting you with the moral reality that making someone pay for something by way of threats, is in fact theft.

Pointing out that theft is occurring is not fear mongoring.. it's a damn fact of life. The fact you and others willfully comply does not negate the fact it's theft, it just shows you identify and accept the actions of your aggressor. Calling that belief some mystical "social contract" does not magically erase the use of force involved. Calling a voluntary society a "social contract" is a weak attempt to burn down your own strawman. A non-aggression principle does not bind people to obey by force. I hope this helps you understand and clearly see the difference? But if your religion of govt is so strong that you deny the use of force inherent with in, there's no hope for you. As there's no difference between you and the "pro-life" Christians who advocate for violence against those who pray to a god other than Jesus.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I say you still didn't address the questions from my post.

If you don't want him to molest children, then he is not free to choose his path in life.  How do you propose preventing him from doing what he wants?

I don't think you understood the answer.

How do I propose we stop creepy behavior? I told you. Stop advocating theft from people to pay for creep services like the TSA.

If you're a creep and you want to do creepy things all day long, you're going to get a job at the TSA. How hard is that to understand?

[matchewed]

I agree there are a great many fear based views out there. I think yours is as well.

You absolutely have a right to voice your opinion, no where did I say you don't.

You however are supporting an idea. This idea of "voluntary society" now when your idea is challenged for some obvious flaws in it you want to hand wave them away because you think what is going on is worse when you have nothing to support that claim with. If you can't defend basic criticisms of your "voluntary society" then why should I believe it is any better than today? It's fair to criticize a current system but unfair to criticize yours? Why should I accept the obvious flaws in your ideas but shouldn't accept the flaws in mine?

How is pointing out theft and violence inherent in the system fear based? Can you explain that to me?

You can try to criticize a voluntary society all day with your theories.. the thing is, I don't have to solve the worlds problems with more theories. I don't have have to offer perfect solutions and am humble and honest enough to know I don't have them all.

The fact humans roam the earth is a guarantee there will be conflict. But I think it's an ancient, narrow minded excuse to say "Well, pointing guns at people for their money may not be perfect, but its best system we got!" I picture the Mayans saying that about human sacrifice to their gods.

The difference is, I'm not going to try and defend my ideas with the use of force and violence. I'm simply saying it's immoral, unethical and anything but civilized.

Because you choose to view it as theft. You choose to view it as involuntary. That is a fear based viewpoint. It is quite easy for me and the people who've expressed disagreement with your approach to say we are willingly paying taxes. We may not agree with everything that those taxes are spent on but have no issue with paying them. You view government as a criminal activity which is designed to threaten you. We don't.

Yours is fear based, ours is accepting of a social contract that you seem to agree with in concept with your comments on a "voluntary society" but don't like in practice. So you have concocted an alternative  social contract that you have yet to prove how you would do anything at all that the government does in that society without taxation. Your answers so far have been, the Amish (who pay taxes), private industry (which has an even greater potential for corruption and abuse), and... nothing, nothing at all. Just a claim that something is uncivilized (whatever you mean by that) while your idea is... what somehow more civilized? In what way? Again you have yet to show that there is an alternative that exists or can exist.

An interesting philosophical approach at best.

Of course people pay taxes, they'd be in jail like everyone else if they didn't. You're just fishing for something to hook onto while I'm presenting you with the moral reality that making someone pay for something by way of threats, is in fact theft.

Pointing out that theft is occurring is not fear mongoring.. it's a damn fact of life. The fact you and others willfully comply does not negate the fact it's theft, it just shows you identify and accept the actions of your aggressor. Calling that belief some mystical "social contract" does not magically erase the use of force involved. Calling a voluntary society a "social contract" is a weak attempt to burn down your own strawman. A non-aggression principle does not bind people to obey by force. I hope this helps you understand and clearly see the difference? But if your religion of govt is so strong that you deny the use of force inherent with in, there's no hope for you. As there's no difference between you and the "pro-life" Christians who advocate for violence against those who pray to a god other than Jesus.

Feel free to keep levying accusations and throwing up red herrings in order to not answer a single question. As I said you're not interested in actually engaging. You'd rather just wind up the outrage machine in order to justify your point of view.

[GuitarStv]

I say you still didn't address the questions from my post.

If you don't want him to molest children, then he is not free to choose his path in life.  How do you propose preventing him from doing what he wants?

I don't think you understood the answer.

How do I propose we stop creepy behavior? I told you. Stop advocating theft from people to pay for creep services like the TSA.

If you're a creep and you want to do creepy things all day long, you're going to get a job at the TSA. How hard is that to understand?

So your theory is that pedophiles will cease to exist if the government stops charging taxes?

Unless that is the answer you're giving, you have ignored the questions I asked in my post.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Feel free to keep levying accusations and throwing up red herrings in order to not answer a single question. As I said you're not interested in actually engaging. You'd rather just wind up the outrage machine in order to justify your point of view.

You're just throwing a childish fit because I won't offer you a perfect utopian solution of what a voluntary society is. I already told you that I'm not the lord and savior of all human conflict! But I guess you didn't like the answer. So Howabout this one, it would be one in where people like you, who believe they have the right to everyone elses property by way of force, would not exist. LOLz!

But keep denying that the use of force is actually force. Ha Ha.

[Mr.Macinstache]

I say you still didn't address the questions from my post.

If you don't want him to molest children, then he is not free to choose his path in life.  How do you propose preventing him from doing what he wants?

I don't think you understood the answer.

How do I propose we stop creepy behavior? I told you. Stop advocating theft from people to pay for creep services like the TSA.

If you're a creep and you want to do creepy things all day long, you're going to get a job at the TSA. How hard is that to understand?

So your theory is that pedophiles will cease to exist if the government stops charging taxes?

Unless that is the answer you're giving, you have ignored the questions I asked in my post.

Well, would you voluntarily fund the TSA? Do you believe they have to moral right to accost you, but you will be jailed if you try that to them?

Sans a govt, yes bad people will still exist and can be delt with accordingly. Govt is a guarantee they'll exist and get paid for it.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Philosophically, I agree with Mr.Macinstache. I guess that makes me an anarcho-capitalist, at least in theory, because I highly doubt that there is a safe way to usurp the various governments in the world at this point in time.

But he is right. Racketeering is a very nasty thing to do, and it should indeed be prosecuted by whatever governing bodies exist--but it's the height of irony that police and military members essentially do the same thing that racketeers do.

It's really remarkable that some people seem to think that your rights are given to you by the society you happen to be born into, or that you've agreed to some sort of "social contract" simply by being born in a given area. I mean, fucking look at the article MMM wrote.

It's all well and good to break laws that you dislike, but when someone else breaks laws that you like such as taxation laws, oh no, they're criminals, they had better be locked up for breaking the "social contract" that they never agreed to because the laws enforcing it were written long before they were even born.

As to how societies might operate without government monopolies on justice, security and others, it's not particularly challenging to answer those questions. There is a very effective and well-regarded private arbitration system in the US. South African private security forces displace and out-perform cops. Health-related services are provided around the world through insurance or out-of-pocket costs. I could go on, but here are two convincing articles of functional societies that have existed without governments as we understand them.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/has-a-libertarian-society-ever-existed/#axzz36usZGbZQ
http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/04/07/how-wild-was-the-wild-west-in-fact/

Good to know I'm not the only one here with a sense of objective morality.

[thepokercab]

I say you still didn't address the questions from my post.

If you don't want him to molest children, then he is not free to choose his path in life.  How do you propose preventing him from doing what he wants?

I don't think you understood the answer.

How do I propose we stop creepy behavior? I told you. Stop advocating theft from people to pay for creep services like the TSA.

If you're a creep and you want to do creepy things all day long, you're going to get a job at the TSA. How hard is that to understand?

You're only a thief, murderer, pedophile, if and only if you work for the government.  Solid analysis. 

I'm just going to assume your trolling at this point.  Take care.   

[GuitarStv]

I say you still didn't address the questions from my post.

If you don't want him to molest children, then he is not free to choose his path in life.  How do you propose preventing him from doing what he wants?

I don't think you understood the answer.

How do I propose we stop creepy behavior? I told you. Stop advocating theft from people to pay for creep services like the TSA.

If you're a creep and you want to do creepy things all day long, you're going to get a job at the TSA. How hard is that to understand?

So your theory is that pedophiles will cease to exist if the government stops charging taxes?

Unless that is the answer you're giving, you have ignored the questions I asked in my post.

Well, would you voluntarily fund the TSA? Do you believe they have to moral right to accost you, but you will be jailed if you try that to them?

Sans a govt, yes bad people will still exist and can be delt with accordingly. Govt is a guarantee they'll exist and get paid for it.

You have not answered the question I just asked, and have still not answered the original questions.

How will you deal with bad people without a government, legal system, or police force?  How will you determine what is bad?  How will you provide a deterrence for bad behaviour?

[Mr.Macinstache]

Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?

Your problem is that you believe that rights are granted to you by a ruling class of people.

You do not get your rights because you're gay, black, white, female or muslim. You get them because you're a damn human being! You're born natural rights as a human.

Until you can grasp that concept, there's no point in going forward.

[GuitarStv]

Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?

Your problem is that you believe that rights are granted to you by a ruling class of people.

You do not get your rights because you're gay, black, white, female or muslim. You get them because you're a damn human being! You're born natural rights as a human.

Until you can grasp that concept, there's no point in going forward.

No, I don't believe that rights are granted by a ruling class of people at all.  I haven't said that at all.  I have however, seen that the right to be gay openly is often attacked by people who don't agree.  There are enough people who attack minorities of all kinds, that some form of protection is necessary to allow what you call 'natural rights' to exist.

[matchewed]

Feel free to keep levying accusations and throwing up red herrings in order to not answer a single question. As I said you're not interested in actually engaging. You'd rather just wind up the outrage machine in order to justify your point of view.

You're just throwing a childish fit because I won't offer you a perfect utopian solution of what a voluntary society is. I already told you that I'm not the lord and savior of all human conflict! But I guess you didn't like the answer. So Howabout this one, it would be one in where people like you, who believe they have the right to everyone elses property by way of force, would not exist. LOLz!

But keep denying that the use of force is actually force. Ha Ha.

I'm not angry or upset. I'm just asking you how it'd all work and you can't answer that. Nothing I've asked requires you to be the lord and savior of all human conflict, it just requires some critical thinking and acceptance of possible flaws. You don't like the way that our current society is structured. I've asked for an alternative. You provided an answer. I'm asking for further information about this voluntary society and you can't come up with any answers and instead resort to "I don't know." You haven't come up with anything other than government is theft. Nothing else, nothing to add to it, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

But now you're coming to the core of it. You're now saying anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint shouldn't be part of your society. That your world that you'd construct would be filled with people who believed exactly like you do. Except we've already determined that a society painted that way has no clue how it would run. No clue how roads would be made, property lines drawn, fires put out, education set up...etc.

No one has yet to use force on me to pay taxes. I choose to pay my taxes. If I don't want to I could leave. There is choice here. You choose not to see it though.

You've got a great opportunity here to demonstrate how your ideal society would actually function and you can't come up with a single solid answer. Not one. Just that it would. An empty claim.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?

Your problem is that you believe that rights are granted to you by a ruling class of people.

You do not get your rights because you're gay, black, white, female or muslim. You get them because you're a damn human being! You're born natural rights as a human.

Until you can grasp that concept, there's no point in going forward.

No, I don't believe that rights are granted by a ruling class of people at all.  I haven't said that at all.  I have however, seen that the right to be gay openly is often attacked by people who don't agree.  There are enough people who attack minorities of all kinds, that some form of protection is necessary to allow what you call 'natural rights' to exist.

No one has the right to harass, intimidate or threaten anyone and anyone who does that can expect equal retaliation in their own defense to deter that behavior. If you're interested in protecting rights the responsibility falls on the individual.

The problem is when a govt tries to step in, they claim that a gay man has a right to be served at a restaurant. This totally violates that restaurant owner's private property and philosophical beliefs. Because at the same time, the black store owner is forced to those same standards and has to serve some racist bigot.

So the society itself needs to self regulate those situations of free association to avoid offering contradictory rights based on differences.

[GuitarStv]

Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?

Your problem is that you believe that rights are granted to you by a ruling class of people.

You do not get your rights because you're gay, black, white, female or muslim. You get them because you're a damn human being! You're born natural rights as a human.

Until you can grasp that concept, there's no point in going forward.

No, I don't believe that rights are granted by a ruling class of people at all.  I haven't said that at all.  I have however, seen that the right to be gay openly is often attacked by people who don't agree.  There are enough people who attack minorities of all kinds, that some form of protection is necessary to allow what you call 'natural rights' to exist.

No one has the right to harass, intimidate or threaten anyone and anyone who does that can expect equal retaliation in their own defense to deter that behavior. If you're interested in protecting rights the responsibility falls on the individual.

The problem is when a govt tries to step in, they claim that a gay man has a right to be served at a restaurant. This totally violates that restaurant owner's private property and philosophical beliefs. Because at the same time, the black store owner is forced to those same standards and has to serve some racist bigot.

So the society itself needs to self regulate those situations of free association to avoid offering contradictory rights based on differences.

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?

[Mr.Macinstache]

Feel free to keep levying accusations and throwing up red herrings in order to not answer a single question. As I said you're not interested in actually engaging. You'd rather just wind up the outrage machine in order to justify your point of view.

You're just throwing a childish fit because I won't offer you a perfect utopian solution of what a voluntary society is. I already told you that I'm not the lord and savior of all human conflict! But I guess you didn't like the answer. So Howabout this one, it would be one in where people like you, who believe they have the right to everyone elses property by way of force, would not exist. LOLz!

But keep denying that the use of force is actually force. Ha Ha.

I'm not angry or upset. I'm just asking you how it'd all work and you can't answer that. Nothing I've asked requires you to be the lord and savior of all human conflict, it just requires some critical thinking and acceptance of possible flaws. You don't like the way that our current society is structured. I've asked for an alternative. You provided an answer. I'm asking for further information about this voluntary society and you can't come up with any answers and instead resort to "I don't know." You haven't come up with anything other than government is theft. Nothing else, nothing to add to it, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

But now you're coming to the core of it. You're now saying anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint shouldn't be part of your society. That your world that you'd construct would be filled with people who believed exactly like you do. Except we've already determined that a society painted that way has no clue how it would run. No clue how roads would be made, property lines drawn, fires put out, education set up...etc.

No one has yet to use force on me to pay taxes. I choose to pay my taxes. If I don't want to I could leave. There is choice here. You choose not to see it though.

You've got a great opportunity here to demonstrate how your ideal society would actually function and you can't come up with a single solid answer. Not one. Just that it would. An empty claim.

Oh, the core, you got me! Since you obviously missed my sarcastic jab at your ideology, followed by [LOLz!] I guess all irony is lost on you when I suggested banning aggression in a free society. This is becoming too comical. I can see why you didn't want to engage at first.

I have already presented some idea's and the summary of your argument is "BUT BAD PEOPLE!!" so excuse me if I don't want to engage in that level of intellect.

All these pages and your arguments are summarized as
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
BAD PEOPLE
MUH ROADS

And there is especially no point when you magically deny the use of force exist, just because you agree to the robbery.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Are gay people afforded the same rights as others?

Your problem is that you believe that rights are granted to you by a ruling class of people.

You do not get your rights because you're gay, black, white, female or muslim. You get them because you're a damn human being! You're born natural rights as a human.

Until you can grasp that concept, there's no point in going forward.

No, I don't believe that rights are granted by a ruling class of people at all.  I haven't said that at all.  I have however, seen that the right to be gay openly is often attacked by people who don't agree.  There are enough people who attack minorities of all kinds, that some form of protection is necessary to allow what you call 'natural rights' to exist.

No one has the right to harass, intimidate or threaten anyone and anyone who does that can expect equal retaliation in their own defense to deter that behavior. If you're interested in protecting rights the responsibility falls on the individual.

The problem is when a govt tries to step in, they claim that a gay man has a right to be served at a restaurant. This totally violates that restaurant owner's private property and philosophical beliefs. Because at the same time, the black store owner is forced to those same standards and has to serve some racist bigot.

So the society itself needs to self regulate those situations of free association to avoid offering contradictory rights based on differences.

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.

[matchewed]

Feel free to keep levying accusations and throwing up red herrings in order to not answer a single question. As I said you're not interested in actually engaging. You'd rather just wind up the outrage machine in order to justify your point of view.

You're just throwing a childish fit because I won't offer you a perfect utopian solution of what a voluntary society is. I already told you that I'm not the lord and savior of all human conflict! But I guess you didn't like the answer. So Howabout this one, it would be one in where people like you, who believe they have the right to everyone elses property by way of force, would not exist. LOLz!

But keep denying that the use of force is actually force. Ha Ha.

I'm not angry or upset. I'm just asking you how it'd all work and you can't answer that. Nothing I've asked requires you to be the lord and savior of all human conflict, it just requires some critical thinking and acceptance of possible flaws. You don't like the way that our current society is structured. I've asked for an alternative. You provided an answer. I'm asking for further information about this voluntary society and you can't come up with any answers and instead resort to "I don't know." You haven't come up with anything other than government is theft. Nothing else, nothing to add to it, nada, zip, zilch, zero.

But now you're coming to the core of it. You're now saying anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint shouldn't be part of your society. That your world that you'd construct would be filled with people who believed exactly like you do. Except we've already determined that a society painted that way has no clue how it would run. No clue how roads would be made, property lines drawn, fires put out, education set up...etc.

No one has yet to use force on me to pay taxes. I choose to pay my taxes. If I don't want to I could leave. There is choice here. You choose not to see it though.

You've got a great opportunity here to demonstrate how your ideal society would actually function and you can't come up with a single solid answer. Not one. Just that it would. An empty claim.

Oh, the core, you got me! Since you obviously missed my sarcastic jab at your ideology, followed by [LOLz!] I guess all irony is lost on you when I suggested banning aggression in a free society. This is becoming too comical. I can see why you didn't want to engage at first.

I have already presented some idea's and the summary of your argument is "BUT BAD PEOPLE!!" so excuse me if I don't want to engage in that level of intellect.

All these pages and your arguments are summarized as
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
BAD PEOPLE
MUH ROADS

And there is especially no point when you magically deny the use of force exist, just because you agree to the robbery.

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?

[GrayGhost]

What this conversation reenforces for me is that when you take any single value/virtue to an extreme you get some pretty bizarre conclusions. Happily, your views are in an extreme minority and unlikely to influence my life or those I care about :)

Now this is a really ironic thing for a Mustachian to be saying. In case you haven't noticed, the western world continues to overconsume in happy ignorance of us, and whenever the general public finds out about us, they pretty much laugh us off as nutjobs.

If your argument is that, "You're in the extreme minority and you take your philosophical views to their logical ends, therefore you're nuts and I shouldn't bother taking your views seriously," I think you really lack in open-mindedness.

Don't worry, there are plenty of shitty ideas out there that can be ignored or disregarded long before you get to any interesting extremes, but that's largely because of internal inconsistencies. Here's one commonly found among American left wingers--the death penalty and concealed carry ought to be outlawed... but it's okay to abort a viable fetus. An internal inconsistency common to right wingers is that the US is a "Christian nation" (whatever that means) despite the very clear language of the First Amendment. You rarely find such stark inconsistencies among libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

In any case, I am perfectly content with being in an extreme minority. After all, I am a Mustachian, and I am also an atheist, I also believe in equal rights for gay people and women, which puts me in the severe minority when you consider all peoples in all times. Apart from that, when you consider the shocking philosophical victories minorities have won, such as the Civil Rights movement, and increasingly marijuana legalization, suddenly being a philosophical minority isn't such a bad thing. Furthermore, history is on the side of the libertarians, as we have seen, in the past few centuries, the following trends: the end of legal slavery, motions toward ending military conscription, motions towards ending war, the concealed carry revolution in the US, and others.

What is a crime in this society?

I'll let Mr.Macinstache speak for himself, but I'd like to address this question.

What ought to be crimes in such a society are things that clearly violate or infringe on the rights of other people. The saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose," is quite apt here. Libertarians tend to believe in something called the non-aggression principle, which means that you don't aggress against other people. We are not necessarily pacifists, but if you violate the rights of another person except for in a matter of self-defense or defense of property, you're not compatible with libertarianism.

Practically speaking, here are a few examples of what libertarians tend to believe.

Prostitution: it ought to be legal, because it doesn't involve anything but voluntary activity.
Polygamy: same as above, unless there is coercion of some sort involved.
Free expression: we take this very seriously, and support the rights of, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church to engage in their ridiculousity. On the other hand, if they enter private property and the property owner doesn't like what they're doing, the property owner is free to tell them to leave. If they don't leave, then they're violating the property rights of the property owner.
Assault: illegal. You don't get to use force or the threat of force against someone else unless they do the same against you first.
Theft: also illegal. You don't get to take someone else's property unless they agree to some form of transaction, or in some very extreme situations involving contract laws. Libertarians are completely fine with the idea of secured loans, for example.
Pollution: Now here we're getting a bit interesting. Pollution clearly does step on the toes of other people, since it demonstrably, materially affects their property and health. Unfortunately we have had a series of court decisions in the past centuries, not to mention entire industries, built around pollution. I am therefore among the libertarians who think it is entirely reasonable for those who pollute (include car drivers like you and me!) to provide redress for their harms through gasoline and carbon taxes and the like.
Drugs: should be legal. All of them. Note that this doesn't mean that we necessarily support using drugs, we just don't support locking people up for using them.

As far as national defense goes, well, firstly, it seems incomprehensible that another voluntary society would engage in a resource or land grab of some sort. Naturally there may be property disputes of some sort, but the idea of societies going to war to solve them is not realistic. I suspect that if two voluntary societies have a severe disagreement about property rights, they might: come to some understanding or agreement with one another, file claims in a mutually agreed upon institution of justice, or something like that. Frankly the answer is similar to the way western nations today solve their disagreements, except there would be a greatly reduced implied threat of military action.

I'm glad for all of these questions and all of this skepticism directed at voluntarism, but here's an idea. Try to forget that you have been brought up and taught to support the idea of "democracy" and governments, and then ask tough questions about the nature of governance to yourself. Here are a few good ones.

What do you do, in a democracy, if you are a minority of some sort, and you wish to change a law that seems to target you?
What do you do if you're not able to rally enough of the public or politicians to your cause?

As for the idea that we are a government of consent, well, just think about all the laws or procedures you don't consent to.

Let’s say a prohibitionist law was passed into effect and you had voted for the prohibitionist law or candidate. Some would say that you consented to be bound by the outcome. And if you voted against the prohibitionist law or for an antiprohibitionist candidate? Well, they would add, you participated in the procedure by which the decision was made, so you consented to be bound by the outcome. And if you didn’t vote, or didn’t even have an opinion? Well, they would add, you surely can’t complain now, since you forfeited your chance to infl uence the outcome by not voting! As the English libertarian Herbert Spencer observed a long time ago of such arguments, “curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted—whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this.” Awkward, indeed. If you always “consent,” regardless of what you actually say or do, then the term “consent” means nothing, because it means “non-consent,” as well as “consent.” When that is the case, a
word has been emptied of meaning.

So yes, the government has the consent of the governed, given that consent is a meaningless term.

[matchewed]

What is a crime in this society?

I'll let Mr.Macinstache speak for himself, but I'd like to address this question.

What ought to be crimes in such a society are things that clearly violate or infringe on the rights of other people. The saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose," is quite apt here. Libertarians tend to believe in something called the non-aggression principle, which means that you don't aggress against other people. We are not necessarily pacifists, but if you violate the rights of another person except for in a matter of self-defense or defense of property, you're not compatible with libertarianism.

Practically speaking, here are a few examples of what libertarians tend to believe.

Prostitution: it ought to be legal, because it doesn't involve anything but voluntary activity.
Polygamy: same as above, unless there is coercion of some sort involved.
Free expression: we take this very seriously, and support the rights of, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church to engage in their ridiculousity. On the other hand, if they enter private property and the property owner doesn't like what they're doing, the property owner is free to tell them to leave. If they don't leave, then they're violating the property rights of the property owner.
Assault: illegal. You don't get to use force or the threat of force against someone else unless they do the same against you first.
Theft: also illegal. You don't get to take someone else's property unless they agree to some form of transaction, or in some very extreme situations involving contract laws. Libertarians are completely fine with the idea of secured loans, for example.
Pollution: Now here we're getting a bit interesting. Pollution clearly does step on the toes of other people, since it demonstrably, materially affects their property and health. Unfortunately we have had a series of court decisions in the past centuries, not to mention entire industries, built around pollution. I am therefore among the libertarians who think it is entirely reasonable for those who pollute (include car drivers like you and me!) to provide redress for their harms through gasoline and carbon taxes and the like.
Drugs: should be legal. All of them. Note that this doesn't mean that we necessarily support using drugs, we just don't support locking people up for using them.

As far as national defense goes, well, firstly, it seems incomprehensible that another voluntary society would engage in a resource or land grab of some sort. Naturally there may be property disputes of some sort, but the idea of societies going to war to solve them is not realistic. I suspect that if two voluntary societies have a severe disagreement about property rights, they might: come to some understanding or agreement with one another, file claims in a mutually agreed upon institution of justice, or something like that. Frankly the answer is similar to the way western nations today solve their disagreements, except there would be a greatly reduced implied threat of military action.

I'm glad for all of these questions and all of this skepticism directed at voluntarism, but here's an idea. Try to forget that you have been brought up and taught to support the idea of "democracy" and governments, and then ask tough questions about the nature of governance to yourself. Here are a few good ones.

What do you do, in a democracy, if you are a minority of some sort, and you wish to change a law that seems to target you?
What do you do if you're not able to rally enough of the public or politicians to your cause?

As for the idea that we are a government of consent, well, just think about all the laws or procedures you don't consent to.

Let’s say a prohibitionist law was passed into effect and you had voted for the prohibitionist law or candidate. Some would say that you consented to be bound by the outcome. And if you voted against the prohibitionist law or for an antiprohibitionist candidate? Well, they would add, you participated in the procedure by which the decision was made, so you consented to be bound by the outcome. And if you didn’t vote, or didn’t even have an opinion? Well, they would add, you surely can’t complain now, since you forfeited your chance to infl uence the outcome by not voting! As the English libertarian Herbert Spencer observed a long time ago of such arguments, “curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted—whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this.” Awkward, indeed. If you always “consent,” regardless of what you actually say or do, then the term “consent” means nothing, because it means “non-consent,” as well as “consent.” When that is the case, a
word has been emptied of meaning.

So yes, the government has the consent of the governed, given that consent is a meaningless term.

I don't disagree with you on several points. I too think prostitution should be legal as long as it is done under free will, no duress, and like you've mentioned this person's rights not being violated. Ditto with drugs and the like. In personal rights I'm a huge fan of keeping the government out of my life. Do what you want as long as you're not hurting others is a simplistic way to state it. I actually have a very libertarian viewpoint. I just can hold other concepts in my head at the same time, or rather see the value in other systems at the same time. There is in my head a difference between "The government should respect my rights." and "The government should not exist because my rights."

You bring up one of my sticky points though. When something isn't so clear cut like pollution you mentioned taxes as a form of redress. We've already established that taxes are theft. Now we're saying that some taxes are justifiable or rather some theft is justifiable. Who decides what defines pollution? How much is acceptable? I mentioned building roads in my previous posts because they're a shared resource that is equitable to all who use it. If we're going to rely on private entities to provide it how can we make sure that they are provided in an equitable manner?

In other words who helps out individuals when they're being preyed upon by either individuals or entities with more power than them? You mention in your last part about minorities desiring to change laws having a tough time with it. How does the treatment of minorities hash out in this land of "voluntary societies" when people start voluntelling others to GTFO?

As for what would I do if I were a minority and wished to change a law. I'd organize like minded people. I'd try to elect representatives. But you've already told me to forget I've been brought up in democracy and governments. You've also put a condition that I'm unable to rally enough political and public support for my cause. So what's left? I'd find somewhere else to go. If there was something so intolerable why would I tolerate it? And if it was tolerable I'd just keep trying to change it.

[grantmeaname]

What is a crime in this society?

I'll let Mr.Macinstache speak for himself, but I'd like to address this question.

What ought to be crimes in such a society are things that clearly violate or infringe on the rights of other people. The saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose," is quite apt here. Libertarians tend to believe in something called the non-aggression principle, which means that you don't aggress against other people. We are not necessarily pacifists, but if you violate the rights of another person except for in a matter of self-defense or defense of property, you're not compatible with libertarianism.

Practically speaking, here are a few examples of what libertarians tend to believe.

Prostitution: it ought to be legal, because it doesn't involve anything but voluntary activity.
Polygamy: same as above, unless there is coercion of some sort involved.
Free expression: we take this very seriously, and support the rights of, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church to engage in their ridiculousity. On the other hand, if they enter private property and the property owner doesn't like what they're doing, the property owner is free to tell them to leave. If they don't leave, then they're violating the property rights of the property owner.
Assault: illegal. You don't get to use force or the threat of force against someone else unless they do the same against you first.
Theft: also illegal. You don't get to take someone else's property unless they agree to some form of transaction, or in some very extreme situations involving contract laws. Libertarians are completely fine with the idea of secured loans, for example.
Pollution: Now here we're getting a bit interesting. Pollution clearly does step on the toes of other people, since it demonstrably, materially affects their property and health. Unfortunately we have had a series of court decisions in the past centuries, not to mention entire industries, built around pollution. I am therefore among the libertarians who think it is entirely reasonable for those who pollute (include car drivers like you and me!) to provide redress for their harms through gasoline and carbon taxes and the like.
Drugs: should be legal. All of them. Note that this doesn't mean that we necessarily support using drugs, we just don't support locking people up for using them.

What makes the negative externalities of pollution merit regulation when the negative externalities of prostitution, polygamy, and drugs are not?

Don't worry, there are plenty of shitty ideas out there that can be ignored or disregarded long before you get to any interesting extremes, but that's largely because of internal inconsistencies. Here's one commonly found among American left wingers--the death penalty and concealed carry ought to be outlawed... but it's okay to abort a viable fetus. An internal inconsistency common to right wingers is that the US is a "Christian nation" (whatever that means) despite the very clear language of the First Amendment. You rarely find such stark inconsistencies among libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

The left-wing contradiction is not a contradiction if you believe that life begins at some point other than conception or you believe that personhood is an emergent property of cells and not something that happens through spiritual/supernatural action. Since we interpret legal documents in their context , the right-wing contradiction isn't a contradiction if you think the First Amendment was written for freedom of Christian worship. (Not that I subscribe to either of these views.) And you'll note that I found a contradiction like four sentences after you proclaimed yourself free from contradictions. I think if you start from the assumptions of any mode of thinking you can often follow it to the end without seeing a contradiction,  but when you examine another's mode of thinking with your assumptions the "contradictions" become apparent. So everyone sees the 'contradictions' in others' logic but not in their own.

[swiper]

What this conversation reenforces for me is that when you take any single value/virtue to an extreme you get some pretty bizarre conclusions. Happily, your views are in an extreme minority and unlikely to influence my life or those I care about :)

Now this is a really ironic thing for a Mustachian to be saying. In case you haven't noticed, the western world continues to overconsume in happy ignorance of us, and whenever the general public finds out about us, they pretty much laugh us off as nutjobs.

I actually don’t think we are all that special, but thank you for making me a Mustachian, I never really considered it, until now :). I don’t believe MMM advocates frugality as the only virtue(?) one should care about, which is the message (liberty) I picked up from the earlier posters. I’d love to hear libertarian thought on fairness, compassion, purity etc. What happens when they are at odds with liberty?

If your argument is that, "You're in the extreme minority and you take your philosophical views to their logical ends, therefore you're nuts and I shouldn't bother taking your views seriously," I think you really lack in open-mindedness.

That wasn't my argument at all. The argument stopped well before that, when i realized the other party(ies) didn’t see a role from an organized government of any sort and failed to come up with any examples of how the “alternative“ society might actually function. My remark was a conclusion I had arrived at because I didn't buy the weak pitch presented and got tired of aggressive/negative tone. I’m glad to see you generally seem more open to having a rational discussion.

Don't worry, there are plenty of shitty ideas out there that can be ignored or disregarded long before you get to any interesting extremes, but that's largely because of internal inconsistencies. Here's one commonly found among American left wingers--the death penalty and concealed carry ought to be outlawed... but it's okay to abort a viable fetus. An internal inconsistency common to right wingers is that the US is a "Christian nation" (whatever that means) despite the very clear language of the First Amendment. You rarely find such stark inconsistencies among libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

You find inconsistencies, because it difficult to summarize someones values in a single political label. For many people, the  death-penalty/abortion issue simply comes down to where they believe life begins. I don’t know much about your constitution or the “Christian nation” so I won’t comment there. Also, some political labels are more popular than others and hence more inconsistencies will naturally emerge.

It may surprise you that many of my friends (admittedly Canadian ones) consider me to be a bit of a libertarian and yet I here I have been branded a statist. I agree with you on some of the libertarian fronts you presented (freedom of speech/drugs/prostitution,  as long as we address negative externalities)  Perhaps I’m a very soft libertarian, we are all on a scale somewhere.

In any case, I am perfectly content with being in an extreme minority. After all, I am a Mustachian, and I am also an atheist, I also believe in equal rights for gay people and women, which puts me in the severe minority when you consider all peoples in all times. Apart from that, when you consider the shocking philosophical victories minorities have won, such as the Civil Rights movement, and increasingly marijuana legalization, suddenly being a philosophical minority isn't such a bad thing. Furthermore, history is on the side of the libertarians, as we have seen, in the past few centuries, the following trends: the end of legal slavery, motions toward ending military conscription, motions towards ending war, the concealed carry revolution in the US, and others.

Being in a minority, doesn't make you right or wrong. It just makes you a minority.

[Annamal]

OK so here's an interesting scenario (and it even involves our local equivalent of the TSA, who I have found to be friendly and efficient by and large).

New Zealand is an island and hugely dependent on (private) agriculture, thus also vulnerable to imported agricultural diseases.

We have strict boarder control (with adorable dogs whose entire purpose in life is sniffing out fruit and vegetable matter) and quite often fine incoming passengers who ignore the (many)  notices about not bringing in anything that could potentially have a disease that could afflict our local crops and animals.

This certainly impinges on the freedom of incoming travellers (who might have quite liked to enjoy the apple they had in their back-pack and probably don't want to pay an $800 fine) but on the other hand if they exercise their freedom they will devastate the entire economy of New Zealand (seriously the economic projections are scary).

I do not believe that private enterprise could fill this function as well as the government and more to the point I do not believe that any single enterprise should be granted the power to detain and fine in-coming passengers.

Is there a libertarian solution to this very nasty problem?

[GrayGhost]

What makes the negative externalities of pollution merit regulation when the negative externalities of prostitution, polygamy, and drugs are not?

I don't accept that drug use, polygamy, and prostitution by nature involve externalities.

Externalities arising from drug use--assault, theft, driving under the influence--should be prosecuted, naturally. But drug use need not result in assault, theft, or driving under the influence. In fact, it quite frequently doesn't result in any of these things.

Prostitution also doesn't involve externalities. I actually can't think of any way in which pure prostitution (in other words, prostitution not involving human trafficking, slavery, or coerced labor) might result in an externality.

Polygamy reduces the pool of those available for mating, and I guess that's an externality, but staying single also affects the mating pool. I mean damn, if you think polygamy results in negative externalities, you should certainly support banning certain forms of offensive expression or counter culture activity, which affect the psyches of those in a society far more than adjusting the number of people available for mating by a few percentage points.

I actually don’t think we are all that special, but thank you for making me a Mustachian, I never really considered it, until now :). I don’t believe MMM advocates frugality as the only virtue(?) one should care about, which is the message (liberty) I picked up from the earlier posters. I’d love to hear libertarian thought on fairness, compassion, purity etc. What happens when they are at odds with liberty?

My point is that as Mustachians, we are very much a subculture, a counterculture even, that comprises perhaps a fraction of the population at best. The rest of the country gets along without even being aware of us, and when they do find out about us, they pretty much laugh at us for being nutjobs and ignore our points. Extreme libertarians are treated in a similar fashion.

As far as fairness and compassion go, they're perfectly compatible with libertarianism, as long as they're voluntary. In other words, if you want to help a guy in crutches with his grocery bags, that's absolutely your right, and I suspect that almost all libertarians (with the possible exception of some Objectivists) would applaud you. On the other hand, if you wanted to force someone else to help a guy in crutches with his grocery bags, that's not compatible with libertarianism.

Let me take it a bit further and say that it's perfectly libertarian to form a company, or a corporation, that has a principle of paying its workers no less than $X dollars per hour, and refuses to pay its CEO or whatever more than $Y per hour. It is not libertarian, however, to support a law demanding the same, because then you effectively threaten people who would form such a company with prison time for disagreeing with your social views.

As for purity, I'm not really sure what you're talking about, but let me remind you of the non-aggression principle. As long as it's something that's voluntarily done and doesn't involve forcing other people, you can bet that libertarians will generally agree that it ought to be legal.

That wasn't my argument at all. The argument stopped well before that, when i realized the other party(ies) didn’t see a role from an organized government of any sort and failed to come up with any examples of how the “alternative“ society might actually function. My remark was a conclusion I had arrived at because I didn't buy the weak pitch presented and got tired of aggressive/negative tone. I’m glad to see you generally seem more open to having a rational discussion.

Fair enough. I certainly agree that some of my ideological compatriots could learn a thing or two about PR.

It may surprise you that many of my friends (admittedly Canadian ones) consider me to be a bit of a libertarian and yet I here I have been branded a statist. I agree with you on some of the libertarian fronts you presented (freedom of speech/drugs/prostitution,  as long as we address negative externalities)  Perhaps I’m a very soft libertarian, we are all on a scale somewhere.

If you have a few minutes, mash dis.
If you have a few more minutes, mash dis.

I am squarely within the Gary Johnson/Ron Paul camp. As for the political compass, here's where I am.

OK so here's an interesting scenario (and it even involves our local equivalent of the TSA, who I have found to be friendly and efficient by and large).

New Zealand is an island and hugely dependent on (private) agriculture, thus also vulnerable to imported agricultural diseases.

We have strict boarder control (with adorable dogs whose entire purpose in life is sniffing out fruit and vegetable matter) and quite often fine incoming passengers who ignore the (many)  notices about not bringing in anything that could potentially have a disease that could afflict our local crops and animals.

This certainly impinges on the freedom of incoming travellers (who might have quite liked to enjoy the apple they had in their back-pack and probably don't want to pay an $800 fine) but on the other hand if they exercise their freedom they will devastate the entire economy of New Zealand (seriously the economic projections are scary).

I do not believe that private enterprise could fill this function as well as the government and more to the point I do not believe that any single enterprise should be granted the power to detain and fine in-coming passengers.

Is there a libertarian solution to this very nasty problem?

I'd point you to my comments regarding pollution. I completely support property rights and the defense thereof, so if an act--such as bringing plants, particularly plants that may grow and may carry diseases--demonstrably harms or endangers the property of other people, including their agriculture, it's entirely reasonable to restrict or even ban that act.

In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for New Zealanders to try to get tourists to keep their fruits and vegetables out, and it's also reasonable to fine them reasonable amounts of money for threatening the ecology of New Zealand.

Practically, I am not a hardline anarchist, and I don't have anything more than a slight academic issue with a government engaging in reasonable activity. In other words, it doesn't matter much to me (and it shouldn't to you, either) if it's a government that's protecting the property rights of New Zealand's farmers, or various private institutions. I guess in a true voluntaryist society, New Zealand's farmers might protect their property individually or by cooperating and forming some sort of defense organization that might be effectively identical to the current system.

But here's something I find a bit ironic.

I do not believe that private enterprise could fill this function as well as the government and more to the point I do not believe that any single enterprise should be granted the power to detain and fine in-coming passengers.

We won't know for sure if private enterprises could fill a security function as well as the government currently does until we try it out. (I'd note that prior to 9/11, airport security was privatized and there is little evidence that the TSA that replaced them is any better).

More to the point--the government IS a single entity that has the power to detain and fine incoming people. It also has other powers, such as the power to fuck up your life for few articulable reasons (see Kim Dotcom), to imprison you for not paying to support it, et cetera, et cetera. Once you start to accept that wrong things are wrong even if they're done by people in uniform, even if they (claim to) have the support of the public, I think you become far more libertarian!

[CDP45]

What this conversation reenforces for me is that when you take any single value/virtue to an extreme you get some pretty bizarre conclusions. Happily, your views are in an extreme minority and unlikely to influence my life or those I care about :)


I actually don’t think we are all that special, but thank you for making me a Mustachian, I never really considered it, until now :). I don’t believe MMM advocates frugality as the only virtue(?) one should care about, which is the message (liberty) I picked up from the earlier posters. I’d love to hear libertarian thought on fairness, compassion, purity etc. What happens when they are at odds with liberty?

The only thing at odds with liberty is aggression.

Don't worry, there are plenty of shitty ideas out there that can be ignored or disregarded long before you get to any interesting extremes, but that's largely because of internal inconsistencies. Here's one commonly found among American left wingers--the death penalty and concealed carry ought to be outlawed... but it's okay to abort a viable fetus. An internal inconsistency common to right wingers is that the US is a "Christian nation" (whatever that means) despite the very clear language of the First Amendment. You rarely find such stark inconsistencies among libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

It may surprise you that many of my friends (admittedly Canadian ones) consider me to be a bit of a libertarian and yet I here I have been branded a statist. I agree with you on some of the libertarian fronts you presented (freedom of speech/drugs/prostitution,  as long as we address negative externalities)  Perhaps I’m a very soft libertarian, we are all on a scale somewhere.

If you don't agree to the non-aggression principle , you're probably a statist. Just like if you don't believe in Allah you're not a Muslim, 

In any case, I am perfectly content with being in an extreme minority. After all, I am a Mustachian, and I am also an atheist, I also believe in equal rights for gay people and women, which puts me in the severe minority when you consider all peoples in all times. Apart from that, when you consider the shocking philosophical victories minorities have won, such as the Civil Rights movement, and increasingly marijuana legalization, suddenly being a philosophical minority isn't such a bad thing. Furthermore, history is on the side of the libertarians, as we have seen, in the past few centuries, the following trends: the end of legal slavery, motions toward ending military conscription, motions towards ending war, the concealed carry revolution in the US, and others.

Being in a minority, doesn't make you right or wrong. It just makes you a minority.

just like almost all the successful people on the planet. Not a great argument either way.

[CDP45]

The answer is respect: respecting individuals rights, respecting people, ending wars, and living with voluntary government.

I am no fan of government, and I don't believe that our rights flow from the government, but I think its a necessary evil. 

Finally, can you really not draw a line between the most prosperous time in human history (now) and representative Democracy being the dominant political system?

Yes there is a correlation between prosperity and the degree which government respects property rights, my argument is causation where wealth cannot be created without some property rights. That's my argument against Canada's greater taxation than the US.

That's how the American revolution ,which created the first democracy , came to be. The settlers had very broad property rights that were eroded over time from what they were used to and rebelled. They came to live in freedom with the fruits of their labor, not start a democracy.

First we are not a democracy, we are republic and second we are not the first republic, the founding fathers took much from the Greek Golden age.

Naw, that's a stretch to call anything in Ancient Greece a democracy or republic. There was a lot more voting going on in the colonies before the constitution also. I think my point stands drawing a connection between the American revolution and today's spread of democratic republics.

[CDP45]

What makes the negative externalities of pollution merit regulation when the negative externalities of prostitution, polygamy, and drugs are not?

Because there is actually bodily injury and property damage from pollution. It's about property rights.

There's also been a lot of questions about stopping crimes and violence, but I ask what's stopping them now? The fear of police reprisal? Well that clearly doesn't stop it all so what we have now isn't  a totally full-proof way to stop every conceivable what if criminal scenario, so we should just dismiss our current way of policing right? Hmm, or maybe there is a way to improve public safety without having a prison state and a war or (some) drugs. Maybe crime is more affected by income and concealed carry, not arbitrary punishments that only apply to the poor.

[Annamal]

We won't know for sure if private enterprises could fill a security function as well as the government currently does until we try it out. (I'd note that prior to 9/11, airport security was privatized and there is little evidence that the TSA that replaced them is any better).

It's not that I believe that private security couldn't do a decent job it's just that a for-profit company must inevitably seek the maximum profit for minimum expenditure, which is fine when you're dealing with widgets or shoes or car-parts (there's an apocryphal story about Ford looking for the parts of his cars that out-lasted all the others and then seek to make them in a less expensive and durable way) but lousy when you are dealing with something where a single human moment of inattention could cost your entire economy.

More to the point--the government IS a single entity that has the power to detain and fine incoming people. It also has other powers, such as the power to fuck up your life for few articulable reasons (see Kim Dotcom), to imprison you for not paying to support it, et cetera, et cetera. Once you start to accept that wrong things are wrong even if they're done by people in uniform, even if they (claim to) have the support of the public, I think you become far more libertarian!

I absolutely believe that the government needs controls and scrutiny (and a high turn-over) and I will be voting for the greens who have continually advocated for that over-sight and against the kind of political stunt that embroiled Kim Dotcom ( I do not believe you can be imprisoned for not paying child support here)

P.S if you want a negative externality for legalised prostitution, there's a fair bit of property damage happening in Christchurch (street-based prostitution took a hit when the central city essentially closed after the earthquakes and moved out into the suburbs...often using other people's property without their consent).

 It's pretty minor in comparison with the good it does when the law no longer sets police and prostitutes against each-other (and when the tax system gets more revenue and ACC covers work related injury, heck there's even a prostitutes collective) but it does exist.

[GuitarStv]

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?

[Mr.Macinstache]

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.

[Mr.Macinstache]

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?

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.