Gun control debate (merged)

#1,776
#1,776
ClearwaterVol said:
I disagree, but my questioned was what would your ideal society look like?
Click to expand...

Much like it does now, only without the coercion of the government at every step.

Being an anarchist/abolitionist doesn't mean I don't believe in rules. It simply means I don't believe in a political ruling class.
 
#1,780
#1,780
ClearwaterVol said:
No government?
Click to expand...

Yes, no government.

I acknowledge you can't get there overnight, it'll take time. Maybe a systematic decentralization from the federal level, to a state level, then to a county level, then kaput. Maybe over 20 years or so, you can't do it overnight as a good many of Americans are addicted to the stolen largesse of the government.
 
#1,783
#1,783
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes, no government.

I acknowledge you can't get there overnight, it'll take time. Maybe a systematic decentralization from the federal level, to a state level, then to a county level, then kaput. Maybe over 20 years or so, you can't do it overnight as a good many of Americans are addicted to the stolen largesse of the government.
Click to expand...

What's to prevent hundreds of little warlords popping up and creating their own little thiefdoms? The might equals right issue i raised earlier. Each community providing for their own defense would leave these communities vulnerable to both larger communities and other countries that didn't embrace this form of governance. While intriguing and while i certainly agree that our government has its problems, i don't see your vision compatible with reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,784
#1,784
ClearwaterVol said:
What's to prevent hundreds of little warlords popping up and creating their own little thiefdoms? The might equals right issue i raised earlier. Each community providing for their own defense would leave these communities vulnerable to both larger communities and other countries that didn't embrace this form of governance. While intriguing and while i certainly agree that our government has its problems, i don't see your vision compatible with reality.
Click to expand...
WE have had ad nauseum discussions about this very thing. You have to pay someone for their protection agency yada yada If they don't produce, you put them in jail or some sort of nonsense like that.
 
#1,785
#1,785
ClearwaterVol said:
What's to prevent hundreds of little warlords popping up and creating their own little thiefdoms? The might equals right issue i raised earlier. Each community providing for their own defense would leave these communities vulnerable to both larger communities and other countries that didn't embrace this form of governance. While intriguing and while i certainly agree that our government has its problems, i don't see your vision compatible with reality.
Click to expand...

I can try to describe how private protection and arbitration would work in a stateless society. But, I could never hope to do as good of a job that David Friedman does here.

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary - YouTube

Also, I suggest Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty book as well as his fantastic Power and market.
 
#1,786
#1,786
I listened to about hall of that video. It's not feasible unless everyone in the world goes government less. The legal system suggested wouldn't work because of the varying results that would result of the negotiations of the private defense firms. I would also state that the author fails to acknowledge the likelihood that these firms would, in many negative aspects, come to resemble the government. The author also severely underestimates some people's appetite for violence and willingness to use violence to achieve financial goals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,787
#1,787
ClearwaterVol said:
I listened to about hall of that video. It's not feasible unless everyone in the world goes government less. The legal system suggested wouldn't work because of the varying results that would result of the negotiations of the private defense firms. I would also state that the author fails to acknowledge the likelihood that these firms would, in many negative aspects, come to resemble the government. The author also severely underestimates some people's appetite for violence and willingness to use violence to achieve financial goals.
Click to expand...

So your main objection to a stateless society is that you're afraid it would come to look exactly like what we already have. As well as very generalized description of the info put forth. So, you acknowledge the problems with the current system, as well as this systems complete willingness to use violence to achieve its goals. But, you worry about what would happen in a free society where you would have much more choice than what you have now. The true measurement of an individuals freedom is the ability to opt out of something. Sure, you can do that here today, but, I hope you do not wish to be gainfully employed. Because in order to be employed you must submit to the government and their system of robbery i.e. Taxation. Or, face the violence of the state in the form of the irs coming to collect on behalf of the political class.

So, the whole point of market anarchism is that people would be in a much better position than they are now. Businesses would have an incentive to create good products and services that the consumer wants, or face the wrath of the actual free market. I.e. Consumer choice. Yes, even law.

As far as it working on a global scale, who knows. One thing is for certain, we would have unlimited choice as far as free trade is concerned. Businesses would be lining up to ship their goods here. To me that's much better than what we currently have. Will there be problems? Of course, that's expected. Nothing in this world is perfect, but it's at least worth trying imo.
 
#1,788
#1,788
When I was living in China I observed a small town rebel against the government. The local corrupt government employees were forcing them to sell their property, for a new railway station, at a cheap price. They would then sell to the national government at much higher prices. The citizens blocked off the entire town and would not allow police to enter. The government negotiated for about 10 days then came in with bulldozers, riot gear, stun guns and overpowering force to retake the town. I was thinking how this event would have gone down had the citizens, and all of the citizens in surrounding areas, had been armed? I was happy to receive my 2nd amendments rights when I moved back 2 years ago.
 
#1,789
#1,789
IPleadInsanity said:
When I was living in China I observed a small town rebel against the government. The local corrupt government employees were forcing them to sell their property, for a new railway station, at a cheap price. They would then sell to the national government at much higher prices. The citizens blocked off the entire town and would not allow police to enter. The government negotiated for about 10 days then came in with bulldozers, riot gear, stun guns and overpowering force to retake the town. I was thinking how this event would have gone down had the citizens, and all of the citizens in surrounding areas, had been armed? I was happy to receive my 2nd amendments rights when I moved back 2 years ago.
Click to expand...


The MASSIVE and OBVIOUS difference is that we have media. Had something like that occurred here, there'd be all sorts of recourse short of any kind of confrontation.

Wake up. Its not 1790 anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,791
#1,791
lawgator1 said:
The MASSIVE and OBVIOUS difference is that we have media. Had something like that occurred here, there'd be all sorts of recourse short of any kind of confrontation.

Wake up. Its not 1790 anymore.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the law passed a year or so ago giving the FBI access to newsrooms and the power to kill stories. We are becoming more like our enemy countries than you wish to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,792
#1,792
davethevol said:
Don't forget the law passed a year or so ago giving the FBI access to newsrooms and the power to kill stories. We are becoming more like our enemy countries than you wish to believe.
Click to expand...

He's just angry Florida gymnastics didn't get the preseason #1 ranking.

Don't mind him this morning. Nothing a little fiber won't cure.
 
#1,793
#1,793
lawgator1 said:
The MASSIVE and OBVIOUS difference is that we have media. Had something like that occurred here, there'd be all sorts of recourse short of any kind of confrontation.

Wake up. Its not 1790 anymore.
Click to expand...

This was all over the China media for many days. Citizens all over China were furious. They get furious a lot. Nothing they could do because the government has weapons and they don't simple as that.
 
#1,795
#1,795
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So your main objection to a stateless society is that you're afraid it would come to look exactly like what we already have. As well as very generalized description of the info put forth. So, you acknowledge the problems with the current system, as well as this systems complete willingness to use violence to achieve its goals. But, you worry about what would happen in a free society where you would have much more choice than what you have now. The true measurement of an individuals freedom is the ability to opt out of something. Sure, you can do that here today, but, I hope you do not wish to be gainfully employed. Because in order to be employed you must submit to the government and their system of robbery i.e. Taxation. Or, face the violence of the state in the form of the irs coming to collect on behalf of the political class.

So, the whole point of market anarchism is that people would be in a much better position than they are now. Businesses would have an incentive to create good products and services that the consumer wants, or face the wrath of the actual free market. I.e. Consumer choice. Yes, even law.

As far as it working on a global scale, who knows. One thing is for certain, we would have unlimited choice as far as free trade is concerned. Businesses would be lining up to ship their goods here. To me that's much better than what we currently have. Will there be problems? Of course, that's expected. Nothing in this world is perfect, but it's at least worth trying imo.
Click to expand...

No, I believe that it would be much worse than what we already have. Why, would businesses be lining up to ship goods to a place that had no real protection of law? Who would own roads, public utilities etc? Who would be selling them to begin with? What prevents price fixing? Protection services? How would they defend against larger companies and countries? Who gets the military hardware in existence? Hell, who gets the nuclear football? They have places in Africa that are essentially stateless and lawless and is hasn't worked out too well.

It sounds like a great idea, but if I am paying for road maintenance, public utilities and defense it is starting to sound a lot like taxes. What is the penalty for not paying said expenses? I don't get to use the roads? Doesn't that drive up the cost for everyone? This would be an unmitigated disaster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,797
#1,797
lawgator1 said:
The MASSIVE and OBVIOUS difference is that we have media. Had something like that occurred here, there'd be all sorts of recourse short of any kind of confrontation.

Wake up. Its not 1790 anymore.
Click to expand...

Wait, didn't we have media in April 1993? Or just not in Waco?
 
#1,798
#1,798
ClearwaterVol said:
No, I believe that it would be much worse than what we already have. Why, would businesses be lining up to ship goods to a place that had no real protection of law? Who would own roads, public utilities etc? Who would be selling them to begin with? What prevents price fixing? Protection services? How would they defend against larger companies and countries? Who gets the military hardware in existence? Hell, who gets the nuclear football? They have places in Africa that are essentially stateless and lawless and is hasn't worked out too well.

It sounds like a great idea, but if I am paying for road maintenance, public utilities and defense it is starting to sound a lot like taxes. What is the penalty for not paying said expenses? I don't get to use the roads? Doesn't that drive up the cost for everyone? This would be an unmitigated disaster.
Click to expand...

Who said there would be no protection by law? Anarchy means no rulers, it doesn't mean no rules.

Who would own the roads and public utilities? Whoever wanted to offer those services on the market. Yes, it would be a pay or subscription service.

What prevents price fixing? The free market. The price of a good will be dictated by what price the consumer will pay.

Protections services? I'd suggest you finish the video for a more complete understanding of private law.

Who gets the current military hardware? Whoever buys it. Nuclear football? Whoever buys it.

What would be the penalty for not paying for services? You'd have to allow for a certain amount of free riders. That's just reality. What you won't have is a coercive government there to point guns at you and force you to either pay, or be jailed, or even killed for not complying. I could even imagine a protection agency offering their services free of charge to the poor just as a show of good will.

As far as bad products or even bad protection agencies. There would be a market for people like consumer reports to provide unbiased ratings on goods and services. I know you didn't go there, just thought I'd throw that out there.

As I've said before, I'm not imagining a utopia without problems. Of course there will be problems. I trust a free people using voluntary interactions and agreements to figure out the solution. Instead of the violence and coercion of the state.
 
#1,799
#1,799
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Who said there would be no protection by law? Anarchy means no rulers, it doesn't mean no rules.

Who would own the roads and public utilities? Whoever wanted to offer those services on the market. Yes, it would be a pay or subscription service.

What prevents price fixing? The free market. The price of a good will be dictated by what price the consumer will pay.

Protections services? I'd suggest you finish the video for a more complete understanding of private law.

Who gets the current military hardware? Whoever buys it. Nuclear football? Whoever buys it.

What would be the penalty for not paying for services? You'd have to allow for a certain amount of free riders. That's just reality. What you won't have is a coercive government there to point guns at you and force you to either pay, or be jailed, or even killed for not complying. I could even imagine a protection agency offering their services free of charge to the poor just as a show of good will.

As far as bad products or even bad protection agencies. There would be a market for people like consumer reports to provide unbiased ratings on goods and services. I know you didn't go there, just thought I'd throw that out there.

As I've said before, I'm not imagining a utopia without problems. Of course there will be problems. I trust a free people using voluntary interactions and agreements to figure out the solution. Instead of the violence and coercion of the state.
Click to expand...

I love these posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top