Charles Anthony

You are getting a few issues mixed up. Your original statement: is a grave mistake. The value of money (or any commodity) is affected by its scarcity. If governments just printed money to pay for services, the value of the money would go down because there would be more of it in circulation. As a result, we would see prices rise. Prices rising in of itself is not the biggest problem. If governments did this (without injecting anything of intrinsic value) to the market, prices would rise unpredictably. This makes investment and consumption planning for both individuals and industry difficult. As a result, there is less business and the economy is less productive than it otherwise could be.

Why? 1) Does Harper fear losing a confidence motion? 2) Did Layton make Harper see the light with respect to the wisdom of NDP enivronmental policy? 3) Does Harper see this as a safe way of delaying any action on the environment? I say that the third makes the most sense. If nothing gets done, nobody can blame Harper. Furthermore, the Tories can try to woo the Green Party voters the same way as the NDP are trying to do.

Is the premise that the electorate of Winnipeg are so easily fooled? Is the premise that the electorate of Winnipeg are so fickle that they judge a politician based on his marital status? I doubt that either of the above is true.

I find it telling that last night at his press conference, Layton was caught off guard when asked if he consulted with the other opposition leaders over this issue. His answer was that he did not know what anybody else thought about his proposal. Regardless of what side of the issue you take, anybody with half of a brain knows that the Liberals will not go to the polls right away. Therefore, the Liberals will not bring down the government. The NDP know that -- or at least they should. Therefore, this useless "no confidence motion" is a safe way to posture. I would not say Layton is an idiot but rather he is safely attacking the Green Party votes.

Protecting the environment is not a partisan issue as you claim. What does "pro-market" mean???? Your statement is absurd and your own citation proves it: original opening post citation So, for all of the non-partisan-Global-Warming-updates-geniuses, in what partisan camp would you put The Terminator now?

Marriages of convenience.... hmm.... Here is an idea: we should push for the redefinition of marriage to include polygamy and pets! That way we can all become one great big happy family and beat our "government" at its own game. The Church of Anarchy would gladly perform such a ceremony. It sounds like I was right:

I have a better recommendation: http://www.419eater.com/

I mean not to be in this instance. Other than my typing skills and the ability to drive a car, the best thing I got from tax-payer funded education was learning basic economics.

I agree. We could have free-will pay-what-you-can donations. With all due respect, I would like to encourage your interest in monetary policy and the banking mechanism. I seriously urge you to take a high school or community college level course in economics. In a few short months, you will gain skills that will allow you to speed through more research (both for and against) of your views.

Nah! I just take things to ridiculous extremes! You make me feel important now! I think that is a naive view. Justice is not free and it does not follow rigid rules. However, it does follow market forces. For the poor or the less intelligent, justice (and many other things) is not the same as it is for the rich and the smart people. Concepts like "social contract" or "peace" or "justice" or "equality" or "good" or "evil" can mean nothing for the disadvantaged. Their world is dog-eat-dog -- or anarchy. If you doubt that anarchy is untenable, you need only look at the lowest levels of the totem poll and see how they live. His absence from the forum appears sudden and I pray that we will hear from him again. I can not speak for anybody except myself: I agree anarchy is a utopia. It can not happen nor is it stable because of the point you make: human nature. I believe you are wrong. An anarchist outlook has practical applications as a philosophy from which to judge social interaction and from which to suggest policy. It is analogous to a school teacher encouraging all students to still aim for an A+ knowing full well that not everybody can get that high and each student will likely fail in different areas. Furthermore, the teacher accepts a C as a passing grade but makes no bones about saying a B is better. More importantly, the teacher does not accept cheating. Anarchist models act as a baseline and I believe it is the most righteous standard .

Nah! I just take things to ridiculous extremes sometimes!

The intelligent and knowledgeable and thoughtful voters may not have the interests of "society" at heart. Would you want me to be a member of this voting elite?

I do not think it matters. In general, this Norman Spector makes me shudder. His comment does no service -- other than advertizing himself and the people he purports to represent as being assholes. No. She should be and she could have remained so. However, this Norman Spector comment has made the Conservative club look bad and transfers a problem back to their own camp. His comment is completely assinine and unnecessary. [My mother has always said that if you do not have anything good to say, just say nothing instead -- not that I am a shining example. She also said: do as I say, not as I do.] I think a politician or a public figure should be a little more astute. The tired complaint (levelled by both men and women alike) of "that woman broke up that marriage" is cowardly and clueless. Only a completely self-centered and heartless person can be so one-sided. What I find intriguing is that when movie and pops stars get into cat fights we laugh it off but I tend to lose respect for them quickly. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that all is fair in love and exes-who-still-continue-to-see-eachother-everyday-at-work --- I mean, war.

Let me remind you of your own question: Who (or what) says whose money it is? On what principle is the ownership of the money asserted? which changes the topic to one which is thoroughly discussed in a previous thread. No doubt. Hugo's defence of anarchy is impeccable and addresses your argument.

which is the part I must call out as fantasy.What you forget is that a non-coercive community will rely on reputations. Our coercive society creates the fantasies of blind trust and legitimacy. We look for government stamps of approval. Market forces can deal with poor performance and injustice much more swiftly than can government do anything.

Exchange "tax" for "car" and "politician" for "dealer". The automobile market deals with such volatile changes well enough. Can we inject more market forces into the workings of government? Yes, we can! by making the jurisdiction it monopolizes smaller! The answer to government inefficiency or ineffectiveness or waste is simple and universal: de-amalgamation. Not really. The pay-receipt relationship is completely fouled up. You brush off the cost of what you get onto other people whether those other people want it or not. Talk about market failure! Why should we be surprised that the performance of this market is less than desirable?!? You are confusing "cronyism" with "the market". You posted this observation before and it stopped me then. Truthfully, I believe it is a valid justification for accepting democracy -- albeit, in my eyes, the only one. It is also an excellent counter-argument for people who complain about non-voters. The quote about cancelling the driver's license renewals is exquisite. New Zealand experience with Government Let us scrutinize everything the government does. How much "government" do you think we would have left?

My dear Flea, Your reference to "The People's Court" is correct. They are similar shows. However, your latest shot at applied non-coersion social philosophy is inside out, at best. Your condition of "if 100% of all the other people had no interest in personal gain" is as relevent as would be "if 100% of all the other people" could sing the national anthem in harmony. Yours trolly, Ch. A.

That is wrong. The money supply can not be controlled nor regulated by any agent. The central banks can have a major influence by the actions they take -- but not control. Let me illustrate a simple example whereby growth of money is out of the hands of the central bank: home equity loans. Pretend I bought a house for $100,000 three years ago and now I get a home equity load. A bank gives me a line of credit worth $75,000 from which I draw credit and I spend money. One year later, the prices of houses in my neighborhood double and then they triple in the next year. Now, my house is worth $300,000 on the market. My bank increases my credit to $200,000 and I spend more from this line of credit. The real money supply has increased and the central bank could not stop us. Try to extrapolate this simple example to outside the real estate market and consider all of the industries are able to do similar things but in much more complicated manners. It is foolish to say that a central bank can control or regulate the money supply in modern economies.

Uh.... take a closer look: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....6281&st=80# Easter eggs are not always the most apparent, I know!

None. People allow these poor children to be born. People who are aware that modern medicine is more than just cough syrup and boiling water. If that is the angle you want to take, maybe this can be tossed into one of the multitudes of abortion threads discussed before?

They both (plaintiff and defendant) agree. Think of this: you try to sue me. I suggest that we both pitch in a few thousand dollars and hire Judge Gomery to hear our cases. Together, we send a public request -- we print our letters in national newspapers -- to him. He reads our cockamamie request and laughs but takes it on just for kicks. He also misses the attention. Judge Gomery hears our private trial and passes judgment. Afterwards, if I turn around and say: "Too bad! I am not following his ruling." and try to walk away, every person in the country will know that Charles Anthony is a dirty rotten double-crossing fink and nobody will be my friend anymore. Worse yet: nobody will do business with me and that will be my punishment. The details behind our case will not matter because they trust Judge Gomery. Now, let us take it a step further and change the name of Gomery to .... say.... Judy! Lo and behold! What do we get?? The glory of capitalism: real justice that does not need government and does not need taxes. I am also proud to add that those television court-room shows producers pay the judgements. The real losers never pay anything but the trials are real. Read the fine print and the credits that roll fast at the end of the shows. First of all, NO, I see efficiency to be gained and money to be saved. Secondly, I do not care if anarchy is more costly in certain scenarios. That is like saying it is more costly to go to school than to sit at home and do nothing. Third, our justice system is constantly evolving. Forth, more of the mechanics of possible non-governmental justice systems and arbitration are reviewed at great lengths in this thread as well as in this Not enough cops thread. Nope. It will come to you. I will boldly predict that several years from now, we will see the commercialization of justice/entertainment flourish as our government-coerced tax-payer-extorted justice system continues to fail. That is an anarchist solution. Personally, I do not care because we have no choice right now.In our Judge Judy scenario, do you think it really matters what state/jurisdiction/civil/common code is followed? Do you think it really matters if Judge Judy still carries a license to practice law? It would still work marvelously. In anarchy, none of that matters because the plaintiff and the defendant mutually agreed on Judge Judy. That is the whole point. They are more complicated than necessary. The plaintiff and the defendant could hire Dr. Laura or Jerry Springer to hear their case. With all due respect, this scenario is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, I will say that the victim will get no justice. She would get no justice either if it happened today anyway. Rich people are able to pay their way out of justice. Today, poor people do not get the same justice as rich people. Your scenario is akin to asking: "If somebody pulled out a gun and shot me in the head, who would stop the bullet from killing me in an anarchist world?" and then blaming anarchy for being the problem. Laws may or may not but justice usually does. They would not have to. It becomes moot.

I understand that poor people can not afford security guards. The reality is that we already have two-tiered street policing and justice. It is not fair to think that our poor neighborhoods are served equally as our rich neighborhoods happen to be. Also, in a private market for security, there would never be an employment issue of quotas or reverse discrimination in the forces. That is the same now. Current events and history also shows us that more violence and misery has come about directly from coercive governments. If you resist arrest or refuse to obey a police officer who is over-stepping the law, you will not be treated equally. After the fact, somebody may be interested in hearing your case. However, if you have a private security guard that follows you around, your security guard can not "legally" stop a police officer from arresting you. Also, the police will call in re-inforcements until you lose -- all funded by the tax-payer. I firmly believe that a person should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Most people say they do too but in effect, they do not. I believe that to the extreme. What we have now should be called "after we arrest you, we will hear what you have to say and then we might assume you to be innocent until we decide to release you" instead. Forgive me but I am stopping you right there. The recent ordeal by Mahar Arar and the horror of America's newanti-habeas corpus law make my anarchy look better and better. You have to start looking outside of the box and compare to markets that are NOT monopolized by the government. Also, consider: who (other than yourself, your family and your friends) benefits from your safety? Think of somebody who does NOT care about you personally but still cares about your safety. The best one is: your employer.Your argument for government monopolized security can be applied to the market for health and dental employee benefits. Look outside of the box: do you REALLY think employers provide dental benefits because they care about your teeth? They want to keep you from getting a job elsewhere and they want to keep off sick days. What do you think an employer would do if something threatened his employee's ability to come to work each day? Often practical anarchism is attacked by suggesting that it devolves into mini-kingdoms whereby people effectively become serfs of corporations. That is like saying your employer would rather fix your teeth himself instead of giving you a benefit package and letting you pick your own dentist. Of course you can make that assumption. We make that assumption everday.Have you ever served the public in a retail setting? The best incentive to provide good and reliable service is because you want to keep customers coming back. When I walk into a fast-food chain and order, I assume that the food is safe. Guess what would happen if I got food poisoning? The ENTIRE chain would suffer if the news broke out. Guess what else: have you ever heard of somebody getting food-poisoning when eating out? Usually, it is at an independent restaurant, if at all. Fast-food chains have a good record for safety. Maybe or maybe not. I am still comfortable (and I assume you are too) self-righteously saying that slavery is wrong. We could probably argue that a person who is paid would work harder but I do not care. I oppose slavery on principle in the same way as I support your right to be lazy if you want. Your doom-and-gloom scenario is what we have now: the government eliminates the competition.My anarchy would at least give you the choice to opt out or get the service elsewhere. That is just a guess. I do not think that is a fair conclusion to make. The checks and balances that you identify do not convince me that things would be more violent. Just to clarify because you used the term "allowed", anarchy would not identify such an action is right. You should ask yourself: what is the difference now?Burglars break and enter other people's property everyday. What do we have now that is different? Do you think we are better able to prevent assault and theft and property damage? I think not. I poor people do not get a fair shake in our justice and crime prevention now anyways. No. How can one claim that the tribunal was stacked if the two both agreed upon it? Whoever wants the dispute to be resolved. Again, I would suggest your employer would be interested in making sure you get back to work. Nevertheless, whoever loses the trial could be made to pay the bill.

Check out this thread about the QUOTATION feature to find out how they fail if you have too many in one post. Excellent point. Self-defense is subjective. My answer is simple: anarchists could use the same definition that we use now.However, in practical terms, it does not matter. Yes, you are because your government forces everybody to contribute. You have no choice in the matter. I have no problem with an "entity" sharing cost burdens -- so long as individuals have the choice to opt out and go to a competitor.Look closer at your example: farmers NEVER get the same utility benefits or services as people living in the middle of downtown. Should farmers pay extra to subsidize for downtowners' convenience of hygiene and lifestyle? What do you mean by "chance to live as they wish"?You are forcing people to subsidize other people even if they do not wish to do so. No. I am talking about how a corporate status can avoid legal liability. If you wanted to sue a corporation for damages, it is possible that the people who did the damage are never touched -- the government enforces that legal status. You are getting the order wrong. The point is that the publication of the news ruined the company instantly better than what a government could do. If nobody knew, they could have continued their fraud.Think of it this way: by granting corporate status, the government is complicit in fooling the little people (who really lost) into trusting the corporation.

The same thing that stops people from abusing their power now: nothing. Be realistic: how are they going to make the most money if they are constantly abusing people? Slaves do not work as efficiently as salaried employees. However, there is a more clever and convincing way of addressing that issue. Again, I will quote: You're more comfortable with State police being able to drag you off to their own private prison (and it is private - it's just monopolised) and lock you up for a few weeks on whatever pretext? Why? At least with a private system you could call your own police and have them insist that you be tried immediately or released immediately, otherwise, your police will assume that you have been kidnapped and attempt to rescue you. Where's the checks and balances against State police? In any event, it's highly unlikely that imprisonment would be used by a private judicial system. It's expensive and doesn't compensate the victim. More likely is a return to the concept of restitution for wrongdoing. from Not enough cops The same thing that stops the police from abusing their power now: nothing. They go to war. However, war is expensive -- unless of course you are a government, money is unlimited and labor is unlimited. Of course. Realistically, the two sides will negotiate and try to buy eachother out. Have you ever seen a gangster movie where one of the underlings crosses the other gangs turf? Guess what happens? The two mob bosses meet face to face and decide who how to mete out punishment. The mob boss does not care about his underling. He just wants peace. Street fights are avoided by throwing his underling to the other side. Remember: gangsters or protection rackets will not make money if there is no peace. This is interesting. A couple of years ago, Hugo went to great lengths to explain private justice and I have very little to add. Here is a sampling: Your argument is only examining a symptom, not the problem. The actual problem is the tragedy of the commons. In an anarchist society, without public property, no police force would be allowed to set up speed traps and so forth without the permission of the owners of the road. The owners of the road are dictated to by the consumers, the drivers, because if the drivers are dissatisfied they will pick an alternate route and the road owners will lose money. Therefore, in the anarchist society the level of policing for speed limits will exactly reflect the compromise in the public mind between safety, and speed or convenience. There will be multiple compromises, and so there will be multiple solutions. One size does not fit all and never will. This has been very well dealt with in the works of David Friedman. I'm going to attempt a brief and wholly inferior summary here which I hope will suffice. Basically, the anarchist has no need to violate the rights of the trespasser. He can request that the trespasser appear at a mutually agreeable tribunal and be bound by its decision. If the trespasser refuses, he will have the huge black mark against him that he was accused of a crime and refused to submit to justice. It is a tacit admission of guilt and a declaration of irresponsibility and lack of remorse. In an exclusively private society, he will find it almost impossible to get employment, goods and services or even to move around freely. Therefore, the strong incentive is to submit to a court and have this black mark erased, to pay one's debt as it were. As to your question of recovering costs of catching the thief, it's really simple and already done in courts today. The court simply awards damages plus costs. The thief is made to pay the full cost of his crime to his victim. Of course, under our current system victims get nothing. The state holds their property and their very lives as being truly worthless. Certainly, and if only the state could ever provide that! But it cannot. Until Jesus gets involved in the policing business this is not going to happen. Any political body is by very definition aligned, to the majority in a democracy, or to the king in a monarchy, for instance. As to the standardized penalties, a brief review of sentencing should show you that penalties are by no means standardized and are a matter of the whimsy of the court. As to shared cost, no taxation system truly shares the cost. Somebody always has to pay more than their fair share, and some people will always be freeloading. The only way to ensure a pricing system that is truly fair is with a market. I honestly suggest going through the rest of this thread. The only thing that might set me apart is that I do not care if everybody is happy and better off in anarchy. I get the sense that Hugo's outlook was that everybody would be better off. For me, I am comfortable with anarchy because it is right. To illustrate: if I was poor and a rich man dropped his wallet as he passed me, I would be better off keeping his wallet and he would be able to continue being rich. However, that would not be right. My outlook on anarchy is that its construct is right regardless of whether it serves everybody's needs or desires. In your example, yes, it would be very likely. However, that is not how justice would work. You are implying that I would be forced to sit in front of your judge. That just sounds like a kangaroo court. Give me a specific example of a crime. Pretty much the same as they are now: through negotiation or bargaining between individuals or clubs. A few more things about my outlook on anarchy and justice. First, I do not believe anarchy is stable. I firmly believe that there will always be people whose natural reflex is to control others and there will always be people whose natural reflex will be submission. That is why governments get away with vast corruption and evil. Second, I do not see justice/retribution/punishment/vengeance as an objectively universal concept. In other words, justice is like happiness or good food. Some people forgive and some people forget. Others want vengeance while others just want some compensation. I have a question for you: What is justice?

Now we are talking. Keep going. Take this to the next step of explaining how coersion is the only way of achieving your "merit" or whatever it is that you are trying to clear. The ownership of the money is asserted by the same principle which bars me from claiming you as my slave.You are barred from claiming me as your slave in two ways I can think of. A-the law prevents it, and B-I (along with any partisans I can muster) won't allow it.Do you refer to A or B? I refer to neither but rather a sense of right or wrong felt by a slave with respect to his lack of freedom. If your law or your gang turned on you and permitted me to take you as my slave against your will, would you accept it as my right? Thank you! Believe it or not but I am actually starting to get tired of it too. I will tell you my opinions and briefly provide reasons or explanations. First, to summarize: I do not believe that I have the right to aggress against you -- unless, of course, it is in self-defense because you aggress against me first. Period. If everybody in the world followed that rule, I can not imagine anything being more peaceful. I do not need a law or a government to tell me that slavery is wrong or to define slavery on my behalf. I do not need a law or a government to tell me that theft is wrong or to define theft on my behalf. I do not need a law or a government to tell me that assault is wrong or to define assault on my behalf. From the above, you should be able to answer your own questions on my behalf. Nevertheless, here I go: No, they should not. 1) "able to access the necessities of life" means nothing; what you are really saying is "somebody else provide the necessities of life" because they have to come from somewhere 2) if I am stranded in the arctic, are YOU going to come and serve me supper?? 3) my arctic example seems far fetched, but not when you look at the whole world: there are people starving outside of Canada 4) to follow through with your premise means that I must force other people to abide by it even if they do not want to be charitable I agree. Neither am I. No, you are wrong. I have a very cold hearted opinion on that: private people (not police) will keep them in check. In fact, it is precisely governments which grant corporations a bizarre special legal status that allows them to shirk their responsibilities. Governments protect corporations. Let me put to you subtly: If I was Mr.Rotten-Enron-Crook and I was cheating other people out of their money, I would fear assassination. Please do not get me wrong: I deplore violence and I do not advocate violence to settle scores. However, I recognize that other people will use violence freely. If somebody like Ghandi and Martin Luther King could be assassinated along with all of the countless innocent victims of violence everywhere who become forgotten, it is laughable to appeal to the government or the police to protect us. I think we should not take our safety for granted and we should do our utmost to care for each other. I believe in the right to bare arms. You do not have to be as cold-hearted as me to appreciate the glories of anarchy. You do not have to make the "people like those who ran Enron and stole shareholders' money do not exist" assumption. It is completely unnecessary. Here is what The Giant had to say: They don't need arbitrary fines. In the case of Enron, once news broke of the corruption stockholders deserted them as fast as they could sell. The stock was in freefall and, by the time the government even read the news, Enron was doomed as a company. The executives and accountants involved were ruined and will never work in their fields again. All the employees have to endure at least temporary unemployment. I think it would be very hard to find a harsher punishment for a company than this. from Is government necessary?