quote

Jonathan this is a tiresome cliche and not really an argument. There are times when the ends do not justify the means and there are other times when the ends do justify the means. It depends on the context of the matter.

The governed give their consent to be governed.

But the government doesn't always prevent this, and to the extent that it does prevent it, that prevention could have been offered by a private security firm, and more efficiently as well.

You're right Jonathan. A private militia or a lynch mob is certainly more efficient at using force than a just system of due process would.

It is well outlined in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" which I would ask you give it a try first before settling on your position of anarchy.

So is government infallible? No. It can't be, nobody is. Is anarchy worse? Yes.

And no, private security people cannot arrange for an objective justice system that would arrest and incarcarate such people and hold them accountable for their crimes.

I'm not going to debate this aspect any further as I think the reality of this proves me right.

I am right when I say anarchists are not operating with a full deck here. Rick's post is just evidence of their insanity.

LOL, I was thinking the opposite. We should settle this taxation thing before discussing government

How could it be market anarchism if there is only one government that has a monopoly on the use of force? It can't be market anarchism because under a system of a monopoly government we are forbidding anyone under the same geographical area to impose their own force and their own set of laws that could compete with others. In other words, under a monopoly government we do not allow for competing militias so how could you call it market anarchism?

So you're saying you would be happy with competing militias?

You're comparing serving food with serving force?

You know what Jonathan, we've seen what competing militias do around the world.

In what context? A rational society that upholds individual rights? I think not:

Whether you believe in free-market anarchism or a constitutionally limited minarchy, both are contingent on the overwhelming majority of the population acting rationally. An anarcho-capitalist society that embraced the doctrine of individual rights would work at least as well as a minarchist state that did the same.

Open up a newspaper, it's not a pretty sight.

Taxation for the purpose of protecting your right to property is not itself a violation of that right if it serves the purpose of protecting your rights.

Rights cannot be taken to their extreme application to the detriment of other individuals.

For me, arguing about whether a government that is constitutionally limited to the protection of individual rights is better than a market system, is like arguing whether unicorns are faster than horses.

????

Yes it has. Anarchy has existed and still does in many parts of the world. And the results were disastrous.

If the judge believes in individual rights, (which most do, to say otherwise is just cynicism) then why is it a bad thing they interpret them to their own beliefs?

Or what do you do with rapists or criminals that have little money?

Who goes after them and with what money? Who incarcerates them? And for how long? And who decideds?

And if what the victim nor the assailant has sufficient funds for an investigation, prosecution, and incarceration?

it was actually market demand that a monopoly government be put in place.

If the judge believes in individual rights, (which most do, to say otherwise is just cynicism)

I can't argue against an unnamed anarchist society, can you be more specific?

I provided several examples in post 12. Which is leading me to believe you are not paying full attention to the content of my posts. How many more specific examples would you like and how many times should I mention them?

In post 12, you said:

And we don't have to look far for examples of anarchism in reality and see what it has produced. The less law and order a society has, the less peaceful it is. The less that people's rights are protected.

So the more government we have, the better? I know you can’t believe that. Why can’t there be law and order and rights protection with market anarchism?

Somalia, to a lesser extent Russia, even Lebanon is in a state of anarchy, two competing governments with their own army in the same geographical areas has produced misery for the Lebanese. So is Iraq, which is a nation of competing militias, even take the wild west of America's past history where much of the United States had a break down of law and order, where crime was settled by a lynch mob and vigilantes, not by any objective standards of justice.

Well, I’m certainly glad you brought up this post again. I don’t know much about Somalia. But it’s interesting that all the others mentioned in fact have monopoly governments. The point that I have been making, is that MONOPOLY GOVERNMENTS which you seem to think are the cure-all for everything, are susceptible to the same problems as market-anarchism. BOTH SYSTEMS are dependent on the majority of the citizens acting rationally. Iraq’s constitution isn’t stopping the chaos. Similarly, a lack of one in a rational society wouldn’t cause descent into chaos.

The idea is John, that a constitutionally limited government is a myth.

That statement is just so absurd considering the objective reality that a constitutionally limited government has worked quite well all over the world in western democracies. I don't even know how else to respond to this kind of rejection of reality.

So you are denying that constitutions can’t prevent politicians from doing what they want? That is absurd. Look at anything from slavery, civil rights, Kelo vs. New London, all sorts of unconstitutional programs such as Social Security, etc. Need I go on? So who is really rejecting reality?

Of course. The difference here though is that any kind of anarchism is disastrous because it ignores the very important concept that a successful government can only be successful or have the potential to be successful if it has a monopoly on the use of force.

Communist governments have a monopoly on the use of force. Does that make them successful? I think not. The most important thing is not a monopoly on the use of force, but respect for individual rights.

Well that's interesting that you say that. Many anarcho-capitalists think incarceration is a waste of money and suggest outlandish programs of training criminals and making them work for a company.

If this conversation is going to meaningful, you can’t assume that I endorse something I never even mentioned. What most anarcho-capitalists think is irrelevant to my thoughts and views.

To any reasonable extent possible they sure as hell do! If a poor person is a victim of attack you are insinuating the police and courts do nothing to step in and protect their rights? Are you kidding me? I find that so incredulous it boggles my mind you would say that. This occurs everyday in our system of justice.

There was a case here in which two teenage girls went missing at about the same time. One was a white girl from an affluent area. The other black from a poor area. Hordes of cops searched day and night for the white girl. They didn’t for the black girl. If someone in my neighborhood were murdered, rest assured there would be 100 cops on the case until it was solved. Not so in the inner city. And then of course you have the imbalance of legal representation afforded to the poor and the rich in our legal system. Keep on thinking that everything is fair and just, and objective justice is always served.

Have you ever argued with someone for privatization of education (or the abolition of social security, medicare, etc.)? If you have, they invariably say, well what about the poor kid from a bad home who can't afford an education? Doesn't he get a chance? I think you see where I'm going with this.

I thought you would follow me. What’s the difference between the two? Well, a “right” to education, like a “right” to healthcare, requires somebody else to provide it for you, right? Ok, so everybody has a right to justice. Provided by whom and at whose expense? Saying everybody has a right to justice is all well and good, and I agree with you, but in order to secure those rights, someone else’s labor is required. So does one man have the right to another man’s life? Would you favor a law that says if you see a mugging in process, you must intervene? Why not? If everyone has a right to justice, then surely it is right to force someone to ensure that justice is served, after all, violating rights is ok as long as your doing it to secure rights, isn’t that what you said? So what would happen to the poor if security were privatized? The same thing that would happen to them if education and healthcare and housing etc. were privatized.