Politicians

[Cartman]

I have noticed from several posts that many people have very negative perceptions of politicians in general. I have known several politicians and they have all been quite reasonable, hard working and thoughtful people who deserve our respect. I have even approached politicians from the opposite end of the spectrum and believe they took my concerns seriously. Does anyone have positive feelings on politicians? Are we too quick to stereotype because of a few "bad apples"?

[Big Blue Machine]

Canadians won't accept honest politicans. They don't want to hear about cut-backs.

[daniel]

Canadians won't accept honest politicans. They don't want to hear about cut-backs.

Who said "I'm the only honest politician around here."?

[Hugo]

Anyone who asks for your vote is not worthy of it. What a politician on the campaign trail is doing, is asking you to grant him arbitrary power over you, to make you his slave, in effect - that you will do his bidding under threat of retaliation by his agents (police, judges, etc). Now, the terms of your enslavement may be laid out in advance, but what if he decides to change them after you sign, like McGuinty did? Moreover, since a 100% win is impossible, a politician is also asking for your help in granting him arbitrary power over people who completely reject him and his policies, to forcibly enslave them, if you will. And yes, you can vote him out of office next time, but firstly, what if everyone else votes against you and your slavery continues against your will? Secondly, is four years of slavery acceptable if a lifetime is not?

[maplesyrup]

I think we have three serious issues in Canadian politics that block your local MP from doing a good job:

1 - party politics - we would all be a lot better off without it, and then your MP could really represent his or her constituents, and not have to vote the party platform all the time.

2 - secrecy - 99% of the stuff politicians deal with should be above board and in public view. (There is nothing like a little publicity to make people act more appropriately).

3 - power of the PMO. It is is absolute nuts to have built up such a massive department where the real power in the country exists, exclusive of our MPs, and most Canadians don't even know who works there, or what these folks really do.

[Cartman]

What a politician on the campaign trail is doing, is asking you to grant him arbitrary power over you, to make you his slave, in effect - that you will do his bidding under threat of retaliation by his agents (police, judges, etc). Now, the terms of your enslavement may be laid out in advance, but what if he decides to change them after you sign

I see your point, but on the other hand, many people do not act in their own self-interests and require "leadership". That is, many people prefer to drink and smoke, eat too much, spend their money on luxuries and engage in crime. This does not sound very pallatable but is it not the reality? If we had no authority over us, would we not exist in a state of upheaval and unrest rather than relative wealth and order?

[Hugo]

If we had no authority over us, would we not exist in a state of upheaval and unrest rather than relative wealth and order?

Who says law and order must come from a monopolistic state? I'm not arguing for chaos, but for the abolition of arbitrary power backed by violence.

[Hawk]

If we had no authority over us, would we not exist in a state of upheaval and unrest rather than relative wealth and order?

Who says law and order must come from a monopolistic state? I'm not arguing for chaos, but for the abolition of arbitrary power backed by violence.

It is impossible for order to exist without 'arbitrary power backed by violence. '

The utopia you are laying out is a socialist one, and has been proven impossible by countless people throughout history in addition to disproving itself.

Elites always exist, ESPECIALLY in a socialist system (who runs the Canadian media hmm?) and therefore no matter how you look at it there is no possible way to control your 'utopia' without a force of some kind to maintain order. Not everyone believes what you believe, so unless you simultaneously could kill or brainwash every person who disagreed with you there would be dissent, and you would need to make sure nobody changed their mind when your little society came to exist.

So if someone did change their mind, or people didn't instantaneously die or become brainwashed by your infinite wisdom on society how would you deal with a group of radicals?

[caesar]

We haven't had too many politicians that we can respect lately. Corruption and patronage jobs and giving themselves large raises eats away at out tax money. Breaking promises without a real good excuse; Chretien promised to get rid of the gst; got him elected. Campbelll promised not to sell BC Rail; it is gone along with a lot of more of our resources and jobs; sold!! 75 year lease to the best foreign bidder. Most of our recent Premiers have faced criminal charges; Campbell spent a night in jail.

Great leadership worthy of respect???????

[maplesyrup]

I think the politicians who are the most useful are the ones who break party ranks and say what they think is right. Politicians like Chuck Strahl, Carolyn Parrish, and Svend Robinson.

[caesar]

Can't say I agree with your choices but I did like Trudeau, Harcourt, and have new respect for Chuck Cadman, Davy Barrett was a nice guy.

[Hugo]

It is impossible for order to exist without 'arbitrary power backed by violence. '

This is untrue. Think of America up to 1780 or so - government was so infinitesimal that the Massachusetts congress actually dissolved itself at one point due to lack of interest and the British colonial government merely placed taxes on trade without performing any other governmental functions (apart from those necessary to levy the taxes). There was peace, order, trade and very healthy economic growth without government in any form we'd recognise it today.

The utopia you are laying out is a socialist one

This is also untrue. I'm talking about libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism if you prefer that label. It has been widely discussed in the works of Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Lysander Spooner, Henry Thoreau and so forth. Anarchism is absolutely not a socialist philosophy in and of itself, any more than statism is automatically bound up with socialism or conservatism.

therefore no matter how you look at it there is no possible way to control your 'utopia' without a force of some kind to maintain order.

I submit to you that if a monopoly over anything is bad, how can one group's monopoly over law, justice and violence be good?

Not everyone believes what you believe, so unless you simultaneously could kill or brainwash every person who disagreed with you there would be dissent, and you would need to make sure nobody changed their mind when your little society came to exist.

Not at all. Everybody is entitled to dissent, and so long as they initiate no violence they can do what they want.

[Cartman]

Well Hugo, the utopia you speak of sounds a lot like Marx's vision of communism ("whithering away of the state"). I would like to believe people could exist without a state but I highly doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Look at what happens around the world when state authority is eliminated. There usually exists high rates of murder, genocide, rape, looting etc.

There was peace, order, trade and very healthy economic growth without government in any form we'd recognise it today.

You mention one historical anomaly that did not last and neglect to point out that people could be whimsically labeled as witches and executed in the US until the late 1600's and early 1700's. I would rather live with a state that prevents me from listening to a radio station that was well warned about making racist comments than live in chaos. Anarchy = chaos.

[I miss Reagan]

I think the politicians who are the most useful are the ones who break party ranks and say what they think is right. Politicians like Chuck Strahl, Carolyn Parrish, and Svend Robinson.

Don't forget Rob Anders

[Hugo]

Well Hugo, the utopia you speak of sounds a lot like Marx's vision of communism ("whithering away of the state").

No, actually anarchist communism is impossible. It relies upon making all men equal, but all men are not equal, and the only way you can force equality is through violence, and violence on that scale necessitates a state. This is why communism is always brought about through despotism.

Look at what happens around the world when state authority is eliminated. There usually exists high rates of murder, genocide, rape, looting etc.

You must be joking. The state has been the biggest perpetrator of those crimes in human history! In the 20th Century, the biggest cause of unnatural death was state-sanctioned murder, even more than war. I believe about 180,000,000 people were murdered by their government in the 20th Century, and that's a middle-of-the-road estimate. It could be a lot higher, since records on these atrocities are notoriously unreliable.

Based upon the track record of government I am certain that a society without a state would be the most peaceful in human history.

You mention one historical anomaly that did not last and neglect to point out that people could be whimsically labeled as witches and executed in the US until the late 1600's and early 1700's.

Democratic government reflects the desires of the people. Democratic governments have denied rights to women, blacks and Jews, have executed innocents, interred people based upon race or birthplace, fought wars of aggression and conquest, and so forth.

Yes, people are capable of evil, but government absolutely will not and cannot prevent this. In fact, in a situation where the populace is inclined to evil, government will almost certainly make it worse.

[caesar]

Democracy is only as good as those who support it. Sure inequities have and will exist in democracies but with all citizens acting in good faith we can work towards fixing those inequities.

What you seem to suggest would be better Hugo, is the old west. Where everyone took the law into their own hands. perhaps, look s good on tv but in reality it was probably very scary and dangerous times.

Based upon the track record of government I am certain that a society without a state would be the most peaceful in human history.

[idealisttotheend]

Did Iraq become more peaceful when the Americans weakened the State? When the Baath security apparatus was struck down did people hug each other in the streets or loot the hospitals and power plants?

Afghanistan has a highly ineffective state -- is it peaceful? Does it breed "peace camps" of hippies or terrorist camps and lots and lots of drugs?

What about Somalia, it has no effective state is it a peaceful place to live? Would you want to live there?

Hugo your argument makes no sense. Taking away the organization with the monopoly on violence only makes it a competition for who will dominate via violence. This competition is necessarily violent. If you want peace eliminate the capabability of one human to dominate another through violent means not the state which many would argue is designed to prevent this violence or at least control it in it's democratic forum.

Yes some state governments have killed a lot of people but lets not look at the worst examples but the best. In our 140 year history how many Canadian citizens have their government killed? Some criminals throught he death penalty? You can't count the world wars because those people died resisting a state that was worse than our own. What else?

In short, how is the Canadian state violent enough to be feared and how can it be compared unfavourably to the "ungovernerable" regions of the world with no or no effective state.

[Guest eureka]

I believe that almost all politicians start with good intentions but soon become prisoners of expectations of their constituents and the constraints that prevent them from meeting all expectations.

Societies are all about tension and the control of the tensions to achieve the most satisfaction that is possible. It is not for nothing that politics is called the "art of the possible" and that compromise is the essence of political structures.

There is a number of politicians who become corrupted by their eminence; the degree of that corruption is in proportion to the level they succeed to. That is human nature: people always become alienated from the realities of everyday life as they rise above the grind.

I submit that there should be a greater emphasis on party doctrine and obedience to it rather than less. It is only through that we will know what a government will do and can elect that government that will do its best to adhere to the wishes of the people. Over recent decades, there has been a deceitful demand by certain "leaders" for regional and local concerns to be dominant. That, of course, is an absurdity as government is about reconciling competing interests.

The anarchist or libertarian dogmas make no sense. The human race has always needed to appoint authority to maintain order. To toss around figures of people supposedly killed by their governments is simply irrational. Those figures represent only rogue governments and states and the temporary power of aberrant ideologies. A libertarian society would inevitably bring violent reaction from those who are not competitively successful in social and economic affairs.

Before the rise of the state, there was far more violence as groups and tribes made war on each other or indulged in random violence with the phases of the moon. States came into being only as humans sought to find a means of self-protection and protection from the group on the other side of the hill.

Some politicians are, I would agree, bad. Those are the ones who enter politics with an obsession about a particular ideal or ideology. We have two examples of that in Canada: one in Quebec and the other mostly in the West with the neo-lib economic doctrine.

[Hugo]

What you seem to suggest would be better Hugo, is the old west. Where everyone took the law into their own hands. perhaps, look s good on tv but in reality it was probably very scary and dangerous times.

I think you have that backwards. It looks scary and dangerous on TV, but in reality it was a period of unprecedented economic growth and stability. You should also note that when US government power was at its lowest ebb - 1840 to 1860 - American economic growth was at its fastest.

Did Iraq become more peaceful when the Americans weakened the State?

Your examples are not good examples of anarchy. What each has done is to suddenly remove a massive and powerful state and replace it with nothing. This is like removing the lid from a boiling saucepan, of course, it boils over and makes a mess.

Government is a very pervasive thing and must be removed and excised carefully. If that is done, it will work. Take an analogy. If you have acute appendicitis, and I decide to use a steak knife and perform an appendectomy on my kitchen table, as a result of which you die (since I have no surgical training or equipment), does that mean that the whole idea of therapeutic appendectomy is wrong? Or does it just mean that I did not perform it well?

Taking away the organization with the monopoly on violence only makes it a competition for who will dominate via violence. This competition is necessarily violent.

This is not true. There have been plenty of cases where there has been no organisation with a monopoly on violence and where further chaos and violence have not resulted. The example I gave before was of Massachusetts, when the congress dissolved itself. There was no rioting or violence, in fact, the average Massachusetts citizen could not tell the difference between when he had government and when he did not.

In our 140 year history how many Canadian citizens have their government killed? Some criminals throught he death penalty? You can't count the world wars because those people died resisting a state that was worse than our own.

Let's look at what the Canadian government did during the World Wars. It rounded up able-bodied young men and told them that they were going to a far-away land to fight and quite possibly be greviously wounded or killed. Should they refuse, they would be imprisoned, hanged or shot as cowards or traitors.

That is brutal slavery, any way you look at it.

As regarding the "state that was worse than our own", that may be so, but it certainly was no worse than our allies. Hohenzollern Germany was a more enlightened and progressive state than Czarist Russia, and Hitler's Germany was less brutal and murderous than Stalin's USSR.

The human race has always needed to appoint authority to maintain order.

This is not true. Earlier cultures had no centralised authority, they only had mediators. For an example of this, recall the Anglo-Saxon bohr, where law and justice were entirely dispensed by private individuals without any concept of "state".

Before the rise of the state, there was far more violence as groups and tribes made war on each other or indulged in random violence with the phases of the moon.

There are two massive flaws in this statement. First of all, the modern state has given rise to far, far more violence than tribal wars ever could have. The wars that modern states have fought have killed tens of millions and almost brought the human race to the brink of extinction at several times. I defy you to find me a tribal war with a death toll in the millions.

Secondly, a tribal government is a government. Your example is of "government vs. government" and not "government vs. no government."

[idealisttotheend]

Your examples are not good examples of anarchy. What each has done is to suddenly remove a massive and powerful state and replace it with nothing. This is like removing the lid from a boiling saucepan, of course, it boils over and makes a mess.

This may well apply to Iraq (the US commanders apparently let people loot to "blow off some steam") but not to Afghanistan or Somalia. Part of Afghanistan's 'charm' is that is said to be ungovernable. The Taliban was probably the most "effective" state it has had in a long time and recall that opium production dropped during it's reign (making it a friend of the Americans for a time). Surely opium production is not a positive result nor terrortist camps.

Thinking again of the Americans... if you asked them, in their "war" on terror, whether they most feared governed or "ungoverned" areas they would surely tell you it is the ungoverned areas they most feared. It is in these areas that terrorists come to train, build weapons etc. Even states that are vehemently opposed to America have an interest in keeping activities like this out so as they are not held "responsible" by the Americans if they are found, (for example, Iran).

Hugo, you are an idealist like most people on this board. You seem to feel that left to our own devices humans will flourish and prosper and no one will take advantage of anyone else (if anyone tries the dispute will be mediated by private individuals). I agree that this may well be true in up to 98% of the cases. But you have a thief's dilema. There will always be individuals or (more likely) groups of individuals who cannot get what they want/feel they deserve through cooperative means and resort to violence. It is in everyone's interest that this not occur (including the people commiting the violence) but who ever first employs violence will have an advantage very hard to turn down.

No one has yet solved the problem of how to protect the peaceful from being dominated by the violent except through certain forms of monoplies on violence like the state.

Ghandi, for example, would have lost without the free press and the free press was protected by the democratic wishes of Britian's people through their state. The fact that it was the same state that guarenteed the free prees as Ghandi was fighting, is no contradiction but leads to the truth of the matter. The violent monopoly must have a guiding ethos and that ethos is best set through a large and dominant organization in order to be comprehenisve. Otherwise again, we will see occasionally violent competition between different ethos at the best of times and violent confrontations simply between "warlords" at the worst of times.

I have been reading the problem with corporations thread (and agree that that thread and this one should probably be moved out of federal politics) and the discusison is very similar. Basically the idealist over there is arguing that contract law can be effective when it cannot be formerly enforced. I would agree that 98% of the time this is true. But 2% of the time a party to a contract may have enough power to dominate unethically another party either through coerision due to size (control over large amounts of a necessary resource or what have you) or through violent means. Therefore the best solution is that the majority of disputes are settled between individuals but when they cannot be the state is there, more of a form of insurance aginst grossly unethical behavior by a more powerful entity and to give people futher incentive to solve their disputes among themselves rather than resort to violenece or coerision.

Let's look at what the Canadian government did during the World Wars. It rounded up able-bodied young men and told them that they were going to a far-away land to fight and quite possibly be greviously wounded or killed. Should they refuse, they would be imprisoned, hanged or shot as cowards or traitors.

That is brutal slavery, any way you look at it

First off, the vast majority of people who went to war did so voluntarily. Canada's efforts in the wars were supported by a large majority of people outside of Quebec. People who claimed to be pacifists were given some regard and not forced to go to war only to do civilian work that was left undone by people going off to war. Prohibitions against cowardly behaviour in the army were widely supported by Canadians who saw such behaviour as both immoral and needing to be guarded against in order to ensure victory.

Secondly, a government cannot be accused of "brutal slavery" if those "slaves" are the ones who put it in power to start with, (unless you wish to argue that humans are masochistic by nature). The Canadian government's actions were supported by the majority of Canadians and if you took a poll today I think you would find they still are. The government in power was elected by the people who could have chosen to elect a government that wanted nothing to do with the war if they chose to. The conscription issue shows that the state took great pains to balance the needs of it various composite groups by putting off mandatory conscription until late in WW2 to appease the french catholics even though a majority of Canadains supported conscription. Therefore the state moderated the demands of it's various constituents.

Thirdly your agrument has put you in a very unenviable position. You now have to argue with Chamberlain. How else were the agressors to be stopped then by what the government did? If you disagree with the Canadian government's actions do you expect that Bismark or Hitler would have been kinder? More freedom loving? That after they took over the world you would have been happier and more prosperious.

1939 illustrates my point about violence exactly. No one wanted a war, they'd seen the carnage of WWI and the sheer insanity of it. After WWI they tried to put in place measures to restrict the armies of states and mollify their power through the League of Nations. Everyone wanted to cooperate and get along, no one wanted to fight... except Hitler. The world allowed him to rearm because no one really had the heart to stop him. Then they tried to appease him, up to the point of allowing him to take parts of other countries. But the appetite grows with eating and it was clear he wasn't going to stop until he'd either subjegated all of Europe or someone gave him his war. So he got his war, no one wanted it but it was a necessary.

So in your idealistic anarchy you have the same situation. Almost all of the individuals (globally: states) want peace and prosperity. They want to sign and honour contracts, they want to follow agreed upon laws volutarily. But Hitler comes along, he want more than he has, his ego demands that he and his chosen ideology dominate. He converts people to follow him because they need an ideology and anarchy doesn't give them a strong enough one. He organizes his followers into some sort of society (a state if you will). Soon he is in position to easily dominate the entire anarchy with his army. You cannot appease him. The more success he has by threatening violence the more he will do so. As individuals, each defending his or her own interests, you will lose to the common interest of Hitler's many, Hitler's organization, Hitler's state. Therefore, you will have to either organize yourself to fight him, be dominated by his organization/state... or you can refuse to do either and die. There are no other choices and Chamberlain proved that.

As politicians go, we all wish Chamberlain could run the world but we inevitably need Churchill.

First of all, the modern state has given rise to far, far more violence than tribal wars ever could have. The wars that modern states have fought have killed tens of millions and almost brought the human race to the brink of extinction at several times. I defy you to find me a tribal war with a death toll in the millions.

Your problem here, IMO, is not with the state but with technology . It is technology that allows so many more people to be killed by one man. And this is a very serious problem but again, it is not the state in question that is the problem, but the technologies of mass destruction.

Modern states are themselves technologies (of organization). And they are the ones that have indeed allowed the necessary focusing of resources to create nuclear weapons, nerve gasses and good old machine guns. But they have also lead to "productive" technologies like mass production, GMO crops etc. Furthermore many would argue we need the state to protect us from terrorists (in America often anarchists though I'm not suggesting for a second you would ever commit violennce) because one or two individuals can cause so much damage with the technologies we have now.

Therefore I think in order for your anarchy to work you would have to eliminate technology so as not allow one or two individuals to hold millions hostage with one hydrogen bomb. If you could eliminate technology than my 2% violence principle may be harder to apply. The right to bear arms (as a check on the state) made oodles of sense in the era of non repeating rifles but no sense in the era of ICBMs and nerve gas.

[Hugo]

Surely opium production is not a positive result

Why?

But you have a thief's dilema. There will always be individuals or (more likely) groups of individuals who cannot get what they want/feel they deserve through cooperative means and resort to violence.

The libertarian movement has many answers to this question. Almost all hinge upon private property rights, including the right to defend one's property against the initiation of force with force.

I take the stand that any force is wrong. Retaliation is wrong, punishment is wrong and the only judgement that should be meted out to a criminal should be that which the criminal himself agrees to.

Let's take an example. Jack is murdered. Jack's life insurance company hires a private detective to find out who killed Jack, since a murderer may strike again and it makes more financial sense to hire a PI than to pay out multi-million dollar claims. In all likelihood, multiple insurance companies would co-ordinate, even if the victim were not their client, it's possible the next victim would be.

The PI finds that the murder was committed by a man named Bob. This information is made very public. Bob is fired from his job since his employer doesn't wish it to be known that he employs murderers. Bob now has no source of income (no welfare in a libertarian state). Bob's creditors will claim their debts, nobody wants to be seen to be doing business with a murderer. Bob will be refused service in stores. Bob's face will be plastered everywhere, even if he tries to beg, very few would give him anything, most people would give him a wide berth with their hands on their holsters.

Now Bob has three options. He can starve to death, he can flee into the wilderness with the other violent criminals (probably meaning an early and violent death) or he can submit to arbitration in a court agreed upon by Bob, Jack's insurance company and Jack's family. The court has a good business incentive to be impartial, who would give their business to a biased and bribeable court? If Bob submits to the judgement of the court, it can be publicised that Bob did so and paid his debt to his victims, and while his life will never be the same it would probably return to some sense of normalcy. If Bob doesn't, he is reduced to the first two choices again: starve, or exile.

For a current example, look at Equifax. It is not the government, has nothing to do with government and is an entirely private affair. Equifax cannot throw you in jail or conduct any other kind of violence against you, nevertheless, if you break Equifax's rules they can make your life a living hell (as many have found, to their cost). They can make it extraordinarily difficult to get credit or conduct any business and can even make holding down a decent job an impossibility. But they will never use violence.

No one has yet solved the problem of how to protect the peaceful from being dominated by the violent except through certain forms of monoplies on violence like the state.

Yes, they have, repeatedly. Read up on David Friedman, for one example. There are many anarchist schools of thought on the dispensation of justice, in fact, as the major problem confronting anarchy it is probably the most-discussed subject amongst anarchist intellectuals.

The police force does what private detectives and security guards do, except that the police are not accountable to the people they protect. The courts do what private arbitrators do, except that the courts do not have any incentive to hand down fair and just punishments.

First off, the vast majority of people who went to war did so voluntarily.

If you are saying that it is alright to brutalise some people if the majority go along with it, I have to reply that this would make you a supporter of slavery, the holocaust, and segregation, amongst other atrocities. I don't think you are. I urge you to reconsider your position and think along more consistent lines.

Secondly, a government cannot be accused of "brutal slavery" if those "slaves" are the ones who put it in power to start with

What if the citizen did not vote into power the party that sent him to war on pain of imprisonment or death? In that case, his conscription was performed entirely against his will. Using violence and coersion against those who do not give their consent is evil, plain and simple.

If you disagree with the Canadian government's actions do you expect that Bismark or Hitler would have been kinder? More freedom loving? That after they took over the world you would have been happier and more prosperious.

If there had not been a WWI, there would not have been a WWII. If there had not been a Franco-Prussian War, there would not have been a WWI. If there had not been the wars of German unification, there would not have been a Franco-Prussian war.

You are missing the big picture. States are responsible for wars and wars breed further wars. The problem was not Hitler, or anyone else for that matter, the problem is the concentration of power in a single institution with a monopoly over violence and the "right" to initiate aggression against its own people and against foreigners.

Therefore I think in order for your anarchy to work you would have to eliminate technology

Well, that is not going to happen, so let's look at realistic options.

The right to bear arms (as a check on the state) made oodles of sense in the era of non repeating rifles but no sense in the era of ICBMs and nerve gas.

You're absolutely right. It's far better to limit ICBM ownership to political elites who are not accountable to the citizenry and don't particularly care about their welfare.

But they have also lead to "productive" technologies like mass production, GMO crops etc.

I'm sorry, I think you'll find free enterprise was responsible for all of that.

Furthermore many would argue we need the state to protect us from terrorists

Why would terrorists target a libertarian state? The state has no army to conduct gunboat diplomacy and does business on a strictly voluntary basis. If anybody objects, all they have to do is ignore them. No stealth bombers will be sent, and the worst that may happen is that they might get the occasional phone call asking if they are interested in doing some trade yet.

in America often anarchists though I'm not suggesting for a second you would ever commit violennce

That's why anarchists such as myself usually term ourselves "libertarians" or "anarcho-capitalists", to distinguish ourselves from that which holds anarchy as an end unto itself.

one or two individuals can cause so much damage with the technologies we have now

I put it to you that the state has no more power to stop such individuals than private security forces would. The state did not stop Timothy McVeigh, the USS Cole, 9/11, or any other myriad terrorist incidents. Private security forces stood an equally good chance of stopping McVeigh's truck or refusing to allow Arabs with box-cutters aboard an airliner.

[Guest eureka]

The modern state has certainly not killed far more than in pre-state times. Not by a long way if you can consider that there is a huge difference in polulations.

The world was in a state of perpetual conflict and violence prior to the rise of states. Groups are not governments - neither are tribal groups except to regulate their own relations.

In prehistoric times, violent death was the norm. There have been periods in modern history where there has been peace, or relative peace. When Hobbes wrote that life was "nasty, brutish and short, he added what is not generally thought of when the quotation is used that it was in times of war. He was referring to history and the nation state was still in its infancy.

[idealisttotheend]

Surely opium production is not a positive result

Why?

coerce

v : to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a job in the city"; "He squeezed her for information" [syn: hale, squeeze, pressure, force]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

The argument against the state is that it is a coericive influence. Okay, I disagree, but accept it momentarily. Hard drugs, by the above definition, are coercive because once one takes them they cause you to need more through physical means, addiction. Therefore one cannot voluntarily take them unless one knows how dangerous and addcictive they are when one starts. If one knows (truly understands) and takes them anyway then they are insane or suicidal or more likely just young and stupid. In all the previous cases the person cannot be held responsible for their actions. Therefore hard drug use cannot be voluntary by the same logci that the the state's edicts are not voluntary.

It's a seperate thread I guess but there it is.

I take the stand that any force is wrong. Retaliation is wrong, punishment is wrong and the only judgement that should be meted out to a criminal should be that which the criminal himself agrees to.

Noble, but you still haven't explained how to defend yourself against the small percentage of violent individuals.

Nor have you solved Chamberlain's problem.

Your example:

Now Bob has three options. He can starve to death, he can flee into the wilderness with the other violent criminals (probably meaning an early and violent death) or he can submit to arbitration in a court agreed upon by Bob, Jack's insurance company and Jack's family.

must have come from an economist or near-economist. It assumes that Bob will act "rationally," specifically, in the manner the author feels is rational. In fact, why did Bob kill Jack in the first place? If he walks into a store and is refused service and is starving, do you really think that he'll politely leave? No, he'll put a bullet in the owner's head and take what he wants. Unless of course the shop owner does so first, (so the libertarian argument goes). This is survival of the fittest and chaotic.

Other problems:

if you threaten someone with death (by starvation or otherwise) they cannot voluntarily submit to a court. This is a principle of natural law and is not semantics but also practical. They will resent and stew and rage over the settlement for as long as they are subject to it and wait for an opportunity to revenge themselves on their 'oppressors.' Think Germany after WW1. You have to spend more resources on preventing this than you could earn

9 times out of 10 Bob doesn't have anything that the family of Jack wants. Well adjusted and gainfully employed people generally don't commit murders, they don't need to. This activity is most often relegated to the poorly adjusted and ne'er do wells who don't have the money or employable skills necessary for any sort of meaningful restitiution.

I would bet Bob would run into the forest to join the violent criminals. Humans are, after all, social in nature and stick to those they identify as their own kind. Intellectual arguments against the state are well and good but the disenfrachised quickly form themselves into groups in order to survive. This is going to be a problem because the violent criminals in the forest are likely the ones that will get together and come into "town" to take what they want and prey on the weak. Happens every day as it, street gangs are a growth industry in this country and organized crime is doing well.

without a state what is going ot stop Bob from just going 100km in any direction and starting again? Are private individuals going to have the resources to track all the murders and if they do is the most effecient way to keep tabs on them putting up pictures?!? (just like your problems with technology, your arguments are for systems that work well when settlements were small and everyone knows everyone else like a small town, it would never work in even Saskatoon with a mere 200,000 people where everyone can't know everyone else or keep track of the 100s of criminals they ought notdo buisness with)

libertarianism assumes people act as individuals, your example assumes they will act as a collective in dening Bob service, if only one provides food and the means to earn it the game is over and Bob is not punished. Furthermore, Bob's "incentive" to "submit" is based on his exclusion from the collective, ought he not be able to survive as an individual under a libertarian philisophy?

For a current example, look at Equifax. It is not the government, has nothing to do with government and is an entirely private affair.

Tell me, when did I volunteer to have anything to do with Equifax. How is it less coericive than a government?

The police force does what private detectives and security guards do, except that the police are not accountable to the people they protect. The courts do what private arbitrators do, except that the courts do not have any incentive to hand down fair and just punishments.

The police force is not accountable? What about the review commissions, investigative journalists, other police forces, courts, political bodies, citizens groups. In fact police forces are held to some of the highest standards in our societies and rightly so. Do they do stupid things absolutely, but the fact that you know some of the stupid things they do is proof of their accountability.

Fair and just are subjective terms. If you give a court an 'incentive', you are giving it an incentive to hand down what you think are fair and just punishments. Any reasonable person would tell you that it is the lack of "incentive" that guarentees impartiality.

If you are saying that it is alright to brutalise some people if the majority go along with it, I have to reply that this would make you a supporter of slavery, the holocaust, and segregation, amongst other atrocities. I don't think you are. I urge you to reconsider your position and think along more consistent lines.

Indeed I am not. I would say the Canadian government brutalized no one during the war (besides possibly Japanese interns) and acted to prevent brutalization of it's citizens and it's allies citizens. Since you and I disagree I think the source of moral legitamacy necessary to resolve our disagreement is the majority will of the society. Given the number of democracies in the world today, many would agree with me. I realize democracies are fallible but so are all things and fallacies can be corrected. All your atrocities listed were stopped by democratic governments of one stripe or another.

What if the citizen did not vote into power the party that sent him to war on pain of imprisonment or death?

That citizen had/has a responsibility to engage in the democratic process to convince others of the wisdom of his position to the fullest extent of his ability. That citizen has/had a responsibility to ensure a constitution was put in to protect hm from the states excesses. If he fails on either count he must accept that he lost and try to win on the next issue.

You are missing the big picture. States are responsible for wars and wars breed further wars. The problem was not Hitler, or anyone else for that matter, the problem is the concentration of power in a single institution with a monopoly over violence and the "right" to initiate aggression against its own people and against foreigners.

No, actually I would like to draw your attention to the big picture. Look at the world in 1939 as a collection of individual states with no "concentration of power in a single institution with a monopoly over violence...." There was no effective world "state" so there was a "libertarianism" of sorts between the different states who engaged in contracts and trade and such voluntarily. There was no coersive influence to make them do anything. What happened?

Isn't it exactly like your earlier example of Bob and Jack except on the macro? Bob (Germany) killed Jack (French soldiers) so Jack's family (France) demanded reparations from Bob which Bob paid to try and stay part of the group (have people do buisness with) and have not commit violence against it. Bob gets pissed off that he has to pay reparations, joins up with some violent criminals who are also pissed off and attacks Jack's family. Repeat ad infinitium (as you point out later in your post about the never ending European wars) until...

The US steps in, gives everyone money so they build themselves up (which they didn't earn by the way). No one compensates anyone else. The US has the most effective military force by a long shot so an effective near monopoly on violence (unless France was really going to nuke the Russians). The the EU (a type of state) is formed along with several organizations like NATO and GATT. When is the last time Bob and Jack's family fought?

You're absolutely right. It's far better to limit ICBM ownership to political elites who are not accountable to the citizenry and don't particularly care about their welfare.

That is a very 'interesting' statement to say the least. Do you advocate for ICBM ownership by individual citizens. See that crazy guy on the street downtown, you want him to have one? What about your local chapter of the Hell's angels? Would you sleep at night knowing your neighbour just divorced his wife lost his job and has an ICBM at his disposal.

If the political elites are not accountable and don't care about you than it is your responsibility to change that through democratic means.

I put it to you that the state has no more power to stop such individuals than private security forces would. The state did not stop Timothy McVeigh, the USS Cole, 9/11, or any other myriad terrorist incidents. Private security forces stood an equally good chance of stopping McVeigh's truck or refusing to allow Arabs with box-cutters aboard an airliner.

From a non-partisan perspective: because the state is not perfect does not make it incapable. Expecting the state to prevent all terrorist incidents is rather difficult even with a totaliarian state.

From a partisan perpective: Airline security is private, the market decided these security jobs (baggage checking etc.) should be paid at 6-7 dollars and hour. The market said cockpit security doors were unnecessary in the US. The market was wrong.

The private sector sold Mr. McVeigh the truck and fertializer to make the bomb. The best way to prevent this is to keep controls on fertilizer and other explosive purchases which is anatema to a no regultion libertarian mindset.

[Hugo]

Eureka, please take the time to inform yourself before you shoot your mouth off. You are contributing nothing.

The argument against the state is that it is a coericive influence. Okay, I disagree, but accept it momentarily. Hard drugs, by the above definition, are coercive because once one takes them they cause you to need more through physical means, addiction.

Drugs are inanimate objects and cannot coerce or force anything. They cannot commit violence. The addiction to drugs has to start with a conscious decision, to take the first pill, shot or snort. Guns don't kill people and drugs don't create addictions. Guns just facilitate the killing of people and drugs facilitate addiction. But humans are reasoning creatures and are ultimately responsible for what they do.

Noble, but you still haven't explained how to defend yourself against the small percentage of violent individuals.

I tell you what, I'll give you some links.

Start here. Read the essays by Friedman and Kaplan, they are very good and explain it better than I have either the time or ability to do here. I believe you have an enquiring mind and I know you'll understand them. If you have questions after reading them, perhaps we can start from there. But I'm afraid my posts here would be fragments of a big picture which has already been painted by others. I would be doing you a disservice if I were not to show you the big picture from where I draw my fragments.

It assumes that Bob will act "rationally," specifically, in the manner the author feels is rational. In fact, why did Bob kill Jack in the first place? If he walks into a store and is refused service and is starving, do you really think that he'll politely leave? No, he'll put a bullet in the owner's head and take what he wants.

Yes, in a society where people have the right to defend themselves and their property against violence individuals who choose to live a life of violence against their fellow citizens will almost certainly meet a violent and early death. So be it. This is what they have chosen for themselves. As of right now, citizens do not have the right to defend themselves. If you kill an intruder, you are guilty of a crime and plenty of people have gone to jail for it. Under our current laws innocents are suffering more than criminals.

if you threaten someone with death (by starvation or otherwise) they cannot voluntarily submit to a court.

Nobody is being threatened with death. That's the beauty of it. All the individuals who refuse to deal with Bob are doing is asserting their right to freedom and property. Nobody passed a law saying "nobody may deal with Bob", it is just a series of private citizens making choices about their transactions.

9 times out of 10 Bob doesn't have anything that the family of Jack wants.

Then the court will have to find a solution that fits both Bob and Jack's family. If Bob cannot offer anything that is to the satisfaction of the mediators, then Bob's life as a citizen will effectively be over - much as a life-sentence-serving prisoner's is. The difference is that, in my example, all sides consented to it.

I would bet Bob would run into the forest to join the violent criminals.

Good for Bob. Let those who reject a peaceful society go and create their own. We'll see how far they get. Of course, if they're willing to pay their debts and live peacefully they are welcome to return.

This is going to be a problem because the violent criminals in the forest are likely the ones that will get together and come into "town" to take what they want and prey on the weak.

Well, as property rights mean that everybody can own firearms, they'll have to hope they don't run into the highly trained and heavily armed private security forces when they do so.

without a state what is going ot stop Bob from just going 100km in any direction and starting again? Are private individuals going to have the resources to track all the murders and if they do is the most effecient way to keep tabs on them putting up pictures?!?

Once again, look at Equifax. Credit agencies have jurisdiction from coast to coast and even internationally.

Tell me, when did I volunteer to have anything to do with Equifax.

Look at the small print on your bank statement, your visa statement, store credit cards - everything. Did anybody put a gun to your head and force you to open these accounts? Is anything but your own habits as a consumer forcing you to keep them open? There are plenty of people who exist outside the system, it isn't compulsory. Of course, those people who exist outside the system have to live with the consequences - paying cash for everything, never getting credit, and so forth. But they can choose that if they want.

The police force is not accountable? What about the review commissions, investigative journalists, other police forces, courts, political bodies, citizens groups.

In my town just last year, a cop ran a red light without his siren on and killed a young mother. He was never held accountable.

Fair and just are subjective terms. If you give a court an 'incentive', you are giving it an incentive to hand down what you think are fair and just punishments.

No, because you can have as many legal systems as courts. All you are doing is letting consumers of the commodity of law and justice decide what law and justice they prefer and how much. It is far more democratic than our present system, as the free market is already.

I would say the Canadian government brutalized no one during the war

What about those who were drafted against their will by a government they never voted for?

That citizen had/has a responsibility to engage in the democratic process to convince others of the wisdom of his position to the fullest extent of his ability.

And if he cannot, he must suffer their brutality with a smile on his face?

No, actually I would like to draw your attention to the big picture. Look at the world in 1939 as a collection of individual states with no "concentration of power in a single institution with a monopoly over violence...."

An molecule is the smallest object that a substance can be broken down into without losing its properties. Individuals are like molecules. A state is not a molecule any more than a pig of iron or a glass of water.

Would you sleep at night knowing your neighbour just divorced his wife lost his job and has an ICBM at his disposal.

The only people with the resources to own and use an ICBM in the libertarian society would be corporations, and they couldn't use them because the negative publicity would drive them out of business.

If the political elites are not accountable and don't care about you than it is your responsibility to change that through democratic means.

I believe that democratic means cannot work. The state is a flawed idea. All states involve one group of people being enslaved to the will of others. In a monarchy, everyone is enslaved to the monarch, in a democracy, the minority is enslaved to the will of the majority. Anarcho-capitalism holds that nobody need be enslaved to anybody, and that everybody be free to act according to his own will alone.

From a non-partisan perspective: because the state is not perfect does not make it incapable. Expecting the state to prevent all terrorist incidents is rather difficult even with a totaliarian state.

I believe that the state can do no better at providing security than the free market. Given that, what do we need the state for?

Since you and I disagree I think the source of moral legitamacy necessary to resolve our disagreement is the majority will of the society.

I don't think moral legitimacy rests with the majority at all. What about when the majority favoured segregation? The denial of rights to women, to blacks or to Jews? What about now, when it seems that the majority favour denying private citizens their Lockean property rights?

[Black Dog]

I just about spewed my coffee opn my keyboard when I saw Hugo of all people being accused of calling for a socialist utopia.

Frankly though, the anarcho-liberetarian utopia is just as out of reach and idealistic as anything ever penned by Marx. The realities of the world we live in and human nature itself have rendered it an impossibility. The example of agarian Massachusetts doesn't really apply today.

In the end, state monopoly on violence would be replaced by some other form of institutionalized violence, possibly even less accountable and more arbitrary.

Furthermore, since the only laws concern the protection of private propert, what's to prevent such property from being aquired through coercion or outright force?

Under our current laws innocents are suffering more than criminals.

Proof, please?