volunteer armies

Jeff, I stopped bothering with Barnes as he descended further into his sniveling, "I am a teacher and you are my 'Intro to Econ' students," tone. If someone doesn't even have even a minimal level of respect for me, why bother trying to make any arguments to him? He'll just dismiss them on ad hominem grounds. This is also the reason I never, ever bother with the sorts of people who call Ayn Rand "philosophy for 12 year olds," except to say that at 12, I was perfectly able to pronounce all the bullshit words and meaningless terms that constitute "real" philosophy these days.

On to Danny Boy, who writes,

quote This non-excludability principle is, as I mentioned, a very basic one that Firehammer for one doesn't appear to understand. (This principle is also fundamental for rule of law, in that one cannot decide to exclude themselves from that either. Andrew Bissel appears not to know this either [Post 45, para 3 of his response to me]).

In that selfsame post, I wrote:

quote Two, by combining the roles of courts, police, and national defense, a government might be able to exclude those who don't contribute from some much more immediate and pressing needs than national defense. For instance, if a free government were funded by voluntary contract fees, those who refused to pay might still benefit from the national defense, but would be without police and court enforcement of that contract. (emphasis added)

Hmmmm, now why would a government be trying to ---***EXCLUDE***--- people from other needs besides national defense, unless there was some non-excludibility principle operating with regard to national defense? So I obviously do have an understanding of this issue. Your point that people cannot be excluded from certain elements of the government and rule of law is completely false. A landlord contracts with someone to lease an apartment for $3,000/month, but doesn't pay the contract fee, making the contract extralegal. The guy rents the apartment, and after a month passes, skips town without paying for it. The landlord is now ---***EXCLUDED***--- from police protection, and has no way to collect on his debt.

This really was not that hard of an example to construct, but as usual, you were too much of a dumbass to think of it on your own and we have yet again had to walk you through it. I await your next facile and unjustifiably condescending reply to what I have just written, but don't count on a response this time.

Oh, and as long as you aren't bothering to actually look at what any of us are writing in our posts, could you at least spell my name correctly? Bissell has ~two~ L's.

Post 81

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 3:42pm

Jeff would rather blow great clouds of smoke than answer a simple question ( and he thinks *I'm* spamming!). Funnily enough Craig was unable to rise to this one either.

For the record here it is yet again:

>>For, if potentially unlimited sacrifice or whimsical defence levels are (Jeff's) thing I suppose that�s his choice. But they are not my thing, so he will have to explain why, if I want to maintain an adequate defense force, that it is morally right that *I* end up involuntarily compelled to pay for as many �free-riders� as feel like riding too! Explain away.

Let's hear it.

- Daniel

Post 82

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 3:32pm

Andrew writes:
>Hmmmm, now why would a government be trying to ---***EXCLUDE***--- people from other needs besides national defense, unless there was some non-excludibility principle operating with regard to national defense?� So I obviously do have an understanding of this issue.� Your point that people cannot be excluded from certain elements of the government and rule of law is completely false.� A landlord contracts with someone to lease an apartment for $3,000/month, but doesn't pay the contract fee, making the contract extralegal.� The guy rents the apartment, and after a month passes, skips town without paying for it.� The landlord is now ---***EXCLUDED***--- from police protection, and has no way to collect on his debt.

Andrew, I really can't believe you've written this. It's proven you obviously *don't* understand the principle of non-excludability from rule of law at all! Because you don't seem to realise you've just effectively *legalised theft*!

But why stop at theft? Let's say our tenant 's name is Raskalnikof, and he decides not only to not pay his rent, but to *murder his landlord* too. Now you've just *legalised murder*!!

Now do you understand? And as I've walked you through your basic fallacy, will you do the intellectually honest thing and admit you are wrong, as you were unable to bring yourself to do over Firehammer's mathematical howler? Because even 12 year olds are smarter than this.

- Daniel

Post 83

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 4:51pm

Now, just a general word on my alleged "troll"-dom: that I supposedly jumped in and "poisoned" this thread with "ridiculous" arguments. Despite the considerable efforts of Jeff to portray it that way, it is just *not* the way it went down.

For example, even though we did not end up agreeing, Eric Tower made comments like:
"...Thanks for making me realize another angle to positive and negative right interpretation in my previous post...." and "It was good sparing with you."

To which I replied: "Thanks - that's what we're all here for..." and "Likewise. Thank you."

Byron Garcia also wrote:
"Daniel, I can see now that�I cannot get around your premise that voluntary financing (in addition to other methods available to a free society) is insufficient to provide for a military capable of defending our rights"

In other words, although we did not end up agreeing either, he was happy to admit that my case was strong and not "ridiculous" at all. In addition to that, we had a short and perfectly friendly off-line discussion.

Now, as everyone who's had to deal with persistent trolls knows, discussions with them simply do not proceed in this vein. Trolls are incapable of rational disagreement, and usually waste your time with silly basic fallacies they either are unfamiliar with, or are incapable of giving up; or with enormous elaborate smoke-blowing exercises, accusations of bad faith and a very low argument-to-cat-calling ratio.

Funny: the thread started to get ugly only after Jeff showed up, alleging that I was trying to "trick you all" with "supposed problems". Before long Regi joined in, decrying "false problems invented by statists" and before long they were both claiming I was a con artist who wants to go round shooting people! (It's hard to really believe one of these guys is the *moderator*!)

Unfortunately, it turned out that Regi was labouring under a simple mathematical fallacy, as I was able to easily demonstrate. His response was to huff and puff, and then storm off. Jeff was forced to admit my demonstration was true, and that the "free-rider" problem is not a "supposed" one as he first portrayed. He then tried to move his argument onto moral grounds. I've shown him very simply how this doesn't fly either, but so far he's just blown smoke in response. And all young Andrew has achieved so far is to boldly leap to the defence of one beginner-level fallacy - mathematical, political, you name it - after another (his latest one alleging how you can have "excludability" from rule of law is a bona fide classic. I urge you to check it out.) And he calls *me* a "dumbass"!

So all I can say is: who's really adding value round here? And who really are the trolls?

- Daniel

Post 84

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 5:54pm

Daniel said:

But they are not my thing, so he will have to explain why, if I want to maintain an adequate defense force, that it is morally right that *I* end up involuntarily compelled to pay for as many �free-riders� as feel like riding too! Explain away.

It is morally right because my life belongs to me, which means, it is my right to throw it away, if I so choose, by letting an invading force kill me, just as your life belongs to you, and it is your right to defend it to the death or throw it away.

It is morally right because a refusal to accept your notion of how much defense is appropriate does not constitute the initiation of force -- and thus does not justify your use use of force against me.

It is morally right because the fact of your existence -- and any subsequent threats thereto -- does not create any obligation only on my part.

It is morally right because there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights -- under any conditions, at any time.

Post 85

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 7:52pm

Daniel,

You said, ... he will have to explain why, if I want to maintain an adequate defense force, that it is morally right that *I* end up involuntarily compelled to pay for as many �free-riders� as feel like riding too!

There are a couple of things you need to explain, not to me, and not to any of the other Objectivist who have been trying to help you, but to yourself.

First, what difference does it make what you want? Why should anyone else be forced to support what you want. Why shouldn't you be forced to support what they want? If someone else wants something different from what you have decided is adequate defence, for example, why shouldn't you be forced to support what they want? So far, you have provided no answer for that. You already know the Objectivist answer: no one may rightly (morally) be forced to pay for anything they do not want or choose, no matter who wants it.

Your're whole argument amounts to this. "I want more rain. It will be good for my garden, my lawn, and my trees. Most of my neighbors want more rain for the same reasons. Those of us who want more rain have chosen to hire a rain-maker to provide us more rain. But, a couple of my neighbors don't care if it ever rains. They hate gardening, despise cutting grass, and love sitting in the sun. They refuse to help pay for the rain maker. So, when the rain-maker brings the rain, those who didn't pay will benefit just like those who did pay, therefore, they are compelling us to pay for the rain that benefits them." That is your argument. Absurd, isn't it?

Second: I asked a simple question in another post, but I may not have made it explicit enough, so I will now. Please explain how your so-called "free-rider" problem could possibly exist outside the context of a coercive government.

You say you are compelled to pay for, "free-riders," but you are only compelled to pay where and when a coercive government forces people to pay (e.g. taxes). But if that is the context, how could there be any of your so-called free riders, since everyone (who can) is compelled to pay those taxes and no one can refuse to pay. If there really are those who can choose not to pay, the context cannot be one where a government forces everyone to pay. But if no one is forced to pay, neither are you; you are not compelled to pay for anything, much less, "free-riders."

It is simple. If no one is compelled to pay, even if there were such things as "free-riders," only those who chose to would support them, because, no one is compelled to pay. I everyone is compelled to pay, there cannot be, "free-riders," because "free-riders would be those who did not pay, and everyone is compelled to pay.

Objectivists believe no government may rightly force any individual to pay for or support what they do not freely choose to pay for or support. If someone else or some circumstance provides or forces any individual to have or gain anything they have not freely chosen to seek or pay for, it places no moral obligation on them, because the so-called benefit is not a result of any choice or action they made. No one is morally responsible for anything that is not the result of their own freely chosen action.

To require anyone to pay for some benefit they never chose or sought is a con-game. Before it was outlawed, some companies would send products to people who never requested them, and then would bill the people for those products. The so-called "free-rider," problem is only a problem for people, who like those crooked companies, want to provide people with benefits they neither seek or want, and then force them to pay for them.

Statists believe the government does have the right to force people to pay for or support what they do not freely choose to support or pay for.

Collectivists believe that society, collectively, in some way is more important than any individual. Most statists are collectivists, because it is collectivism that is the excuse for violating or oppressing individuals. Collectivist statists argue, what is good for society is more important than what is good for any individual, therefore individuals may be forced to support what is good for society against their will.

Your arguments, so far, exactly fit the collectivist statist view. They certainly are not Objectivist. It should not be very difficult for you to figure out which (statist, collectivist, or both) that you are. It would be very helpful if you plainly and frankly told us which so we could know how to help you, if you care to be helped.

Regi

Post 86

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 7:28pm

Well, kudos to Mike for at least having a go. Let's take a look at what he says.

Daniel wrote:
>>For, if potentially unlimited sacrifice or whimsical defence levels are (Jeff's) thing I suppose that�s his choice. But they are not my thing, so he will have to explain why, if I want to maintain an adequate defense force, that it is morally right that *I* end up involuntarily compelled to pay for as many �free-riders� as feel like riding too!

Mike replied:
>It is morally right because my life belongs to me, which means,�it is my right to throw it away, if I so choose, by letting an invading force kill me, just as your life belongs to you, and it is your right to defend it to the death or throw it away.

OK, as I explained to Craig, you too need to understand the *non-excludable* nature of national defence. Under it, you don't get any choice as to whether you get defended or not. Either that, or you move the responsibility for national defence force *away* from the government and on to the individual, or competing groups *only*. I believe however that is an Anarchist, not an Objectivist, position.

>It is morally right because a refusal to accept your notion of how much defense is appropriate does not constitute the initiation of force -- and thus does not justify your use use of force against me.

This is just as much a non-sequitur as when Mr Landauer proposed it. Because I have expressed no notion as to what *any* particular level of defence should be, other than it should be *adequate*.

How do you intend to attack this proposal? By alternatively proposing we should have an *inadequate* level of defence? By proposing *whatever* as the level of defence? What are you trying to say here?

>It is morally right because the fact of your existence -- and any subsequent threats thereto -- does not create any obligation only on my part.

So why are *you* creating an obligation on my part - to pay for any number of freeloaders?

Incidentally, how do you reconcile your decision to sacrifice your earnings for any number of these people - and indeed, potentially your life - with the idea that you "will never live for the sake of another man..."?

And how can you ask me to do it, if I don't want to?

>It is morally right because there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights -- under any conditions, at any time.

But you still have not explained how *my* rights not to be forced to pay for others and my right to national defence are not similarly violated - in fact, violated a good deal worse.

And there you have your problem still. But I applaud you for at least attempting to solve it.

- Daniel

Post 87

Saturday, May 8, 2004 - 10:35pm

'a smaller continental invasion force might have been possible after the Nazis and Communists bashed each other a bit more. However such a scenario PROBABLY would have left the entire continent Communist after the war, which PROBABLY would not have been a good thing.'

Aren't you equivocating when you write PROBABLY? You certainly do not think that the whole continent of Europe being Communist after WWII would have been a good thing. So say so.

Post 88

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 2:56am

But you still have not explained how *my* rights not to be forced to pay for others and my right to national defence are not similarly violated - in fact, violated a good deal worse.

And there you have your problem still. But I applaud you for at least attempting to solve it.

What you are claiming as a Right, is not a Right. You are claiming the right to either labor, or the money, of another individual. If this is, indeed, a Right, then it exists in contradiction because the other individual could claim the right to Your labor, or Your money. Contradictions like this cannot exist, so you have to find a way to reconcile them. This is not a problem for the Objectivist because he doesn't give anyone the right to the labor or money of anyone else.

Craig

Post 89

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 3:39am

Just wanted to add my voice to the growing chorus that thinks Daniel Barnes is completely wrong. He can and will ignore every argument for the sake of rationalizing his enslavement of others in the name of "freedom". Very amusing stuff. Bravo to Jeff and Regi for their well articulated answers. It's not your fault that some people are so bent on controlling the lives of others that they refuse to see. This line of argument was predictable from the beginning when Barnes argued that "Freedom" is freedom from all constraints (i.e., reality). That's the real point of debate here. Political freedom is not what he wants to maximize, but his own freedom from reality. And his arguments have show that at least cognitively, he's doing a fine job!

Post 90

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 8:02am

Daniel

>It is morally right because my life belongs to me, which means, it is my right to throw it away, if I so choose, by letting an invading force kill me, just as your life belongs to you, and it is your right to defend it to the death or throw it away.

OK, as I explained to Craig, you too need to understand the *non-excludable* nature of national defence. Under it, you don't get any choice as to whether you get defended or not.

How is this relevant to whether or not I own my life? Either I own my life, which means it is mine to use or dispose of as I see fit -- or I do not own my life. If I do not own my life, then you do not own yours -- and no one can claim any rights of any sort.

>It is morally right because a refusal to accept your notion of how much defense is appropriate does not constitute the initiation of force -- and thus does not justify your use use of force against me.

This is just as much a non-sequitur as when Mr Landauer proposed it. Because I have expressed no notion as to what *any* particular level of defence should be, other than it should be *adequate*.

How do you intend to attack this proposal? By alternatively proposing we should have an *inadequate* level of defence? By proposing *whatever* as the level of defence? What are you trying to say here?

I'm saying that what constitutes an "adequate level of defence" will always be a matter of opinion involving judgments about enemy strength, enemy intentions, enemy combat power, etc. And if your opinion of adequacy requires me to pay $1000/year, whereas my opinion is to pay only $500/year, or nothing at all because I see no current threats, this difference of opinion does not give you the right to initiate force against me. If a difference of opinion did give you such a right, then I would have the same right to initiate force against you to make you pay only $500.

There can be no such thing as a right that can be claimed by some but not by others.

So why are *you* creating an obligation on my part - to pay for any number of freeloaders?

I'm creating nothing. It is the invaders that create the threat to you. An action initiated solely by a third party cannot be a justification for you to initiate force against me.

>It is morally right because there can be no such thing as the right to violate rights -- under any conditions, at any time.

But you still have not explained how *my* rights not to be forced to pay for others and my right to national defence are not similarly violated - in fact, violated a good deal worse.

No one is forcing you to pay for others. If you wish to increase your contribution to $1500/year to cover our difference of opinion regarding an adequate defence, you are free to do so. Or, continue paying $1000/year or anything else you wish. The thing you are not free to do is impose by force your opinion on others.

There is no such thing as "the right to a national defence" -- there is only an individual's right to defend himself.

Post 91

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 7:44pm

Look, let's just take your example and try to settle this part once and for all, so at least we can move on from the maths to start looking at the morals of it!

Regi writes:
>If three, and only three,�very wealthy people in the country�decide they would like the government to defend them by defending the country against possible invasion or attack�and are willing to pay for it, the fact that the entire population of the country will also be protected (whether they want to be or not) *does not cost those three one penny more than it would if they were the only three in the whole country* (emphasis mine - DB).

Regi, do you see what is wrong here? I can show you again. Simply, if one of those three then decides to free ride on the other two - for whatever reason, it is a voluntary decision - the other two must either
1) Pay his costs - 33% of the defence budget , costing whatever it is proportionately more to each of them
2) Accept a 33% drop in defence level.

Now there is no use trying to say I'm exclusively assuming some "set" level of defence because *your model must assume exactly the same thing* or else it is meaningless - just as mine would be if I didn't assume some target level of defense to be reached.

The reason that the change in numbers of non-payers doesn't matter in your model is because *they're not contributing in the first place*, not that they don't exist (Their cost is there of course, and becomes entirely evident once you see a payer switch over to free-rider, or back the other way if you want). Because your model is based on this flawed assumption, it it doesn't matter if the number of non-payers double, halve, or go to Mars. The costs won't show up because you're looking at it the wrong way around.

For the love of reason, man, will you not accept this? If you do I promise will not make any more of a meal of it than I have already, and we can move on to the moral issue, which is admittedly more complex.

Because, Regi, the price of rationality, and rational discussion , is sometimes that *your opponent may be right* where you are wrong on an issue. And I sincerely believe my maths is correct here, and yours is not.

- Daniel

Post 92

Sunday, May 9, 2004 - 6:58pm

Regi writes:
>First, what difference does it make what you want? Why�should anyone else be�forced to support�what you want. Why shouldn't you be�forced to support�what�they want?�

But this is exactly my point - I *shouldn't* be! But I will be, because (due to the freerider problem and the non-excludability of national defence) under Objectivism's voluntary system * I* will be forced to support people I don't want to, to whatever level they want! This is because anyone can decide to "free ride" on my money, because they cannot help but be defended anyway.

You may still believe the problem is an illusion, and entails no greater costs to money or liberty, regardless of the number of freeloaders. If so, may I show you the math again? I will make the assumptions as generous to your argument as possible.

Assume 100% of the defence budget is achieved via voluntary means, and assume it is set roughly to level of external threat, whatever that is (because the budget surely cannot be set at random, surely - and please tell me what the point would be of having it otherwise?)

Assume 97% of the population - of which I am one - are paying voluntarily and 3% are not.

Say, for whatever reason, another 3% decide to stop contributing - it's perfectly within their rights - and ride for free.

I am now forced to either:
1) Fork out more money on their behalf to maintain a defense level matching the threat level (be that threat high, low, or medium - it does not matter). So the *financial cost to me goes up*. Can you possibly still deny this? (I explain again what is wrong with your math below)
2) Or, if I do not have the money to pay - and why should I - I must now accept a lower level of defence - now *less than the level of external threat*. The cost to me in this case is the proportional decrease in the defence of my liberty. Do you deny this? Can you?

Here's the key point, Regi: I am compelled to accept one or the other of these options, neither of which I want, both of which endanger either my money or my liberty or both, *entirely by the decisions of others* and not my own. (Of course, I do have 3rd choice, but that is to free ride myself, and I do not think this is morally defensible). If I have other choices here regarding my money or my liberty, could you tell me what they are?

Do you now understand? Do you still believe this is morally defensible?

Please no answering with another question either. A simple yes or no will do.

6% is a generous assumption, as there is no reason in the world the numbers will be much higher - the freeriders stand to save thousands of dollars every year as they cannot be excluded from the benefit of national defence. Imagine 30% more forking out, or 30% less defence. Either way, *you don't get a say in it*.

>Please explain how your so-called "free-rider" problem could possibly exist outside the context of a coercive government.

See the above example.

- Daniel

PS: Have you figured out what is wrong with your own examples yet? Simply that you have counted out people that *weren't counted in in the first place*!! That is why they are blunders. Go back and look and you will see that this is true.

Post 93

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 8:42pm

Daniel,

You keep emphasizing these options should someone withdraw their defense funding:

1) Pay his costs - 33% of the defence budget , costing whatever it is proportionately more to each of them
2) Accept a 33% drop in defence level.

But this begs the question, so what?

Let's say I buy medical insurance, and pay $50.00/month. Over time, a large proportion of other insured people act recklessly with their own health, driving up insurance costs. The insurance company decides that enough people are acting recklessly that is worthwhile to raise rates across the board. My premiums, for the same level of coverage go up to $60.00/month. To remain covered, I have two options: 1) Pay an additional 20% to receive the same level of coverage, or accept a 20% reduction in coverage. Neither the insurance company nor the reckless people have stolen from me or used force against me any way. I simply agree to the terms of the seller, or I stop purchasing health insurance.

What you seem to be demanding is that you be able to purchase a service (defense) on your own terms, regardless of the terms of the seller (the government). But a purchase requires both the consent of the buyer AND the seller.

Let's say you have an affinity for a product that only I provide - perhaps I distill a fine rye whiskey. You like it so much that you go through a bottle a month. Then, for some irrelevant reason, I decide to change my policy, so that whenever I sell you a bottle, I give a free bottle to the first 500 hobos who line my doorstep. In order to do this, I need to increase my selling price to you 500-fold. You love the product so much, that you grudgingly pay the additional cost, all the while cursing the "free-riders" under your breath. Curse them at will, but they have stolen nothing from you nor used force against you. This is because you are not entitled to my product on your terms. You are only entitled to my product if you agree to my terms, whatever you think of those terms.

For this same reason, you simply have to accept to that if you choose to fund a military defence organization, you do so on the terms that "free-riders" may benefit from it at no cost. Take it or leave it. Of course, you are correct when you point out the reason for this is the non-excludability of a defense system. But, that's the reality of it. If it were possible to exclude the "free riders", then perhaps the government would do it. (NOTE: I don't support that position, but that's an entirely different topic.)

I think the principle problem is that you assume you are entitled to be protected by government. But in fact, there can be no such entitlement. While you have the right to be free from coercion, to claim that others are required to secure that right for you is to impose unchosen obligations on people (i.e. slavery).

Post 94

Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 6:15pm

Gordon,

Your post was excellent by the way.

I think this is the crux: "I think the principle problem is that you assume you are entitled to be protected by government. But in fact, there can be no such entitlement. While you have the right to be free from coercion, to claim that others are required to secure that right for you is to impose unchosen obligations on people (i.e. slavery)."

Exactly!

Regi

Post 95

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:17pm

Gordon writes:
>Of course, you are correct when you point out the reason for this is the non-excludability of a defense system.

Gordon,

This is certainly a breath of fresh air, in that most of the other posters on this thread don't really understand this basic principle. Either that, or they are in denial of it, much as they are in denial of basic math!

Of course, as you acknowledge this principle of non-excludability exists, you will quickly see that your counter examples (medical insurance, alcohol) simply don't apply, as they are not governed by this principle. For if I do not choose to pay the extra costs of providing free health care or fine rye whisky to "free-riders" that will inevitably be passed on to me by either company, I may simply choose different providers in the market. So I am not forced to pay for "free-riders" against my will.

This situation contrasts with the issue of national defence in the strongest possible way, because government legitimately has the *monopoly* on the use of force, and I may not choose a competing provider (Ayn Rand rightly dismissed this anarchistic idea as "naiive"). Further, the government cannot in principle exclude me from being defended, and likewise I cannot exclude myself from this.

This is clearly not the case with either of your examples, so it is equally clear that they do not create any problems for my argument.

Now, before replying to your "so what?/take it or leave it" line of argument - which I am perfectly happy to do - I just want to make sure we're clear on one other thing: that you acknowledge that the "free-rider" problem is genuine, and not something I have made up to "trick" you all. You might just also confirm that you see what is wrong with Regi's math, and that my example is in fact the correct one, rather than the work of a dishonest "troll"!

I don't mean to be pedantic; just that I've done a lot of tiresome backtracking over basic ground in this thread, and I just want to make sure we're straight on this before we move on.

regards

Daniel

Post 96

Friday, June 4, 2004 - 11:46am

Daniel,

We continue to disagree on the feasibility of a voluntary financing system so, to shift the discussion, I will ask you what alternative to voluntary financing would you approve of? I take it from some of your previous examples that a mandatory income tax (based on a percentage of income) is what you propose (like what most countries have now). If that is the case, I am unclear how it better resolves the so-called free rider problem. First, since individuals pay the government a percentage of their income, high income earners end up paying more money than lower income earners, even if (according to you) they are receiving the same benefits. Second, there are individuals in society who do not earn an income and hence do not pay income tax. Children and the elderly, for example. Yet, regardless of whether or not someone earns an income, they are receiving the same defense benefits as everyone else (according to you).

Granted, it is what works in our society today. But, like I said, it does not address the concerns you have about how there are individuals benefitting from something they did not pay for, to the same extent as those who do. Since you appear to care so much about those who do not pay their fair share, I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Byron

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 6/04, 11:56am)

Post 97

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 8:48am

I think the assumption rests upon the idea that people can only donate money to government for the benefit of everyone else. The way I see it in a completely voluntary society government would operate as one big glorified insurance company. You pay insurance to the Police, if your house is burgled the police will compensate you. If you get burgled and you have no police insurance you won't get compensated - you should have been responsible and paid police insurance. The police takes the insurance revenue and locks up criminals to keep the insurance payouts down and so they can have a fat sallary. Everybody wins so called 'free-riders' would benefit from the rule of law but if their house gets broken into and they haven't paid their police insurance they will be punished for their short-sighted irresponsibility.

For national defence the same principal would operate. Since the most likely attacks would be by foreign terrorists for example. Likely terrorist targets would have to pay high fees to insure themselves against it. The insurance would fund intelligence agencies and special forces to deal with the terrorist threat as and when it arises.

I also think that under a voluntary society, their would be no police actions like Korea or Vietnam and the number of full time professional soldiers would be a lot smaller. However, I beleive the number of 'weekend warriors' would increase dramatically.

Incidently in the Canadian Army which fought WW2 was an all volunteer force. (Canada introduced limited conscription, but these conscripts stayed in Canada and were not forced to fight.) The Canadian Army did seem to suffer from a manpower shortage, but one should remember Canada was a small country and simply could not match the troop levels of the Brits or Yanks. Plus despite entering the war at the get go, Canada was not directly attacked or threatened like Britain and the US were and so there was less general enthusiasm for the war among the population (especially the French-Canadians who had little ties to the British) The Canadian Division in Normandy had the highest casualty rate in the campaign, when the Canadian government finally started sending draftees to the warzone towards the end of the war one could hardly say that the Canadians had not pulled their own weight.

Post 98

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 4:37pm

Malarki writes:
>The way I see it in a completely voluntary society government would operate as one big glorified insurance company. You pay insurance to the Police, if your house is burgled the police will compensate you. If you get burgled and you have no police insurance you won't get compensated - you should�have been responsible�and paid�police insurance.

Malarki, as I have already pointed out elsewhere, this simply does not work. Why? Because "rule of law" is *non-exludable*. This is a basic concept behind it, summed up in the phrase "no-one is above the law". You can't choose to exclude anyone from the law, and you can't choose to exclude yourself from it either

Lets take your example. If you don't pay your "justice donation", you're now excluded from the rule of law. This means that *I* can now steal your stuff, or even murder you, and your children too (who didn't pay either, as they were too young) and can walk away without any penalty whatsoever.

In other words, you've just *legalised theft and murder*. That's the basic problem with your idea. And that's why rule of law is non-excludable, and cannot be run like a user-pays product in a typical consumer market.

Geddit?

- Daniel

Post 99

Saturday, June 5, 2004 - 4:22pm