Someone who needs money would do it, yes. Alternatively the people would live in a place where they DO have access to water.
Governments = Useless? Always?
- Thread starter charlie.simm
- Start date
Someone who needs money would do it, yes. Alternatively the people would live in a place where they DO have access to water.
you can have laws and rules without government but without anyone to enforce them they don't mean shit.
And as you told me government can only force you to do things (agression i think is the word you used). And you are forcibly telling people not to smoke in your home and although that may not be a form of government if you have a village and apply the same rule and you enforce it you then have a governing body.
To not understand that government is a must would mean that you are a total fucking moran not (not directed at you only people to stupid to realize you have to have government, and if you think this means you well maybe you should really think about human behavior and how people operate.)
Property right's aren't enough who will enforce those rights when a group of people come to "your property" and now claim it for their own, one man vs. a group of people is not really fair is it? So your claim on property rights is rather naive. If i am bigger and stronger than you and have more people on my side I will take what I want<----- people call this greed....have you heard of it ?
did you even read the wiki on this.....
"Initially, no system of authority existed in the colony; there were no courts, jails or police."
"The Civil War, as well as a gradual infiltration into the community by those that did not share the same libertarian and economic philosophy, is said to have contributed to its eventual dissolution."
If it was so awesome and worked so well why did it dissolve? Oh right now everyone is a sensible person and respects there fellow man so it's a utopia that can't actually sustain in the real world.
@Suspect D
To understand the problem with John and the water supply, we have to first understand the most common libertarian property rights theory, which is based on John Locke's concept of homesteading.
In nature there exists some water. Then the first human arrives and he begins to use that body of water. This first use constitutes the highest claim, that is no one else can say they were there first.
That's important, because property rights help resolve conflicts. If I know that this piece of land is mine, then if you want to use it, we know you need my permission. If neither of us own it, we're going to fight over who gets to use it, with no one to determine the winner except violence.
But to establish ownership, we need clear title, either first use, or a chain or exchange of that property that legitimizes my claim to it.
So if John got the water first, that is he was the homesteader, and he is an asshole, then people who would rely on the water probably wouldn't have settled there.
Let's say John buys the water rights from the original owner, you, and then suddenly becomes an asshole to everyone drawing water from his property.
This is an unlikely scenario, because I am unaware of any water supply which is exclusively owned in North America for example. Most water sources have multiple rights holders, with easements being used to determine the extent one rights holder can effect the resource.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a mean jerk with a lot of money manages to buy up an entire water supply. Yes, that would suck for the people already there. They would have to pay to bring water in, or sell their land and move. This would probably drive down the value of John's water rights, but if he is mean and crazy, then maybe he doesn't care. He certainly won't have the wealth (or the same wealth) to do that stunt again. He will also damage his reputation in a free society by being anti-social. People will be less likely to want to work with someone who behaves in such a negative manner.
Scenarios like this are similar to "What if Aliens attack?". It's basically a license to theorize a potential threat scenario and construct the parameters in a way which deliberately stresses the libertarian argument. It's usually a short cut around theory and knowledge, and a gotcha game of emotional appeals (similar to, "what about the poor?").
One has to understand in debate, the mindset of the people who propose this stuff. It's a position of fundamental fear and paranoia. Indeed, many of the people arguing in this thread for government are scared or indicate a high level of concern about what would happen if they had to be responsible for their own safety.
When someone is so paranoid of change and bad outcomes, it clouds their capacity to think rationally. To weigh costs and benefits. To take chances and try new things. There is a reason why so many successful people, from athletes, to musicians to business folk are libertarian and not socialist. It's a forward thinking, risk taking social philosophy based around respect rather than insecurity. Successful people tend to have a lot of confidence.
Government and the media do a great job of pitting people against each other, keeping everyone paranoid, everyone separated and divisive. This is the status quo. Hindu vs Muslim, Democrat vs Republican, Black vs White etc.
Ayn Rand had a good answer to a similar question, iirc on the Phil Donahue show. She said (paraphrasing) that nothing essential for life, was so scarce that one person could possibly own it. And when you think about it, that's true and makes the "What if Aliens attack!?" or "What if John is a mean rich guy?!" arguments seem really strained and weak.
When people are so obsessed with security as the people who argue for government are, you can't do much about it. Our most powerful instinct is fear. It's a defense mechanism sometimes, but more often than not, it is used to control us.
Also, the libertarian answer to the water supply is that we should utilize contracts to build lasting relationships for resource security. That's the way that property rights can be limited as a weapon against others.
To understand the problem with John and the water supply, we have to first understand the most common libertarian property rights theory, which is based on John Locke's concept of homesteading.
In nature there exists some water. Then the first human arrives and he begins to use that body of water. This first use constitutes the highest claim, that is no one else can say they were there first.
That's important, because property rights help resolve conflicts. If I know that this piece of land is mine, then if you want to use it, we know you need my permission. If neither of us own it, we're going to fight over who gets to use it, with no one to determine the winner except violence.
But to establish ownership, we need clear title, either first use, or a chain or exchange of that property that legitimizes my claim to it.
So if John got the water first, that is he was the homesteader, and he is an asshole, then people who would rely on the water probably wouldn't have settled there.
Let's say John buys the water rights from the original owner, you, and then suddenly becomes an asshole to everyone drawing water from his property.
1. It is likely people would have already established contracts for water use, which John would be compelled to take on.
2. John would be investing in a valuable and presumably expensive resource to get no return.
3. The people in the surrounding area would likely be hostile and stop trading with John if he denied them access to water.
4. People would trade with John for water.
These are in my opinion, likely scenarios. Only #2 is particularly problematic. If #2 happens, people who did not contract for water usage, and do not have an alternative source, will have to move.2. John would be investing in a valuable and presumably expensive resource to get no return.
3. The people in the surrounding area would likely be hostile and stop trading with John if he denied them access to water.
4. People would trade with John for water.
This is an unlikely scenario, because I am unaware of any water supply which is exclusively owned in North America for example. Most water sources have multiple rights holders, with easements being used to determine the extent one rights holder can effect the resource.
But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a mean jerk with a lot of money manages to buy up an entire water supply. Yes, that would suck for the people already there. They would have to pay to bring water in, or sell their land and move. This would probably drive down the value of John's water rights, but if he is mean and crazy, then maybe he doesn't care. He certainly won't have the wealth (or the same wealth) to do that stunt again. He will also damage his reputation in a free society by being anti-social. People will be less likely to want to work with someone who behaves in such a negative manner.
Scenarios like this are similar to "What if Aliens attack?". It's basically a license to theorize a potential threat scenario and construct the parameters in a way which deliberately stresses the libertarian argument. It's usually a short cut around theory and knowledge, and a gotcha game of emotional appeals (similar to, "what about the poor?").
One has to understand in debate, the mindset of the people who propose this stuff. It's a position of fundamental fear and paranoia. Indeed, many of the people arguing in this thread for government are scared or indicate a high level of concern about what would happen if they had to be responsible for their own safety.
When someone is so paranoid of change and bad outcomes, it clouds their capacity to think rationally. To weigh costs and benefits. To take chances and try new things. There is a reason why so many successful people, from athletes, to musicians to business folk are libertarian and not socialist. It's a forward thinking, risk taking social philosophy based around respect rather than insecurity. Successful people tend to have a lot of confidence.
Government and the media do a great job of pitting people against each other, keeping everyone paranoid, everyone separated and divisive. This is the status quo. Hindu vs Muslim, Democrat vs Republican, Black vs White etc.
Ayn Rand had a good answer to a similar question, iirc on the Phil Donahue show. She said (paraphrasing) that nothing essential for life, was so scarce that one person could possibly own it. And when you think about it, that's true and makes the "What if Aliens attack!?" or "What if John is a mean rich guy?!" arguments seem really strained and weak.
When people are so obsessed with security as the people who argue for government are, you can't do much about it. Our most powerful instinct is fear. It's a defense mechanism sometimes, but more often than not, it is used to control us.
Also, the libertarian answer to the water supply is that we should utilize contracts to build lasting relationships for resource security. That's the way that property rights can be limited as a weapon against others.
'Course, my home is my property, and thus I make the rules. If someone breaks those rules, either they comply or I'll remove them. It's my property. The state acts aggressively to force folks to do that which they would not otherwise do with their own property.
As for a village, if we're talking about JakeTown, well... my village (i.e. property), my rules. If we're talking about a village where everything (homes, streets, water, etc.) is owned privately by others, the private owner makes the rules regarding his property.
I have yet to see a group of people come to my home and say, "We're gonna take your home. Get out." (Excluding the state, of course, since they aggressively force homeowners to pay property taxes with the threat of seizure for noncompliance.)
If this were to occur in an environment where property rights were enforced, I would likely call my private security provider to "negotiate" a resolution. That introduces another important element to this discussion. I don't have the time to get involved in a lengthy discourse regarding how this might work, but I'll drop a few links:
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily
The Possibility of Private Law - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily
Law and Appeals in a Free Society - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily
Under those rules, we'd all currently be slaves.
Just look at all the wealth, resource & land consolidation over the past simple 30 years, and that's with loads of government laws & regulations in place. Just imagine if all those laws & regulations were removed.
Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field
Date: August 24, 2011
Reporting From: Zell am See, Austria
The Wall Street Journal published a disturbing article earlier this week entitled "Federal Asset Seizures Rise, Netting Innocent With Guilty."
You can already imagine the crux of the article.
In the United States, there are hundreds of regulations which authorize dozens federal agencies to confiscate private property-- homes, cars, bank accounts, gold, company shares, and even personal effects.
Ironically, most Americans still think that they live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's just another clear example of how the US Constitution has become a worthless piece of toilet paper for the federal government.
The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Tell that James Lieto, a New York businessman who was relieved of $392,000 when the armored car company used by his check-cashing firm was taken down by the FBI.
Lieto was innocent and not implicated in any wrongdoing, but the FBI took his money regardless as it just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Last October, another businessman named Raul Stio was suspected of wrongdoing by the Treasury Department. The government seized over $150,000 from his account, yet in the 10-months that followed, Stio has still not been charged with a crime.
According to Justice Department statistics, the total value of confiscated property exceeded $2.5 billion in 2010, more than double from five years ago. The average take per case? $166,000... and the vast majority of cases were non-criminal.
It's truly staggering to think about how much can be taken away from you in the blink of an eye, all without any judicial oversight or right to a hearing.
The reason could be anything. Maybe you violated some arcane, meaningless regulation among the hundreds of thousands of pages of US Code (ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse!). Maybe you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or maybe they had no real reason at all other than mere suspicion.
One minute you have money, the next you're completely locked out of your wealth and livelihood. They force YOU to prove to them that you aren't guilty, but they take away any means you had to defend yourself.
Look, this is the new reality in America. The entire country has become a nation of criminals-- there isn't a single man, woman, or child alive who is not in violation of some obscure regulation or cannot be 'suspected' of wrongdoing.
This is really just a form of cannibalism-- a government feeding on its own citizens in order to keep the party going just a little bit longer. They'll raise taxes, seize assets, take over pension funds, erode freedoms, start wars and send people to die-- whatever it takes to maintain the status quo.
I've long advocated for an internationalization strategy: diversifying various assets and interests overseas so that no one single government has total control over your livelihood.
Store your gold in Switzerland. Open a bank account in Hong Kong. Register your company in the BVI. Establish a 'backup' residency in Chile. Expand your business in Brazil. Get a better job in Singapore. Obtain a second passport in Malta. Open a brokerage account in the Cayman Islands.
Notes from the Field
Date: August 24, 2011
Reporting From: Zell am See, Austria
The Wall Street Journal published a disturbing article earlier this week entitled "Federal Asset Seizures Rise, Netting Innocent With Guilty."
You can already imagine the crux of the article.
In the United States, there are hundreds of regulations which authorize dozens federal agencies to confiscate private property-- homes, cars, bank accounts, gold, company shares, and even personal effects.
Ironically, most Americans still think that they live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it's just another clear example of how the US Constitution has become a worthless piece of toilet paper for the federal government.
The Fifth Amendment states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Tell that James Lieto, a New York businessman who was relieved of $392,000 when the armored car company used by his check-cashing firm was taken down by the FBI.
Lieto was innocent and not implicated in any wrongdoing, but the FBI took his money regardless as it just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Last October, another businessman named Raul Stio was suspected of wrongdoing by the Treasury Department. The government seized over $150,000 from his account, yet in the 10-months that followed, Stio has still not been charged with a crime.
According to Justice Department statistics, the total value of confiscated property exceeded $2.5 billion in 2010, more than double from five years ago. The average take per case? $166,000... and the vast majority of cases were non-criminal.
It's truly staggering to think about how much can be taken away from you in the blink of an eye, all without any judicial oversight or right to a hearing.
The reason could be anything. Maybe you violated some arcane, meaningless regulation among the hundreds of thousands of pages of US Code (ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse!). Maybe you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Or maybe they had no real reason at all other than mere suspicion.
One minute you have money, the next you're completely locked out of your wealth and livelihood. They force YOU to prove to them that you aren't guilty, but they take away any means you had to defend yourself.
Look, this is the new reality in America. The entire country has become a nation of criminals-- there isn't a single man, woman, or child alive who is not in violation of some obscure regulation or cannot be 'suspected' of wrongdoing.
This is really just a form of cannibalism-- a government feeding on its own citizens in order to keep the party going just a little bit longer. They'll raise taxes, seize assets, take over pension funds, erode freedoms, start wars and send people to die-- whatever it takes to maintain the status quo.
I've long advocated for an internationalization strategy: diversifying various assets and interests overseas so that no one single government has total control over your livelihood.
Store your gold in Switzerland. Open a bank account in Hong Kong. Register your company in the BVI. Establish a 'backup' residency in Chile. Expand your business in Brazil. Get a better job in Singapore. Obtain a second passport in Malta. Open a brokerage account in the Cayman Islands.
You're already a slave. You can't own land, you have to pay taxes on the labor you do just to live, and you can't control what you can put into your body.
Uhm, that's exactly our point. The two are correlated. Big business and the aristocracy write the regulations.
Competition. Flourishing.
You say you're a slave, but I don't. I've never once felt enslaved in Canada whatsoever. Never had soldiers coming over to home house saying, "let's go boy, enlistment time!", was never told where I have to live, where I have to work, what I have to do, nothing. If I want to start a business, I just start working. If I made over $60k, I have to make the arduous journey down to the driver's license office, fill out a 1 page form, and pay $50 to register a company. Incorporation is almost that simple too.
Not once that I can remember did I ever have a government official controlling my life though. Ok, I guess a few speeding tickets, "don't park there", "where's your payroll deduction slip & cheque", and things like that. But for the most part, I've been free to do whatever the hell I want my entire life.
Granted, there's laws & regulations that are greatly affecting the environment we live in, but to compare yourself to a slave is pretty fucken retarded. I know what you mean, and do agree with you to a degree. Probably 40% of the laws & governmental agencies we have in place in the West could get wiped out tomorrow, and we'd all still get along just fine. To the point you're taking it though is beyond delusion.
And besides, why not just move to another country with less government, laws & regulations then? It's not like government there is enslaving you, and forcing you to stay within its borders.
Yes, so let's just get rid of the government / aristocracy, and let big business make ALL the rules. That makes sense.
No. There'd be a Walmart, McDonalds, and ExxonMobil gas station on every street corner, and they'd all pay wages of $0.50/hour. That's where absolutely no government regulation at all would eventually end up.
^^ you say you are lucky big business does not control your govt, but who told you there are no 100+ countries where oligarchy=aka big business owns goverments?
Seriously.... let me give you a real life example.
First off you haven't seen this happen because the government won't allow it(we have laws).
WWII Hitler invaded how many countries....( and to drive the same point removing the reference of government since you despise them so much.)
A good example of your no government theory would be the postman with kevin costner or Waterworld. government collapses a few guys decide they want power and do as they please, people get sick of it and establish government again. Something like that haven't seen the movie in years.
I would like to point out though the law and order in the individual camps still provide a government body which you just can not escape.
To clear this up you people are arguing how much we hate government which I agree government's are flawed and strip way to many liberties from the people (which for the record in the USA we allow this to happen).
I however am arguing that government is necessary to punish criminals and to protect our natural right's nothing more nothing less.
Without government to protect these companies from competition (by erecting barriers to entry through regulations, subsidies, etc.), how would this happen? If these companies only paid $0.50 per hour, why wouldn't other companies bid the labor away from them?
Calling people retarded is not an argument Matt.
This is a start.
Why is wanting to own my own land, smoke pot if I want, and provide for my own security so delusional?
I have to find a kinder master, I agree. But surrendering your citizenship, and becoming stateless isnt as easy it one might think it is. Also, moving what little property I do have title to is also tricky, because the state claims a right to tax me around the world, regardless of where I live and work.
What doesn't make sense, is why you think we would have big business without government. You argue that such and such has never happened, but then you make up this fantasy of business running the world in the absence of the state.
Is Somalia run by big business?
Did you know that big business has been historically possible due to incorporation? Did you know that the state is the entity which creates corporations? How would you have corporations without a state to create them? Paradox?
Also, why would they make ALL the rules? Why wouldn't you or I make rules?
You haven't sufficiently explained any of that, you're simply asserting all of the premises and conclusions.
This doesn't make economic sense.
If there were outlets on every corner, that would presume those businesses would be in demand, and consumers would be benefiting from them.
If they only paid $0.50 an hour, all their workers would starve to death and be homeless. That would hurt their ability to effectively staff and run their company, which in turn would hurt their profits.
What would probably happen in the absence of government, is more small businesses, since regulation is more relatively expensive for them to comply with. You mentioned it earlier in your post, how easy it was for you to get a business license. If you had to pay a couple thousand dollars more in regulatory costs to get started, there would be less small businesses.
So more small businesses, competing. That means more innovation, and lower prices for everyone. Probably means more employment too. More demand for workers means higher wages due to the price of labor being bid up!
Government can't make wages high. Only increased productivity can. This is a basic insight of economics. Since you don't seem to be much into economics, if you'd like some good primers, videos, or articles, I would be happy to pass along sources.
Hell of a thread.
1. I agree with the "troll" tag in this thread.
2. I'm 100000000000% with Kiopa_Matt. This man knows what he's talking about.
A government as an entity isn't the problem - it's the presence of certain individuals in them who poison the whole thing that fucks things up. Same with any other large (or small) organization.
Saying the existence of a government is the problem is like saying a person with a brain tumor should have his brain removed - it's the tumor that should be fucking removed.
Or like saying that multicellular organisms shouldn't exist because they are vulnerable to cancer, individual cells can't move freely, if the organism dies all the cells in it die, etc. - what, lifeforms should be restricted to bacteria and protozoa?
Call it libertarianism, utopia or whatever but anyone who wants to "do away with government" is either stupid or has an (evil) agenda - because anyone who is reasonably intelligent would know every society today is in an equilibrium with numerous "anarchic" groups hiding in the shadows just waiting for an opportunity to take advantage of even the slightest reduction in central authority.
Hell that's the very fucking definition of organized crime - profiting from holes and imbalances in the law (and society in general). That's how the mafia works. You can't take away a government without taking a society back to square one.
1. I agree with the "troll" tag in this thread.
2. I'm 100000000000% with Kiopa_Matt. This man knows what he's talking about.
A government as an entity isn't the problem - it's the presence of certain individuals in them who poison the whole thing that fucks things up. Same with any other large (or small) organization.
Saying the existence of a government is the problem is like saying a person with a brain tumor should have his brain removed - it's the tumor that should be fucking removed.
Or like saying that multicellular organisms shouldn't exist because they are vulnerable to cancer, individual cells can't move freely, if the organism dies all the cells in it die, etc. - what, lifeforms should be restricted to bacteria and protozoa?
Call it libertarianism, utopia or whatever but anyone who wants to "do away with government" is either stupid or has an (evil) agenda - because anyone who is reasonably intelligent would know every society today is in an equilibrium with numerous "anarchic" groups hiding in the shadows just waiting for an opportunity to take advantage of even the slightest reduction in central authority.
Hell that's the very fucking definition of organized crime - profiting from holes and imbalances in the law (and society in general). That's how the mafia works. You can't take away a government without taking a society back to square one.
You know, in Traffic and Content, I have tried to give you some help with your business, and then you do shit like that. You can disagree with me, but calling me a troll is self-defeating.
Right, so that doesn't mean we need government. It means that regardless of what we have, we will always have a small group of people trying to mess it up.
That's not the argument here.
Attacking people who disagree with you as unreasonable or unintelligent is just ad hominem. It's not an actual argument.
The argument isn't to do away with government, the argument is that government is a contradiction, and the means do not match the ends. We don't need government to be free. We're free without government. Government is simply one agency men have chosen to protect their freedom, but it isn't the only choice, and I think I have proven it is the irrational one.
For whatever reason, Matt and others won't engage that argument.
As Murray Rothbard famously once said,
"Government is a gang of thieves, writ large."
The government is organized crime. The worst part is, there are people who will defend their criminal actions as being necessary and morally correct!
Can you prove this?
who elects these judges? ? ? starting to sound like a government body to me. LoL you guys say that we are narrow minded for thinking a government has to exist but it is you guys who are in fact narrow minded on the definition of what a government body is and should be.
UGG. every thread turns into guerilla whining about people calling him a faggot. he is the most sensitive anarchist ever.
meanwhile, you can find numerous examples of him conflating AGREEING WITH HIM with "understanding" and being "intelligent" instead of actually making an argument.
"if you want to be intelligent" read this guy who lives in a hypothetical fantasy world with me. its so dogmatic that i almost puke on my keyboard.
....and cue 14 paragraphs of Rothbard, lectures on ad hominem attacks, feigned outrage, and redicule for not recognizing his hypothetical utopia.
reminds me of hipster douchebags that say shit when you ask "hey man, have you heard this album" like ..... "ha, yeah like 5 years ago. i have it on limited edition vinyl. in fact, if you haven't heard the TRUE vinyl recording, the way it was meant to be heard, you are ignorant and you haven't really ever even heard the album."
....and cue pretending like you don't know exactly what i'm talking about.