curr3nt Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 As to why logging companies cut down everything in an area? It is the easiest and cheapest means to get the job down. If they own the land then I suppose they would turn into a tree farm. I do not see how a tree farm could support a good ecosystem. But if the companies can be limited to where they own the land... Who would sell the land to them? If no one lives there then who would own it to sell it? Would it be divided up in advance? ----- Currently in Florida the Casey Anthony trial is big in the news. If parents are willing to kill their children what makes you think they wouldn't put them to work or sell them? Just imagine how adoptions could work without laws. Too young or poor to take care of your child? Sell them for cash! As for prostitution, I'm thinking more of the well being of the women involved. Then again if everyone in this society is a good person then there would be no need to worry about pimps or mistreatment. Actually if everyone was a good person then we wouldn't even need all the laws we have now because people would do what they should naturally. ----- How can you imagine there wouldn't be contracts for everything since that is what will replace laws. If there are no Federal or State laws then I'm fairly sure a business will make you sign a contract to buy from them. The contract would at least cover consequences of shop lifting, store rules and liability. Since mediation could be expensive the business can cut down on cases buy making their laws and requiring you to agree to them before shopping there. I would also imagine that some businesses would require you to agree to using their DRO issue resolution. ----- UtF, the only way I can see this DRO idea working is if human nature was completely changed. People would have to naturally do the "right" thing. Greed at least would have to be mostly eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 UtF, I would like to think that you realize that MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is the most insane political strategy of the 20th Century. We approached the brink with the Soviet Union so many times for no good reason. India is worried that fundamentalists in Pakistan will get in control of Pakistan's nuke supply and bomb India regardless of the consequences. MAD "worked" between the US and USSR more by luck than by sound policy. That was just the first idea to come to the top of my head as I was ranting out a response to curr3nt. I certainly think it's better than paying for tons of nukes along with tons of people in uniform with machine guns along with tons of planes and ships and missiles and bullets and air bases patrolling the world (as if people can't take care of themselves without US military peoples' help). But, if you want to fund that 700 billion dollar a year military budget with the several nukes go ahead. I was just putting out the nuke idea on the spot as a very cheap way of deterring a country from invading you since that is the subject that curr3nt listed (invasion). If you want to pay for an army though, that's fine by me. But let's go along with it anyway... Your geographical region pays collectively and buys a nuke. So any one aggressor country might be deterred from attacking you. What if they decide to team up against you with X other aggressor countries? They calculate the risk and figure that there's only 1/X chance that it's their country that gets killed. If they are controlled by a tyrannical government, they might not care if they do get hit, provided they can protect the people they care about. Since you aren't likely to have a standing army, once they invade, they don't have to worry about organized armed resistance. Even if their country does get devastated, they can use the resources from your "country" to rebuild. lol... I like the "if they are controlled by a tyrannical government" part and the "once they invade, they don't have to worry about organized armed resistance." Well, if you wanted to pay for that super expensive organized armed resistance, be my guest, but I don't think it's necessary at all. Also, I like how you never mentioned why any country would ever actually invade a stateless society, that is, unless that country is really a crazy dictator with the power to have his country go to war because he's a powerful dictator. In reality there's no reason. There's no tax system to take control of. What are you going to do? Kill everyone and call it your land and send in your own citizens to produce stuff there and then tax them? Seriously... that's probably your best bet at trying to gain something out of the invasion but even if you try that someone is going to launch a nuke back at you after you slaughter all those people living in the stateless society so I highly doubt there's any way any country could gain anything at all from such an invasion. There losses would be far far greater than anything they gain. So if you're worried about invasions, I wouldn't fund a big military controlled by a few men (one man?) in a tyrannical government that is capable of invading a country because then those few people in charge of the war might choose to fight it even if a majority of the people composing the country are opposed to the war. Also, I would like to note that any analogies that equate governments to people really don't work. What are you talking about? Analogies? The government IS people. The government isn't God Almighty, it's a collection of people chosen by other people to have the right to make up rules and enforce them violently. To say that government isn't just a bunch of people and rules would be a mistake. So I disagree with you--strongly. John Stewart had a pretty good example of why the analogy doesn't work on his show the other night. Eric Cantor (House Majority Leader) said that the Federal Government should only pay for disaster recovery in Missouri in so far as they can offset the cost with cuts in other areas. He said that if you had a fund to save up for a car, and suddenly you lost your house in a disaster, you would have to use the money originally intended for the car to rebuild your house. John Stewart eviscerated that argument on his show (I can't link to it at the moment). A government is not a person and it does not have the same obligations as a person. A government can print money. A person cannot. That is the most important distinction between them, though there are many others. I don't watch any of those TV shows (at least not regularly) so I haven't heard of that, but I'll watch it if you provide me with a link. My own reaction to what you just said though is what if I don't wish to subsidize living in Missouri? In other words, let's assume that Missouri is more prone to costly disasters than elsewhere. Why should the federal government that gets its money from taxpayers around the county (not just Missouri) pay for the disaster clean up there? Surely if it is more costly to live in Missouri due to the natural disasters that occur there then it is the people who live there who should carry the costs of living there? To make an extreme analogy so you can see my point if you don't already, pretend that I live at the bottom of the ocean in a house under a glass dome. My house gets crushed at one point when the dome collapses due to the extreme water pressure. Should the federal government pay me any money for this disaster? Of course not. Why should it subsidize people because they live in a place prone to disasters? I would think that the better way to respond to my house getting crushed by the ocean would be to tell me that I should have moved somewhere else or else should have bought insurance for my house so that if the disaster happened I would have money to buy a new house or rebuild my dome and house at the bottom of the ocean. The government requires that people have car insurance in most states so that if they get in an accident they can pay for it. The government doesn't pay for peoples' cars when random trees fall on them. That's a natural disaster, isn't it? Why not buy insurance for your house in case a natural disaster hits it? It's the same thing. So I disagree with Eric Cantor. I don't think the government should pay for any aid at a;; in Missouri because of natural disasters (note: well, I guess if they're still going to be paying some taxes you can give that proportion of their money back to them to pay for it... but I oppose the taxes too as you know so ideally the government wouldn't tax them or pay for the disaster. I strongly oppose subsidizing Missouri with an unfair proportion of the federal tax income, however, simply due to a larger than average proportion of natural disasters.) "A government is not a person and it does not have the same obligations as a person. A government can print money. A person cannot. That is the most important distinction between them, though there are many others." Now this is just absurd. Abusrd, absurd, absurd. You said that it was a mistake to equate governments with people. I strongly disagree because all that governments are are groups of people following rules that a society (a society is just people also) accepts as legitimate (i.e. most people are statists and follow the government men's laws and views them with legitimacy). But here you say governments aren't just people because they're people who have the right to print money and spend it however they want (how is that moral? rather than earn money to spend like people have to they can just spend new money as debt and pay it back later by taxing the taxpayers). I reply that the government is still just a collection of people and that the rules that they are following (that most people in this country rule with legitimacy) include the right of the government people (the congress people) to spend new money on anything and then add it to the "national" debt and tax taxpayers for it to pay it back later. The government is still just a group of people and what you say is a distinction between government and people is really just a silly rule that shouldn't exist (that government people can spend new money (debt) that future generations will have to pay off with taxes) but that does exist simply because most people view it with legitimacy. I'm not one of those people, but you are. UtF, you are saying that if you happen to be born into a poor family who can't pay for an education (through no choice of your own, obviously), then you would be forced to remain uneducated (and thus likely poor), through no choice of your own. I never said such a thing. If your family can't pay for your education, your only option is to hope for the charity of strangers. I think that being forced to rely on the charity of strangers to improve your condition is a horrible position to be in (not to mention, I think that it's an immoral position for a wealthy country to hold). This draws me back to the movie October Sky. The main characters were all stuck in a mining town with little prospect of ever leaving it or getting a job outside of the mining business. The only people who did get out did so on sports scholarships. But the main characters got inspired by seeing Sputnik launch and they managed to build a model rocket to enter in the regional science fair, which in term got them scholarships to prestigious universities and some of them went on to be NASA scientists. It's based on a true story and none of it would have been possible if they hadn't been educated and most of their families wouldn't have been able to afford any kind of private education. Relying on the charity of strangers is great. We all rely on the charity of our parents, and to some degree rely on the charity of our relatives, siblings, and friends, and to yet some degree still (while smaller, but still positive) we benefit from the charity of absolute strangers. Sure if I'm born into a poor family then the typical main source of charity won't be able to provide much for me, but that doesn't mean I would support forcing wealthy people to provide for me. If they don't want to voluntarily provide for me then let them have there way. I think there's enough charity in the world to not force anyone to be charitable at gun point and if there isn't then I'd still rather starve to death then force them to help me. I saw October Sky several years ago and remember the general story. I think it's terrible that so many people are born into such poverty and such situations where it is difficult to get out, but I react to seeing such things by wanting to be more charitable myself and by wanting to spread the news of these people in poverty to other people who are fortunate so that they too can be charitable. I really don't think that forcing wealthy people to help out these poor people is the answer. I think that spreading the news to these people and shoving the reality into their face that there are people living in relatively extreme poverty in their society is a better way of getting them to be charitable. If general, if someone isn't very charitable I don't think it's because he's evil, but I think it's because he's manage to avoid the fact that there are poor people living in his town/city/state/country/world or else because he has denied that he has any responsibility to those people. I think that rather than pointing guns at these people to force them to give up their money to the poor you should educate these people and make sure to make it harder for them to continue avoiding and denying that there are poor people who are less fortunate than them all around them. Your system condemns people without money to a life without much chance of upward mobility. No. The brutal forces of nature fighting these people for their lives and the more fortunate people who could help the poor but don't are condemning the people without money to lives without much chance to thrive. My system is to not support forcing those who could help the poor but don't to help the poor against their wills. But I'm not your enemy; those people are. So much potential in people is squandered if you don't even offer people the chance to shine. They need a basic education to have any hope of standing out. An education is one of the most essential services that a community can provide its citizens. And it's one of the best investments you can put your money in, but it's a very long-term investment and the majority of people aren't looking at the long-term. They want to make sure they'll have enough money to survive and live. I agree. Although this in no way means that you should force people who disagree with you to pay for such educations for people against their will. And what are you going to do to me (someone who agrees with you)? I value educating children very much as well, but what if I don't think your government's public education is doing a very good job? In other words, what if I value the education that you value tremendously, but I don't want to pay for your government's education because I think there are more efficient ways I think I could spend my money towards educating children? Are you going to tell me that I should run a campaign to change the public school systems? Nah ah. Let me spend my money the way I choose. You could certainly advertise your public schools to me as a great charity to donate to, but please don't force me to if I don't want to. Companies are even worse. They want to make money. They want profits. Educating a workforce will pay dividends in 10-15 years, but if the company is worried about profits for the next quarter, why should they be investing in something as abstract as 10 years later? They might have gone out of business by that point, or moved to a different region, so that "investment" would be wasted if they put funds into the education of random strangers. Of course. I'm not picturing businesses investing in elementary school education... well, at least not to the degree that I think you think I am. Businesses now provide scholarships to students and grants to schools. While a lot of that is because of government pressure (or else we'll tax you more!) some of it is also just charity. Very little of it is actual investment. I'm not picturing businesses in a free society actually investing in children's elementary school education as a business plan (at least not a long time in to the stateless society... it's even too much for me to conceive at the moment). So I think most of the elementary school education would certainly be charity (either charity by parents or charity by people to stranger-children). Now, I said "elementary" school throughout this paragraph because I think it is very conceivable that companies will pay for peoples' education as a business plan--It happens all around you in our current society. Many businesses offer their employees discounts (some up to 100%) to get their Master's for example. When you're a big company and you have a 20-something-year-old employee who wants a Master's degree in his area of work it might very well be in your companies interests to pay for his education so that he can do a better job at your company as he works there over the next several years. Now, some of that might be charity and some might also be due to the government saying the company can pay less taxes, but I have no doubt that a good chunk of it is also the business plan. Now, to what degree can a company pay for someone's education other than the last bit of their university education? I'm not sure, but I think it's certainly realistic to say that they could pay for even more than they do now, as a business plan. If you ask me what percentage of American 10-year-old would I imagine receiving aid for their education from a company that wants to hire them in the future if we had a stateless society I wouldn't be able to answer except to say that I'm optimistic. It's really not nearly as inconceivable as I think you're seeing it. So really, be a little optimistic yourself and realize that the world won't spiral into uneducated chaos if you stop forcing people to pay taxes to educate people. Maybe you're not as optimistic as me, but surely you can slide a little bit more towards my view :-)? Even if their reasoning is poor, there are so many ways to rationalize bad decisions. "I shouldn't eat that second candy bar...well, I'll go out running and I'll burn it off." Later: "Ooo, it's looking pretty stormy out there. I probably should go for that run after all...I'll do it tomorrow." Etc. People do it all the time. We are generally very poor judges at what is in our best interest in the short-term, so why should be we better at it in the long-term? Are you saying that you're good at thinking about what's in your best interests in the long term, but you fail to actually act in that way due to short term pleasures and laziness that prevents you from doing what you think you should do and that is why you want a government to force you to do the long term thing so that you can't eat the candy bar and can't be lazy by avoiding going for a run? That's no way to advance society. Really I think that rather than point a gun at yourself to force yourself to run off that candy bar I think there are other ways to non-violently "force" yourself and others to do what you and they really want to do. If the rich person isn't donating to the poor, don't pass a law requiring that they do. Instead, go up to them while holding the poor person's hand and say, "Hi, this guy lives at the door of that building down the street..." I think you're rationalizing the bad choice to support using force against people who are ignorant and avoid things that they don't have the guts to deal with (like poor people living in their community or uneducated children) by saying that's the only way to get those people to deal with those problems. No it's not. You can get them to face the fact that there are poor people and uneducated children living in their community and I think that will bring out the human in them and they will choose to be charitable. And if that doesn't work you can tell them, "Here, I'll make it easy for you. You can go on being ignorant and can continue to avoid these problems by simply signing this piece of paper for me...." ("I'll handle the rest by spending this portion of your income on these causes for you just like governments used to in history") although that really isn't the strategy I would take. I think spreading awareness of the issues so that people actually choose to face them and deal with them rather than avoid them is better than "Just sign this piece of paper and I'll take care of it for you." That's basically what the government does right now except not voluntarily. While it would certainly be a lot better (because it would be voluntary) I would still strive to get those wealthy people involved and caring about their community so that they can choose to donate to all of the different charities themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) UtF, you are saying that if you happen to be born into a poor family who can't pay for an education (through no choice of your own, obviously), then you would be forced to remain uneducated (and thus likely poor), through no choice of your own. Yes UtF, that is what you said. You're mad about being forced into a 'social contract' because you are born here through no fault of your own, yet you are OK with the statement above? THAT is hypocritical. At least your social contract can lead to your well being and not condemn you to being poor like what happened to the surfs in feudalism. Interestingly, when I replied to that quote of dawh's all I said was that I didn't say that and then now (before I replied but also before I read what gvg said) gvg said that I did say that. Again I deny it. No, I did not say I would be "forced" to remain uneducated simply because I was born into a poor society. Let me unconfuse the confusion here. There are different types of force. When I talk about the non-aggression principle and my political views, I talk about being opposed to using force against other people. Now, if someone is born into a poor family, then that child must battle the forces of nature to survive. So I am opposed to using force against people to force them to help these poor children who are fighting the forces of nature to survive. So when you say "Yes UtF, that is what you said. You're mad about being forced into a 'social contract' because you are born here through no fault of your own, yet you are OK with the statement above? THAT is hypocritical." I reply by saying that no, it is not hypocritical, because the "social contract" you speak of is an example of people1 using force against people2 to take people2;s money and use it to combat the forces of nature that make the poor peoples' life difficult. Do you see what I'm saying? You and dawh are saying that it's terrible that some children are born into poverty and are "forced" to be uneducated simply because their parents can't afford them an education. I agree that that is terrible, but the "force" causing those children to be in poverty has nature as a source, not another person. And because of that very significant distinction, I don't support using force against other people to force them to help these children in poverty who are fighting the forces of nature. Instead, I advocate voluntarily donating to help out these unfortunate children who really could use an education. If a wealthy person doesn't want to pay for this pauper-child's education, however, then I'm not going to raise a gun to that person and say "but that pauper-child is being 'forced' to live in poverty at no fault of its own so I'm going to force you to help him out because you can." That's basically what you say with your political views, but I don't support that despite the fact that I think it's terribly unfortunate that there are pauper-children out there who aren't receiving enough donations for their educations, food, shelter, etc. So if some rich selfish person doesn't want to give a penny to help out a poor child who is poor because he was born into a poor family and is poor due to no fault of his own then I'm going to let that rich selfish jerk not pay for the child. Perhaps I'll ask him nicely because I know that he's not really a cruel person, but just an ignorant one who is avoiding the issue of pauper-children because he's too weak to face the harsh reality that there are people suffering all around him while he is rich, but I'm certainly not going to force him to pay the penny. And I suggest you and Dawh reconsider forcing him to pay as well. Yes, I think he should pay, but I'm not going to force him to. I think it's the moral thing to do and I also think that in the long run, the more that people follow the non-aggression principle the better society will be. You might think that you're pointing a gun at the rich selfish jerk for the "greater good" but I disagree. I think it's both wrong as a principle (if you're a deontologist) and wrong as a utilitarian. And I also think that many people use the utilitarian perspective to rationalize intuitively immoral things such as pointing guns at rich selfish jerks to pay for the poor as good and I think they would do better to forget the utilitarianism for a moment and reconsider the possibility that their intuition that pointing guns at people is bad is actually correct. And I'm proud about that last sentece; think about it if you're going to think about anything that I say. EDIT: I realized that I'm replying with more text than each thing that I am replying to and it is making my posts larger and larger (and consequently you all's responses to my posts longer as well) and we are reaching the point where the discussion is going to get too long winded so I'm going to skip replying to every detail of every post (I'm already a page behind on this thread on replying to you guys) by reading up the rest of what I have to reply to and then consolidating my response into a relatively-short response. I'm sure that you guys wanted me to do this before I want me to do this now so I'll say that if I ever do this again feel free to give me the warning and I'll shorten up my posts. Thanks. Edited June 4, 2011 by Use the Force Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2011 Report Share Posted June 4, 2011 Yes, disasters are a good subject. What company would be willing to insure people who live in hazardous areas? Insurance prices in such areas would be astronomically high, limiting the places that poor people could live. Republicans are already using this argument. They said that since the risk of flood damage in New Orleans is so high, it's the poor people's own fault that they can pay to rebuild their homes after Hurricane Katrina. There are so many dangerous places and there would almost always be the risk of some huge disaster that would preclude the poor from living there. Hurricanes along the south coast of the US (and a good distance into the interior). Tornadoes ravage the whole of the Great Plains in "Tornado Alley." Fault lines are rife with dangerous volcanoes and earthquakes. So no poor people can afford to live in Haiti or Japan or Indonesia (at least, not with insurance). What would happen to an individual who didn't pay for insurance? They would be liable for all costs incurred rebuilding their home (that they owned). If they owned the home, that's a significant amount of personal equity that has been erased by forces completely beyond their control. If I own a house worth $200,000 and it gets destroyed, then while the land may retain some value, it's not going to be worth nearly $200,000, even though that's at least how much I put into it. Disaster insurance would have to have a massive fund lying around to deal with monumental catastrophe. We've seen in the last couple years (as early as 2005), that entire cities can be destroyed in minutes by natural disasters. A small insurance firm could never collect enough money to cover all the claimants, should an entire city get destroyed. It would have to be regionally larger than the area of devastation, or have existed for a long period of time without experiencing any major disaster, or it would have to charge exorbitant premiums for service. Insurance only works with the expectation that the majority of the people buying the service will never need to collect. Most people are expected to pay more than they will ever receive from the insurance company. When you are talking about the possibility of losing entire cities (or even entire countries), no one is going to want to be liable for that risk. There would very little profit motive for insuring people in those areas. Modern governments are supposed to be obligated to serve their citizens when outside forces destroy their entire livelihood. And the reconstruction costs of such an ordeal are enormous. If houses have been completely destroyed, you need some place to give shelter to the survivors. There may not be infrastructure working for bringing supplies to the area, so they'll have to be transported expensively from a long way away. The destroyed land will have to be cleared and rebuilt from scratch in many instances. The utility companies will almost certainly have their own insurance costs for repairing sewers and roads. Someone is going to have to be liable for all of those costs. I can't conceive of a private entity willing to take on that much risk without a huge promise of cash. So either only the rich can live in more dangerous (though usually more desirable) locations, or everyone will have to live there without insurance because no one will cover them for a price they can afford. Then, if they do lose everything, they really lose everything, incurring so much debt that they'll likely never be able to pay it off. Good post; I agree with most of your reasoning on everything. I'm just going to add in that I think it's okay that there are disaster-prone places where people may not be able to live without the risk of losing most of their property should a major disaster strike. You don't have to have the entire country subsidize these places so that when a major natural disaster wipes out billions of dollars of property the entire nation takes on the burden of paying this extreme recovery bill. In your post you said that governments have the job of rebuilding these societies when they're struck, but how can a government afford such a costly reconstruction? All that a government does is redistribute wealth. Whether it spends new money out of thin air (thus adding to the national debt and promising to tax future generations for this recovery bill) or whether it is fiscally responsible and taxes the current American public for that many million dollar recovery bill, all the government does is redirect other peoples' efforts towards rebuilding those disaster stricken communities whether those other people (the taxpayers) wish to or not. Now I know that private insurance companies would indeed require enormous collections of funds in order to be able to pay out the money to the many people who buy insurance and all suddenly get their houses destroyed all at once by a colossal disaster, but I don't think that's a problem that need make one oppose voluntarism. In fact, I think that the existence of places like Japan that may be at very high risk of tsunamis is a reason to be for voluntarism instead of for the government solution. As I mentioned in my previous post, this is because of the the fact that the government's solution really subsidizing living in such high risk areas. I think this subsidization hurts society. Perhaps it's better to live in a place that isn't so prone to disasters so that you don't spend so much effort rebuilding all the time. By going for the private insurance solution rather than the government insurance that every taxpayer pays for as if they are all at the same risk (even though some live in much safer places thus meaning that they are subsidizing the high risk people/places) means you are no longer subsidizing having people live in high risk places. I think this actually makes for a better society because (using the extreme example again so you can see my point) then you're not wasting peoples' money pointlessly rebuilding that underwater glass dome that protects my house. I say it's pointless because it could be less expensive (less energy--less human work--less money) to live in an area that isn't as prone to disasters as the bottom of the ocean under a glass dome. So I think by privatizing insurance you're no longer subsidizing having people living at the bottom of the ocean under glass domes. The analogy is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates perfectly why it doesn't make sense for the government to subsidize disaster prone regions of the country by providing "government aid" (taxpayer's money including from places like NH with relatively few disasters) to rebuild those disasters. So while insurance may be difficult to work out for such large scale disasters as you point out (although I still think it's doable... it's definitely not a roadblock that can't be overcome), I think it's most definitely the way to go. And I just noticed that I didn't mention voluntarism or force in this post really, but instead argued why a utilitarian might even oppose government getting involved in paying for disaster recovery. I think it clearly makes for a better society because you are giving people the responsibility to live where it's best to live. Yes, people can still choose to live in places where their house might get hit by a tornado, hurricane, tsunami, or a big ocean on top of you, but they'll have to take responsibility of those risks themselves. And I think the ingenious invention of insurance is a brilliant way to make taking responsibility of that risk possible so that people who live in the very disaster-prone areas aren't just hoping that they reach the end of their life without getting hit by a disaster because that certainly isn't a very responsible way of dealing with the risk. Making taxpayers (regardless of what part of the country they live (Lousiana or NH?) pay for your insurance at the same rate as you isn't the right thing either. That's why I think voluntarism is good. People can choose to pay for the rate if they think it's a good rate and thus they're not forced to subsidize other people who are at higher risk. A private insurance company covering Louisiana and NH would of course offer me lower rates on insuring my house from a hurricane than someone living in Louisiana. The federal government doesn't (state does I guess for this example) give us different rates, which is why the voluntary private way is the moral way and the way that makes for a better society in my opinion. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 As to why logging companies cut down everything in an area? It is the easiest and cheapest means to get the job down. If they own the land then I suppose they would turn into a tree farm. I do not see how a tree farm could support a good ecosystem. But if the companies can be limited to where they own the land... Who would sell the land to them? If no one lives there then who would own it to sell it? Would it be divided up in advance? I really haven't thought about how to transition from public property to private property all that much and it certainly is a difficult problem to deal with practically. How would the government go about selling/giving/distributing all of their public land (road land, for example) scattered around the country? And how would we decide who gets to own the sections of land set aside by the government for public parks and environmental conservation areas? These are certainly questions to think about and it may be difficult to find a good/fair way to do it. Surely since most people want places like Yellowstone National Park for example to remain conservation land, then I imagine they would want to make sure that when the land is sold to a private group the group isn't a logging company. And since nobody is living on the land / owns it currently there seems to be a predicament for deciding who gets to come up with the restrictions for industrializing such places, for example. I can conceive of many ways to protect species from being eliminated and I can think of many ways to maintain their habitats, etc, once all the land is private, but I haven't tried thinking of a way to transition from public land to private land in such a way that the areas of land like these national parks are bought by mostly groups that wish to use them parks and environmental conservation land rather than by businesses that plan on modifying the landscape for other uses. I also don't think that it would make much sense to think about the issue too much at the moment because I know that when the transition from state to stateless society happens our government may already have changed many of the rules regarding these national parks making the actual transition from public property to private property different than the situation that we are seeing right now. But, anyways, disregarding the problem of changing from public land to private land at the moment, if we just jump to a society where all land is privately owned then I'm sure that land can be conserved to conserve habitats and ecosystems to thus conserve the existence of a lot of species of plants and animals on this continent. Because so many people want this conservation to take place I'm sure that some people will decide to hold on to their land untouched rather than develop it. You could make money off of such land too even though you aren't developing it simply by letting people hike through it or anything like that and have them pay to do it. Currently in Florida the Casey Anthony trial is big in the news. If parents are willing to kill their children what makes you think they wouldn't put them to work or sell them? Just imagine how adoptions could work without laws. Too young or poor to take care of your child? Sell them for cash! I have been in no way arguing that by deciding to follow the non-aggression principle yourself would result in the crazy people in our society being eliminated. Even if it becomes the norm for people to follow the non-aggression principle and we manage to achieve a stateless society, there will undoubtedly still be insane people among us. It's possible there could be less of those crazy people, but I'm quite certain that they will never go away completely. These people will continue to commit murder against innocent victims, abuse their children, commit rape, and commit other horrible crimes. I'm not sure why you seem to be saying that you think that I don't think these things would be treated like crimes in a stateless society--they certainly would be. Just because most people follow the non-aggression principle wouldn't mean that if someone commits murder that person would go unpunished. Of course that person would be seen as a criminal and may even be given the death sentence (depending on the severity of the murder(s) of course... not every murder merits death). So I have no idea why you think that parents killing their children or selling their children [into slavery/abuse... receiving money for an adoption in itself certainly isn't a crime) certainly would remain crimes in a stateless society just like they are viewed as crimes by you and I in our current society with a state. "If parents are willing to kill their children what makes you think they wouldn't put them to work or sell them?" What do you mean, "wouldn't?" Wouldn't if what? Do you mean, "what makes you think they wouldn't put them to work or sell them if it wasn't illegal to do so?" Because to that I point out that some parents kill their children even though it is illegal to do so. So maybe you're asking that if these things were made legal, what makes me think that they wouldn't happen more often? Well, in our current society with a state if our government suddenly just legalized murder then I surely do think that murders would happen more often. But, of course, in a stateless society there is no "state" and so nothing is "legal" or "illegal." In such a society, I think that because people would still view things like murder and selling kids as slaves would still be viewed as very serious crimes, then people who commit these crimes would undoubtedly be treated like the terrible criminals they are. So I guess I don't see what your question is. You ask "what makes you think they wouldn't put them to work or sell them?" I think some people might try to work their 10-year-olds like crazy and sell their children into lives of abuse or slavery. There will still be crazy people. Is this a reason to support a coercive state to initiate force against these extreme criminals, though? Of course not. People could initiate force back against these murders and child-abusing parents for their crimes in a stateless society. Are you forgetting that people can deal with criminals without supporting having a state tax non-criminals against their will to pay for a military and court system to go arrest people for even marginal crimes and use force against them at times that you and I may think they shouldn't use force against them (like using drugs, for example). Just because we both think that things like murder are clearly very wrong and thus think that it is perfectly okay for the state to initiation force against these murders isn't a reason to think it's wrong of me to want to get rid of this state. You can still initiate force against these murderers for their crimes without the state. And I would be perfectly fine with that (even happy many times). All I've been trying to say is that I'm opposed to you initiating force against me to make me pay for this state. I'm not a murderer--I'm just someone who doesn't wish to pay for the state with my money (my effort-what I produce). Does this make me a criminal to you? Does this make me a criminal worthy of initiating force against because my crime is so great? I sure hope not. So, in a stateless society you can pay for people to violently initiate force against murderers and abusive parents who sell their kids into slavery (because such crazy people who commit such crimes will still exist in a stateless society) if you so wish and I would be okay with that. I just wouldn't be okay with you forcing for me to pay for that organization of people if I didn't want to simply because I don't view my choice not to pay for it as a crime. As for prostitution, I'm thinking more of the well being of the women involved. Then again if everyone in this society is a good person then there would be no need to worry about pimps or mistreatment. Actually if everyone was a good person then we wouldn't even need all the laws we have now because people would do what they should naturally. Not everyone is a "good" person and I certainly don't see that changing by a lot just because of social change that results in causing most people to follow the non-aggression people. There will certainly still be criminals. So, prostitution: you're thinking of the "well being of the women involved." That's good. My question is what is your objection to following the non-aggression principle? If someone rapes a woman in a stateless society, people will still view it as a crime and the rapist will be punished. You don't need a coercive government to deal with these criminals. I care about the well being of the women involved, but that certainly isn't a reason for me to want to point a gun at a woman who wants to sell herself to a man who wants to pay the woman to have sex with him and isn't a reason for me to want to point a gun at the man in this situation either. They both give their consent to what they are doing and if they don't then it's rape and I'd view it as a crime. Just because the two people also agree on passing money from one person to another doesn't make what they are doing a crime. It's still voluntary and when it is not I would view it as a crime. Rape is a crime, but not prostitution (unless you're having your kid be a ********** in which case I would view that as child abuse... but adults aren't children so I'm not going to point a gun at a man paying an adult consenting woman to have sex despite the fact that I would point the gun at the man if the woman was just a girl). And how many more female prostitutes are there than male prostitutes? I wonder. Probably a lot. How can you imagine there wouldn't be contracts for everything since that is what will replace laws. If there are no Federal or State laws then I'm fairly sure a business will make you sign a contract to buy from them. The contract would at least cover consequences of shop lifting, store rules and liability. Since mediation could be expensive the business can cut down on cases buy making their laws and requiring you to agree to them before shopping there. I would also imagine that some businesses would require you to agree to using their DRO issue resolution. While I can easily conceivably see a business requiring that you to agree to using their DRO issue resolution system should there be a dispute (which the customer can always turn down and decide to not to business with that business) and thus there would a contract there, I certainly don't think there would be "contracts for everything since that is what will replace laws." "If there are no Federal or State laws then I'm fairly sure a business will make you sign a contract to buy from them. The contract would at least cover consequences of shop lifting, store rules and liability." I disagree. A customer isn't given the choice to agree to the punishment for committing crimes of shop lifting, etc, in the same way that murderers aren't given the choice to agree to the punishment for murder. If a person commits murder then that person is punished (with force if necessary) simply because the general opinion of people is that that murder is a crime. Similarly, I don't think that a customer would necessarily have to sign any contracts with a business to do business with them even if we're saying the business and the customer are expected to follow the non-aggression pricniple. If the customer shop lifts from the store, then that is viewed as crime and the store could go after the customer through their DRO for the crime even though the customer never signed any contracts about the consequences of shop lifting. Note, however, that this customer most likely has a DRO membership somewhere (if not then that's a big problem because that means he's an even bigger criminal now) and so the customer's DRO would take part in making the ruling for what the punishment for the customer is (how much money the customer has to pay, for example). But, if a customer is going to his grocery store, I as the store wouldn't require that he has to agree (in a contract) to how he is to be punished if he shop lifts before I do business with him. No, if he was in a good standing with my DRO and he had the money to buy my product, I would sell it to him. If he stole something in the mean time I would press charges against him for his crime. His theft is an act of initiating force against me (my property). While I wouldn't use force against him (guns, threat of violence, etc) just for stealing from me, I would still see him as a criminal and would go to my DRO to make a ruling to have him pay me back. If he refused to follow our DRO's ruling by deciding not to pay me for what he stole then his DRO membership would be dropped and I and others would economically cut all ties with him. UtF, the only way I can see this DRO idea working is if human nature was completely changed. People would have to naturally do the "right" thing. Greed at least would have to be mostly eliminated. Well I certainly don't see your viewpoint. The whole point of dispute resolution organizations is that if two people have a dispute (not necessarily one is right and one is wrong... most likely gray) then they can attempt to resolve their dispute peacefully without resorting to shooting each other. As it may be difficult to resolve the dispute 1v1 a good way for these two people to manage to resolve their dispute without shooting each other is for them to agree to follow the resolution of a jury of their peers so to speak (a DRO... note: even though the DRO isn't exactly their peers, the DRO "enforcement" is done by all of the person's peers in society that they may ever wish to interact with so really you could say it's a jury of their peers in some respect that these people who wish to resolve their dispute without violence might agree to follow the ruling of). And note that the idea of these dispute resolution organizations is just one idea for how people might resolve their disputes without resorting to violence. The same organizations can resolve the disputes regarding how to punish criminals. In a ruling against a mass murderer a DRO might rule to have force used against this criminal, but for the most part (with all the petty crimes like theft) DROs would make rulings that don't involve using force against people but instead rely on social and economic ostracism for "enforcement". So this makes the DROs a great idea in my opinion on how people might go about resolving disputes without resorting to violence like our state currently does. If you don't like the idea of DROs that I've presented in this forum then that's okay; they're just a suggestion on how you might deal with disputes/criminals non-violently. I think they could do a great job of it in a stateless society too, but if you have other ideas I'd be glad to hear them. So this forum has now once against seen "human nature" as an objection (this time by curr3nt) as to why you must violently use force against non-criminals like me in order to stop violence and crime from occurring more often than it does now. That sounds quite hypocritical to me. But anyways, I think you should all seriously reconsider stopping using force against people for things that really aren't crimes at all. It's the moral thing to do and I think it will make the world a better place. I know there are crazy criminals living among us who murder their children, etc, but this fact that you call "human nature" certainly isn't a reason to support initiating force against me for not funding your state. While your state may [inefficiently] deal with these murderers (a plus for the state... although not really because a stateless society would do it much better) remember that your state also murders innocent people around the world in foreign wars and at home in our own country and treats people like me as criminals for not pay "taxes" to provide funds to pay for these murderers called heroes by many. The state commits atrocious crimes and commits crimes against me for the non-crimes of not buying things I don't want to buy, so even if you like the state using force against parents who murder their children by locking the parents up for life or giving them the death sentence, you better not use that as an excuse to support the state, especially since I disagree with you that the state does a better job dealing with these murderers than people could do in a stateless society. I think that these murderers could be dealt with far better without a state. But, even if you disagree for the silly poor reason of "human nature", that isn't a reason to use force against me for not giving my money to the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quag Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 *repost* ok lets try this, please answer these questions: 1. Are municipalities responsible for water/sanitation and the majority of roads as well as other services? 2. Do the citizens of these municipalities recieve the benefits of these services? 3. By their nature is it impossible to avoid these benefits if you live in the municipality? 4. Do Municipalities raise most of their income through property taxes? 5. Does much of the North America exist outside of municipal boundaries? 6. Are these areas thus exempt from property taxes? 7. Are you free to choose where in North America you live? Now for you to disagree with me you must say NO to one of these questions, please inform me which one it is and why, Then I can begin to try and understand where you are coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 OK... in response to your attack on the military... Yes, there are a few bad apples always (Abu Garib, for instance); I get it, and it's a good point. But these people give their lives in an effort to help their country. They di it when we were attacked by the Japanese in WW2, they fight terrorists abroad. And yet you call them murderers? Really? Don't you realize that having the strongest military in the owrld is what prevents us from being in more wars? China would have already taken us over to 'repay' our debt to them if we didn't, because i doubt that Europe (our allies in Europe obviously) would be able to help us in that situation (not for nothing, but we had to help them in WW1 and WW2 so that they weren't taken over). And yet they are murderers? No, they aren't. The murderers in the system appear when higher-ups allow it to be so, and you know what? That has more to do with the generals then the soldiers themselves. But it isn't the whole military; it is only those who know that their actions will go unnoticed and unpunished due to their anonymity. But this is simply something that has to be rooted out, and those responsible brought to justice (as they often are when they're discovered). But calling the entire military murderers? That shocks me. Horrifies me actually. With no military, china would invade very soon, as i said, to pay back our debts (hell, the soviets would have taken care of us a while ago). We would be defenseless, and wouldn't last that long. Just look at the great societies of mesoamerica, or the Iriquois confederacy. Their militaries weren't strong enough. And no, I don't condone what the colonizers did, but I'm showing you an exampke. militaries are essential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curr3nt Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm not totally opposed to your idea of DROs. I think if set up right they might work in the business sector to cut down on the crazy litigation we have now. I just do not see how they can be the sole solution. I'm more against the stateless society part. You still haven't convinced me that DRO alone would be able to cover everything I believe we need for a stable society. If anything I believe a separate state would be required to balance against the DRO to keep them honest. ----- I also do not see how paying for the DRO wouldn't be considered a tax too. Since you have to belong to at least one to function in your society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm not totally opposed to your idea of DROs. I think if set up right they might work in the business sector to cut down on the crazy litigation we have now. I just do not see how they can be the sole solution. I'm more against the stateless society part. You still haven't convinced me that DRO alone would be able to cover everything I believe we need for a stable society. If anything I believe a separate state would be required to balance against the DRO to keep them honest. ----- I also do not see how paying for the DRO wouldn't be considered a tax too. Since you have to belong to at least one to function in your society. Right. There are a lot of problems with businesses taking advantage of their buying power to coerce customers into situations they don't like, but feel that they have no alternative. Each DRO investigation is going to cost money. So on the liability side of things, companies are not going to want to be liable for the cost of an investigation if there isn't a contract already set up between an individual and the company. If everyone using the store has a contract with the company, the company can go to the DRO and get immediate restitution if they can prove the breach of contract. But if there is no contract, then it's much harder to prove who is at fault and companies don't like things like that. They like certainty. So in a world full of contracts, it would be safer from a liability perspective to just require all patrons to agree to the terms of service ahead of time. The other issue with this is cost. As I said, DRO investigations (especially in instances without explicit contracts) are going to cost something (let's say $100 for simplicity). If the company can prove malfeasance on the part of a shoplifter, one would expect that the shoplifter would be liable for the costs of the investigation and the item in question (plus any other punishments as decided by the DRO). If the person can prove that they did buy the item "legally," then the store would be liable for the cost of the investigation. But if the item in question is only $20 and it is identical to items available for purchase in any of a half-dozen stores, it might not be worth the store's time (and money) to pursue the person with a request to the DRO if they don't have a reasonable expectation of winning the argument. So people might be allowed to get away with "petty crimes" that are significantly less than the cost of the investigation, provided that proving the crime isn't almost guaranteed. If the person accused is always liable for the cost, then that creates a perverse incentive for companies to pursue individuals for frivolous reasons if they think that they can get away with it. This is where curr3nt's talk of "human nature" comes in. If people see a chance to take advantage of others, there are a lot of people in society who have no qualms about doing it. And I'm not talking about the "crazies" as you call them (I think the term I would use is "psychopaths" for them); I'm talking about the sociopaths. The people who will burn you just because they can or because they don't like your politics or they simply got up on the wrong side of the bed. People do all sorts of nonsensical things for irrational reasons. That was my point about the candy bar. I wasn't suggesting that the state should dictate whether or not you should be allowed to eat the candy bar or not. I was saying that people make bad decisions and rationalize them all the time. Something as trivial as the candy bar isn't worth the time of the state to deal with, but if someone says, "There's only a 60% chance that the oil well will blow up. I think that's an acceptable risk, considering that if I ignore it, I'll make $500 million, when I'll only make $50 million if I spend the money to lower the risk," they're rationalizing a dangerous decision that they really shouldn't be making. A slightly more trivial, but still dangerous rationalization: "I'm fine driving home with a .12% BAC. I know my limits, so I don't need anyone telling me otherwise. I can see fine. I'm not impaired at all." My point is, people do stupid things. Sometimes those things put other people in danger. When that happens, someone should be proactively working to prevent people from causing that harm. But there's no method of enforcement available through DRO resolution unless someone's paying for police services. If someone's paying for police, that opens the question of how they are being funded. Do the get paid purely by rich donors who want to keep the streets safe? Are they paid by the companies that they serve? I don't see how you can stop drunk drivers from driving without someone actively searching for them. You could set up checkpoints, but that's a major inconvenience for anyone who's perfectly fine and never ever gets drunk (or never drives while drunk). If I'm a person who drives across country routinely for business, I wouldn't want to have to stop for checkpoints every 100 miles to prove that I'm sober. And if it were only every 100 miles, every drunk driving 10 miles home from the bar would never cross a checkpoint to be tested. Without a proactive police service, I don't see how you can prevent people from doing dangerous things that the community agrees is "illegal" and if you're providing a private force, there's the potential for abuse of the system, with little accountability or oversight. If you want an example of human nature, think about people who receive a DWB ("Driving While Black"). There's often no good reason for someone in a position of authority to yank the chain of someone else, but it still happens. Look up the Standford experiment for the extreme of what people can do with only a little power over others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unreality Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I really haven't thought about how to transition from public property to private property all that much and it certainly is a difficult problem to deal with practically. How would the government go about selling/giving/distributing all of their public land (road land, for example) scattered around the country? And how would we decide who gets to own the sections of land set aside by the government for public parks and environmental conservation areas? These are certainly questions to think about and it may be difficult to find a good/fair way to do it. Surely since most people want places like Yellowstone National Park for example to remain conservation land, then I imagine they would want to make sure that when the land is sold to a private group the group isn't a logging company. And since nobody is living on the land / owns it currently there seems to be a predicament for deciding who gets to come up with the restrictions for industrializing such places, for example. I can conceive of many ways to protect species from being eliminated and I can think of many ways to maintain their habitats, etc, once all the land is private, but I haven't tried thinking of a way to transition from public land to private land in such a way that the areas of land like these national parks are bought by mostly groups that wish to use them parks and environmental conservation land rather than by businesses that plan on modifying the landscape for other uses. I also don't think that it would make much sense to think about the issue too much at the moment because I know that when the transition from state to stateless society happens our government may already have changed many of the rules regarding these national parks making the actual transition from public property to private property different than the situation that we are seeing right now. But, anyways, disregarding the problem of changing from public land to private land at the moment, if we just jump to a society where all land is privately owned then I'm sure that land can be conserved to conserve habitats and ecosystems to thus conserve the existence of a lot of species of plants and animals on this continent. Because so many people want this conservation to take place I'm sure that some people will decide to hold on to their land untouched rather than develop it. You could make money off of such land too even though you aren't developing it simply by letting people hike through it or anything like that and have them pay to do it. Once again you are too optimistic. With no institution to preserve the national parks like Yellowstone (with force yes), rich companies will buy the land and use it for their own purposes and that company may be a logging company, maybe a housing developer, a strip mall marketer, whatever... you can bet it won't have the ecosystem/natural beauty's best interests in mind Even if good people control these territories for a certain amount of time they will eventually be attacked by other municipalities or corporations, or bought out more peacefully, and that only needs to happen once to a pristine forest and it's already over. You can't really bring that back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 Once again you are too optimistic. With no institution to preserve the national parks like Yellowstone (with force yes), rich companies will buy the land and use it for their own purposes and that company may be a logging company, maybe a housing developer, a strip mall marketer, whatever... you can bet it won't have the ecosystem/natural beauty's best interests in mind Even if good people control these territories for a certain amount of time they will eventually be attacked by other municipalities or corporations, or bought out more peacefully, and that only needs to happen once to a pristine forest and it's already over. You can't really bring that back. Right. You could also sell land to a "Logging Company" and the clear-cut the land and convert into a "Home-Building Company," so they don't have to spend the cost to regrow the land. They build houses and other developments on it and sell it off. That seems like a highly profitable short-term venture that will fizzle out in 5-10 years, but it will be great for the CEO in the first 2 years. (At which point, he'll change jobs and he won't be held to account when the company tanks 3 years later. ) Another aspect that won't exist in a world driven by profit motive: theoretical research. Take the research going on at CERN now regarding anti-matter. It's amazingly expensive to do and it has no immediate practical benefits. They may only find something 10 years from now that will make anti-matter research profitable (if ever). What company would be willing to funnel that much money into an investment that might never come to fruition? I particularly liked this comment below the article: This was research that was scheduled to be conducted at the Superconductng Supercollider in Texas in the early 90's. Congress had already spent $2 billion of a projected $5 billion, bought the land and dug the trenches. Scientists from all over the world were moving to Waxahachie, TX to work on it. The conservatives in Congress shut it down to save the remaining $3 billion. Now the basic research is being done in Cern and Texas has no new industries growing out of the science. In fact, the idiot politicians in Texas are cutting some $6 billion from the Texas school budgets. Conservative stupidity is destroying the American economy and society. But I'm sure the Discovery Institute is still prepared to do cutting edge research on what day the bible says god created the world 6000 years ago if the American Enterprise Institute funds it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 OK... in response to your attack on the military... Yes, there are a few bad apples always (Abu Garib, for instance); I get it, and it's a good point. But these people give their lives in an effort to help their country. They di it when we were attacked by the Japanese in WW2, they fight terrorists abroad. And yet you call them murderers? Really? Don't you realize that having the strongest military in the owrld is what prevents us from being in more wars? China would have already taken us over to 'repay' our debt to them if we didn't, because i doubt that Europe (our allies in Europe obviously) would be able to help us in that situation (not for nothing, but we had to help them in WW1 and WW2 so that they weren't taken over). And yet they are murderers? No, they aren't. The murderers in the system appear when higher-ups allow it to be so, and you know what? That has more to do with the generals then the soldiers themselves. But it isn't the whole military; it is only those who know that their actions will go unnoticed and unpunished due to their anonymity. But this is simply something that has to be rooted out, and those responsible brought to justice (as they often are when they're discovered). But calling the entire military murderers? That shocks me. Horrifies me actually. With no military, china would invade very soon, as i said, to pay back our debts (hell, the soviets would have taken care of us a while ago). We would be defenseless, and wouldn't last that long. Just look at the great societies of mesoamerica, or the Iriquois confederacy. Their militaries weren't strong enough. And no, I don't condone what the colonizers did, but I'm showing you an exampke. militaries are essential. I certainly don't consider the military essential, but again, if you do you can pay for it. You don't have to force me to pay for it. I think your fears that China would invade the US if it wasn't for our 700 billion dollar a year military budget are very superstitious. There is some truth to what you say in that we do have a lot of political power when we have the largest military in the world, but your fears aren't a reason to force me to pay for the military if I don't want to. "And yet they are murderers? No, they aren't." Well they certainly kill a lot of innocent people. They might do it by accident, but I hold them responsible anyways because they were the ones who decided to go fight a war. Even if there goal isn't to kill civilians, over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a result of the violent war there. How many people did the terrorists kill on 9/11? 3000? I know not all 100,000+ of the dead civilians in Iraq were killed by the U.S., but it was the U.S.'s presence there for the war that lead to their deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 I'm not totally opposed to your idea of DROs. I think if set up right they might work in the business sector to cut down on the crazy litigation we have now. I just do not see how they can be the sole solution. I'm more against the stateless society part. You still haven't convinced me that DRO alone would be able to cover everything I believe we need for a stable society. If anything I believe a separate state would be required to balance against the DRO to keep them honest. ----- I also do not see how paying for the DRO wouldn't be considered a tax too. Since you have to belong to at least one to function in your society. Remember that DROs don't enforce their rulings with violence. People enforce the DROs rulings themselves. So you don't need a state to keep the DROs honest. DROs can make unfair rulings and it's fine. The victim of the ruling can just choose to not follow it and can appeal to another more honest DRO instead. It's not like if a DRO makes an unfair ruling an innocent person gets locked up in jail. That's what our government does. Paying for the DROs wouldn't be considered a tax because paying for the DROs is completely voluntary. It's true that I imagine people all having a DRO membership somewhere because that will help a society more easily deal with criminals and people who break their agreements, but if you want to not have a DRO that is a choice you can make. And you can do it without being treated like a criminal. When a DRO drops your membership for a crime that you refuse to pay, you wouldn't be treated like a criminal simply because you no longer had a DRO membership. Rather, the DRO would add you to a list of criminals that it would send out to all of the other DROs to let the businesses and others who want these lists have them so that they could not sell to the criminals. If you're a non-criminal who just doesn't want to pay for a DRO, I'm sure you either find a DRO that would accept you for free or else would at least give your name to the businesses saying nobody has accused you of a crime. I don't imagine all DROs charging everyone for membership fees either so if you wanted a DRO for free you could find one. Living off the map as a non-criminal would be possible too, just more difficult I imagine because it would be more difficult for you to form contracts with people as they wouldn't have an easy way of making sure that you would hold true to your agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted June 6, 2011 Report Share Posted June 6, 2011 (edited) I certainly don't consider the military essential, but again, if you do you can pay for it. You don't have to force me to pay for it. I think your fears that China would invade the US if it wasn't for our 700 billion dollar a year military budget are very superstitious. There is some truth to what you say in that we do have a lot of political power when we have the largest military in the world, but your fears aren't a reason to force me to pay for the military if I don't want to. "And yet they are murderers? No, they aren't." Well they certainly kill a lot of innocent people. They might do it by accident, but I hold them responsible anyways because they were the ones who decided to go fight a war. Even if there goal isn't to kill civilians, over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a result of the violent war there. How many people did the terrorists kill on 9/11? 3000? I know not all 100,000+ of the dead civilians in Iraq were killed by the U.S., but it was the U.S.'s presence there for the war that lead to their deaths. They chose to fight for their country. They have no choice as to where they go to fight. i blame the politicians behind such wars as Iraq, i blame the system. Those at such hideous things as Abu-Gharib, as well as such politicians as George Bush (who promoted the use of torture, which is against international law) should be arrested on war crimes. But remember, it is the war itself that kills innocent people, not US soldiers (almost all of the time of the time), and certaintly not on purpose. Do I like war? Hell no. I find it to be a hideous, disgusting practice- yet in our world it is necessary. Think WW2, think revolutionary war. These things are important. And no, we do not need 700 billion- we definitely need to cut out some waste and unnecessary items. But we need a military. My fears are not superstitious. just look at what happened with Europe. Hitler (equivalet to some of the crazies still out there, and i have no doubt China would do the same if we didn't pay up and they had the chance, as would appear in your society since the military would be a joke without everybody paying) used the fact that he had supreme military might to go and take over Europe. We saved them because we were stronger. And Japan attacked us! We weren't taken seriously until Japan attacked us and we kicked some a**. Who has attacked us since then? (Besides terrorists I mean). We need a military, and a strong and large one, for defense. Using it as it was used during the cold war and in the years following was an abuse of our military might, but it is needed. Otherwise, we are vulnerable. Edited June 6, 2011 by gvg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I disagree with gvg's assertion that China would be out to get us if we didn't have a military. Given the global economy we have today, we are too big to fail. If China attacked us and devastated our economy, how would we pay them back? It's in their economic interest for us to maintain at least a marginal economy. They're probably far more upset with the GOP's brinkmanship with the debt ceiling than they are with our military might. If we start defaulting on our financial obligations, then they might start looking at military options. We need to invest in our economy and our infrastructure, instead of insisting on austerity measures. If our economy shrivels to the size of a raisin, it won't matter how "balanced" our budget is, it won't pay off our debts in any reasonable timeframe and our children and their children will be paying for our economic idiocy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curr3nt Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Wait...if you do not have to pay for a DRO then who would pay for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) But think- if there is no gov., and no one wants to pay the debt, who will pay the debt? it won't matter how our economy is- when no one pays the debt, they'll get us. Think about it. At least now we are actively paying off the minimum of the interest payments each year. Could you imagine if we stop? (which is what would happen without a gov., after all who would WANT to pay otherwise?) So yes, WITH a gov., what you say has merit. (I still disagree- after all, the british controlled us and we bought only their goods really- China could do the same. But that's besides the point). But I am reffering to what would happen in UtF's gov. free world. No one would pay, thus why would that go 'unpunished' by China? But that was just an example anyway. I just mean in general a militaary prevents us from being screwed. In a world without our military, all it takes is something like WW2 Japan (who was able to take over China after all) to come along (if N. Korea gets their act together, they are a viable option. Easily.) to develop and we're done. You think the soviets wouldn't have gone and expanded to include us in their communist empire? (Like they did with Poland) I'm giving specific examples here, but you know what I mean: We need a military. It is a large reason (or at least was) a major reason for us getting to where we are. Again, i don't like war, and I wish it wasn't needed. But even the swiss, the definition of nuetrality, have a decent military and force their citizens into service. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland Yes i know it's wikipedia) Do I want that? No. But the military is necessary. We wouldn't exist at this point without it. Edited June 7, 2011 by gvg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Right. There are a lot of problems with businesses taking advantage of their buying power to coerce customers into situations they don't like, but feel that they have no alternative. Each DRO investigation is going to cost money. So on the liability side of things, companies are not going to want to be liable for the cost of an investigation if there isn't a contract already set up between an individual and the company. If everyone using the store has a contract with the company, the company can go to the DRO and get immediate restitution if they can prove the breach of contract. But if there is no contract, then it's much harder to prove who is at fault and companies don't like things like that. They like certainty. So in a world full of contracts, it would be safer from a liability perspective to just require all patrons to agree to the terms of service ahead of time. Having the patrons agree to the terms of service ahead of time may very well be a good way to do it. The other issue with this is cost. As I said, DRO investigations (especially in instances without explicit contracts) are going to cost something (let's say $100 for simplicity). If the company can prove malfeasance on the part of a shoplifter, one would expect that the shoplifter would be liable for the costs of the investigation and the item in question (plus any other punishments as decided by the DRO). If the person can prove that they did buy the item "legally," then the store would be liable for the cost of the investigation. But if the item in question is only $20 and it is identical to items available for purchase in any of a half-dozen stores, it might not be worth the store's time (and money) to pursue the person with a request to the DRO if they don't have a reasonable expectation of winning the argument. So people might be allowed to get away with "petty crimes" that are significantly less than the cost of the investigation, provided that proving the crime isn't almost guaranteed. I doubt that a big store would bother to go to their DRO for someone stealing something that costs only $20. Even in our current society where the stores get free law enforcement they often let people steal from them without going to the police about it. My brother worked at a grocery store and I remember him telling me how often people stole from the store and how little the company cared about it. He got to recognize some of the thieves by sight (they stole regularly) and found it strange that they weren't cracking down on the people. Are you really going to stop an old lady and say, "Excuse me, did you forget to pay for that?" I mean, it seems a perfectly reasonable policy to me, but the grocery store that my brother worked for let the people get away with it. I guess it wasn't worth the trouble for the small number of items stolen in comparison to the many items bought. In a stateless society though, if I was running a store though I might just publish the peoples' names who I knew stole from me as a sort of list of shame. If it was a big problem that you cared about dealing with though I'm sure it would be easily manageable without the police. If the person accused is always liable for the cost, then that creates a perverse incentive for companies to pursue individuals for frivolous reasons if they think that they can get away with it. This is where curr3nt's talk of "human nature" comes in. If people see a chance to take advantage of others, there are a lot of people in society who have no qualms about doing it. And I'm not talking about the "crazies" as you call them (I think the term I would use is "psychopaths" for them); I'm talking about the sociopaths. The people who will burn you just because they can or because they don't like your politics or they simply got up on the wrong side of the bed. People do all sorts of nonsensical things for irrational reasons. That was my point about the candy bar. I wasn't suggesting that the state should dictate whether or not you should be allowed to eat the candy bar or not. I was saying that people make bad decisions and rationalize them all the time. Something as trivial as the candy bar isn't worth the time of the state to deal with, but if someone says, "There's only a 60% chance that the oil well will blow up. I think that's an acceptable risk, considering that if I ignore it, I'll make $500 million, when I'll only make $50 million if I spend the money to lower the risk," they're rationalizing a dangerous decision that they really shouldn't be making. If this oil well explosion causes damage to other peoples' property then of course the oil company should have to pay the people full compensation for the damage done as well as at least some of the cost of the DRO bill for covering the case. A slightly more trivial, but still dangerous rationalization: "I'm fine driving home with a .12% BAC. I know my limits, so I don't need anyone telling me otherwise. I can see fine. I'm not impaired at all." My point is, people do stupid things. Sometimes those things put other people in danger. When that happens, someone should be proactively working to prevent people from causing that harm. But there's no method of enforcement available through DRO resolution unless someone's paying for police services. If I'm a road company and impose a restriction on the level of intoxication that drivers on my load are allowed to be then surely I'm going to come up with some way to enforce this and punish those who ignore it. If hiring people to patrol the streets in "police cars" pulling over drivers who seem to be driving out of control is the best solution, then that's what the free market will give you. That might be costly, but if you're a customer who doesn't want drunk drivers on the same roads as you you will probably be willing to pay for it. The road companies will strive to make the roads as safe, inexpensive, efficient, etc as possible because they are a business that wants to satisfy their customers. If someone's paying for police, that opens the question of how they are being funded. Do the get paid purely by rich donors who want to keep the streets safe? Are they paid by the companies that they serve? I don't see how you can stop drunk drivers from driving without someone actively searching for them. You could set up checkpoints, but that's a major inconvenience for anyone who's perfectly fine and never ever gets drunk (or never drives while drunk). If I'm a person who drives across country routinely for business, I wouldn't want to have to stop for checkpoints every 100 miles to prove that I'm sober. And if it were only every 100 miles, every drunk driving 10 miles home from the bar would never cross a checkpoint to be tested. Well of course the road businesses (and thus the customers of the road) would pay for any policing patrols on the roads. Rich donors could donate as well, but I highly doubt that a company would rely on such donations. Again, if police as we currently have them on our roads is the best method that people want then that is what they'll get. Entrepreneurs would find ways to improve the system I'm sure though. If I wanted to save money on police I would perhaps hand part of the job over to the customers and encourage them to report drivers they see who speed or look to be driving unsafely in other ways. Do you know how on the back of so many trucks on the roads there are signs that say, "How's my driving? 1-800-blah" The companies aren't relying on the police only to make sure that their drivers drive their trucks safely. I think setting up an easy way for other drivers on the road to report bad drivers and make sure that there is an efficient system in place for checking those drivers to make sure that they drive safer would help promote the safe driving subject while not costing the road company too much money on police. After all, why would you pay someone to go around pulling over bad drivers when there are already plenty of drivers on the street who can identify the bad drivers for you? Maybe you'll have some police, but I think there are ways to improve the system. Anyways, the road company / its customers would pay for the police. Without a proactive police service, I don't see how you can prevent people from doing dangerous things that the community agrees is "illegal" and if you're providing a private force, there's the potential for abuse of the system, with little accountability or oversight. If you want an example of human nature, think about people who receive a DWB ("Driving While Black"). There's often no good reason for someone in a position of authority to yank the chain of someone else, but it still happens. Look up the Standford experiment for the extreme of what people can do with only a little power over others. Well then buy a proactive police service. Just because police are currently publicly employed on public roads doesn't mean you can't hire a private employee to do the same thing on a private road. Abuse of the system with little accountability or oversight? Well fortunately the companies that profit are the companies that manage to develop a system with a lot of accountable built in so that employees who don't do their jobs well get punished and those that do do their jobs well get rewarded. "There's often no good reason for someone in a position of authority to yank the chain of someone else, but it still happens." And you wonder why I'm opposed to government.... I'm aware of the Stanford prison experiment and it is due to the fact that people tend to abuse their power if it is in their interests to do so that makes me oppose governments. Are you worried about a private police employee abusing his power by not bothering to patrol the roads or something? Surely his employer will be the accountability there (or else the employer will lose his money). What power are you worried that a private road company will abuse? It's the government that is given the legal right to use violence against people that you should be worried about if you care about people abusing power. A company is already held accountable by the people because it is the people who must voluntarily give the company their money. If the people don't like what the company is doing then they simply stop paying. This accountability does not exist in government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Once again you are too optimistic. With no institution to preserve the national parks like Yellowstone (with force yes), rich companies will buy the land and use it for their own purposes and that company may be a logging company, maybe a housing developer, a strip mall marketer, whatever... you can bet it won't have the ecosystem/natural beauty's best interests in mind Even if good people control these territories for a certain amount of time they will eventually be attacked by other municipalities or corporations, or bought out more peacefully, and that only needs to happen once to a pristine forest and it's already over. You can't really bring that back. Money can buy wood and money can buy trees. I'm not sure why the government isn't already charging more to visit these parks. The market value of doing so would surely be many times higher than the price government currently says visitors have to pay to visit Yellowstone. I'm not sure why you don't seem to think that the ecosystem/natural beauty has a price. It does and certainly the more of it that goes away the higher that price will go because so many people value places like Yellowstone for being untouched by man-made factories, etc. If owners of non-developed land don't keep their property undeveloped because they want it to remain "natural," then they could always turn it into a tourism business where people pay to visit it, etc. I'm certainly not worried about places like Yellowstone getting destroyed by getting rid of a coercive government. If the government isn't taxing you for the land you're really not pressured to develop it. Enough people care about preserving natural ecosystems like that that I don't see what the big fear is. If you're worried you can always have multiple people buy the land together and agree that if they are ever going to sell it or develop it then they must all agree to do so. In this way even if one person thinks they can make more money by building a factory on the land (even if that's true they still might not want to build the factory... but lets say they do want to build it) then the other people can stop them and say that they want to preserve the landscape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Private Sector accountability! That is the funniest thing I've read today. Seriously? Let's begin a list: -wall street -insurance companies -places like Walmart and Nike that use foregin slave labor and pay their employess less than living wage (especially walmart, which doesn't allow unions even) i could keep going, but you get the point. These are things the gov. has done nothiong about, so it's easy to see what will happen woithout one at all. Companies care not about accountability, but profit. Oil companies in NY are currently trying to make it legal to frack, which destroys land, pollutes it heavily, and harms humans. They are only stopped by gov. enforced laws. To the private sector, the ends justify the means. Social darwinism runs amock. Com one, man. The private sector invented these things. Accountability my a**. You'd see more outsourcing, more slave labor, more pollution, more abuse. There would be no end. It's horrifying to imagine. I would much prefer to trust the president, say, or a politician than a CEO of any major company or cartel (like that of Wall Street) with my life. I kid you not. i would never trust those slimy, scaly, disgusting, horrible excuse for humans like those on Wall Street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Money can buy wood and money can buy trees. I'm not sure why the government isn't already charging more to visit these parks. The market value of doing so would surely be many times higher than the price government currently says visitors have to pay to visit Yellowstone. I'm not sure why you don't seem to think that the ecosystem/natural beauty has a price. It does and certainly the more of it that goes away the higher that price will go because so many people value places like Yellowstone for being untouched by man-made factories, etc. If owners of non-developed land don't keep their property undeveloped because they want it to remain "natural," then they could always turn it into a tourism business where people pay to visit it, etc. I'm certainly not worried about places like Yellowstone getting destroyed by getting rid of a coercive government. If the government isn't taxing you for the land you're really not pressured to develop it. Enough people care about preserving natural ecosystems like that that I don't see what the big fear is. If you're worried you can always have multiple people buy the land together and agree that if they are ever going to sell it or develop it then they must all agree to do so. In this way even if one person thinks they can make more money by building a factory on the land (even if that's true they still might not want to build the factory... but lets say they do want to build it) then the other people can stop them and say that they want to preserve the landscape. People still want to drill for oil in Alaska. You put too much trust in businessmen. They would easily cut it all down, use the hor water for stuff, dig it up to find natural resources, and then resell it to someone who would develop it into, say, a shopping mall. (for instance, http://www1.american.edu/ted/alaska.htm) I love the optimism, but reality says otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Another aspect that won't exist in a world driven by profit motive: theoretical research. Take the research going on at CERN now regarding anti-matter. It's amazingly expensive to do and it has no immediate practical benefits. They may only find something 10 years from now that will make anti-matter research profitable (if ever). What company would be willing to funnel that much money into an investment that might never come to fruition? So my question for you: do you think the "amazingly expensive" price is worth it? Also, a stateless society isn't "a world driven by profit motive." You make money by producing goods and services that other people want to buy from you and then you can use that money to buy things that you yourself want. The "profit motive" is only half the story. The other half is what you want to buy with your money. If you want to buy a big screen TV, insurance, police for your roads, or theoretical research, then you can. The choice is yours. By the sounds of what you said, you think that the "amazingly expensive" price for this scientific research is worth it, but you also seem to think that most people would disagree with you (if they agreed with you then you could all just buy the theoretical research voluntarily). So what does this mean? Does this mean that the government that you support paying for this research is coercing those other people into paying taxes for theoretical research that they don't want to pay for? If this is true then what you're doing is immoral. I don't think you're alone in wanting to buy this theoretical research, however, so if you weren't allowed to force other people to buy things against their will then I think you would still have a chance at finding enough people who want these amazingly expensive research projects to get enough funds to fund some voluntarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 People still want to drill for oil in Alaska. You put too much trust in businessmen. They would easily cut it all down, use the hor water for stuff, dig it up to find natural resources, and then resell it to someone who would develop it into, say, a shopping mall. (for instance, http://www1.american.edu/ted/alaska.htm) I love the optimism, but reality says otherwise. Why do you think only the businessmen who want to cut down the forests would buy the land? Not many of the conversationalists are trying to buy the land from the government right now because they don't to change the land. The government is already mostly doing what they want to do with the land. If the government sold all of its land to private people, however, people other than the people who want to develop the land would buy it. It makes sense that the people currently trying to get the land from the government are the people who want to develop it because the people (for the most part) who don't want to develop it don't mind the government holding onto the land because the government is doing what they want with the land. If the government announced that it was going to sell all of its public land in say 50 years from now then I'm sure that the conversationalists would seek to buy the land as well as the logging industry, etc. It's just the fact that the government is conserving the land right now that makes the conversationalists not want to buy it. So I don't think the businessmen would "easily cut it all down, use the hor water for stuff, dig it up to find natural resources, and then resell it to someone who would develop it into, say, a shopping mall" simply because other people (conversationalists) who didn't want to destroy the natural landscape would seek to buy the land too now that the government would be giving up its conversationalist job by handing the land over to the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gvg Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) But think about it, who has more money? Oil/Logging/etc. or conservationalist institutions? Especially noting that most of those types of organizations are not for profti. Where would they get the money? Right now most are funded by gov. Oh, and your theoretical research question: Most people didn't (and still don't think) stem cell research is worth it. Or Alternative energy. They used to think medical research was against god. Some still do. etc etc Doesn't mean they're right. but according to you, if no one wants to pay, that makes it the right thing to do. Recently theoretical phycisists were able to collect anti-hydrogen particles for 16 minutes (a new record). Do you realize what could be accomplished if this thing was developed? But by your logic, if nobody cares about it, we'll let it die. just like medical research. And alternative energy research. The general public is uneducated. Many think anything scientific is unevil, and most of them (like the Koch brothers) are very rich, so ther goes that. Prayer would end up being the answer. I hope i made sense. i am so tired right now cause of my finals ALL AROUND ME. but you get what i mean right? Edited June 7, 2011 by gvg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 They chose to fight for their country. They have no choice as to where they go to fight. i blame the politicians behind such wars as Iraq, i blame the system. No, I blame the politicians, the system, and the people like you who advocate supporting the system and the right of the politicians to declare way and tax people to pay for the wars. How can you say you blame the system when you've been advocating for it this whole thread? You'll probably say you want to reform it, but don't you realize that no amount of "reform" or "accountability" will get rid of the politicians right to use violence against the people in this country to force them to pay for these wars except for abolishing that right and thus abolishing the system? What does reform mean to you? What do you think is going to change about how the government will work that will suddenly stop them from declaring these wars and forcing every taxpayer to pay for them? That's what the system is! The politicians are your legal authorities. You support giving them the power to decide what to do with your money. You advocate reform so that you don't wind up supporting a government that taxes its citizens to pay for wars like the Iraq War that you don't support, but the only reform that can guarantee that is reform for you to regain your right to spend your money the way you wish. As long as you give the politicians the right to spend your money they will continue to spend it in ways you do not support and you will continue to say "Reform Reform! Accountability! Accountability!" and it will be your fault that you're paying for the wars because you'll still be supporting the system that force you to pay for them. The only accountability that will work is voluntarism. If you give up your choice on how to spend your money then it's going to end up going to wars and things you don't support. "i blame the politicians behind such wars as Iraq, i blame the system." You support the politicians and the system so really you have no right to complain. You're advocating giving the politicians the right to decide how to spend your tax money so if they spend it on something you don't like you have no one to blame but yourself--that is, until you stop tolerating there legal right to take your money against your will. Those at such hideous things as Abu-Gharib, as well as such politicians as George Bush (who promoted the use of torture, which is against international law) should be arrested on war crimes. But remember, it is the war itself that kills innocent people, not US soldiers (almost all of the time of the time), and certaintly not on purpose. Do I like war? Hell no. I find it to be a hideous, disgusting practice- yet in our world it is necessary. Of course war isn't necessary. What is it necessary for? You're certainly not talking about self defense. Think WW2, think revolutionary war. These things are important. Okay, a revolutionary war could be seen as self defense. If continue calling wars "necessary" though then you'll mistakenly continue taxing people against their will to pay for wars that they don't wish to support. And no, we do not need 700 billion- we definitely need to cut out some waste and unnecessary items. But we need a military. My fears are not superstitious. just look at what happened with Europe. Hitler (equivalet to some of the crazies still out there, and i have no doubt China would do the same if we didn't pay up and they had the chance, as would appear in your society since the military would be a joke without everybody paying) used the fact that he had supreme military might to go and take over Europe. We saved them because we were stronger. And Japan attacked us! We weren't taken seriously until Japan attacked us and we kicked some a**. Who has attacked us since then? (Besides terrorists I mean). We need a military, and a strong and large one, for defense. Using it as it was used during the cold war and in the years following was an abuse of our military might, but it is needed. Otherwise, we are vulnerable. If you want a military you can pay for one, but please don't criminalize me any longer for disagreeing with you on the necessity of military and wars. I do not wish to pay for them. Are you really going to wage war against me to force me to pay for them? What about morals? You're a good person, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.