[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Creating a legal system is tantamount to threatening people with violence? How do you reach that conclusion? It appears to me that the only people who should feel threatened by the existence of a legal system are criminals.

Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?

Originally Posted by Permabear

You are inferring that I support the system that exists at present in Ireland, whereby the average public servant earns around 50 percent more than the average private-sector worker, and has a militant union to defend him or her from any proposed modernization of work practices. In fact, I don't support this system at all.

I know you don't , I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.

Originally Posted by Permabear

The Rules of the Road, devised and enforced by government, enable the flow of consumers, goods, and services from point A to point B in relative safety. Or maybe you think that the Rules of the Road should be overthrown and replaced by an anarchic free-for-all?

Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0me...eature=related

[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by Permabear

I agree. But we need to radically challenge the government's control over money and capital before anything else. The more capital we can keep in private hands, and the more integrity our money has, the more we starve the state of oxygen.

On that note!

http://www.citizen-times.com/article...yssey=nav|head

The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”

Note the "fake" placed nice and snug before currency.

[SupaNova]

Originally Posted by simplistic2

Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?




I know you don't , I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.




Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBcz-...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi0me...eature=related

I'm in Thailand now and have been for the past few months and they do ignore rules quite a lot. But there is some very sensible ones that don't cause accidents
a) pedestrian crossings: If the light is still red and the people crossing have passed your car/bike you just drive on. Whats the point staying there with nothing in your way.
b)at crossroads when your light is red, but there is no traffic, people edge out and drive on.

I have never seen an accident from breaking the above rules. You can do this in front of the police.

People are paying attention when doing the above two things. Now thailand is a lot more dangerous per capita than european countries. But the biggest reason for this is the massive number of people driving bikes without helmets.

Should people be forced to wear helmets?
I don't think so, your responsible for your safety decisions.

I think a lot of the road rules enforced to the book are just about raising money for the gardai. Like doing people for driving 70 in a needless 50 zone. In Ireland they play road safety lip service. If they really cared they would be on our smaller country roads where speed is much more of a danger.

What i like about the thai police when they want money they are blatantly open about it, they will sweep the city at large in one or two days, and just pull the easy to spot targets to save time(anyone on a bike without a helmet), then leave it for a few weeks. Like the gardai in Ireland they mostly don't give a **** about road safety, purely a money raising racket.

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by simplistic2

Hmm...how is this legal system paid for? ...taxes?

Yes. It's a legitimate function of the state to uphold the rule of law, and that means having a legal system paid for by taxes.

I was referring to the standard outcome of giving anyone the power to regulate just one area...it never stops with just one area.

Again, we return to the extremist Rothbardian solution, which proposes that the only way to put a definitive stop to the expansionist state is to eliminate the state entirely. I disagree. We need to lay out definitively (which means constitutionally) what is within the purview of the state, and restricts the state only to those functions. Currently, our constitution enables the state to do pretty much whatever it wants, so long as it can be rationalised as in the "public interest." So, it suddenly becomes "in the public interest" to appease the unions, create NAMA, bail out the banks, you name it—anything the state wants to do, any vested interest it wants to benefit, can avail of this rhetoric and this logic.

Of course I want an anarchic free for all ...funnliy enough the British government agree with me on that one too.

I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that an anarchic free-for-all on the roads would be a good idea. You really think that boy racers should be allowed to do whatever they want outside the school as children are trying to cross the road?

[Valmont]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Again, we return to the extremist Rothbardian solution, which proposes that the only way to put a definitive stop to the expansionist state is to eliminate the state entirely. I disagree. We need to lay out definitively (which means constitutionally) what is within the purview of the state, and restricts the state only to those functions. Currently, our constitution enables the state to do pretty much whatever it wants, so long as it can be rationalised as in the "public interest." So, it suddenly becomes "in the public interest" to appease the unions, create NAMA, bail out the banks, you name it—anything the state wants to do, any vested interest it wants to benefit, can avail of this rhetoric and this logic.

The American state has done a great job of trampling all over their constitution, proclaiming that it is "living document" (read: arbitrary interpretation to achieve whatever end we deem expedient at the time).

Is the American experiment not an example of the failure of constitutional limits on governmental power? If we still believe this is a legitimate goal, then what could be changed about a constitution that could ensure state compliance?

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by Valmont

The American state has done a great job of trampling all over their constitution, proclaiming that it is "living document" (read: arbitrary interpretation to achieve whatever end we deem expedient at the time).

True, but adherents of the living document school are opposed by strict constitutionalists such as Ron Paul, so they don't have it all their own way.

Is the American experiment not an example of the failure of constitutional limits on governmental power? If we still believe this is a legitimate goal, then what could be changed about a constitution that could ensure state compliance?

Quite simply, I think we need to write constitutions as unambiguously, clearly, directly, and briefly as possible, rather than, per the modern trend, creating multi-hundred-page documents that only legal specialists can understand and lend themselves freely to interpretive reshaping by the courts.

The problem with Rothbard's late anarchistic stance is that there is nothing to stop other bodies arising in lieu of the state and effectively trying to usurp and assume the functions of the state. So we will either get another state by default, or we will have perpetual war among those who aspire to that position.

[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by SupaNova

I'm in Thailand now and have been for the past few months and they do ignore rules quite a lot. But there is some very sensible ones that don't cause accidents
a) pedestrian crossings: If the light is still red and the people crossing have passed your car/bike you just drive on. Whats the point staying there with nothing in your way.
b)at crossroads when your light is red, but there is no traffic, people edge out and drive on.

I have never seen an accident from breaking the above rules. You can do this in front of the police.

People are paying attention when doing the above two things. Now thailand is a lot more dangerous per capita than european countries. But the biggest reason for this is the massive number of people driving bikes without helmets.

Should people be forced to wear helmets?
I don't think so, your responsible for your safety decisions.

I think a lot of the road rules enforced to the book are just about raising money for the gardai. Like doing people for driving 70 in a needless 50 zone. In Ireland they play road safety lip service. If they really cared they would be on our smaller country roads where speed is much more of a danger.

What i like about the thai police when they want money they are blatantly open about it, they will sweep the city at large in one or two days, and just pull the easy to spot targets to save time(anyone on a bike without a helmet), then leave it for a few weeks. Like the gardai in Ireland they mostly don't give a **** about road safety, purely a money raising racket.

Theres nothing like tearing down the motorway at 70 in a tuk-tuk! If I remember correctly the taxis don't even have seatbelts, but I don't remember seeing any 10 car pile-ups.

I agree the Gardai don't give a hoot about your safety ,why would they? Their main concern is collecting revenue for thier employer. I'm awaiting the Gay Byrne crowd to start a campaign to have a Garda in every passenger seat, and force manufactures to fit a break pedal for them too!

[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by Permabear

Yes. It's a legitimate function of the state to uphold the rule of law, and that means having a legal system paid for by taxes.

Then you have to accept that forced interaction is legitimate for welfare, bailouts, heathcare... Statist laws are just as arbitary those.

Originally Posted by Permabear

Again, we return to the extremist Rothbardian solution, which proposes that the only way to put a definitive stop to the expansionist state is to eliminate the state entirely. I disagree. We need to lay out definitively (which means constitutionally) what is within the purview of the state, and restricts the state only to those functions. Currently, our constitution enables the state to do pretty much whatever it wants, so long as it can be rationalised as in the "public interest." So, it suddenly becomes "in the public interest" to appease the unions, create NAMA, bail out the banks, you name it—anything the state wants to do, any vested interest it wants to benefit, can avail of this rhetoric and this logic.

Extremist?...I like this quote.."ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property."

The problem for me is your use of the pronoun "WE". We do not need anything...if you want to live under a state I have no problem , I have no problem with communists, socialists etc. I am supportive of anybody who wants to take part in mad cap social experiments...just don't include me in them.

Originally Posted by Permabear

I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that an anarchic free-for-all on the roads would be a good idea. You really think that boy racers should be allowed to do whatever they want outside the school as children are trying to cross the road?

Private roads do not equal boy racers driving through playgrounds...

[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by Permabear

The problem with Rothbard's late anarchistic stance is that there is nothing to stop other bodies arising in lieu of the state and effectively trying to usurp and assume the functions of the state. So we will either get another state by default, or we will have perpetual war among those who aspire to that position.

There is plenty to stop people rising to form a state. Statism is a religion it's only held together by peoples blind adherence to the democratic model. As soon as it is exposed as the fantasy that it is - there is no way of going back to it. Do you ever thing the people of Ireland will set up a monarch and start baying at the devine right of kings? What are the statistics for athiests to find god?

The perpetual war argument is irrational because who is going to fund a war to try and install another state? It would be like an islamic community declaring war on a scientific community to force them into a theocracy...it would be the worse economic decision a General could ever make.

I think statism will be dead by the end of the 21st century. They are doing some great work over in new Hampsire www.freestateproject.org. Once there is a working model of a free society it will spread like hot butter.

[Permabear]

Originally Posted by simplistic2

Then you have to accept that forced interaction is legitimate for welfare, bailouts, heathcare.

No, actually, you don't. It's quite possible to believe that the state should uphold law and order while believing that the state should not bail out failed barks. You are simply engaging in "all-or-nothing" logic here, arguing that if we want any state at all, we have to accept some kind of massive monolith.

"ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property."

Hardly a radical notion—that's been the basis of liberal thought since John Locke.

Originally Posted by simplistic2

Statism is a religion it's only held together by peoples blind adherence to the democratic model. As soon as it is exposed as the fantasy that it is - there is no way of going back to it. Do you ever thing the people of Ireland will set up a monarch and start baying at the devine right of kings?

Historically, there is plenty of precedent for dictatorship following upon the collapse of democracy. There is no precedent for the collapse of democracy leading to workable stateless anarchy.

The perpetual war argument is irrational...

No, it isn't. Again, look at the historical record. There's plenty of precedent for arguing that the breakdown of the state leads inexorably to perpetual civil war as competing groups struggle for supremacy.

[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by Permabear

No, actually, you don't. It's quite possible to believe that the state should uphold law and order while believing that the state should not bail out failed barks. You are simply engaging in "all-or-nothing" logic here, arguing that if we want any state at all, we have to accept some kind of massive monolith.

Yes you do have to accept it, and not only that, but you have to accept that any act of violence is also just dandy. Why?

Because when you say " the state" all you are saying is "individuals". If you say individuals have the right to enforce their preferences on other individuals , then ironically its actually statists that are arguing for a free-for-all.

So if you believe that individuals have the right to force wealth from other individuals pockets to fund a legal system. Then you believe that force is justified by arbitary preference...and welfare, healthcare, balouts and random acts of violence are merely arbitrary preferences.

Originally Posted by Permabear

Hardly a radical notion—that's been the basis of liberal thought since John Locke.

Yeah ...but Locke was an extremest.

Originally Posted by Permabear

Historically, there is plenty of precedent for dictatorship following upon the collapse of democracy. There is no precedent for the collapse of democracy leading to workable stateless anarchy.



No, it isn't. Again, look at the historical record. There's plenty of precedent for arguing that the breakdown of the state leads inexorably to perpetual civil war as competing groups struggle for supremacy.

I don't believe a "breakdown" of society is necessary to achive a stateless society. Nor has any movement advocated full property rights and the elemination of the state following a breakdown of society.

A stateless society will most likly occur through non-compliance in concentrated areas like the example I gave of New Hampsire. I was also thinking about what it would be like to try it here, and really you would only need less than 5,000 in some tight costal region and the state would have to back off completly. There would be other benifits also, if a small community started here, the state would be effectively competing against the community for citizens and therefore would have to completely shrink in size. So, I think even if you are a small government advocate , the best way to shrink the government is not to petition them, but to out compete them.

[SupaNova]

Stateless Somalia doing better than state neighbors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI

[simplistic2]

But...but...but we just need to get the right people in power...it's not the system ...it can change...it can change...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ift-lid-prison

Guantánamo leaks lift lid on world's most controversial prison
• Innocent people interrogated for years on slimmest pretexts
• Children, elderly and mentally ill among those wrongfully held
• 172 prisoners remain, some with no prospect of trial or release

All you supporters of the idea of government are complicit in this.

[oscarBravo]

Originally Posted by simplistic2

All you supporters of the idea of government are complicit in this.

Sure, because it's completely and utterly inconceivable that human beings would do bad things to other human beings in the absence of government. If every government disappeared in the morning, all the truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings on the planet would realise that they were only despicable slimeballs because of the existence of governments, and would instantly mend their ways.

I'm having trouble deciding which worldview is more delusional, yours or bolshevik's.

[simplistic2]

Originally Posted by oscarBravo

Sure, because it's completely and utterly inconceivable that human beings would do bad things to other human beings in the absence of government. If every government disappeared in the morning, all the truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings on the planet would realise that they were only despicable slimeballs because of the existence of governments, and would instantly mend their ways.

I'm having trouble deciding which worldview is more delusional, yours or bolshevik's.

If you support government you support "truly nasty, evil, disgusting human beings that are despicable slimeballs." Because government is the idea that you have the right to engage in "truly nasty, evil, disgusting" acts against other humans.

The least you could do, if you had any virtue or courage is withdraw support from an idea that spawns this filth.