I haven't read this, but from the intro, its right up my alley... thx for posting it.
Cops Kill Black Man, Caught On Tape
- Thread starter productionhead
- Start date
I haven't read this, but from the intro, its right up my alley... thx for posting it.
There would be no incentive to invade a land full of individuals who would not submit to taxation. That's the reason militaries invade other countries, it's to take control of the human livestock and gain power over a monopoly.
An ancap society can exist in the future, but at the moment too many still believe in "the necessity of government", which of course is all indoctrinated bullshit.
Direct human ownership (slavery) was something every major civilization practiced up until relatively recently. A paradigm shift occurred and people realized owning others is immoral. This happened on a global scale. It's a sign that it too can happen when people finally evolve past this archaic practice of governments. Though I'm sure by the time that happens, I'll be dead.
Interestingly, we have both today. Democracy has not precluded bloodletting for power. In fact, Hans Hoppe made the argument that democracy increases it.
But that's beside my question of how law might evolve from the ground up.
To simplify my earlier "neighborhood," let's suppose our community is comprised of only 3 people: myself, you, and Ice. (We can add more people later.) In that case, why would our options be limited to a "Form of democracy or a bloody struggle for power?"
I certainly would never put a ruler in place over you or Ice. I despise aggression. Nor would I use violence to settle disputes with either of you. I'm pretty certain Ice would have a similar perspective. I have less history with you, so I'm less certain of yours.
I am assuming you are neither a violent man nor a power-hungry man (correct me if I'm wrong). That being the case, could we not live peacefully without forming a government or participating in a power struggle? In fact, wouldn't doing so be in our interests since warmaking is chaotic and costly?
Further, as others join our small community, wouldn't market forces naturally encourage peace? If I'm a customer for your cow's milk, and you pay Ice to fix your wagon and shoe your horses, wouldn't we be even less inclined to wage war against each other?*
And as our society grows, wouldn't hundreds of insurance and defense agencies form to provide coverage and protection for their customers? And given the lack of monopoly, wouldn't said agencies work to attract and retain customers through greater service, lower prices, more predictability, less chaos, etc. (unlike today's law enforcement agencies)?
To be sure, as our community grows, it is likely to become home to a few sociopaths. Those few individuals may be inclined to obtain power or use violence against us. But as long as they remain a minority, and most of us continue to agree that neither aggression nor violence are acceptable, market forces would quell their attempts.
The assertion that we would either "go with some Form of democracy or have a bloody struggle for power" needs to be proven.
* I realize the examples I'm using may seem silly, but I'm working without a map here.
You can't draw objective conclusions from your own opinion.
In the past, most militaries have invaded foreign territory to raid and pillage, not because they wanted to take some taxation over. The Spanish went to Mexiko, took all the gold and jewelry and went home.
In the past, most militaries have invaded foreign territory to raid and pillage, not because they wanted to take some taxation over. The Spanish went to Mexiko, took all the gold and jewelry and went home.
It doesn't exist because most people are weak and terrified of living life on life's terms.
Our entire existence from the moment we are born is spent trying to adjust to an uncomfortable condition (life) full of calamatious uncertainty and peril.
This makes human beings as a lot extremely succeptible to the suggestion that some "system" can ease their discomfort, and give them the secure feeling they crave so intently.
That's why "liberty" will never be as popular as submission to a central power, because most people want to be "taken care of" and they are willing to surrender just about anything in order to ensure that they will be.
Great fortunes rarely persist beyond a generation or two, the populist fear that moneyed interests would secure some kind of neo-fuedalist privilege is ludicrous.
When was the last time you heard about the Vanderbilts and their enormous political power?
So just the three of us. We still need to have an opinion on international affairs because they exist. We have borders. On what basis do we admit people to join. Where do they settle. What if i meet a girl that you and ice consider a bitch and just can't get along with.
You can't just claim market forces will solve x. You can't react to aggression with non aggression and just expect the aggressor to quit being an asshole.
What if disaster strikes and ruins your land so you'll starve unless i sell my wheat to you but im Oh so savvy and know that I'd make more money selling it offshoere than giving it to charity? How would you react to certain death? With non violence?
You can't just claim market forces will solve x. You can't react to aggression with non aggression and just expect the aggressor to quit being an asshole.
What if disaster strikes and ruins your land so you'll starve unless i sell my wheat to you but im Oh so savvy and know that I'd make more money selling it offshoere than giving it to charity? How would you react to certain death? With non violence?
Great fortunes rarely persist beyond a generation or two, the populist fear that moneyed interests would secure some kind of neo-fuedalism is ludicrous.
When was the last time you heard about the Vanderbilts and their enormous political power?[/QUOTE]
The lennisters are doing well.
Look at this video please. How do you think it would worked out in the US? What would be reaction of Police to something like this?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdg8Sp1HUKM&list=UUdZwMpK-iWqCos46xPscDeg]Police Trainer (SA Wardega) - YouTube[/ame]
P.S In this country you can't drink in public places. I don't know how it's now but I think is at least $30 fine depending on your behavior.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdg8Sp1HUKM&list=UUdZwMpK-iWqCos46xPscDeg]Police Trainer (SA Wardega) - YouTube[/ame]
P.S In this country you can't drink in public places. I don't know how it's now but I think is at least $30 fine depending on your behavior.
The vanderbilts had no shot at real power because all they had was money. And some trains. Government and all that shit already existed. The question is, what would happen to those ultra rich when there is no such thing. How can you claim no leader would emerge? It's such a weird thing to say. How can you prevent structure from forming. That's not a trivial statement. And it would be unnatural. It's not unnatural for groups of people to have leaders. That's how things organize. A psychologist would probably label you non violencers the psychological anomaly. That might make you better people but it also makes you rare. And you'd probably be dead in less forgiving conditions.
Non-aggressive and non-violent do not mean the same thing.
Stop by my house unannounced after 1am, and I'll explain the difference.
These are interesting questions.
On the matter of international affairs, I suggest we avoid introducing them at this time for the sake of simplicity. I'm not certain whether you're referring to commerce or invasion. Either way, it's helpful - to me, at least - to set it aside and keep things simple for now. We can introduce it later as our neighborhood grows larger than 3 people.
You noted that we have borders. I'd say the only borders that matter to me are those that reflect where my property begins and ends. I don't care about country, state, or city borders. It's just a neighborhood with us 3 guys.
With regard to rules for admitting people into our neighborhood, I don't think we need rules. If someone wants to "own" (or homestead) the land adjacent to mine, I'm cool with it. They can settle anywhere they want as long as it's not on my porch.
Suppose you meet a girl that neither Ice nor myself like. Speaking for myself, no problem. I may not visit your home as often as otherwise. Or maybe she'll grow on me.
Regarding market forces promoting peace, I should clarify by extending my definition of aggression. I define it as an initiation of force - the first act of violence against property or person. For example, if you approach me and hit me in the face, you are the aggressor. With that definition, aggression can be handled in numerous ways: retaliation, ostracization, negotiation, etc. I might also ask Ice to arbitrate the problem toward a resolution.
I wasn't claiming that market forces would solve all disputes to the perfect satisfaction of all parties. I was only trying to present an example of how they might solve many of them.
With regard to disaster striking and ruining my land, it's a good question. Years ago, Walter Block posited a similar circumstance. I'll try to recreate it from memory...
You are in the woods, lost and starving. You come upon a cabin that is stocked with food. You have two choices: you can break into the cabin, essentially becoming an aggressor (initiation of force against another's person or property). Or you can die.
In this scenario, you don't have the right to trespass. But you presumably want to live, and thus decide to break into the cabin and eat.
Let's suppose I own the cabin and its contents, and learn of your trespass. I would be inclined to negotiate a resolution with you. There are countless ways you might be able to repay me - with products, labor, access to your home, etc.
You're asking me how I would react to certain death in the event of a disaster? Frankly, I don't know. In the event that neither you nor Ice are willing to help me out, would I become a Jean Valjean and steal some bread? If so, what would be the consequences of that action?
I don't pretend to have answers. Nor am I pretending that the neighborhood I'm suggesting would be a utopia. It's just fun to build law from the ground up and consider various problems and solutions.
Side note: I need to bail out and get some work done.
Nah. I've just had this "debate" about 200 times, and I can't really get hard for it anymore.
Don't take it personally. It gets boring having to explain the same shit over and over.
I wonder when people are going to actually stand up for themselves and create a real "police" force made up entirely of civilian volunteers. We have every right to do so.
If a cop threatened your life and you were armed, would you hesitate? I know I wouldn't, regardless of the consequences.
If a cop threatened your life and you were armed, would you hesitate? I know I wouldn't, regardless of the consequences.
Me too. That's why I'm trying to keep things civil and take a brainstorming approach. That's a helluva lot more fun.
Me too. That's why I'm trying to keep things civil and take a brainstorming approach. That's a helluva lot more fun.
I'm going to take my ancap cialis, and see if I can't get it hard for the big A one last ime.
Im presenting you with problems.
Let's say we agree on a pretty basic law. Thou shall not kill.
Now a good friend with a weirdly unnatural taste for killing had to run from his local government and i give him some of my land to settle on. He just became your neighbour. Now heavily incentivized to lobby for the law to remain intact, have you not forced him to obey the law the majority agreed upon?
You can't steal something from me and then negotiate the terms. You don't have a position to bargain from. That's how governments operate. They take your shit for x $ and if you don't agree they send the police. You don't have that kind of power. I don't recognize ice arbitrating because I'm wary of setting precedents about the poor stealing from the rich.
The consequence would probably some monopoly scenario where you'd have to pay for your debts with real estate because anything else was already not worth enough to trade in for food (?)
Let's say we agree on a pretty basic law. Thou shall not kill.
Now a good friend with a weirdly unnatural taste for killing had to run from his local government and i give him some of my land to settle on. He just became your neighbour. Now heavily incentivized to lobby for the law to remain intact, have you not forced him to obey the law the majority agreed upon?
You can't steal something from me and then negotiate the terms. You don't have a position to bargain from. That's how governments operate. They take your shit for x $ and if you don't agree they send the police. You don't have that kind of power. I don't recognize ice arbitrating because I'm wary of setting precedents about the poor stealing from the rich.
The consequence would probably some monopoly scenario where you'd have to pay for your debts with real estate because anything else was already not worth enough to trade in for food (?)
Well, that's only one side of the story. What if they will let him go and he will kill some people because he was drunk or something else? What then, who is to blame at that point? Police.
Man Drives Car into Summer Crowds at Holiday Hotspot in Sopot, Poland - 22 Injured | Inside-Poland.com
http://www.easybranches.eu/european-news/1688084.html
Just before that he was seen deriving like a mad man through the other city.