Lurker > SmartMuffin

From: red sox 777 | #407

I haven't noticed that though. For example, I believe in global warming, and am not a socialist.

Then you're part of a minority that is small enough to be statistically insignificant.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well, I'll just take this opportunity to remind everyone that those who believe in AGW essentially have to prove four separate things. If any of them are wrong, the entire argument falls apart.

1. The planet is warming at a rate that cannot be written off as a natural cycle/phenomena.

2. This abnormal warming is in large part due to man-made CO2 emissions.

3. This abnormal warming will result in a net harm to humanity at large.

4. Any individual proposed solution to AGW passes a cost-benefit analysis (that is to say, the gains from the elimination of AGW would offset the cost of the proposal).

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Also, keep in mind that "modern society" is relative.

I'm sure the towns that closely border these tribes... well... they aren't exactly New York City, you know?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

but if they don't? How are these people supposed to buy refrigerators on the market? They have learned no modern skills that would enable them to earn a living in modern society.

It's hard but not impossible. In the article, some local kids were leaving the village to do menial labor in outside towns. They would use their money to buy bags of potato chips. While the author of the piece shed a single tear when she witnessed a discarded Fritos bag on the side of a pristine nature trail, the mothers of the family were quite happy that their children were eating Fritos, as it meant she didn't have to spend as many hours toiling to make corn tortillas by hand.

In any case, that's how it happens. The youth leave and can assimilate in time to learn valuable skills.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Sorry, I didn't mean to apply that exclusively to scientists. It holds true to the general population. My point is that his accusation is true, but it all depends on how you frame the issue. It's a glass half empty/glass half full thing. One man's observation that all the free-market thinkers tend to not believe in AGW is another man's observation that everyone who believes in AGW (not just that it is happening, but that it is entirely due to human activity and will result in terrible catastrophes if not prevented) just happens to be a socialist.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://mises.org/daily/6138/The-Tyranny-of-the-Cultural-Curators

Very important piece here. I regularly read National Geographic, and they occasionally have pieces about "primitive cultures" or whatever you call them, and I've always been uneasy about them because they draw the opposite conclusion of this article. I remember one article about a remote tribe in the mountains of Mexico who was just beginning to interact with the outside world. They asked one of the oldest women in the tribe what she wanted the most, presumably expecting her to say something like "for the outsiders to pack up all their pollution and leave us alone to live in peace and harmony with nature."

Her actual answer? A refrigerator.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I'd actually say the fact that the free market seems to be trying extremely hard to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming may be the single biggest strike against it.

Or at least, it's my impression that the free market is the guilty party here. I'm curious if you think it's due to state-sanctioned monopolies... there's probably a decent argument for it.

Well, you assume that those who would attempt to discredit the "consensus" are doing it only out of free market ideologies and not out of legitimate scientific dissent. Which I will allow you to do, so long as you admit it's no more or less legitimate than my repeated observations that the main body of people who seem really concerned about climate change are the same people who have always been arguing for oppressive global government anyway.

It's just one big giant coincidence that every scientist who favors the free market doesn't believe in AGW but every scientist who is a giant socialist does!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From what I've heard from the AnCap Facebook pages, there ARE occasional raids by federal agents leading to shutdowns of dispensaries in California. Not on all of them. As usual, they pick winners and losers.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: red sox 777 | #417

Actually, we only need the first two. The latter two are about what we should do. And if the first two are true, it would not be surprising if the latter two are also true.

Not necessarily. In fact, I think the third one is hardest. I have yet to encounter anyone who has been willing to give a scientifically based answer to my popular question of "What is the optimum average global temperature?" If the answer to the third one is no, then 1 and 2 become irrelevant. And 4 seems to be something that many environmentalists literally do not care about at all. Environment uber alles.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

So, are you implying that insurance companies are charging more for people who are more likely to be affected by AGW? If so I'd be VERY interested in reading about that, as it's something I've never heard of before, and I generally DO trust insurance companies to generally know more about pretty much everything than damn near anyone else does.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Now this is a story all about how...

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/09/3754253/fresh-prince-keeps-guantanamo.html

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

More reading for the AnCap class, this one an unpublished paper by Dr. Murphy regarding how the market would react if global warming were 100% true and real including how this could apply to any large externality. I'm still not 100% sure whether this particular work is "free" or not and I won't post it until I get clarification, but I thought I would share one sentence that made me chuckle, and may make you chuckle more when it is presented without context.

"Someone who sang a Monkees tune while painting his fence would surely be ostracized by respectable people."

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Posted this on my personal facebook today:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-07-18/veterans-marijuana-white-house/56307972/1

I personally know two individuals who use marijuana to treat PTSD (one is a veteran, one isn't). They report that nothing else works. It's good to know the state is so power-hungry that it would rather see people suffer than admit it was wrong about something.

Reminder: Obama freely admits in his own biography to having been a regular drug user in college. As far as I know (please correct me if I have this wrong) he has never disavowed his use and made public statements of regret. Presumably, if he had a time machine, he would go back in time and throw himself in jail, thus preventing him from ever becoming President of the United States.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

seriously, so glad I enrolled in this AnCap course

two hours of Bob Murphy lectures a week

omg so good

He and Tom Woods are #1 and #2 on my "who would you like to have dinner with" or whatever list

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: red sox 777 | #376

And now Barack Obama comes on the TV telling us that that choice between him and Romney is huge because they are diametrically different.

Yeah, one thinks that the top 5% should pay 35% in taxes, and the other thinks the top 5% should pay 40% in taxes. OH MY GOD COMPROMISE IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH SUCH OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

If truth in advertising laws applied to bookstore shelving:



--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

One of my lefty friends guilted me into not watching the Olympics. He hates it because he thinks sports celebrate competitiveness and discourage compassion and he hates the nationalistic elements because he thinks we should all be citizens of the world. I hate it because I think it symbolizes global bureaucracy and I hate the nationalistic elements because I think the individual should be sovereign.

We both agreed that governments shouldn't be wasting "public" money on an elaborate show that most of the people who actually live there don't even want.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/31/why-london-is-yawning-over-the-olympics

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Also IIRC Santorum and Gingrich campaigns messed up and weren't on the ballot in VA, it was strictly a Romney/Paul race.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

So, I got my "Official Republican Party Presidential Platform Survey" in the mail. I started filling it out, then got to the end where it explained that a mandatory $15 donation to the RNC was required in order to "compensate for the costs of tabulating your survey."

**** that, into the garbage it goes. lol mittens, enjoy having your ass kicked by this generation's jimmy carter

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-suit-targets-maker-of-buckyballs-magnets-citing-dangers-for-children/2012/07/25/gJQA1lDg9W_story.html

About time they put a stop to this evil invention.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

bump

long day, nothing to say

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: foolm0r0n | #367

Yeah dammit washington post.

There may be no free lunch but whatever happened to "a bunch of ads with complimentary lunch"

Adblock happened.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

It says subscription, but you can access it if you register even for just a free account. Annoying, but hey, no such thing as a free lunch, m i rite?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lets-shatter-the-myth-on-glass-steagall/2012/07/27/gJQASaOAGX_story.html

This is, like, pretty important.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From the "advanced" reading, this one deals with a lot of the objections you guys have raised, and focuses on how many areas of our lives already have private arbitration that works really well.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_3.pdf

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Essentially they get funding through lobbying rather than through having an efficient or innovative product.

"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing- when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors- when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you- when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed."

I know someone can identify the quote!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

The United States, in both World War I and World War II. Those two wars made our empire.

And how has that whole "empire" thing worked out for us. You may be right here, but I think people greatly underestimate the costs that even the losers have to pay. How many lives did we lose in WW2 exactly? How much did the Manhattan Project cost us, not just in monetary cost but in the opportunity cost of all those brilliant scientists who could have been working on something more productive to mankind? How do you measure the loss in "quality of life" as the entire nation spent four years in rationing because we needed everything "for the war"?

Moreover, a war only takes one side to start, unlike a contract, which requires two! You do not need two parties to think war is the best resolution to their problems, only one!

I disagree. One side can always surrender. Microsoft may desire to go to war with Apple over a patent infringement. Apple can always say, "You know what, it would cost us a LOT more to fight Microsoft than it would to just go ahead and stop using their stupid little patent" and give in to their demands. That's why when people are mugged, they typically just hand over their wallets. The cost of attempting to resist the mugger is deemed to be higher than the cost of giving in to his demands.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

More recently, if I recall correctly, the internet started as a US military project.

This is about HALF true. I've linked to plenty of sources debunking it before.

For all of the horrible nasty downsides of wars, I really don't fee like "slows down the pace of invention" is one of them.

Like ALL government spending, it doesn't STOP invention or progress or whatever, it simply misallocates the resources and causes malinvestment. You're right, drone technology may one day lead to the Tacocopter (if the government ever ALLOWS them to proceed), and you're right that the Tacocopter guys will benefit from a lot of research already done by the military, but the simple fact is that those military research costs are essentially dead weight loss. The Tacocopter (or superglue, or the Internet, or whatever else) might not actually be useful enough to society to justify the costs, once you include the initial R&D outlays provided by government. Giving that government operates completely outside of market forces, there's really no way for us to know other than the intuitive notion that if drone technology was likely to result in profitable business ventures, the government wouldn't need to be doing the research, Microsoft or Google would have already been doing it.

After all, isn't Google leading the way on the technology to have cars that drive themselves? That presumably has some military applications, doesn't it? How could this be if we need government to start our research and development efforts for us?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Back when I was more conservative than libertarian, I was pretty interested in the Constitution party. They're still right about a lot of things!

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well, I'm back to work today so I don't have time to respond now, but I'll address the various issues when I get home this evening.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

There are plenty of things that are not trifling that companies (or nations) go to war over.

What companies have ever gone to war? The only one I can think of that would even come close is the East India Company, and they were SO far in bed with the government that it would be corporatism bordering on fascism. The Pinkertons were really more of a police agency that had some decent power in various localities, but not a huge national presence at any given time.

You're right that the MORE efficient government wins the war, but the war itself is inefficient for BOTH sides. Tell me, in which 20th century war exactly was the winning party far better off than they were before the war? There are no "winners" in war. Everyone loses.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Lets say for example their record instead says something like "is gay" which gave them a huge ding in that system run by the people in that town. Speaking out against such a system would almost certainly get you dinged in response, the guys who make the rules would be pretty damned powerful. And it's not like people could just leave the town because they're not allowed to use the roads!

Once again though, think from the perspective of the people who operate the roads. If they have a gay person in their town and want that gay person out, wouldn’t it be in their best interest to LET him use the road to leave? In any case, once again, we’re talking about a situation where in a statist society 51% of the population can enforce tyranny on the others, while in a voluntarist society, the required percentage is much MUCH higher. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that Congress is completely and totally representative of the American people. We can’t get a measly two thirds of Congress to agree on ANYTHING. You really think that in America, there would be significantly large communities where such overwhelming majorities would see fit to COMPLETELY shun people based on trifling matters like “is gay” or “smokes marijuana?”

Not going to touch this. The only real difference is scale, a group of deranged people can do more damage than a single deranged person. Government is just a tool in essence. And like any tool, it can be used for good or for bad.

And which has it done more of? Are large groups of deranged people coming together for nefarious ends more or less likely under an AnCap society than under a state?

And lol if you think private corporations wouldn't have come up with nuclear power and weaponry if it hadn't already been invented.

Power, yes. Weaponry, no. War is incredibly costly and inefficient. That’s why it’s the specialty of governments, because government is the only institution that doesn’t care about costs or efficiency. The idea that private companies would go to war over trifling matters is laughable. Really really think about it for a second. Let’s say that Microsoft and Apple have a dispute over some patent. It would have to be one HELL of a patent for the two companies to decide that the most profitable way to resolve their dispute is with a goddamn war. How many hundreds of millions of dollars do modern wars cost? Private companies can’t afford to throw that kind of money away.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

And it seems to me that if you're on the bad rep list of the guy who owns the roads in your town, you're rightly ****ed. Be on one guy's bad graces and you can't function in society.

This is somewhat true, although try looking at it from the perspective of the guy who owns the roads. What are the odds that he would refuse profitable business for fleeting and insignificant reasons? There would still be a scale of crimes, you know. While I’m sure the average shopkeeper might refuse to do business with a convicted rapist, I don’t think he would refuse to do business with everyone who once got a speeding ticket. That would be a poor business model. And on the flip side, freely allowing murderers and rapists to use your roads would ALSO be a poor business model, as the average citizen would find your roads to be unsafe and would choose not to use them. It seems two of your objections basically cancel themselves out. On the one hand, you question whether shunning would work, and on the other hand, you’re concerned that it would work TOO well. Both are possible, but the safest assumption is that the reasonable middle ground will occur.

Repeat theft could carry a death penalty.

In a practical sense, you’re right. Although it’s not really a “death penalty” as much as it is “someone will probably shoot you and probably get away with it.” Even now though, we basically already have this. In MOST states, you can legally shoot an intruder into your house at night, claim self defense, and get away with it. Even if the intruder had no criminal record whatsoever. Even if the intruder never planned on murdering or assaulting you. Say his only intention was to come in, grab your Xbox, and leave. Did he not just receive the death penalty for theft?

If the only answer to that is weapons of their own, you basically have a wild west survival of the fittest scenario, which would end up terribly.

You should do more research on the actual wild west. The perceptions of it are all basically propaganda created by Hollywood. Studies have shown that many frontier towns in the “wild west” were FAR safer and had FAR less crime than the major American cities of the same period, and were safer than many international cities today.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Okay, let’s give this a shot!

The way I see it, reputation ultimately still cannot overcome force. If it's just one violent person, then ostracism by the rest of society will work. But what if this person gets a whole group of people to join him in using violent force?

Well, keep in mind that you will still have the right to defend your property yourself. In the event that a known violent criminal accosts you, and you happened to use force in your defense (say deadly force even), it is highly likely that a private judge would find you innocent of any wrongdoing. Now, I won’t say that a large criminal gang is impossible in such a system, but I would say that it’s unlikely. Such a gang would have to be completely vertically integrated to supply literally all of its needs. I mean, even Tony Soprano still had a regular non-mafia psychiatrist, right? I guess the creation of a TES style “thieves guild” would be possible, but I would say highly impractical.

Well, they'd have to use force to keep them out. These people have already proven that they don't respect another person's rights, so why wouldn't they just walk where they chose if not opposed by an application of force?

Once again, you would be allowed to use force to defend yourself and your property, so long as the force used was commiserate with the threat, as decided by a private judge or arbitration court.

But it sounds to me you'd advocate having them be forced to stay in the woods or something, assuming there even are woods not privately owned at that point.

Basically, yes. Although keep in mind, this is a voluntary choice. If they CHOOSE not to check themselves into a prison, they would have to find some unowned land to occupy. It’s possible such land may still exist, but it would be like, completely barren and unhospitable places in like the Mojave desert or something. Keep in mind that banishment was a common punishment among early human societies, and depending on the location, was often the equivalent of a death sentence. If you live in the jungle and get banished from your tribe, the odds of you surviving on your own in the jungle for any significant amount of time are somewhat low.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Honestly, any system where the average citizen is expected to use force against others is not a system I would call ideal.

When you vote for say, a law making marijuana illegal, you ARE using force against others. You are giving the authority to an agent to act on your behalf to use force against others. The fact that you won't do it yourself just makes you a coward. Same thing as when you vote for warmongering politicians.

I already know shopkeepers who would deny service to anyone under 30 if they could. People are rarely logical in practice.

Individuals are often illogical. That's the beauty of the market though. The market on the whole, is. A shopkeeper who refused to sell to those under 30 would likely face some stiff competition from one who would be willing to serve anyone. IF there was in fact a significant market for "stores where no young people are allowed in" and he could stay in business, then hey, more power to him. If the 20-somethings don't like it, let them start their own store.

I take it you've never been to some of the worse areas in the states then? I had a friend who used to live in the sates beaten up pretty bad for being atheist, and nobody in the town gave a damn about him. Another friend lost his friends and family because he decided as he grew up that he didn't want to be a Jehova's witness. And just look at how women are treated in the hardcore middle eastern countries.

I've never experienced anything like that, no. You're right about the middle east, that is a good example of a society that culturally is CLEARLY not ready for voluntarism. Even America is probably not ready right now at this exact moment. It's like I've always said about Ron Paul. If Ron Paul were elected President based on a cult of personality and most of his voters didn't truly agree with his positions, nothing would really change (because Congress and the Courts would still be full of power-mad statists). For a voluntarist society to work, you'd have to have a majority of people who accepted the principles of voluntarism. The middle east obviously has a LONG way to go to get there.

I'm just looking at historical examples.

What historical examples? How can there be "historical examples" of the problems of a system that has never been tried? As far as the "power vacuum" theory goes, I just don't buy it. There is less centralized power in South Korea than there is in North Korea, is there not? And yet, this "vacuum" has not resulted in them becoming a dictatorship like North Korea, now has it? My position is rather simple, and I would dare to say, more logically consistent than yours and red sox. My claim is that more freedom = better society. Always and absolutely. Your guy's claim is that more freedom = better society to some arbitrary and ill-defined point at which all of a sudden the trend reverses. Presumably Barack Obama knows exactly where that point is and we can trust him to grab power that far and no more, right?

Can you really tell me that there are not groups out there that would pay vast sums of money for nuclear weaponry?

At this point in society today, perhaps. Although who would sell it to them? I can't imagine any corporation would be stupid enough to develop nuclear weapons and sell them to, say, the Westboro Baptist Church, a group that is crazy enough that most people would consider them likely to actually use them. I'm not sure any organization large enough to have the ability to manufacture something as complicated as a nuclear weapon would be short-sighted enough to sell it to someone likely to use it.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Okay, so WHY is South Korea better off than North Korea?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Now, in the current statist way of doing things, Joe is about to be sent to jail. He hasn’t committed aggression against anyone, but due to the simple fact that Steve didn’t approve of his marijuana use, he is about to be forcibly deprived of his freedom (and probably raped). This seems rather egregious, even if 51% of the population believes it is appropriate (my guess is that currently this is not the case, however, government is incredibly inefficient and unresponsive when it comes to ACTUALLY serving popular opinion). So let’s ask, how would this be different in a voluntarist society?

In the voluntarist society, Joe would be placed on the “known drug user” registry, and would continue to enjoy his freedom. He would not be forcibly detained. He would not be sexually assaulted. He would not be fined (as his actions did no provable damage to any other person). However, Steve, who is opposed to marijuana, might likely have a personal policy of not transacting with known drug users. If Steve operates a lawn-care business, he could very well refuse to mow Joe’s lawn, for any price, due to his personal belief that drug users are immoral people who should be shunned by society. Meanwhile, Tom (our last guy on the street) might be a plumber. Tom might also be completely neutral towards marijuana, believing it is everyone’s own personal decision and not minding whether someone smokes it or not. Tom would still freely transact with Joe, despite his appearance on the “known drug user registry”. This way, everyone’s desires are satisfied to the maximum extent possible. Those who oppose drugs are able to, through the free market, find out who the drug users are and shun them from society, and those who do not, are not forced to do so.

The same logic can apply to traditional crimes with a logical victim as well. That situation is actually even more simple. Given that nearly everyone finds rape to be abhorrent, anyone who was convicted or rape would likely be shunned by all of society, and would find it virtually impossible to live a reasonable life.

I’m going to stop here for now and allow you guys to comment and raise any further objections. Please note, I’m probably going to compile a lot of this stuff for a DWMF update sometime soon.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Okay, so I’m going to try and start this one over, from the top. Red sox is one of the more reasonable guys we have around here, and if I’m getting this much pushback from HIM, I’m certainly not convincing anyone else.

I think the key when thinking about private law is the concept of “reputation.” I’m pointing this out now, in the beginning, in the hopes that you’ll keep it in mind throughout everything else I have to say. People like Dr. Murphy and Murray Rothbard and Walter Block usually mention it, but it’s usually buried in the body somewhere rather than stated in the very beginning. I just want you to keep this one notion in your head: In a voluntarist/AnCap society, your reputation would be everything. Given the lack of a state to force people to transact with others, and to provide very extreme reputation-tracking services (think of say, the sex offender registry), the importance of keeping a good reputation would be critical, as businesses would refuse to transact with those who have especially negative reputations (or would only transact with them under much less favorable terms to the individual). Consider it like your credit score. A private law company would keep track of exactly what each individual has done, and would assign them a score based on their past behaviors.

What this allows is for community standards to be upheld, but the communities in question would be based on voluntary association, not random coincidence of where you happen to have been born, where you happen to live, etc. The easiest way to see the DIRECT benefits of this and a way in which it WOULD substantially differ from the current statist paradigm is to consider our current “victimless crimes,” such a drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc. Let’s just say for the sake of argument, that when it comes to the use of marijuana, the population is evenly split. Half the people in your local community absolutely loathe marijuana users to the point where they would refuse to do business with anyone known to be a marijuana user. The other half just plain don’t care one way or the other. Whether or not someone uses marijuana is of no interest to them.

So, on this one particular block, we have four residents, Joe, Steve, Dave, and Tom. Joe regularly smokes marijuana. Steve is greatly opposed to marijuana, and believes that something must be done in order to stop Joe from smoking it. So Steve walks over to Dave, who happens to operate a private law company that specializes in drug use (Note: Whether such a company could even be economically viable would depend on the amount of people in the local community who cared about drug use at all. Most likely, such a business model would not be profitable in say, San Francisco). Steve tells Dave, “Joe is smoking marijuana. You need to do something about it.” So Dave calls up Joe and says “Hey Joe, I want you to know that you’ve been accused of smoking marijuana, what do you have to say about that?” At this point, Joe has a choice. He can freely admit that he does, in fact, smoke marijuana. Assuming this “confession” was not coerced, that would probably be enough basis for Dave to then report Joe’s marijuana use to Joe’s reputation tracking company. Or perhaps Dave publishes his own “known drug users” registry free for any and all to view. Joe could also dispute the charges, at which point Dave would be responsible for conducting something resembling a trial, in which both parties made their case, and Dave arrived at a verdict. Either Joe would be exonerated of the charges, or he would be added to the drug user registry.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

referees at a sports match

Yep. Murphy referenced NBA referees in either one of his other articles I've read, or the book I linked, can't remember which. He also stated that you can see voluntary regulation work by simply watching a game of pick-up basketball among inner-city youth (not exactly a demographic known for its orderly respect of property rights). They know what the rules are, and they largely self-enforce them, without any trappings of government.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Today's reading comes from Dr. Murphy's own book, Chaos Theory, also available for free on mises.org.

This week's reading is the first part, Private Law. The second part, Private Defense, comes next week.

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

Here's a small taste:

“Won’t the Mafia take over?”
It is paradoxical that the fear of rule by organized crime families
causes people to support the State, which is the most “organized”
and criminal association in human history. Even if it were true that
under market anarchy, people had to pay protection money and
occasionally get whacked, this would be a drop in the bucket compared
to the taxation and wartime deaths caused by governments.
But even this concedes too much. For the mob derives its strength
from government, not the free market. All of the businesses traditionally
associated with organized crime—gambling, prostitution,
loan sharking, drug dealing—are prohibited or heavily regulated
by the State.16 In market anarchy, true professionals would drive
out such unscrupulous competitors.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Setting aside the fact that there are MANY governments worldwide which don't even pretend to be voluntary, the idea that "you could leave or not work" is pretty facetious. How exactly is an 18 year old with no resources supposed to leave the country? I've explained in these topics MANY times the incredibly complicated and costly efforts the US government makes you go through in order to renounce your citizenship (which is required to escape the tax net).

From an economic point of view, to the extent that a voluntary association fulfills the role of government, it also creates to that extent the harmful losses of efficiency of government.

If this is true, then it's a net wash anyway, so we have nothing to lose by trying it, right?

Also, he explains later in the book that inherent "pre-anarchy" property rights would be assumed to be valid, unless an active dispute was already in progress while the transition to market anarchy is taking place. It makes no sense whatsoever that just because we transitioned to market anarchy, some random dude would show up and claim he owns your house. In any case, if he did, he would have to file suit against you and the odds of his winning would be incredibly minimal.

Rothbard actually deals with this much more specifically in Man, Economy, and State. Goods that are originally "unowned" become "owned" by some combination of occupancy and use.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I wonder if the Brits will defend THIS one. There wasn't even any racism involved this time.



http://london2012.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/twitter-criticism-of-british-diver-leads-to-arrest/

By the way, the kid being arrested is 17.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Change that 50% to 95% and soon those who wish to use drugs are completely unable to function in that community.

True! Although the system we basically have now is that it 51% can cause drug users to be completely unable to function in that community. I'm not saying AnCap is perfect. Contrary to what red sox says, we are NOT utopians. I'm just saying it's better than the current oppressive statism that we have now.

Well, then that rapist, a person known to use violence to achieve their ends, is now walking around completely unrestricted.

Walking around where? All the land is owned by private individuals who will not allow rapists to come onto their property.

Perhaps he changes his appearance enough to slide back into society.

Could happen. It'd be hard though. It also could happen right now under a state. And much like a real fugitive, he wouldn't be able to just change his appearance, he would need to obtain a whole new identity (complete with intact reputation) somehow. His best chance would be to attempt to flee to somewhere so far away that it might not even use the same reputation services, although this would also be difficult, as who is going to offer him transport? Who will allow him to use their roads?

or a system of imprisonment is established to protect the populace from the rapist.

The prisons would be like hotels, basically. Prisoners would check into them voluntarily because the prisons would be the only places willing to transact business with those on the "violent criminal" list. The prisons would basically say "Come here, submit to our authority, live under armed guards, have little freedom, work all day giving us a large percentage of the money, and we will offer you the food, clothing, and shelter that nobody else will currently willingly provide you."

Or perhaps something worse happens. Perhaps the people of this town don't like the victim. They're on a negative rep list for almost everyone in the town

This also already happens. Here's a little experiment for you. Dress up like a bum, walk into a police station, and say that an officer assaulted you. See how seriously they take you and how far you get. Furthermore, the reputation services will have stated rules, as I said, it's like a credit score. Your credit score only falls if you do things that make you a credit risk, and you have means to dispute and appeal. The reputation list would be the same way. You list would also specify exactly what you did. So let's say that you failed to return a library book on time. You'd get a very small ding on your record, and if someone viewed it, it would say "failed to return library book on time." I somehow doubt that this would cause most people to say "well that's a terrible person so I'm totally cool with someone raping them."

Which is of course, essentially a small war.

As opposed to the giant ones that we get from government?

The thing is, humans on the whole are capable of real atrocities.

And governments are capable of worse ones.

but I really do not trust everyone to not band together to commit acts I would really, really rather not see happen.

Like say, slaughtering six million Jews? Or starving five million Ukranians to death? Or systematically murdering every college educated person in the country with machetes? Or creating weapons that could destroy the world a hundred times over? The evils that individual deranged psychopaths commit are statistically insignificant when compared to the evils that government has, and will continue to commit.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Well now we're just arguing semantics, aren't we? Just to be clear, you DO concede that South Korea is far better off than North Korea, regardless of whether you label them both "voluntary" associations or not, yes?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: red sox 777 | #309

No, I do not. I don't have to, because I'm reviewing a book, not writing one.

So, since you were saying that EVERY government is voluntary, was it pointless for the founders of America to revolt against the British? Did they not then use the same process that they were under before?

Was it pointless for South Korea to resist invasion by the Communist North because after all, both were voluntary systems that would probably end up in the same result anyway?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Could we do better? Maybe. But probably not by instituting the same process that gave us the current system.

If your point is that EVERY government to ever exist is a voluntary system, what other POSSIBLE process is there? Like, you keep tearing these ideas down. Do you have a better plan?

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]