What is land ownership anyways

[PocketRocket]

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.

I asked you to define kidnapping. Your reply was a dictionary quotation which said "To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom".

The law in Canada currently is that police can arrest someone if they are suspected of a criminal activity.

Period.

Unless you want to re-define law, this "kidnapping"question is closed.

Fortunately, you are not in a position to make law.

 

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.

Difficult for a fictional character to be the 3rd party.

But stipulating he was the 3rd party, then the activities would be unlawful as he is not a representative of a duly-elected government.

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.

"To make a copy of". Interesting. But stipulating this definition, the Royal Canadian Mint is not "making a copy" of anything. They are making the original.

The fact that there is less precious metal in the treasury than should be accounted for by the amount of currency in circulation simply contributes to inflation.

So, counterfeit is also an innacurate word for the purposes of this argument.

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?

*Sigh*. You really don't see a discussion as anything other than a contest that you must win, do you???

In this case, both are guilty of a criminal activity, which relates not at all to the issue to which you introduced it, other than to obfuscate further, which you do very well.

You are splitting hairs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I am sticking to the point and not introducing complete and utter irrelevancies in an attempt to "win" something that is not a contest.

[PocketRocket]

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?

No, I did not admit there is nothing to distinguish Fat Tony et al from the state. There is one supremely important thing.

Fat Tony was not voted into government. Fat Tony was not established as a governmental system in which his wishes need to be ratified by members of the house and senate.

Big difference in everyone's mind but yours.

 

  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."

No, actually you do have to because you are the one constantly making these accusations as though they are a given fact, and then asking everyone else to provide "proof" for any statement which contradicts you.

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

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

That was the wrong answer. Having been in the entertainment industry for well over 25 years, I have met my share of security guards, and more than a few of them were more than eager to get involved an whatever physical confrontation they could find.

IOW, some are, yes.

 

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

Why would it not?

????? I agree with one of your points, and you question it????

You really DO need to "win", don't you???

Sorry, this isn't a contest to me, it's a discussion.

But if your ego demands that you "win" something, so badly that you feel the need to even question when someone agrees with you, then hey man, whatever gets you through the night.

[PocketRocket]

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.

Then your contention is wrong. Dead wrong. Simple arrest and detainment are a far cry from murder.

What you see as a "logical conclusion" is simply an attempt to put words into my mouth, as you seem to enjoy doing with so many others.

Sorry. I won't bite.

As for the "logic" you've provided, it has consisted solely of "It's not a crime if the police do it, only because it's the police doing it".

Hardly logic.

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.

Hmmm. This is also interesting. How many slaves are there in Canada??? How many were enslaved by the government of Canada???

Take your time.

You may also have to look into a definition for "slavery".

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh for God's sake. I give you a compliment, and then ask you to elaborate on this "new" idea, and instead of doing so, you pat yourself on the back in a congratulatory manner, and in the same breath make a blatant insinuation that everyone else discussing this topic with you are "tying themselves in knots with self-contradiction".

You really do have an ego problem, don't you???

Answer the damn questions in the manner in which they were posed, rather than introducing bad analogies, circular logic, and self-praise.

I asked you to elaborate on an idea, which you have refused to do.

You have carefully cherry-picked small portions of my posts, and tried to twist them out of context.

You may have noticed that I have tried NOT to do this with your posts.

That's because I'm trying to keep this a discussion, and not a pissing match.

So again, in case you missed in the other two times, please expand on this new idea. I do find the thought interesting and would like to hear more details about how it would work.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation in this request.

[PocketRocket]

HUGO Allow me to offer an apology.

Publicly, since I bashed you for it publicly.

I replied to the posts which I quoted, then moved on.

Only then did I realize you HAVE responded to my request to expand on your law-enforcement idea.

Again, I apologize for that. I simply hadn't gotten that far yet.

I'm going back there to read it right now.

[Hugo]

The law in Canada currently is that police can arrest someone if they are suspected of a criminal activity.

Which is a circular argument, as I've demonstrated. So what the law boils down to is "we do as we please'. Which is my whole argument - a double standard in law, one for the ruled, another for the rulers (or none for the rulers).

"To make a copy of". Interesting. But stipulating this definition, the Royal Canadian Mint is not "making a copy" of anything. They are making the original.

No, the original was backed by a commodity. The new note is a copy because it is not backed by anything.

The fact that there is less precious metal in the treasury than should be accounted for by the amount of currency in circulation simply contributes to inflation.

Word substitution does not an argument make. By this standard, criminal counterfeiters are simply inflating the currency, which isn't a crime - sayest thou.

You really don't see a discussion as anything other than a contest that you must win, do you?

Actually, debate is supposed to be the pitting of two (or more) arguments against each other to find the truth. If I don't defend my argument to the best of my abilities I am doing you a disservice.

No, I did not admit there is nothing to distinguish Fat Tony et al from the state. There is one supremely important thing.Fat Tony was not voted into government.

Does the consent of perhaps a quarter of the electorate grant legitimacy? If a quarter of Canadians decided that PocketRocket must die, would you commit suicide?

How many people do you need before something stops being illegal and becomes State activity?

Having been in the entertainment industry for well over 25 years, I have met my share of security guards, and more than a few of them were more than eager to get involved an whatever physical confrontation they could find.

And if you don't like that, then don't go into bars. Go to malls, where the guards are courteous and don't get in brawls. The free market has something for everyone, not the one-size-will-fit-all dogma of the State.

You really DO need to "win", don't you???

Sorry, this isn't a contest to me, it's a discussion.

But if your ego demands that you "win" something, so badly that you feel the need to even question when someone agrees with you, then hey man, whatever gets you through the night.

When you're done insulting me, could you answer my point?

I contended (actually, the Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek contended) that it is inevitable that the State will attract the worst of people. I offered you a logical argument as to why that would be. Your answer was, "well, it may." Why may it? Where is your argument? Why am I the only one expected to provide any proof or argument for anything?

[Riverwind]

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.

Logically, there would have to be local and regional 'condo associations' that owned the major arterial roads - sounds a lot like government to me.

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.

Hard drugs create physical cravings that induce people to do extreme things to secure a fix. No matter what the price people would eventually run out of money because many addicts become incapable of earning a living.

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?

What evidence do you have that it is otherwise. The Normal rulers had to come from somewhere and if you go far enough back you will find nothing but villages with leaders.

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?

Futures represent a contract to purchase something at a fixed price in the future. New shares are nothing more than paper. People buy them because they have faith that the company's management will find a way to provide them with income or capital gain in the future. Govt backed currency are the same, people use it because they have faith in the government that created it. In both cases, you have to trust that the entity with the power to create new money or shares will not devalue your asset by issuing too much of it.

[Hugo]

Simple arrest and detainment are a far cry from murder.

That's not the issue. What I'm asking you is whether or not you feel that coercive detainment before a conviction amounts to a presumption of guilt until proof of innocence.

Your reply is that detainment is not the same as murder. Be that as it may, it does not answer the question.

How many slaves are there in Canada??? How many were enslaved by the government of Canada?

Since the dictionary apparently forms the basis of your philosophy:

"the state of being under the control of another person" -- Wordnet 2.0, Princeton University

The State controls us and tells us what to do. We are also forced to labour for the State, since when we work, whether or not we like it or consent to it a certain portion of our income is skimmed off (or gouged off, more like) and taken by the State for whatever they deem appropriate. Therefore, every working person in Canada is a slave with the exception of those who live from government largesse or who are net beneficiaries of the State, receiving more than they pay.

Anything other than this is going to give you an awfully funny definition of slavery. I invite you to posit an alternative.

[Hugo]

Logically, there would have to be local and regional 'condo associations' that owned the major arterial roads - sounds a lot like government to me.

Except that such "governments" would have competitors in the same geographic region and would not be allowed to initiate force against people. That is what the State is all about - a monopoly over law and justice (at least) in a given geographical area and the so-called right to aggress.

Hard drugs create physical cravings that induce people to do extreme things to secure a fix. No matter what the price people would eventually run out of money because many addicts become incapable of earning a living.

So because drug addicts might commit crimes we must lock them up? Are you in favour of locking up all young black males, since they are also more likely to commit crimes? Why not? At what point do you deem a chance of offence great enough to merit imprisonment before having committed a crime, and why?

What evidence do you have that it is otherwise.

The works of Franz Oppenheimer.

The Normal rulers had to come from somewhere and if you go far enough back you will find nothing but villages with leaders.

It's "Norman". I thought it was a typo but you've repeated it now. Anyway, if you go back far enough you'll find tribes based on mutual co-operation and consent, voluntaryists, but when they began to conquer and subvert each other you have the origins of imposed government.

Futures represent a contract to purchase something at a fixed price in the future. New shares are nothing more than paper.

No, they are like lottery tickets, but with better odds. They are promises of a share in potential future earnings. The government has no plan for expanding the supply of gold and therefore new currency is plainly fraudulent - it represents neither anything that exists now or anything that may or probably will exist.

But in any case, this is a nonargument because if you contend that for a company to issue new shares based neither on existing capital nor on capital it has reason to believe it will possess in the future, yes, I agree that that is fraudulent - just as the State is fraudulent. So I suggest you drop it since it cannot be used to prove me wrong.

[Hugo]

HUGO Allow me to offer an apology.

Publicly, since I bashed you for it publicly.

That's very honest and noble of you. Apology accepted. In turn I apologise if you perceive me as overly confrontational and competitive, it's nothing personal, but I'm passionate about my views (although not intransigent). Renowned debaters of history are never known for their conciliatory nature and willingness to compromise for the sake of niceness. Not that I'm comparing myself to Socrates or anything, but if you find me confrontational, aggressive and unrelenting, you should get a load of him.

[Riverwind]

The works of Franz Oppenheimer.

For every theory there is a counter theory:

Such a theory has been presented by Bertrand de Jouvenel. According to his view, states are the outgrowth of natural elites: the natural outcome of voluntary transactions between private property owners is non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist. In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn to with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good."

See complete essay

How would you propose to determine which 'theory' is most correct?

[PocketRocket]

The law in Canada currently is that police can arrest someone if they are suspected of a criminal activity.

Which is a circular argument, as I've demonstrated. So what the law boils down to is "we do as we please'. Which is my whole argument - a double standard in law, one for the ruled, another for the rulers (or none for the rulers).

HUGO, this started when you used the word "kidnapping" to describe police arrests.

When asked to define kidnapping, you provided a definition which included the word "law".

Unless you re-define "law", then the use of the word "kidnapping" is invalid as a supporting argument for this point.

That's all. If you can't see that simple point, that's not my problem.

As for the "double standard". As previously pointed out, if Harper shoots Martin, Harper goes to jail, same as you or I would.

You spoke of splitting hairs. You are doing so yourself on points of policing, and taxation.

That seems to be the sum total of your case.

"To make a copy of". Interesting. But stipulating this definition, the Royal Canadian Mint is not "making a copy" of anything. They are making the original.

No, the original was backed by a commodity. The new note is a copy because it is not backed by anything.

What if the new note is replacing an old, worn-out note??? Then it's not even producing new currency. Does this still fit your description of counterfeit???

As for what backs it, see the earlier entry on "economics". I don't recall who posted it, but his explanation was bang-on.

The fact that there is less precious metal in the treasury than should be accounted for by the amount of currency in circulation simply contributes to inflation.

Word substitution does not an argument make. By this standard, criminal counterfeiters are simply inflating the currency, which isn't a crime - sayest thou.

No, I think you can see the fallacy of this argument on your own without me pointing it out.

And again, don't try tell me what I sayest. I won't put words in your mouth, don't try put words in mine.

Read the first sentence in your reply above, then try to take your own advice to heart.

[PocketRocket]

You really don't see a discussion as anything other than a contest that you must win, do you? 

Actually, debate is supposed to be the pitting of two (or more) arguments against each other to find the truth. If I don't defend my argument to the best of my abilities I am doing you a disservice.

"Find the truth". A good choice of words. But I have yet to EVER see you concede a single point at any time in any debate in these forums.

Part of the quest for truth is opening your mind to the idea that your viewpoint may not be absolutely without flaw.

 

No, I did not admit there is nothing to distinguish Fat Tony et al from the state. There is one supremely important thing.Fat Tony was not voted into government. 

Does the consent of perhaps a quarter of the electorate grant legitimacy? If a quarter of Canadians decided that PocketRocket must die, would you commit suicide?

Heh heh. Good one. But to reply, no. I'd just change my pseudonym.

Having been in the entertainment industry for well over 25 years, I have met my share of security guards, and more than a few of them were more than eager to get involved an whatever physical confrontation they could find.

And if you don't like that, then don't go into bars. Go to malls, where the guards are courteous and don't get in brawls. The free market has something for everyone, not the one-size-will-fit-all dogma of the State.

Actually, I wasn't speaking of bars, although that is where I paid my dues.

The worst brutality I have ever seen took place at a Who concert in Toronto circa 1981.

The guards were responsible for the bulk of it, and a couple of them inflamed the situation when they could easily have quelled it.

I was working on that show. Saw it close-up firsthand.

It wasn't the only incident of that sort.

As for malls, at a mall in my hometown, I was quite surprised to see recently an ex-bouncer of my acquaintance working security.

He was not what I would describe as a gentle bouncer, and was swaggering around like he owned the place.

I suspect he won't be there long. I hope.

 

You really DO need to "win", don't you???

Sorry, this isn't a contest to me, it's a discussion.

But if your ego demands that you "win" something, so badly that you feel the need to even question when someone agrees with you, then hey man, whatever gets you through the night. 

When you're done insulting me, could you answer my point?

You may notice that I apologized for that a couple posts back.

Nope, my mistake. The apology was for another crack later on. As for this one, which was not an insult so much as an observation.....

I contended (actually, the Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek contended) that it is inevitable that the State will attract the worst of people. I offered you a logical argument as to why that would be. Your answer was, "well, it may." Why may it? Where is your argument? Why am I the only one expected to provide any proof or argument for anything?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I said, I agree with this point. I said "It may", as it "It may attract the worst of people".

In other words, government could well attract the worst of people.

This is an agreement. Whay are you looking for an argument on a point with which I agree, at least in large part???

That was my question, and the cause for the "ego" reference.

There's nothing to argue when someone agrees with you.

Government may also attract the best of people for the best of reasons.

But I didn't get into that because I didn't want to open yet another can of worms in an already cluttered discussion.

[PocketRocket]

HUGO Allow me to offer an apology.

Publicly, since I bashed you for it publicly.

That's very honest and noble of you. Apology accepted. In turn I apologise if you perceive me as overly confrontational and competitive, it's nothing personal, but I'm passionate about my views (although not intransigent). Renowned debaters of history are never known for their conciliatory nature and willingness to compromise for the sake of niceness. Not that I'm comparing myself to Socrates or anything, but if you find me confrontational, aggressive and unrelenting, you should get a load of him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now I'm REALLY pi$$ed off.

I can't find a smiley with a "thumbs up".

Cool, and thanks for the acknowledgement.

"Noble"

I like that. Maybe next election, I'll run for king.

You can keep me grounded, so I can understand the peons

[Riverwind]

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.

More likely Smith gradually raises prices overtime so like a lobster in pot - Jones won't realize what is happening.

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!"

Maybe the property owned by Jones is his only asset and he can't afford to buy anywhere else. His property has no market value because the access charges by Smith are too high. Smith on the other hand, would love to get his hands on Jones property for dirt cheap. If Jones gives up entirely sells to Smith and rents a property somewhere then Smith still wins.

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.

More likely Smith has a bunch of other land owner buddies who do the same thing and get together at the local pub laughing at the poor sods they are screwing out their property.

[I Miss Trudeau]

What rights? What exactly are you claiming that private protection agencies would aggress against,

Well, they are apparently entitled to kidnap and even murder me as they see fit. Apparently, they can even give my property away to whoever they deem worthy after they've murdered me. Sounds like paradise.

and how is it that you believe the State does not already do any of that?

Well, Hugo, if you had bothered to read my post before replying, you would have seen this:

so whether in a statist or anarchist system,

So why you then ask me why I don't believe that the state already does something or another, it is clearly a misrepresentation. So your response is not only a straw man, it is also an example of the "you too" fallacy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

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.

I personally agree, our justice system needs an overhaul. But I do not agree with abolishment.

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.

Again, I agree that there should be 'no double standards' with the laws, and that politicians should be held just as accountable as anyone, but you seem to think that any 'enforcable' law is wrong.

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.

Don't be silly. The laws of the land are held up to public scrutiny, and even the police are bound by them. They can't open fire in a supermarket for 'shits and giggles' any more than you can.

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.

A Canadian bank note is the original. It is not 'counterfeiting' when the bank of Canada makes them. It can only be called that when you make them. Bank notes were developed to replace the chicken and the playing card as a 'common denominator', to standardize currency transactions within the barter system. You cannot correct use the term 'forgery' or 'counterfeit' with an original. You can imply it is worthless, or over-inflated, or say it is as valuable as 'The Emperor's New Clothes' (such as the US dollar) but it cannot be a copy of itself.

[Hugo]

How would you propose to determine which 'theory' is most correct?

de Jouvenel's theory does not make sense. He proposes that the accumulation of wealth will lead to elites forming and power being concentrated in their hands. Firstly, there is no evidence of this ever having happened: merchants do not become kings, warlords do. Secondly, his mechanism for the accumulation of power within families already presumes a State, it does not explain how one comes into being. Without a State no one entity will control who is able to amass a fortune and it is perfectly possible to amass one from nothing (50% of American millionaires inherited less than $1, 90% had parents who weren't millionaires). However, with a State created, it is possible for elites to expropriate up-and-comers or introduce legislation to stop them in the first place. To think that this could happen before the fact implies the fixed-pie economic idea, which was discredited a long time ago.

Thirdly, he does not address how many elites will become one elite. How is the ultimately victorious elite able to gain his victory? Even when he becomes more powerful than any other elite, the others must surely recognise that he is a threat to all of them and band together against him, and against all of them he is weak. The only way this elite could gain his victory is if he leverages his wealth into military power and conquers them - which was my proposition in the first place. I'm also curious to know what the examples are of societies that have gained a State in this fashion.

HUGO, this started when you used the word "kidnapping" to describe police arrests.

You're obfuscating. You have not addressed the circular nature of this argument. Again: kidnapping is not illegal if the State does it, because if the State does it, it's not illegal. Note, however, that this does not address the moral or ethical implications of such kidnapping at all.

As for the "double standard". As previously pointed out, if Harper shoots Martin, Harper goes to jail, same as you or I would.

You are constructing a strawman argument: I never claimed that politicians could do as they want, I claimed instead that politicians are able to do many things without repercussion which, if done by a private citizen, would be punished severely. You have not addressed this.

What if the new note is replacing an old, worn-out note?

Are you claiming that all the State does is replace old notes, which are destroyed, with new ones? I think you'll find that that is very wrong.

In other words, government could well attract the worst of people.

This is an agreement... Government may also attract the best of people for the best of reasons.

But the likelihood that it will attract a good person is far less than that it will attract a bad one, because the desire for power very rarely accompanies traits such as compassion and selflessness. Most people who are pacifistic and selfless would also reject the holding of coercive power over another human being and so would not be interested in political office. This is why Hayek claims that the State will attract many more bad people than good, and due to their nature, it is also almost certain that the bad people within the State will do their best to run the good out of it, thus, over time, any State will become populated almost entirely with selfish, arrogant, intransigent and self-gratifying individuals, which when married with the power of coercion over other people, makes a very dangerous situation.

More likely Smith gradually raises prices overtime so like a lobster in pot - Jones won't realize what is happening.

So you are telling me that if, for instance, your hydro company gradually raised its rates over a few years to several dollars per kWh or more, you wouldn't notice? You would receive your multi-thousand-dollar hydro bill and not even have the slightest inkling that this was more than you were paying a few years ago?

Of course, this is nonsense. People notice very quickly that prices have gone up and complain about it most vocally.

Maybe the property owned by Jones is his only asset and he can't afford to buy anywhere else.

If Jones had a job he could certainly afford to rent somewhere else. You also assume that Jones is completely alone in the world without a single friend or family member who might take him in or otherwise help him out. And once he has done this he could sue Smith for causing the devaluing of his property, because Smith's action having negatively impacted Jones is very arguably a tort.

His property has no market value because the access charges by Smith are too high. Smith on the other hand, would love to get his hands on Jones property for dirt cheap. If Jones gives up entirely sells to Smith and rents a property somewhere then Smith still wins.

No, he would not. He would now own a property that was worthless because, after what Smith has done to Jones, nobody is going to buy it or rent it from Smith. Smith is now the owner of a worthless property and is ostracized by everybody else in the community, who has seen what he did to poor Jones. If Smith had a day-job he'd almost certainly lose it since no company wants to be seen employing such despicable people - it speaks about their organization and loses them business. He wouldn't get another for the same reason. If Smith owned properties elsewhere that he had not yet extorted those tenants would move out quickly before he did to them what he did to Jones.

So Smith ends up owning nothing of value, without an income or a means of getting one, and without a friend in the world. How is this "winning"?

More likely Smith has a bunch of other land owner buddies who do the same thing and get together at the local pub laughing at the poor sods they are screwing out their property.

They'll be laughing on the other side of their faces when the fair-trading landlords take all their business away. Nobody wants to deal with a crook - just look at how fast all of Enron's shareholders pulled out once the news of their book-cooking came out.

[Hugo]

Well, they are apparently entitled to kidnap and even murder me as they see fit. Apparently, they can even give my property away to whoever they deem worthy after they've murdered me. Sounds like paradise.

That's what you live under now. I thought you liked it.

I personally agree, our justice system needs an overhaul. But I do not agree with abolishment.

Nobody is talking about abolishing anything. What I am proposing is removing the services of law provision, justice and policing from the hands of a coercive and violent monopolist into multiple, competing providers in a free market, to therefore arrive at better, cheaper and economically correct provision instead.

Again, I agree that there should be 'no double standards' with the laws, and that politicians should be held just as accountable as anyone, but you seem to think that any 'enforcable' law is wrong.

Where did I imply that?

Don't be silly. The laws of the land are held up to public scrutiny, and even the police are bound by them. They can't open fire in a supermarket for 'shits and giggles' any more than you can.

Again, you are obfuscating. The fact that the State cannot do anything forbidden to private citizens affects not the fact that it can do some things forbidden to private citizens.

The terms of the 'public scrutiny' you mention are themselves set by the State. They have created the rules by which we hold elections and by which various organizations are allowed oversight into what they do. They even make the rules about how information on their various activities is disclosed. See the Patriot Act and its successor for an example of how this can go wrong - see the Nazi abolition of democracy for an example of how it can go spectacularly wrong!

A Canadian bank note is the original. It is not 'counterfeiting' when the bank of Canada makes them.

Circular argument. If the State does it, it isn't illegal. Why isn't it illegal? Because the State does it.

You cannot correct use the term 'forgery' or 'counterfeit' with an original.

If that is your argument, then all privately forged banknotes are originals too. Therefore, private counterfeiting is not (or should not be) a crime. Is that your proposal?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

but you seem to think that any 'enforcable' law is wrong.

Where did I imply that?

I stand corrected. What I should have written was 'enforcement of law'. Your theory seems to be that any 'enforcement' is a transgression of individual rights, and prefer 'ostracism ala The Law Merchant' as punishment for breaking laws.

QUOTE

A Canadian bank note is the original. It is not 'counterfeiting' when the bank of Canada makes them.

Circular argument. If the State does it, it isn't illegal. Why isn't it illegal? Because the State does it.

No, Hugo, what I mean is that a Canadian Bank Note (serial numbered) is legal tender, and a copy isn't. Like the 'Mona Lisa', there is only one original, so you can't call it a forgery. If a bunch of them were made as currency, and numbered by the original artist, they are 'the currency', and any copies of them can be called 'forgeries, but technically not the originals.

[Hugo]

I stand corrected.

You guys are certainly intellectually honest. I thank you for making a reasoned debate possible.

Your theory seems to be that any 'enforcement' is a transgression of individual rights, and prefer 'ostracism ala The Law Merchant' as punishment for breaking laws.

It's certainly possible to do things that way, if not in all cases then at least in many. However, even if a person were to suffer violence against his person or property as restitution for violence he had initiated I would not consider it a violation of his rights. For instance, if a burglar broke into my home I don't think it would be a violation of the rights of the burglar for me to clobber him with a baseball bat.

No, Hugo, what I mean is that a Canadian Bank Note (serial numbered) is legal tender, and a copy isn't.

The serial number is irrelevant. Serial numbers are only valid because the Mint says they are. It's still a circular argument.

[Riverwind]

de Jouvenel's theory does not make sense. He proposes that the accumulation of wealth will lead to elites forming and power being concentrated in their hands.

His theory presumes that in any society elites will appear. These elites are the natural leaders who will gain power because of the respect they earn among the others. The qualities that these elites have (military or economic) is not import the fact that every society produces elites is. These elites take on responsibility to act on behalf of their followers. This is how the concept of "public good" and government evolved.

Thirdly, he does not address how many elites will become one elite.

By consensus over time. In many cases the elites would collaborate or choose a leader among themselves. No violence is necessary.

The only way this elite could gain his victory is if he leverages his wealth into military power and conquers them - which was my proposition in the first place.

Why? Someone with sufficient political skills could persuade people to accept him/her as leader.

If Jones had a job he could certainly afford to rent somewhere else. You also assume that Jones is completely alone in the world without a single friend or family member who might take him in or otherwise help him out.

I know people in that situtation today - no family and only friends that are not in a position to help.

And once he has done this he could sue Smith for causing the devaluing of his property, because Smith's action having negatively impacted Jones is very arguably a tort.

Then any access fee would be actionable since access fees, like condo fees would affect the property value. Such a system could not possibly work.

No, he would not. He would now own a property that was worthless because, after what Smith has done to Jones, nobody is going to buy it or rent it from Smith.

You think someone would turn away a good deal because somebody else got screwed? Some people might but the vast majority would turn a blind eye because either they did not know the details or they were smart and demanded a contract that protects them.

They'll be laughing on the other side of their faces when the fair-trading landlords take all their business away.

Fair-trading landlords what joke!. Such a person could not exist in a system that idolizes greed and personal property. They rarely exist in our society where the government attempts to put down some rules.

Nobody wants to deal with a crook - just look at how fast all of Enron's shareholders pulled out once the news of their book-cooking came out.

Enron shareholders dumped their shares because the feared the scandel would make their assets worthless. It had nothing to do with their opinion of the moral stature of the management. I know of 'coroporate crooks' who steal money from shareholders, get fired and then get rehired at another company because they are part of a network of like minded people who look after each other. That is the reality of human nature that is why communism failed and why an anarchist system would fail: both systems presume everyone would put the interest of others ahead of their own.

[I Miss Trudeau]

That's what you live under now. I thought you liked it.

Thanks for finally conceding the point.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

thus, over time, any State will become populated almost entirely with selfish, arrogant, intransigent and self-gratifying individuals, which when married with the power of coercion over other people, makes a very dangerous situation.

But these qualities are the very same ones which are embraced as 'the fuel' which drives Capitalism!

As Sparhawk astutely points out,

Enron shareholders dumped their shares because the feared the scandel would make their assets worthless. It had nothing to do with their opinion of the moral stature of the management.

and, as I have said earlier, there is no column for 'morals' on a bank balance, where capitalists equate 'the greatest profit=the greatest good'.

[Hugo]

His theory presumes that in any society elites will appear. These elites are the natural leaders who will gain power because of the respect they earn among the others. The qualities that these elites have (military or economic) is not import the fact that every society produces elites is. These elites take on responsibility to act on behalf of their followers.

There's nothing avoidable about elites, humans are not created equal. Some people are smarter, more charismatic and more driven, these people will tend to succeed. The connection between this and a State, however, has not been made to my satisfaction.

By consensus over time. In many cases the elites would collaborate or choose a leader among themselves. No violence is necessary.

Again, I don't see how this forms a State. You could say that credit card companies were an elite, they certainly collaborate and they hold a lot of money and influence. But how do you get from that to a State?

Why? Someone with sufficient political skills could persuade people to accept him/her as leader.

Leader of what? In order to be leader of anything he is going to have to create the mechanisms of Government from nothing and persuade many people to help him do this. This represents a public-goods problem since people are unlikely to contribute to the creation of a State that most of them will not benefit from.

I know people in that situtation today - no family and only friends that are not in a position to help.

There is also the avenue of private charities, simulations of which indicate that in the absence of heavy taxation and State appropriation of charitable means will enjoy increased funding. But how exactly does the State assist these people today? I see a great many homeless and destitute people in any society, so please don't tell me that the State is doing a better job helping those on the bottom rung of the ladder - it just ain't so!

Then any access fee would be actionable since access fees, like condo fees would affect the property value. Such a system could not possibly work.

It would if you consented to it. Consider this: many credit cards charge an annual fee. This is like an access fee. Is it actionable because it affects the value of the credit card? No, and why? Because it was agreed to in advance. If Jones agrees to Smith's initial and reasonable access fee then there is no possible tort - Jones cannot sue Smith for doing something that Jones consented to. However, if Smith raises the access fee, thus breaching the original contract, it becomes up to Jones whether or not he accepts the new contract or rejects it.

To say the system could not possibly work is nonsensical when you consider that such a system does work thousands of times a day already.

You think someone would turn away a good deal because somebody else got screwed?

Yes. Look at eBay. Are you familiar with their ratings systems? In any case, it's a subjective valuation. People will weigh the deal against the chance of getting screwed. If, in their eyes, it's worth it, then they'll make the deal. For you to say that is wrong is your attempt to tell other people what they should value and what they should do.

Fair-trading landlords what joke!

Why would it be? Is fair-trade coffee a joke? How about Wal-Mart's no-questions-asked returns policy - is that a joke? If people demand fair dealing, then there is a market for fair-dealing companies, and an entrepreneur will address that. I have a credit card that charges me 9% APR, gives me free life, disability and unemployment insurance, air miles, and so on - is that a joke, too? If what you claim is true then perhaps all credit card companies should still be charging the maximum available under usury laws, hmmm?

You're presuming an incentive to collude where none exists. If landlords are greedy and unfair, then they leave the market wide open to any competitor who is a fair trader. Once upon a time, Diners Club was the only credit card. Other companies got in on the act by offering better products, lower interest rates, and so forth. Standard Oil gained (temporary) market domination by slashing oil prices to perhaps a tenth of what they were before. Even where cartels exist they are very uneasy cooperatives and they break down all the time. You might argue that existing dominant players could simply buy out or intimidate anybody else out of the market, but you assume a big player from another market won't enter. For instance, Nintendo and Sega used to have the videogame console market wrapped up. Then Sony muscled in and was too big to be bought or intimidated. Then Microsoft entered, same story. Now Sega doesn't even make consoles any more and Nintendo is definitely in third place to the newcomers. This happens all the time. A&P used to be the biggest chain of stores in North America. They had thousands more stores than Wal-Mart has today. Now they're a bit-player, and it all happened by market means.

Such a person could not exist in a system that idolizes greed and personal property.

The best way to get rich is to provide a product or service that lots of people want at a cheaper price, a better quality, or both, than the competition. Greed therefore serves people and makes everyone better off. This is the invisible hand, the magic of capitalism. Thanks to the greed of Henry Ford we have cheaper and better cars than ever before. Thanks to the greed of Bill Gates (and others) we have computers that are far cheaper and massively more powerful than anything even thirty years ago. And so on.

As to which system idolizes greed, consider that the people of the USSR after long suffering under Statism were amongst the most closed-minded, self-centered, power-hungry and petty people you could find. I know a man who taught economics to Lithuanian immigrants just after the fall of Communism. He said not only could they not get their heads around basic economics, but if told to work amongst themselves or form groups they would usually sit silently and not work together at all and, when they did speak, the first order of business was to immediately establish a pecking order and a hierarchy before doing anything else.

People in the more capitalistic West are a lot more friendly, helpful, gregarious and compassionate. Capitalism creates these virtues. It does so because it is the best method of facilitating human cooperation, and shows people that by working together and dividing labour they can get far more. Therefore, ironically, it is in the selfish interests of people to be friendly, peaceable, and cooperative, and against their interests to be closed-minded, unfriendly, or violent.

Enron shareholders dumped their shares because the feared the scandel would make their assets worthless. It had nothing to do with their opinion of the moral stature of the management.

Who cares how it works if it works? You are trying to cry 'foul' not because the system doesn't work but because people aren't motivated the way you feel they should be. What's your better idea? Have you found a way to create New Socialist Man? Tell it to the Russian Communists, they tried for over 70 years and failed completely. In fact, the people under their regime were even more selfish and greedy than before! Humans are what they are. You can either try and work with it, or pretend it's not there and design systems that will inevitably fail because they deny the facts upon which their operation depends.

That is the reality of human nature that is why communism failed and why an anarchist system would fail: both systems presume everyone would put the interest of others ahead of their own.

But as I have demonstrated above, the strength of the anarcho-capitalist system is that it does not depend upon changes in human nature. Of course any society will work better when people are more virtuous, that goes without saying. But for any given level of selfishness or altruism, anarchy will always work better than a State. It is collectivism and Statism that presume a selflessness in man that just isn't there. This is why they always fail.

[Hugo]

But these qualities are the very same ones which are embraced as 'the fuel' which drives Capitalism!

It does not matter. These qualities are an inescapable part of the nature of most human beings. Capitalism harnesses them to make a system that makes everybody better off. Collectivism and Statism deny them or hope they will go away, and then blame capitalism (ironically) for their own, inevitable, failure. After all, if people are selfish, arrogant, greedy and intransigent, what's worse - making them compete in a market for consumer goodwill, or giving them absolute power over those people?

as I have said earlier, there is no column for 'morals' on a bank balance, where capitalists equate 'the greatest profit=the greatest good'.

If people do value wealth over other things then, Mr. no-objective-rights-for-anyone, who are you to be telling them they are wrong?