Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prepare yourself to think I'm crazy

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 10:36:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am now calling myself an Anarchist. I haven't changed that much really, I still want the same ends(most freedom possible), just new means of obtaining that. Now before you go calling me a psychotic chaos wishing maniac--Let me explain myself. Before, the only government I believed in was a constitution, a judicial system, a police force, a military and emergency services, and I did not believe in involuntary taxes. Now, I have realized that the same rule I applied to everything else(the free market just does things better than the public sector) also applies to these things. Emergency services: whatever "corporation" is best at keeping us safe will be payed by citizens to do so. Military: Same. Law enforcement: Same. Judicial system: Judges get paid for ruling, judges who don't rule as the the free market decides go out of business. Laws are also decided by the free market, not a vote, rather they "just happen", I expect that will be my main critique. now just as a note to people who say that's collectivism--exactly the opposite! The free market is where the individual rules as opposed to government(the public sector). To those who say anarchy breeds criminal activity, I will say this; My system does not work well in an lesser populated area where bad people will flock to get away with things they wouldn't otherwise, like Somalia. With more population people are more able to look out for their self interests using the assets (more people also looking out for themselves) that are available to them and create voluntary order.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 10:47:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 10:36:01 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
I have no dispute with you on emergeny services.

Military: Same.
Free riders. How do you deal?

Law enforcement: Same.
How do you deal with above? What if I pay police A, you pay police B, who wins when you complain about something I do? Or do the police have a shootout?

Judicial system: Judges get paid for ruling
Richest party wins the case or...?

Laws are also decided by the free market, not a vote, rather they "just happen"
I purchase a law that says I can steal from you, you purchase a law that says I can't. Who wins?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 10:48:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, who sells the laws?

Who makes them? anyone who wants to? That brings us back to the conflicting laws.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 11:01:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 10:47:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2009 10:36:01 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
I have no dispute with you on emergeny services.

Military: Same.
Free riders. How do you deal?

It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.


Law enforcement: Same.
How do you deal with above? What if I pay police A, you pay police B, who wins when you complain about something I do? Or do the police have a shootout?

Which ever one most people like(makes order) gets paid more, which ever get paid more wins. There's no need for a duel.


Judicial system: Judges get paid for ruling
Richest party wins the case or...?

Everywhere, the system is built around having incentive for doing the right thing, if the ruling is unfair the judge will be put out of business.


Laws are also decided by the free market, not a vote, rather they "just happen"
I purchase a law that says I can steal from you, you purchase a law that says I can't. Who wins?

If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to, which is unfathomable.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 11:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 10:48:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, who sells the laws?

No one sells laws.

Who makes them?

Individuals who want order. Whatever laws cause the most freedom will succeed due to the free market--freedom is profitable.

anyone who wants to?

Yes, but the may or may not succeed in enforcing it.

That brings us back to the conflicting laws.

They don't end up conflicting.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 11:09:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 11:01:37 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/17/2009 10:47:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2009 10:36:01 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
I have no dispute with you on emergeny services.

Military: Same.
Free riders. How do you deal?

It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.
That's not an answer.



Law enforcement: Same.
How do you deal with above? What if I pay police A, you pay police B, who wins when you complain about something I do? Or do the police have a shootout?

Which ever one most people like(makes order) gets paid more
Most people? you're a democrat not an anarchist.

which ever get paid more wins.
wait you're a plutocrat not an anarchist nevermind.



Judicial system: Judges get paid for ruling
Richest party wins the case or...?

Everywhere, the system is built around having incentive for doing the right thing, if the ruling is unfair the judge will be put out of business.
How will he be put out of business if the system consists of one party to the case paying for a ruling? (If both pay for the case to go forward one party will almost always back out and almost nothing will ever go to court, unless pay is mandatory, in which case whoever is best at forcing people to pay is the new tax-collecting, definitely non-anarchist, government.



Laws are also decided by the free market, not a vote, rather they "just happen"
I purchase a law that says I can steal from you, you purchase a law that says I can't. Who wins?

If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to
The free market isn't a godlike entity, or any sort of entity. It's an abstraction. And if it's a question of whether I enforce something the market is irrelevant to that-- a free market stops where a gun begins. You can buy a gun, but you can't have multiple people each buying things that contradict each other and expect both to receive it. Who is selling laws and how?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 11:15:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 11:04:59 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/17/2009 10:48:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Also, who sells the laws?

No one sells laws.
Then there is no market in them. You can't have a market in something unless it can be bought and sold.


Who makes them?

Individuals who want order.
And how do they deal with the individuals who want a different order?

Whatever laws cause the most freedom will succeed due to the free market--freedom is profitable.
You're reciting a magic formula, I'm asking for a reasoned argument. If you buy a law, either it is enforced against me whether I also choose to buy it or not-- or it is useless and has no effect on my actions. You may happen to support the body that enforces laws most conducive to freedom-- but if so, you will do so by force of arms, or it will mean nothing against the socialist fellow who will do the opposite by force of arms.


anyone who wants to?

Yes, but the may or may not succeed in enforcing it.
By that argument, the status quo is "libertarian." I can presently try to make a law that forbids government agents from stealing some stoner's pot. But damned if I can enforce it.


That brings us back to the conflicting laws.

They don't end up conflicting.
Yes. They do. I've written a set of laws. So has the USFG. A conflict happened. Guess who won?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2009 11:26:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 11:09:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.
That's not an answer.

Ok, I'm sorry, the room is loud right now and I can't think, please rephrase the question.




Which ever one most people like(makes order) gets paid more
Most people? you're a democrat not an anarchist.

Ah! I knew you were going to do that. If a company fails because not enough people want it's product is it collectivism?


Everywhere, the system is built around having incentive for doing the right thing, if the ruling is unfair the judge will be put out of business.
How will he be put out of business if the system consists of one party to the case paying for a ruling? (If both pay for the case to go forward one party will almost always back out and almost nothing will ever go to court, unless pay is mandatory, in which case whoever is best at forcing people to pay is the new tax-collecting, definitely non-anarchist, government.

Your making a valid argument, I will not be able to give you a satisfactory answer, you are classic Objectivist, You MUST be right. But when it comes down to it, do you really think the government can do a better job?




If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to
The free market isn't a godlike entity, or any sort of entity. It's an abstraction. And if it's a question of whether I enforce something the market is irrelevant to that-- a free market stops where a gun begins. You can buy a gun, but you can't have multiple people each buying things that contradict each other and expect both to receive it. Who is selling laws and how?

Ah, nobody is selling. There is incentive for order, thus it is caused because people are selfish.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 9:03:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 11:26:17 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:09:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.
That's not an answer.

Ok, I'm sorry, the room is loud right now and I can't think, please rephrase the question.
Let's say you buy a military. It's just you, paying for the defense of the whole country. Is this acceptable? Or what do you do to convince others to pay?





Which ever one most people like(makes order) gets paid more
Most people? you're a democrat not an anarchist.

Ah! I knew you were going to do that. If a company fails because not enough people want it's product is it collectivism?
It is if the few who did want it were rich enough to support it and prevented from doing so by the many :).

Everywhere, the system is built around having incentive for doing the right thing, if the ruling is unfair the judge will be put out of business.
How will he be put out of business if the system consists of one party to the case paying for a ruling? (If both pay for the case to go forward one party will almost always back out and almost nothing will ever go to court, unless pay is mandatory, in which case whoever is best at forcing people to pay is the new tax-collecting, definitely non-anarchist, government.

Your making a valid argument, I will not be able to give you a satisfactory answer, you are classic Objectivist, You MUST be right. But when it comes down to it, do you really think the government can do a better job?
Which government? With sufficient investors and the present government out of the way I can. I'm agnostic about whether the bads of anarchy outweigh those of the present USFG.

If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to
The free market isn't a godlike entity, or any sort of entity. It's an abstraction. And if it's a question of whether I enforce something the market is irrelevant to that-- a free market stops where a gun begins. You can buy a gun, but you can't have multiple people each buying things that contradict each other and expect both to receive it. Who is selling laws and how?

Ah, nobody is selling.
If nobody sells, there is no market.

There is incentive for order
What incentive?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 9:24:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 11:04:59 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:

That brings us back to the conflicting laws.

They don't end up conflicting.

I'm a rich banker. I kill someone. Your police says I did it, my police say I didn't. I have more money. I bribe the judge. I win the case.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

If I wave my title deed in his face what if he then proceeds to wave a conflicting title deed in my face?

If we go to a court to settle the matter then we have delegated power to a form of Government.

If my neighbour waves a gun in my face and I relent I have accepted his governance over me.

If I call the police to intervene then I have accepted their governance over me and him.

By accepting outside governance I accept outside laws.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 11:51:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 9:03:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:26:17 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:09:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.
That's not an answer.

Ok, I'm sorry, the room is loud right now and I can't think, please rephrase the question.
Let's say you buy a military. It's just you, paying for the defense of the whole country. Is this acceptable? Or what do you do to convince others to pay?

Is it acceptable? I see nothing wrong with it, if it's the only one it has succeeded for a reason. How do I get people to pay for it? They want defense, simple.





Which ever one most people like(makes order) gets paid more
Most people? you're a democrat not an anarchist.

Ah! I knew you were going to do that. If a company fails because not enough people want it's product is it collectivism?
It is if the few who did want it were rich enough to support it and prevented from doing so by the many :).

If they were rich enough to support it how would they be prevented? It's not a vote. Come one, you know how this works. :{) <---mine has a mustache!


Everywhere, the system is built around having incentive for doing the right thing, if the ruling is unfair the judge will be put out of business.
How will he be put out of business if the system consists of one party to the case paying for a ruling? (If both pay for the case to go forward one party will almost always back out and almost nothing will ever go to court, unless pay is mandatory, in which case whoever is best at forcing people to pay is the new tax-collecting, definitely non-anarchist, government.

Your making a valid argument, I will not be able to give you a satisfactory answer, you are classic Objectivist, You MUST be right. But when it comes down to it, do you really think the government can do a better job?
Which government? With sufficient investors and the present government out of the way I can. I'm agnostic about whether the bads of anarchy outweigh those of the present USFG.

Any government. Whether you like it or not Ragnar, all governments are just a different level of socialism, even yours.


If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to
The free market isn't a godlike entity, or any sort of entity. It's an abstraction. And if it's a question of whether I enforce something the market is irrelevant to that-- a free market stops where a gun begins. You can buy a gun, but you can't have multiple people each buying things that contradict each other and expect both to receive it. Who is selling laws and how?

Ah, nobody is selling.
If nobody sells, there is no market.

No, you don't need to sell laws, it doesn't work like that. How would you even own a law?


There is incentive for order
What incentive?

Ma-ma-ma-MONEY!
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2009 11:54:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

If I wave my title deed in his face what if he then proceeds to wave a conflicting title deed in my face?

If we go to a court to settle the matter then we have delegated power to a form of Government.

If my neighbour waves a gun in my face and I relent I have accepted his governance over me.

If I call the police to intervene then I have accepted their governance over me and him.

By accepting outside governance I accept outside laws.

I can see how that would make a lot of sense to someone who doesn't think about it. So all competition, which implies a winner, implies a government? Even if so, you could simply call my system voluntary government.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 8:30:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 11:54:49 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

If I wave my title deed in his face what if he then proceeds to wave a conflicting title deed in my face?

If we go to a court to settle the matter then we have delegated power to a form of Government.

If my neighbour waves a gun in my face and I relent I have accepted his governance over me.

If I call the police to intervene then I have accepted their governance over me and him.

By accepting outside governance I accept outside laws.


I can see how that would make a lot of sense to someone who doesn't think about it. So all competition, which implies a winner, implies a government? Even if so, you could simply call my system voluntary government.

And voting for a government isn't voluntary?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 8:40:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
From what I can tell, Freedomaniac's plan is to have everything so that, essentially, votes are not unalienable rights to the people, but rather things to be bought for lots of money, leading to the rich buying laws against the poor, until we end up with feudalism.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:07:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 8:30:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And voting for a government isn't voluntary?

Voting is voluntary, but the result isn't. For example, my mother prefered McCain. Obama became the president. Surely my mother didn't consent to that.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 9:50:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 11:54:49 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

If I wave my title deed in his face what if he then proceeds to wave a conflicting title deed in my face?

If we go to a court to settle the matter then we have delegated power to a form of Government.

If my neighbour waves a gun in my face and I relent I have accepted his governance over me.

If I call the police to intervene then I have accepted their governance over me and him.

By accepting outside governance I accept outside laws.


I can see how that would make a lot of sense to someone who doesn't think about it. So all competition, which implies a winner, implies a government? Even if so, you could simply call my system voluntary government.

So are the situations I have described settled in an anarchist system, it seems that you have not put much thought into this.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:32:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 11:51:09 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/18/2009 9:03:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:26:17 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:09:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.
That's not an answer.

Ok, I'm sorry, the room is loud right now and I can't think, please rephrase the question.
Let's say you buy a military. It's just you, paying for the defense of the whole country. Is this acceptable? Or what do you do to convince others to pay?

Is it acceptable? I see nothing wrong with it
Here's the problem-- you're bankrupt 9000 times over before your military achieves anything.

How do I get people to pay for it? They want defense, simple.
Have you never even heard of the free rider problem? The point is-- no one person can pay for such an expensive and distributed good and expect nearly the return they want to come from it, certainly not an optimal return. No particular individual's payment is significantly related to whether they get defense.


If they were rich enough to support it how would they be prevented?
There goes "most people."


Everywhere, the system is built around having incentive for doing the right thing, if the ruling is unfair the judge will be put out of business.
How will he be put out of business if the system consists of one party to the case paying for a ruling? (If both pay for the case to go forward one party will almost always back out and almost nothing will ever go to court, unless pay is mandatory, in which case whoever is best at forcing people to pay is the new tax-collecting, definitely non-anarchist, government.

Your making a valid argument, I will not be able to give you a satisfactory answer, you are classic Objectivist, You MUST be right. But when it comes down to it, do you really think the government can do a better job?
Which government? With sufficient investors and the present government out of the way I can. I'm agnostic about whether the bads of anarchy outweigh those of the present USFG.

Any government. Whether you like it or not Ragnar, all governments are just a different level of socialism, even yours.
Socialism-- state control of the economy. I fail to see where I have proposed-- state control of the economy.



If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to
The free market isn't a godlike entity, or any sort of entity. It's an abstraction. And if it's a question of whether I enforce something the market is irrelevant to that-- a free market stops where a gun begins. You can buy a gun, but you can't have multiple people each buying things that contradict each other and expect both to receive it. Who is selling laws and how?

Ah, nobody is selling.
If nobody sells, there is no market.

No, you don't need to sell laws, it doesn't work like that. How would you even own a law?
Property is another attribute without which a market doesn't operate. If it "doesn't work like that," that means it doesn't work like a market.



There is incentive for order
What incentive?

Ma-ma-ma-MONEY!
There is money in paying for disorder. Unless, of course, someone comes up with a non-free rider scheme in which to provide order. Order is profitable on average, but it is not profitable for any one person to pay for it unless they can internalize all benefits. You haven't proposed an internalization mechanism.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 10:42:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/17/2009 10:36:01 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
Laws are also decided by the free market, not a vote, rather they "just happen",

Learn libertarian law. There are no "laws", there is only liability for damages against person and property, under this system.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 12:42:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

Shoot him.

If I wave my title deed in his face what if he then proceeds to wave a conflicting title deed in my face?

Shoot him.

If we go to a court to settle the matter then we have delegated power to a form of Government.

That is consistent with Anarcho-Capitalism.

If my neighbour waves a gun in my face and I relent I have accepted his governance over me.

True story.

If I call the police to intervene then I have accepted their governance over me and him.

What police? Do you mean a PDA?

By accepting outside governance I accept outside laws.

That is consistent with Anarcho-Capitalism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 12:48:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 10:32:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/18/2009 11:51:09 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/18/2009 9:03:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:26:17 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
At 12/17/2009 11:09:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


It's exactly the same as emergency services, the one that does the best succeeds.
That's not an answer.

Ok, I'm sorry, the room is loud right now and I can't think, please rephrase the question.
Let's say you buy a military. It's just you, paying for the defense of the whole country. Is this acceptable? Or what do you do to convince others to pay?

Is it acceptable? I see nothing wrong with it
Here's the problem-- you're bankrupt 9000 times over before your military achieves anything.

How do I get people to pay for it? They want defense, simple.
Have you never even heard of the free rider problem? The point is-- no one person can pay for such an expensive and distributed good and expect nearly the return they want to come from it, certainly not an optimal return. No particular individual's payment is significantly related to whether they get defense.

The marginal benefit one receives from donating to defense is extremely small compared to the cost. So what? A formal military is unnecessary if the citizens are armed.


If they were rich enough to support it how would they be prevented?
There goes "most people."

If you try to enforce a law that says you can steal from people your going to fail unless the free market wants you to
The free market isn't a godlike entity, or any sort of entity. It's an abstraction. And if it's a question of whether I enforce something the market is irrelevant to that-- a free market stops where a gun begins. You can buy a gun, but you can't have multiple people each buying things that contradict each other and expect both to receive it. Who is selling laws and how?

Ah, nobody is selling.
If nobody sells, there is no market.

No, you don't need to sell laws, it doesn't work like that. How would you even own a law?
Property is another attribute without which a market doesn't operate. If it "doesn't work like that," that means it doesn't work like a market.

The law is based on property rights.

There is incentive for order
What incentive?

Ma-ma-ma-MONEY!
There is money in paying for disorder. Unless, of course, someone comes up with a non-free rider scheme in which to provide order. Order is profitable on average, but it is not profitable for any one person to pay for it unless they can internalize all benefits. You haven't proposed an internalization mechanism.

No need to. The market will figure it out. If I could figure everything out by myself that would be the best argument for authoritarianism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 1:02:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is money in paying for disorder. Unless, of course, someone comes up with a non-free rider scheme in which to provide order. Order is profitable on average, but it is not profitable for any one person to pay for it unless they can internalize all benefits. You haven't proposed an internalization mechanism.

No need to. The market will figure it out. If I could figure everything out by myself that would be the best argument for authoritarianism.

The market isn't capable of "figuring out" anything. What you have isn't a tested system. Only the hope that, when everything is said, done, and in its hypothetical place, everyone is happy, and society is stable. That's all you have to rely on. Theoretically, anything can be made to sound fantastic. In actual practice, though - and I mean legitimate, large-scale practice - you have absolutely no idea how things will turn out.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:08:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 1:02:09 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There is money in paying for disorder. Unless, of course, someone comes up with a non-free rider scheme in which to provide order. Order is profitable on average, but it is not profitable for any one person to pay for it unless they can internalize all benefits. You haven't proposed an internalization mechanism.

No need to. The market will figure it out. If I could figure everything out by myself that would be the best argument for authoritarianism.

The market isn't capable of "figuring out" anything.

Not literally because the market is a metaphor.

What you have isn't a tested system.

Celtic Ireland, The "Wild" West and Somalia are quite similar to an anarcho-capitalist society.

Only the hope that, when everything is said, done, and in its hypothetical place, everyone is happy, and society is stable. That's all you have to rely on.

It would be rather utopian to assume that everyone would be happy. Certainly not the ruling class.

Theoretically, anything can be made to sound fantastic. In actual practice, though - and I mean legitimate, large-scale practice - you have absolutely no idea how things will turn out.

Not really, no. Order is emergent.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:33:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 9:07:12 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/19/2009 8:30:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And voting for a government isn't voluntary?

Voting is voluntary, but the result isn't. For example, my mother prefered McCain. Obama became the president. Surely my mother didn't consent to that.

She obviously consented to the system of democracy and voting put in place if she participated in it. Just because you lose a game of chess doesn't mean you don't agree with game.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:36:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 2:33:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:07:12 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/19/2009 8:30:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And voting for a government isn't voluntary?

Voting is voluntary, but the result isn't. For example, my mother prefered McCain. Obama became the president. Surely my mother didn't consent to that.

She obviously consented to the system of democracy and voting put in place if she participated in it. Just because you lose a game of chess doesn't mean you don't agree with game.

If a slavemaster asks a slave to pick whether the slave would rather be sold to John or to Barry and he picks John, he is not consenting to be ruled by either.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:36:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 2:33:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:07:12 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/19/2009 8:30:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And voting for a government isn't voluntary?

Voting is voluntary, but the result isn't. For example, my mother prefered McCain. Obama became the president. Surely my mother didn't consent to that.

She obviously consented to the system of democracy and voting put in place if she participated in it. Just because you lose a game of chess doesn't mean you don't agree with game.

Participation isn't consent. Consent would be if she agreed to the actual system. Like if she or someone she decided could represent her signed it. But neither of those have happened.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:38:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 2:33:56 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/19/2009 9:07:12 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 12/19/2009 8:30:49 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
And voting for a government isn't voluntary?

Voting is voluntary, but the result isn't. For example, my mother prefered McCain. Obama became the president. Surely my mother didn't consent to that.

She obviously consented to the system of democracy and voting put in place if she participated in it. Just because you lose a game of chess doesn't mean you don't agree with game.

So, you're saying that she shouldn't have voted? Then what do you have to say to the people that don't vote?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:38:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 12:42:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

Shoot him.
What if he shoots you first?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2009 2:39:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/19/2009 2:38:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/19/2009 12:42:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/18/2009 11:00:03 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Anarchism does not work. If I have a land disupte with my neighour, where he challenges where my land begins and end what am I to do?

Shoot him.
What if he shoots you first?

Then he shoots you first.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran