What is land ownership anyways

[PocketRocket]

They should theoretically enjoy the same benefits and suffer the same privations as those they lawfully govern.

That is impossible. To govern others means that you need to be able to do to them what they cannot do to you (e.g. you must be able to imprison them if they don't do as you say, but you must be invulnerable to imprisonment for not doing what they say), therefore, to have Government, you need to have a double standard in law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if "double standard" would be the right phrase.

You or I cannot make law as we are not part of the government.

But we are both free to run for any governmental (emphasis on "mental", it is, after all, government) position.

If we can convince the general populace that we can do a better job, we will get elected, and then enjoy all the same privileges as those who are currently in power.

But your comment about "double standard" in law doesn't really hold up when you consider that members of our government are, in theory at least, subject to the same laws we are.

Most laws have been on the books for years, and so were not "made" by any current member of the government.

If Paul Martin were caught red-handed shooting someone, he would stand trial for murder, just as you or I would.

If found guilty, he would be put behind bars, just as you or I would.

Even as we speak, at least a couple MP's are subject of investigations into their allegedly illegal activities. Activities ranging from theft to embezzlement etc etc.

If found guilty, they too will pay a price.

I find your viewpoint, which seems to lean toward approval of an anarchic system, to be quite intriguing, but I don't believe it would be practical, human nature being what it is.

In a world of fair-minded people, it would be wonderful to have no laws other than the golden rule.

Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world.

[Hugo]

But your comment about "double standard" in law doesn't really hold up when you consider that members of our government are, in theory at least, subject to the same laws we are.

But they are not. A police officer can kidnap a person and it will not be considered a crime. A taxman can take money without consent and it will not be considered theft. The mint can print currency and then spend it, which if committed privately would be considered counterfeiting and a serious offence. These are all crimes which the State has decided will carry no punishment or stigma when carried out in certain predefined circumstances and by its agents.

I find your viewpoint, which seems to lean toward approval of an anarchic system, to be quite intriguing, but I don't believe it would be practical, human nature being what it is.

Human nature being what it is, Government is the impractical solution because it accrues all power in the hands of a monopolistic, coercive group and then somehow supposes that a few printed words will stop them abusing it. Any society or group will reflect the general attitude of its members. If the people are too selfish, greedy and violent to be without a State as you claim, you assume that a State formed of these people will not be selfish, greedy and violent, when that is completely illogical. In these circumstances a State is likely to be a whole lot worse than anarchy. If the people are generally peaceable and altruistic, then a State they formed would probably be as well, but it would also be unnecessary since it wouldn't do anything people would not be inclined to do anyway.

Not to mention Hayek's conundrum of the State: it represents coercive power over other people, and those attracted to positions within it will usually be those with a taste for power, which almost invariably accompanies highly unpleasant attributes, therefore, a State is likely to be made up of the most selfish and greedy people in the whole of society.

[PocketRocket]

If a man is innocent until proven guilty, then to arrest and detain him before his conviction is therefore kidnapping. Whether or not the populace consents to it is irrelevant, unless you are still clinging to the idea that rights are what other people say they are. And if that's the case, then if I bomb Parliament, none of the MPs can have had a right to govern or even to live.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm. I almost missed this one. Interesting.

Fortunately, we have in our legal system something called "probable cause".

If a man IS arrested, police need to show that there was a high probability that he was doing something wrong or illegal.

If the man questions his arrest, they need to prove that there was a reason for hauling him in.

On many occasions, police have been charged with improper arrest or illegal detainment.

A few people have collected quite a healthy settlement for being wronged in this fashion.

But your suggestion that it is "kidnapping" takes it to an extreme.

Let's look at a scenario.

Take Paul Bernardo for example.

He was arrested, with VERY GOOD probable cause.

He was, in time, found guilty of horrendous crimes.

In light of your contention, it logically follows that he was kidnapped by police simply because he had not already been proven guilty BEFORE he was taken in.

this being the case, what would you suggest as an alternative???

Perhaps the honor system???

"Well Mr Bernardo, we strongly believe you brutally raped and murdered a couple young girls. Please stay in touch with us while we investigate."

Yes, I am being facetious, but with no intent to belittle.

I am simply curious as to what alternative you would suggest to arresting someone and holding them for trial.

It's very easy to criticize an institution, but much more difficult to improve one.

As for your comment about "rights"; I would contend that rights are a legal fiction.

Rights are whatever a society accepts as being "rights".

I have the right to breath until I die.

I have the right for my heart to beat until it stops.

These are the rights I was born with.

All others are artificial and man made, and will come and go at the convenience of government, as accepted by the voting populace.

In other times and other countries, they came and went at the whims of kings, dictators, etc, and in some cases at the hands of angry, revolutionary mobs.

After the French Revolution, many members of the royalty were given the right to enjoy the hospitality of the guillotine.

But i'd best finish before I lose my head

I certainly enjoy the extended "rights" given to me under our constitution, and would not endeavour to rob anyone else of theirs, but unlike some, I recognize the fact that these are not "God given".

They are creations of man, subject to mankind's perfidies.

[Hugo]

But your suggestion that it is "kidnapping" takes it to an extreme.

How is it not? If a man is innocent until proven guilty, then if you arrest and detain a man before his conviction then you have forcibly abducted and detained an innocent person, which is kidnapping.

I am simply curious as to what alternative you would suggest to arresting someone and holding them for trial.

The same as in civil cases. Basically, you receive notice that a suit or charge has been brought against you and an invitation to attend along with your legal counsel, if you have one. Of course, if you don't show up, then you get tried in absentia, and if convicted then you are no longer an innocent man and your arrest and detainment would no longer be kidnapping.

As to what I'd to when someone just runs away when the notice comes, well, I'll answer that when you can tell me how they've solved the problem of people skipping bail.

I certainly enjoy the extended "rights" given to me under our constitution, and would not endeavour to rob anyone else of theirs, but unlike some, I recognize the fact that these are not "God given".

They are creations of man, subject to mankind's perfidies.

If this is true, then the State has no right to govern us (or only enjoys the right until someone blows up Parliament). Therefore, the State is merely a band of thugs exerting their will over us by force and relying upon force to perpetuate this state of affairs. Therefore, I see no reason to respect the State or acknowledge its alleged right to rule anymore than I see a need to acknowledge the Mafia as right and legitimate. After all, by your logic, the State is basically a more successful Mafia.

[PocketRocket]

But your comment about "double standard" in law doesn't really hold up when you consider that members of our government are, in theory at least, subject to the same laws we are.

But they are not. A police officer can kidnap a person and it will not be considered a crime.

Define "kidnap".

See my previous post for more on this.

Unless the cop is truly kidnapping, for his own devious purposes, then I disagree with this.

  A taxman can take money without consent and it will not be considered theft.

Perhaps, but the taxman is not taking the money to put in his own pocket.

He is collecting it as an agent of the government.

He is not committing a crime. Your beef is with the government that created the taxes in the first place.

But I agree that it sometimes seems like theft.

The mint can print currency and then spend it, which if committed privately would be considered counterfeiting and a serious offence.

As with the taxman, the mint is not printing money for the benefit of the mint, except in terms of the cost said mint levies to print the dough.

The money leaves the mint and goes into circulation.

By what means exactly, I readily admit I don't know.

If you had the capital needed to acquire all the proper machinery, you could build a mint of your own, and contract your services to the government.

But you would NOT own the money that you print, and that is where this analogy falls down.

These are all crimes which the State has decided will carry no punishment or stigma when carried out in certain predefined circumstances and by its agents. 

In your case, crime, like beauty, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

  Human nature being what it is, Government is the impractical solution because it accrues all power in the hands of a monopolistic, coercive group and then somehow supposes that a few printed words will stop them abusing it. Any society or group will reflect the general attitude of its members. If the people are too selfish, greedy and violent to be without a State as you claim, you assume that a State formed of these people will not be selfish, greedy and violent, when that is completely illogical. In these circumstances a State is likely to be a whole lot worse than anarchy. If the people are generally peaceable and altruistic, then a State they formed would probably be as well, but it would also be unnecessary since it wouldn't do anything people would not be inclined to do anyway. 

But not ALL the people have to be too violent or greedy etc.

It takes only one enemy to start a fight, not two.

In the case of violent crimes, would you have us revert to an old-time-western-movie society where lawless gangs ran roughshod over the countryside and terrorized innocents???

Would you perhaps have the Hell's Angels running free with nothing at all to keep them in check??

It's tough enough keeping them under some slight semblance of control as it is. With no government, and no law, well, do you know where your daughter is tonight???

Are you armed to the teeth in case they break down your door???

Given the choice, I'll take government, thank you.

It may be evil, but it's the lesser of several alternative evils.

Not to mention Hayek's conundrum of the State: it represents coercive power over other people, and those attracted to positions within it will usually be those with a taste for power, which almost invariably accompanies highly unpleasant attributes, therefore, a State is likely to be made up of the most selfish and greedy people in the whole of society.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't say as I disagree with your assessment of those attracted to power.

But I am not familiar with Hayek.

I am not, and have never claimed to be a student of political or societal sciences, simply one man who tries to use common sense.

Sometimes more successfully than others.

And, merrily on to the next post.

Gotta admit, HUGO, you get 'em out quick.........

[PocketRocket]

But your suggestion that it is "kidnapping" takes it to an extreme.

How is it not? If a man is innocent until proven guilty, then if you arrest and detain a man before his conviction then you have forcibly abducted and detained an innocent person, which is kidnapping.

But if that man is proven guilty, then would that not justify the so called "kidnapping"???

If the man is found innocent, other measures can be taken to compensate the man.

Your argument is circular.

 

I am simply curious as to what alternative you would suggest to arresting someone and holding them for trial.

The same as in civil cases. Basically, you receive notice that a suit or charge has been brought against you and an invitation to attend along with your legal counsel, if you have one. Of course, if you don't show up, then you get tried in absentia, and if convicted then you are no longer an innocent man and your arrest and detainment would no longer be kidnapping.

So, going back to my Paul Barnardo reference, would you suggest that the police had simply issued him a ticket, much like a traffic ticket, and allowed him to remain in his own home, with plenty of liesure time to erase the tapes which were ultimately the most damning evidence against him???

  As to what I'd to when someone just runs away when the notice comes, well, I'll answer that when you can tell me how they've solved the problem of people skipping bail. 

This is not an answer to my question. I asked for an alternative, not for another criticism of a system which you seem to enjoy cutting down, but don't seem to be able to offer any alternatives to.

Bail was not brought into the issue. Introducing it now as a means of skipping out of a direct question is hardly a reply worthy of your intelligence.

I certainly enjoy the extended "rights" given to me under our constitution, and would not endeavour to rob anyone else of theirs, but unlike some, I recognize the fact that these are not "God given".

They are creations of man, subject to mankind's perfidies.

If this is true, then the State has no right to govern us (or only enjoys the right until someone blows up Parliament). Therefore, the State is merely a band of thugs exerting their will over us by force and relying upon force to perpetuate this state of affairs. Therefore, I see no reason to respect the State or acknowledge its alleged right to rule anymore than I see a need to acknowledge the Mafia as right and legitimate. After all, by your logic, the State is basically a more successful Mafia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, you don't need my words to justify your lack of respect for the state.

You seem to be doing fine on that front all by your lonesome.

But, to address the issues you've raised, which I am willing to do without offering distraction or obfuscation as a response, then yes.

Just that. Yes.

The state is a band of thugs excerting their will.

The difference is the band of thugs must at least APPEAR to be acting in our best interest, because if they don't APPEAR to be doing so, they get booted out come the next election.

The difference is that every few years you and I get to vote for whoever we think will act in our best interest.

The Mafia acts in the Mafia's own interest.

You don't need to respect the state. You and I must also APPEAR to respect the laws of the land, thereby not giving the police et al any reason to suspect we are doing as we please behind closed doors.

Hell, it's no secret in this forum that I enjoy smoking the occasional joint.

Do I broadcast it in the street???

Hell no.

Is it legal??? Not quite, yet.

Is that stopping me??? No.

But I am doing what I want, in my own home, without hurting or bothering anyone else, IOH, following the golden rule.

On the street I act in a respectable manner, and give authorities no reason to believe I am anything bu a tame approaching-middle-age man.

It's called the pragmatic approach.

But I'll still take government as the lesser evil.

[Hugo]

Define "kidnap".

To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Unless the cop is truly kidnapping, for his own devious purposes, then I disagree with this.

So if I were to kidnap somebody on behalf of a third party, that would not be a crime?

Perhaps, but the taxman is not taking the money to put in his own pocket.

So if I robbed somebody and gave my ill-gotten gains to a third party, that would not be a crime?

As with the taxman, the mint is not printing money for the benefit of the mint, except in terms of the cost said mint levies to print the dough.

So, again, if I counterfeit money and give it to somebody else, it is no longer a crime?

If you had the capital needed to acquire all the proper machinery, you could build a mint of your own, and contract your services to the government.

But you would NOT own the money that you print, and that is where this analogy falls down.

This basically says that Mafia stooges are not criminals. If Legs (the stooge of Fat Tony on The Simpsons) beats somebody up on behalf of Fat Tony, Legs has not done anything wrong.

But this is wrong. Of course he has. The difference is that Fat Tony and Legs are both complicit in the crime, just as the police officer, the minter and the taxman are all complicit in the crimes committed by the Government that gives them their orders. All of these are agents of the State and all are party to the crimes that the State commits.

In your case, crime, like beauty, seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Right back at you: in your case, crime seems to be in the eyes of the criminal, since crime is only crime where the State, the biggest criminal, says it is.

Would you perhaps have the Hell's Angels running free with nothing at all to keep them in check??

Why would there be nothing at all to keep them in check? This is the old Polish Housewife fallacy. If we don't have a State, who will provide police, you ask? If we don't have a State, who will provide bread, she asked.

Who provides our bread?

Given the choice, I'll take government, thank you.

It may be evil, but it's the lesser of several alternative evils.

It is the criminal gang perfected. It operates like the Mafia but with a systematic and thorough nature, with far greater power and far greater immunity to repercussion. It is the greater of evils. It is what would happen if the Mafia succeeded in eliminating all opposition, and if you look at human history, Governments are invariably born when one tribe or group conquers another and, rather than raping and pillaging them, decides to extend their gains by living amongst them as rulers.

You also haven't answered my point that Government will necessarily attract the worst people in society because of its nature. Nor have you answered my point that any society reflects the attitude of individuals. Note that in places where people are aggressive and violent, Government is never a solution, like Rwanda, where the State did not prevent massive violence of one tribe against another, but helped commit it.

[Hugo]

But if that man is proven guilty, then would that not justify the so called "kidnapping"???

Only if you believe people are guilty until proven innocent, because what you have told me is that you can do whatever you like to a person, and if he is found guilty it's justified, but if not, well, you'll just compensate him later.

Is that what you are proposing - guilty until found innocent? Isn't that a rationale for imprisoning everybody in society?

So, going back to my Paul Barnardo reference, would you suggest that the police had simply issued him a ticket, much like a traffic ticket, and allowed him to remain in his own home, with plenty of liesure time to erase the tapes which were ultimately the most damning evidence against him???

Well, going back to Paul Bernado, I will certainly say that the State did a thoroughly derelict and negligent job of punishing that particular crime. You must prove not that the anarchist solution is not perfect (which it won't be, because people are imperfect), but that the State will do better. And that is a much harder task.

You must also admit that it is very rare that a criminal will be in control of the corpus delicti, and in such cases, the State police are really no better off than private police would have been. Of course people will get away with crimes sometimes. A lot of people get away with crimes under Government as well. My argument is that creating a law and policing market will give us much better policing and justice systems that will cut down the number of unpunished crimes and also provide better service to boot - and at less cost.

This is not an answer to my question. I asked for an alternative, not for another criticism of a system which you seem to enjoy cutting down, but don't seem to be able to offer any alternatives to.

I did answer your question. I also pre-empted a possible reply you might have. You fixated on the latter and ignored the former. Hardly my fault!

The state is a band of thugs excerting their will.

The difference is the band of thugs must at least APPEAR to be acting in our best interest, because if they don't APPEAR to be doing so, they get booted out come the next election.

The difference is that every few years you and I get to vote for whoever we think will act in our best interest.

The Mafia acts in the Mafia's own interest.

Actually, this isn't true. The Mafia actually acts as a kind of policing and court service for the underworld. They take an interest in criminal activity in their area and police it. They do provide a service and must not gouge their prey too deeply, and must also at least appear to be useful, lest the people they "protect" go to a rival organization, or just decide they're not going to take it anymore and buy shotguns.

But I'll still take government as the lesser evil.

So would I, if anybody could ever prove to me that Government actually was the lesser evil!

[I Miss Trudeau]

So, going back to my Paul Barnardo reference, would you suggest that the police had simply issued him a ticket, much like a traffic ticket, and allowed him to remain in his own home, with plenty of liesure time to erase the tapes which were ultimately the most damning evidence against him???

Indeed. Furthermore, wih Hugo's notion of property rights, no evidence could be seized from his property until such time as he was found guilty. How exactly this system will work when gathering evidence is a violation of property rights, I'm not sure. This, surprisingly, doesn't seem to be a problem for Hugo.

But there is another problem here:

The same as in civil cases. Basically, you receive notice that a suit or charge has been brought against you and an invitation to attend along with your legal counsel, if you have one. Of course, if you don't show up, then you get tried in absentia, and if convicted then you are no longer an innocent man and your arrest and detainment would no longer be kidnapping.

Suppose that I, upon receiving this notice, politely reply back that I don't acknowledge this courts jurisdiction over me and that I have no plans to attend for that reason.

Now what? They try me in my absence and find me guilty? They show up, kidnap me, and take me away to jail? Maybe murder me? Extort money from me for my alleged crimes?

[Hugo]

Indeed. Furthermore, wih Hugo's notion of property rights, no evidence could be seized from his property until such time as he was found guilty. How exactly this system will work when gathering evidence is a violation of property rights, I'm not sure. This, surprisingly, doesn't seem to be a problem for Hugo.

As I said just now, when the accused is in possession of the complete corpus delicti there isn't much the State can do either. These cases are the ones where a hiker discovers a skeleton in the woods, no weapon, no forensics, no witnesses, nothing. Whatever evidence there was, the murderer had full control over it.

Private police most likely wouldn't be able to solve this crime. But neither can State police. And what resources are available to build a case are equally available to private enforcers.

If we had an anarcho-capitalist society, it's most likely that Paul Bernardo's lawyers and defence agency would have advised him to allow his house to be searched by representatives of his alleged victims, probably witnessed by an uninterested party to prevent accusations of planting, etc. If he does this and they find nothing, it makes his case stronger. If he doesn't, it makes his case weaker since it demonstrates to the judge and/or jury that he has something to hide. It's also perfectly possible that a protection agency would only protect you if you agreed to an investigation by another protection agency or court.

If Bernado refused to abide by his protection contract then his protection agency would no longer be obliged to help him and he'd be on his own, at which point any family member of the victims or a well-meaning vigilante could blow his head off without any threat of recrimination. And that would be the end of it. He can be tried post mortem and, if found guilty, his possessions would most likely be awarded to the heirs of his victims as compensation.

Suppose that I, upon receiving this notice, politely reply back that I don't acknowledge this courts jurisdiction over me and that I have no plans to attend for that reason.

Now what? They try me in my absence and find me guilty? They show up, kidnap me, and take me away to jail? Maybe murder me? Extort money from me for my alleged crimes?

Well, your protection agency would have to protect you from the other one that's attempting to punish you. Rather than do costly and uneconomic battle, the two agencies would almost certainly agree to have the case heard again in a court that both agreed upon. If that court rules against you again, then your protection agency would be perfectly right to hand you over since you've had two strikes against you, and one was from a court you agreed to respect. If it doesn't, then they'd probably go to a third for a best-of-three (assuming it's even necessary, since the prosecutors would have had to agree on the second court too), and if you were found innocent again, the prosecuting agency would have to go back to their client and tell them that courts which they respected had found you innocent, therefore, they would not be taking further action against you.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Well, your protection agency would have to protect you from the other one that's attempting to punish you.

Right, so whether in a statist or anarchist system, my rights can be simply be revoked by force anyway.

Rather than do costly and uneconomic battle, the two agencies would almost certainly agree to have the case heard again in a court that both agreed upon.

Its amazing that you can stomach these agencies, Hugo. They seem to be in existence simply to commit violence against people.

the end result, however, is that my rights aren't protected from violence in the anarchist system any better than they are in the statist one. And apparently even less so.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

But they don't. We're not living in some cloud-cuckoo land where the unachievable is discussed.

We are discussing your theory of Anarchy, and 'voluntary policing', aren't we?

If Bernado refused to abide by his protection contract then his protection agency would no longer be obliged to help him and he'd be on his own, at which point any family member of the victims or a well-meaning vigilante could blow his head off without any threat of recrimination. And that would be the end of it. He can be tried post mortem and, if found guilty, his possessions would most likely be awarded to the heirs of his victims as compensation.

Sweet. Chaotic, though.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

And if that's the case, then if I bomb Parliament, none of the MPs can have had a right to govern or even to live.

In the minds of the 'nutbars' that do bomb parliment buildings (or anything else), that is the the belief that they have. They choose not to bestow 'the right to live' upon those they hate.

To govern others means that you need to be able to do to them what they cannot do to you (e.g. you must be able to imprison them if they don't do as you say, but you must be invulnerable to imprisonment for not doing what they say), therefore, to have Government, you need to have a double standard in law

Not exactly. There are laws made that all citizens, including politicians and police, must respect or face punishment. Stephen Harper cannot murder Paul Martin and become prime minister. He would go to jail. Laws and forcible punishment may not be right in your eyes, but it is the system I prefer.

[PocketRocket]

Define "kidnap".

To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Ah, there's the word. "Unlawfully".

But the police are doing so "lawfully".

Just because your personal thing seems to be to disagree with ALL government institutions, that doesn't make it unlawful.

Unless you can find a definition better suited to your arguments, this single issue is closed.

Unless the cop is truly kidnapping, for his own devious purposes, then I disagree with this 

So if I were to kidnap somebody on behalf of a third party, that would not be a crime?

That depends. Is the 3rd party a "lawful" government agency??? See reply above.

 

Perhaps, but the taxman is not taking the money to put in his own pocket.

So if I robbed somebody and gave my ill-gotten gains to a third party, that would not be a crime?

That depends. Is the 3rd party a "lawful" government agency??? See reply above.

(Sorry, but the definition you chose doesn't fit your argument very well)

 

As with the taxman, the mint is not printing money for the benefit of the mint, except in terms of the cost said mint levies to print the dough. 

So, again, if I counterfeit money and give it to somebody else, it is no longer a crime?

Well, the "kidnapping" definition worked out so well, why don't you define "counterfeit" for me now???

[PocketRocket]

If you had the capital needed to acquire all the proper machinery, you could build a mint of your own, and contract your services to the government.

But you would NOT own the money that you print, and that is where this analogy falls down.

This basically says that Mafia stooges are not criminals. If Legs (the stooge of Fat Tony on The Simpsons) beats somebody up on behalf of Fat Tony, Legs has not done anything wrong.

How does an assault-and-battery analogy apply to the "lawful" production of currency???

Many of your arguments seem to take this form; "Well, if "A" is this, then "B" must be as well". This works some of the time, but not always.

But this is wrong. Of course he has. The difference is that Fat Tony and Legs are both complicit in the crime, just as the police officer, the minter and the taxman are all complicit in the crimes committed by the Government that gives them their orders. All of these are agents of the State and all are party to the crimes that the State commits.

First, Fat Tony et al are NOT agents of the state.

Second, since you seem to be whingeing on about everything the government does being criminal, define crime.

 

Would you perhaps have the Hell's Angels running free with nothing at all to keep them in check??

Why would there be nothing at all to keep them in check? This is the old Polish Housewife fallacy. If we don't have a State, who will provide police, you ask? If we don't have a State, who will provide bread, she asked.

Who provides our bread?

The bakery. But the baker is disinclined to get involved in biker brawls.

You also haven't answered my point that Government will necessarily attract the worst people in society because of its nature. Nor have you answered my point that any society reflects the attitude of individuals. Note that in places where people are aggressive and violent, Government is never a solution, like Rwanda, where the State did not prevent massive violence of one tribe against another, but helped commit it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I did answer this point, and I agreed that government MAY attract those with lust for power.

I also agreed that no government, in ANY form, is perfect.

But some are less perfect.

But you, sir, are the one proposing a radical change away from a system which has government.

It's not up to me to prove that the current system is better.

It's up to YOU to prove that your proposal for a new, non-system would be an improvement.

Show me how.

[PocketRocket]

But if that man is proven guilty, then would that not justify the so called "kidnapping"??? 

Only if you believe people are guilty until proven innocent, because what you have told me is that you can do whatever you like to a person, and if he is found guilty it's justified, but if not, well, you'll just compensate him later.

Is that what you are proposing - guilty until found innocent? Isn't that a rationale for imprisoning everybody in society?

I don't recall saying we can do "whatever we like" to someone. But detaining someone who is being charged with a crime is simple common sense.

Letting him run free to be able to possibly kill those who would testify against him, hide or destroy evidence, etc, would hardly help the case against him.

But hey, since when does "common sense" matter in a debate about government???

  Well, going back to Paul Bernado, I will certainly say that the State did a thoroughly derelict and negligent job of punishing that particular crime. You must prove not that the anarchist solution is not perfect (which it won't be, because people are imperfect), but that the State will do better. And that is a much harder task.

Actually, as I said earlier, when proposing change, you must prove YOUR system would be better.

The system we have in place is there because it seemed like the best of available ideas at the time it was instituted.

Until someone, like yourself, is able to prove YOUR ideas are better, the rest of us see no reason to change.

Sorry chum, I don't have to prove anything, the ball is in your court.

My argument is that creating a law and policing market will give us much better policing and justice systems that will cut down the number of unpunished crimes and also provide better service to boot - and at less cost.

Now we're getting somewhere. After three pages, you have actually put forth a NEW idea rather than simply cutting up everyone else's ideas with your admittedly great word-smithery.

I am intrigued. I'm going to stop here rather than address the rest of this post, I can always come back later if it seems necessary.

But rather than argue all these other points willy-nilly, which we could do for days to no end, I would like to hear you expand on this idea.

'Law and Policing Market". How would it work??? What would the laws be??? Who would enforce them???

Would "arrests" be considered "kidnapping"???

Lay it on me, friend. I want to hear ALL you have to offer on this idea.

This may be a good idea. At the very least, it's something new.

[Hugo]

Right, so whether in a statist or anarchist system, my rights can be simply be revoked by force anyway.

What rights? What exactly are you claiming that private protection agencies would aggress against, and how is it that you believe the State does not already do any of that?

Sweet. Chaotic, though.

Is this any more chaotic than our justice system, where apprehension and sentencing seem to basically be a lottery, and where victims pay for the criminal's upkeep? Tell me that doesn't sound like something from Alice in Wonderland.

Not exactly. There are laws made that all citizens, including politicians and police, must respect or face punishment. Stephen Harper cannot murder Paul Martin and become prime minister. He would go to jail.

You are dodging the question. My point is that there are double standards in law. Your rebuttal is that there are a few laws that apply equally to governors and governed. That does not negate my point at all.

Ah, there's the word. "Unlawfully".

But the police are doing so "lawfully".

It's a circular argument. It's not kidnapping if the police did it. Why? Because it's not illegal. Why isn't it illegal? Because the police did it.

That depends. Is the 3rd party a "lawful" government agency??? See reply above.

No. Let's assume the 3rd party in all these cases is Don Corlione.

Well, the "kidnapping" definition worked out so well, why don't you define "counterfeit" for me now?

To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge (American Heritage Dictionary).

Canadian money is supposed to be backed by precious metals. However, the State creates money that is not backed by anything. This is therefore fraudulent, just as if I sold you something on the premise that it did something which it did not do. Since the fraudulent item is money, the State is a counterfeiter. The State copies existing banknotes but knows full well that, unlike the existing banknotes, there is no commodity to back the forgeries.

How does an assault-and-battery analogy apply to the "lawful" production of currency?

Fine: if Legs forges currency (i.e. promisory notes with nothing to back them) at the behest of Fat Tony, who is the criminal: Legs, Tony, or both?

You are splitting hairs.

[Hugo]

First, Fat Tony et al are NOT agents of the state.

Exactly my point, and as you have admitted, there's really nothing to distinguish them from the State except success. Therefore, why is Fat Tony a criminal, and not the State?

Second, since you seem to be whingeing on about everything the government does being criminal, define crime.

I don't have to, because the State already has and in such a way that they are the biggest criminals of all - excused only by a logically indefensible circular argument that boils down to, "it's not illegal when I do it because I said so."

The bakery. But the baker is disinclined to get involved in biker brawls.

Are private security guards inclined to get involved in biker brawls?

Actually, I did answer this point, and I agreed that government MAY attract those with lust for power.

Why would it not?

I don't recall saying we can do "whatever we like" to someone. But detaining someone who is being charged with a crime is simple common sense.

No, it's nonsense, unless you believe a person is guilty until proven innocent. I've provided logic to back my contention. All you've offered back is a utilitarian argument, which if taken to its logical conclusion, means that anything is permissible if done for the good of the majority, including murdering and robbing the minority, therefore my contention that your argument amounts to claiming that one can do anything one wants to a person accused of a crime, justly.

Actually, as I said earlier, when proposing change, you must prove YOUR system would be better.

The system we have in place is there because it seemed like the best of available ideas at the time it was instituted.

This is wrong. The idea of a State as social contract is a myth, no Government was ever, ever created that way. The way all States came into being was the conquest and subversion of one group by another. Therefore, the system we have in place is not there because it seemed like it would be best but because some people are stronger than others and decided to make their lives easier by enslaving those others.

After three pages, you have actually put forth a NEW idea rather than simply cutting up everyone else's ideas with your admittedly great word-smithery.

It seems great because it is logically consistent and I'm not tying myself up in knots and self-contradiction.

[Riverwind]

Canadian money is supposed to be backed by precious metals. However, the State creates money that is not backed by anything. This is therefore fraudulent, just as if I sold you something on the premise that it did something which it did not do. Since the fraudulent item is money, the State is a counterfeiter. The State copies existing banknotes but knows full well that, unlike the existing banknotes, there is no commodity to back the forgeries.

You don't understand economics. There is no economic reason why a currency has to be 'backed' by precious metals since the 'value' of precious metals are purely based on perception and have no connection to the usefulness of the metal in the production of goods. In other words, gold has value because we all agree it has value - the same thing is true of the Canadian dollar.

There is no different between the canadian govt printing money and company that issues new shares. Both acts seem to create wealth out of nothing but they really just dilute the value of money/shares that are already in circulation. If the company or gov't do it too much they can cause a collapse in its value.

[Riverwind]

This is wrong. The idea of a State as social contract is a myth, no Government was ever, ever created that way. The way all States came into being was the conquest and subversion of one group by another. Therefore, the system we have in place is not there because it seemed like it would be best but because some people are stronger than others and decided to make their lives easier by enslaving those others.

You are asolutely wrong. The state came into place for mutual protection - groups of people realized that they would be safer if they worked together and this co-operative structure evolved into government. These structures were then twisted by leaders that decided conquest was more profitable than simply offering protection.

[Hugo]

'Law and Policing Market". How would it work??? What would the laws be??? Who would enforce them???

Would "arrests" be considered "kidnapping"???

Lay it on me, friend. I want to hear ALL you have to offer on this idea.

Murray Rothbard and David Friedman (amongst others) have written books on this subject and all of them are available for free online. I will attempt a summary, but it'll probably leave something out, or I'll forget it, so bear with me.

First off, we all contract with protection agencies - private police. You'd contract with them like you buy insurance. As to the poor, they'd probably receive it for free as a PR stunt from the agencies, from charity, or from service bundling. Your protection agency is responsible for keeping you safe from crime. They guard your house and so on. When you enter someone else's property (in anarcho-capitalism, everything is property), you're under the protection of their agency. So in a mall, the mall guards look after you. All good so far.

Now, what happens if your TV gets stolen? Well, your agency investigates and finds out that a guy called Smith stole it. They turn up at Smith's house and demand that he return your TV and costs for your inconvenience. Smith calls his protection agency and tells them that your agency is attempting to extort him.

What happens next? They could do battle, but this is extremely unlikely. Doing battle is very expensive - trained staff members are killed, material resources are lost, injured bystanders will sue, dead staff members have to be buried, their life insurance companies will probably sue, and so on. Any protection agency that relied upon doing battle would price itself out of the market. You might like the idea, but you'd probably like it less when the premiums were fifty times what the competition charged.

What they would do is go to arbitration. They would find a private court willing to hear the case. Both companies would have to agree to the court, and in all likelihood companies would probably agree on courts in advance (in case of future dispute), so you'd know when you signed your protection contract which courts you'd be using. The court has to attract the business of both agencies, so it is in its interests to be impartial, fair, and expert, and to have a just and good legal code. A court that is known to be biased or derelict would not find many customers.

So you go to court. The judge hears all the evidence from both parties and decides that Smith stole your TV. It would in all certainty have stated in Smith's protection contract that his agency won't protect him from sentences of crimes he is found to have committed, so his agency will stand by while yours repossesses your TV and collects reimbursement for your (or their) costs.

Objections? Well, what if Smith (or you, if it went against you) decided he didn't like the verdict and contracted with a new protection agency? Firstly, it's unlikely that this agency would protect him for the same reason that insurance policies generally won't honour claims made in a grace period - it's likely that you suffered the loss first and then got insurance with the intention of defrauding the company. Secondly, a person willing to do this is likely to cost the agency money and not be a loyal customer, which isn't good business.

What if your agency and Smith's hadn't dealt before and didn't have a prearranged court? They would have to negotiate and agree upon one, most likely with your consent. Since both parties must agree to the judgement, no party can call 'foul' against a verdict that doesn't go his way.

What if Smith knows he's guilty as hell and won't consent to any court? First, when he signed his contract he would have had to agree to use a court. It's also likely that his agency wouldn't let him keep refusing various courts indefinitely - it costs them money and also increases the likelihood that they are going to have to defend him against forcible action by your agency. After too much of this they would terminate his contract, at which point it's open season on Smith.

What if your agency is corrupt and signs up with a corrupt court? Being a responsible consumer, you probably read the newspapers and Consumer Reports or Consumer Guide, and you read all the stories about which agencies are crooked and which ones are trustworthy - just as we can now to find out which car manufacturers honour their warranties and which give you the run-around. And if that fails, you can always find a new protection agency and complain that the old one was crooked. Being in the business, they'd almost certainly know if your claim had any merit, and if it did, they'd be glad to have a new customer and would help you.

What if Smith decides he's not going to take it, gets a shotgun and announces that any agent who sets foot upon his property will die? Would they aggress against him? Not necessarily. Under anarcho-capitalism, everything is owned. Word would quickly spread - like a credit rating - that Smith was a criminal and untrustworthy. If he mortgaged his house, his lender would probably foreclose. If he refused to leave, or owned the property, his utility suppliers would close his accounts, knowing that there is now a good chance he wouldn't have paid them anyway. So Smith is living in the dark without heat or water. Nor will he have food, because the road in front of his house is owned, and nobody wants a known criminal walking down their street - it's bad for business, since innocent people wouldn't want to walk where criminals went. So they're going to stop him doing that, by force if necessary, which wouldn't be aggression since Smith would have initiated the violence by trespassing.

Smith has three alternatives at this point: either surrender and carry out his sentence, starve to death, or (assuming he owns arable land) effectively carry out a life sentence of hard labour eking out a living as a subsistence farmer without any outside assistance.

And what if all the Smiths of the world banded together and took over? Well, you'd have a Government again.

[Hugo]

You don't understand economics. There is no economic reason why a currency has to be 'backed' by precious metals since the 'value' of precious metals are purely based on perception and have no connection to the usefulness of the metal in the production of goods. In other words, gold has value because we all agree it has value - the same thing is true of the Canadian dollar.

The value of all things is subjective. However, the value of a scrap of printed paper is very low. The reason why money is not valued so low is because it is supposed to represent a quantity of a much more highly valued good - gold.

It would take a lot of paper to buy a car. For instance, if I turned up at a BMW dealership and offered them sixty pretty pieces of paper the size of $1000 dollar bills, I'd be laughed into the street. But dollars are valuable because they represent something else. They are promissory notes.

There is no different between the canadian govt printing money and company that issues new shares. Both acts seem to create wealth out of nothing but they really just dilute the value of money/shares that are already in circulation.

Companies issue new shares to represent capital gain. The shares represent new equipment and other capital. To do otherwise would be fraudulent. The State, however, prints paper money representing capital that doesn't actually exist. Yet you claim this is not fraud.

And if a corporation did issue new shares representing no capital, when they claimed that they did, yes, that would be fraud.

You are asolutely wrong. The state came into place for mutual protection - groups of people realized that they would be safer if they worked together and this co-operative structure evolved into government.

When? Name one society.

Here's a history lesson (a lot of work on this done by Oppenheimer): The Normans conquered and subverted the Anglo-Saxons. The Norman nobility lived among them as rulers. Then some of the peasantry overthrew those rulers and themselves lived among the conquered, as rulers. Then those people went overseas to North America, conquered and subverted the people living there and lived among them as rulers. And that is the Canadian Government today.

At no point did the people ever get together and say, "You know what would be good for all of us? If we gave all the weapons and all the power to the Norman nobles and had them tell us what to do. That'd sure keep us safe."

It sounds like what it is: ridiculous.

[Riverwind]

Nor will he have food, because the road in front of his house is owned, and nobody wants a known criminal walking down their street - it's bad for business, since innocent people wouldn't want to walk where criminals went. So they're going to stop him doing that, by force if necessary, which wouldn't be aggression since Smith would have initiated the violence by trespassing.

The idea that the road to your property could be 'owned' by another private property owner is so absurd I do not understand why you think it is rational. Anyone who had control over the only access to someone's property would be able the extort ever increasing sums for 'access'. Eventually, the poor sods would go bankrupt and be forced to sell their properties. Roads have to be communal property or society can't function.

Smith has three alternatives at this point: either surrender and carry out his sentence, starve to death, or (assuming he owns arable land) effectively carry out a life sentence of hard labour eking out a living as a subsistence farmer without any outside assistance.

90% of the property crimes are commited by drug addicts who don't care about anything except their next fix. You want to get them to go to jail you would have to use force - no avoiding it.

[Riverwind]

Companies issue new shares to represent capital gain. The shares represent new equipment and other capital. To do otherwise would be fraudulent. The State, however, prints paper money representing capital that doesn't actually exist. Yet you claim this is not fraud.

Wrong again, companies issue shares to raise capital which is used to make investments that could result in future capital gain. If a company has no protential for future capital gain it can still issue shares, however, the price of all shares would drop to reflect the larger number of shares outstanding. It is not fraudant for a company to do this and covernment backed currencies work the same way.

Here's a history lesson (a lot of work on this done by Oppenheimer): The Normans conquered and subverted the Anglo-Saxons. The Norman nobility lived among them as rulers.

Where exactly did the Normal 'rulers' come from in the first place? The probably started out as elected chief of villiage somewhere in France.

[Hugo]

The idea that the road to your property could be 'owned' by another private property owner is so absurd I do not understand why you think it is rational.

Most likely it would be owned by the condo association or the housing owner who would probably also provide garbage disposal and so forth. Thus it would be leased along with the house.

Anyone who had control over the only access to someone's property would be able the extort ever increasing sums for 'access'.

And then they'd watch their meal tickets dwindle to nothing as people moved somewhere else where the road-owner wasn't so extortionate.

Let's say Jones owns a house surrounded a road owned by Smith. Smith decides he'll extort Jones. He raises prices to exorbitant levels. Jones has to leave at some point to work and buy food, after having done so he turns to Smith and says, "Ha ha, sucker! I just bought a house somewhere else! Won't be using your road anymore!" In the meantime, everyone knows that Smith is an extortionist and nobody will do any kind of business with him. With nobody left to deal with, Smith will have a miserable existence by himself.

Smith's alternative is never to allow Jones to leave. Jones will eventually starve to death having paid Smith very little since he was not allowed to leave for work, and Smith's only source of income will be gone now that Jones has died and nobody else will do business with him. Again, his life will now be very miserable.

Doesn't seem worth it, does it? If Smith hated Jones so much that he would ruin his own life to hurt him, then why not just shoot him and have done with it?

90% of the property crimes are commited by drug addicts who don't care about anything except their next fix. You want to get them to go to jail you would have to use force - no avoiding it.

Drug addicts don't have to go to jail. They haven't done anything wrong. The reason why drugs are so expensive that they have to commit theft is because they are illegal. There's very few crimes committed for cigarette money.

Where exactly did the Normal 'rulers' come from in the first place? The probably started out as elected chief of villiage somewhere in France.

On what evidence do you claim this?

Wrong again, companies issue shares to raise capital which is used to make investments that could result in future capital gain.

OK, so they're selling futures. Does newly minted currency represent gold futures? Where is the government's business plan for mining this new gold and minting it into bullion, please?