An Argument For Market Anarchism

Leo,

No I'm F-------h N-------e reincarnated.

You have a "past life??" Well, that explains your impatience, then. If I kept coming back to this planet -- dealing with the same issues, for a whole other lifetime, then I'd be impatient, too.

;-)

Ed
[and if your answer is merely a cryptogram, I'd like a hint in order to figure it out]

Post 161

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:33am

You have a "past life??" Well, that explains your impatience, then. If I kept coming back to this planet -- dealing with the same issues, for a whole other lifetime, then I'd be impatient, too

.

You'd think he'd have learned by now - but he insists on being wrong, so tough on the impatience...

Post 162

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:04pm

"That would not be a fraud only if the government, properly, was the executor of the estate, would it not?"

Using that rationale, THAT prosecution "would be" fraud when government is not the proper executor of the murder victim's estate. So, you're actually agreeing with me but for a very inane reason.

It seems you and others claiming to be Objectivists know little of the "government" you advocate and even less about relevant discussion.

Post 163

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:17pm

"You have a "past life??" Well, that explains your impatience, then. If I kept coming back to this planet -- dealing with the same issues, for a whole other lifetime, then I'd be impatient, too."

Let's talk, instead, about your obvious dishonesties I brought to your attention in post # 151.

Post 164

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:03pm

Leo,

==================
Let's talk, instead, about your obvious dishonesties I brought to your attention in post # 151.
==================

Okay, sounds like a "plan."

==================
Now you attempt to change the definition of "license" to fit your agenda. Are you ever honest?
==================

Please forgive me, Leo. You are correct that "license" means something other than that which I had specifically alluded to. A proper name for what it is that I was refering to would be something like a "retribution-minimization permit."

This "permit" would then minimize the chances of retributive/restitutive penalties in a way that would make it profitable to earn -- in the first place. Folks who didn't earn the permit -- would pay exhorbitant fines for any harm to others. Folks who do (because they're smart), don't.

==================
Therefore, having a voluntary licence is absurd and oxymoronic.
==================

Point conceded (see above). But what about a voluntary permit (ie. one that acts like an insurance policy does)? Do you have anything to say about THAT, Leo?

==================
I know many people who do not and would not contact "police" or allow them access to their property.
==================

For what reason? Are THEY criminals, themselves? If there was a force -- a police force -- meant to "protect and serve," then why wouldn't these folks call in that force; when presented with a lynch-mob? Curious.

==================
Having strategic highways privately owned presents a larger problem to "government" than you are admitting. But, then that's no big surprise.
==================

Glad to see that I'm so understandable as to not be suprising to you, Leo. But first tell me, my intellectual adversary, what is a "strategic highway?"

==================
The best solution, for government, is force.
==================

This is (probably unintentionally) ambiguous. Do you mean force coming FROM the government, or force AGAINST the government?

==================
Regulations to force all road owners to allow "official" traffic. But wait, that would compromise property ownership.
==================

Regulations here, seem to be assumed necessary. But didn't I rebut that, a few posts ago? Is it not true that the police would come to an agreement with the road owners? In short, I think you're getting more mileage off of the abstract principles here -- than reality would actually allow for.

==================
And what regulations would be required to protect that air?
==================

This question assumes that some humans are able to destroy the air. Which is, itself, quite a "stretch." But, for the purpose of hypothetical argument, let's assume that some humans become capable of destroying the air (making the rest of us, in effect, suffocate to death). If these humans act so as to destroy the majority of human life on this planet, then these humans ought be brought to trial for genicide.

It is not within the rights of a few, to annihilate the lives of a many (note: this is true even of one life, annihilating a single other life). Folks who would take that which is necessary for human life on earth -- deserve some punishment; big time.

=====================
My point is that individual rights will be regulated by your government. Therefore when you, or Rand, or any other Objectivist says that your little government is STRICTLY rights protecting, that is a prevarication.
=====================

[prevarication] A deviation from the truth, huh? A minarchy CAN'T defend individual rights?? You've spoken this, but not justifiably reasoned it. Am I to just take your word for this?? Put your argument into a syllogism, please. So that I can analyze your premises, luminously.

=====================
Americans are not immuned to being terrorists. You assumed the word terrorist to mean foreign radical.
=====================

I wasn't talking about the propensity of being anti-American, I was talking about the propensity of being "caught" being anti-American. Get it now?

=====================
The main thing I'm blaming on Objectivists is dishonesty in misrepresenting their government. I know Objectivists will want to regulated border crossings and incendiary experiments.
=====================

Border crossings, yes, -- incendiary experiments (by verifiable CITIZENS), no.

=====================
With your government in effect people are still looking to government (their external authority) to solve societal problems. They would not allow children to be abused and would insist that government regulate.
=====================

And, your point IS ...??

=====================
Are you ready to withdraw your claim to not advocating any regs? Or, should we expect you to continue lying?
=====================

Expect me to "continue lying" -- when you look at me with such a jaded view. According to you, Leo, I'm a big liar. Someone not interested in truth, understanding, and human progress. Under your jaded view, I am an enemy (because I still believe minarchy is "right" for man on earth). So, just think of me as a big "liar."

=====================
And, btw your little government will also have economic regulations. Maybe you should just admit that now.
=====================

Let's NOT -- and "say" we did.

=====================
People in your government will impose their will via their opinions on all citizens. And, your "government" will play the role of victim in all victimless "crimes", making your goal fraud.
=====================

This assumes that there'll be victimless crimes. But didn't I put the final nail in THAT coffin? What's missing, Leo?

Anticipatory, regarding your response,

Ed

Post 165

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 5:17pm

Please forgive me, Leo. You are correct that "license" means something other than that which I had specifically alluded to. A proper name for what it is that I was refering to would be something like a "retribution-minimization permit."

This "permit" would then minimize the chances of retributive/restitutive penalties in a way that would make it profitable to earn -- in the first place. Folks who didn't earn the permit -- would pay exhorbitant fines for any harm to others. Folks who do (because they're smart), don't.

So, government will be the recipient of these fines. That makes driving without a "permit" illegal.

You're still rationalizing to fit your agenda. An incorrect position can not be made correct semantically.

How do folks "earn the permit", or get permission from government to drive?

Point conceded (see above). But what about a voluntary permit (ie. one that acts like an insurance policy does)? Do you have anything to say about THAT, Leo?

Permit and license both have the same general meaning.
License: a permission granted by competent authority for an activity otherwise unlawful.
Permit: a written warrant or license granted by one having authority <a gun permit>

Your semantical game is a dishonest way to appear semi-correct, when your are 100% incorrect.

One must qualify for both. And, isn't "permit" the root of "permission". Government is still requiring an applicant to qualify before granting them permission to drive and gain access to a "license" or "permit" (or whatever you chose to call it). So, your voluntary permit (license) is still absurd and oxymoronic, and your message is still dishonest.

The major point is that your little government will have regulations controlling the issuance of "permission" to drive and no doubt will have traffic laws as well.

Having regulations puts a few people in government in the position of having authority to tell the majority what actions are and are not legal and acceptable. Judging by the extent of dishonesty posted on this forum by (supposed) Objectivists, trusting them to know what's best for society is an absurd proposition.

For what reason? Are THEY criminals, themselves? If there was a force -- a police force -- meant to "protect and serve," then why wouldn't these folks call in that force; when presented with a lynch-mob? Curious.

Actually the current government employed police are the criminals. And, police "protect" a corrupt system and "serve" their employer, not the people. Elaborating on these points would take more time then I wish to devote.

People who mind their own business and harm no one are never faced with a lynch mob situation. Knowing that police and other government people are exceeding their lawfully delegated authority is reason enough to avoid them. And, knowing that "government" presents the greatest threat to human life is a great reason to work toward its elimination.

Glad to see that I'm so understandable as to not be suprising to you, Leo. But first tell me, my intellectual adversary, what is a "strategic highway?"

Let's say any highway that police would want to patrol.

The best solution, for government, is force.
Regulations to force all road owners to allow "official" traffic. But wait, that would compromise property ownership.

This is (probably unintentionally) ambiguous. Do you mean force coming FROM the government, or force AGAINST the government?

The context is obvious, my dishonest opponent.

Regulations here, seem to be assumed necessary. But didn't I rebut that, a few posts ago? Is it not true that the police would come to an agreement with the road owners? In short, I think you're getting more mileage off of the abstract principles here -- than reality would actually allow for.

I get more mileage from your rationalizations, equivocations, and general obfuscating dishonesty. If police employed within "your government" are still considered to be criminals (as they are today) many land and highway owners will not grant police access.

Your assumption that "police would come to an agreement with the road owners" has been refuted.

This question assumes that some humans are able to destroy the air. Which is, itself, quite a "stretch." But, for the purpose of hypothetical argument, let's assume that some humans become capable of destroying the air (making the rest of us, in effect, suffocate to death). If these humans act so as to destroy the majority of human life on this planet, then these humans ought be brought to trial for genicide.

Have you ever heard of pollution or industrial smoke stack? Businesses are major polluters of air. Air pollution presents serious threats to health if inhaled regularly, possibly to the point of shortening one's life. So, these polluting businesses must be on your list of things to regulate, since polluting air will likely lead to a violation of individual rights.

=====================
My point is that individual rights will be regulated by your government. Therefore when you, or Rand, or any other Objectivist says that your little government is STRICTLY rights protecting, that is a prevarication.
=====================

[prevarication] A deviation from the truth, huh? A minarchy CAN'T defend individual rights?? You've spoken this, but not justifiably reasoned it. Am I to just take your word for this?? Put your argument into a syllogism, please. So that I can analyze your premises, luminously.

LOL. Are you for real? Emphasis was placed on the word "STRICTLY" for a reason.

And, your point IS ...??

The power to REGULATE human activities allows government to become corrupt. And, with dishonest Objectivists in charge, corruption would exist from day one.

Expect me to "continue lying" -- when you look at me with such a jaded view. According to you, Leo, I'm a big liar. Someone not interested in truth, understanding, and human progress. Under your jaded view, I am an enemy (because I still believe minarchy is "right" for man on earth). So, just think of me as a big "liar."

That's obviously true. Just reflect on the number of excuses, ooopses, and changed stories you've offered. They are substantial evidence of your dishonest mind set. You even assign different definitions to synonyms.

Let's NOT -- and "say" we did.

Let's explore the possibility for currency regulations, banking regulations, air and water pollution regulations for industrial plants, manufacturing regulations on auto makers (catalytic converter etc). Etc, etc, etc.

This assumes that there'll be victimless crimes. But didn't I put the final nail in THAT coffin? What's missing, Leo?

What's missing is your comprehension of reality.

Violators of regulations are criminals even though they may or may not have harmed anyone. So, a citizen who leaves or enters the country without a passport is guilty of a victimless crime. As are people who carry guns into certain areas, or fly planes in off-limits air space.

Here's a few areas that you've admitted wanting to regulate: Passport and Visa, no fly zones, gun laws, impersonating police, and automobile travel. That's a short list which other Objectivists will quickly lengthen considerably. You must not know the intentions of Objectivists from other forums.

Violators of "your" regulations if convicted are still considered guilty of victimless crimes.

Now, for the umpteenth time, when regulatory crimes are prosecuted, the "state" fraudulently plays the role of "victim". In addition, since plaintiff and defendant must be legally equal, the defendant is also misrepresented as corporate JOHN DOE, instead of human John Doe. JOHN DOE and the STATE are both legally defined as persons.

So you see, the foundation of your proposed government is fraudulent. Expecting a moral end from a fraudulent beginning is asinine. The question now is will you continue to be dishonest or are you just asinine?

Post 166

Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 8:16pm

Leo,

===================
So, government will be the recipient of these fines. That makes driving without a "permit" illegal.
===================

No. It makes driving without a permit -- potentially (if you damage property rights of others) costly. Methinks you miss my point.

===================
How do folks "earn the permit", or get permission from government to drive?
===================

The same way we do now -- by taking a fricken' test.

===================
Government is still requiring an applicant to qualify before granting them permission to drive and gain access to a "license" or "permit" (or whatever you chose to call it). So, your voluntary permit (license) is still absurd and oxymoronic, and your message is still dishonest.
===================

No. The "retribution-minimization permit" which I was referring to, does not grant permission to drive -- it grants a kind of get-of-of-excessive-fines if you ever get into an accident. Leo, please, think harder about what it is that I am actually saying before you attempt to respond (my young nephew can even get this point -- and he's only 11).

===================
Having regulations puts a few people in government in the position of having authority to tell the majority what actions are and are not legal and acceptable.
===================

You're assuming that some folks won't be accountable to other folks. You're assuming that some folks will "get to make the rules" without being accountable to the public at large. You're assuming that subjectivity -- rather than objective justice -- will rule the day and the land. In short, you're making an ASS out of U and Me (ASSUME).

And you are wrong about this specious subjectivity ruling the day. An Objectivist society would scoff at your projected subjectivity. It's because of the kind of creatures that we are -- that we can know what kind of principles that are objectively right to live by.

===================
And, knowing that "government" presents the greatest threat to human life is a great reason to work toward its elimination.
===================

Groundless speculation (ie. back it up -- or shut up).

===================
Your assumption that "police would come to an agreement with the road owners" has been refuted.
===================

Then post a damn link, you chicken.

===================
Air pollution presents serious threats to health if inhaled regularly, possibly to the point of shortening one's life. So, these polluting businesses must be on your list of things to regulate, since polluting air will likely lead to a violation of individual rights.
===================

When I look at the statistics, I see the most pollution at a time of the greatest life-expectancy. It looks like you have more homework to do, Leo (because your thoughts are absurd).

===================
And, with dishonest Objectivists in charge, corruption would exist from day one.
===================

Now I know that you do not know what it means to be an Objectivist (thank you for making that perfectly clear, Leo).

===================
Violators of regulations are criminals even though they may or may not have harmed anyone.
===================

Anonymous border-crossing is bullshit, Leo. Admit it. Admit that it is even more dangerous than allowing known citizens to explode incendiary devices on their own property. Why are you overlooking this obvious aspect of reality?

===================
Now, for the umpteenth time, when regulatory crimes are prosecuted, the "state" fraudulently plays the role of "victim". In addition, since plaintiff and defendant must be legally equal, the defendant is also misrepresented as corporate JOHN DOE, instead of human John Doe. JOHN DOE and the STATE are both legally defined as persons.
===================

What you overlook is that it is possible to have objective justice. In your narrow-minded view -- it is always a subjective justice one (legally-defined) "person" against another. You ignore that there might be objectively efficient rules for human action. This is wrong of you.

That's it, and that's all.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/12, 8:17pm)

Post 167

Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 4:51pm

No. It makes driving without a permit -- potentially (if you damage property rights of others) costly. Methinks you miss my point.

Charging a fine (for an activity or lack of activity) is a penalty for a CRIME. Calling it anything else is dishonest, ignorant, or just plain asinine. Which of the three are you?

===================
How do folks "earn the permit", or get permission from government to drive?
===================

The same way we do now -- by taking a fricken' test.

You admit that citizens are asking for permission from government and MUST qualify before being granted a "permit" to drive an automobile. Therefore, those citizens who chose to not apply for a "permit" drive without government's permission. If their actions are lawful, government CANNOT levy a fine against such individuals under any circumstances. To do so, is saying that an unlicensed driver has victimized (injured) the "state", which, of course is a lie. And, the fine, if imposed, is done so with out a trial. The only lawful action would be between the unlicensed driver and an alleged injured party.

When the "state" imposes fines it is always for violations of REGULATIONS. This places "government" in a parental position, making citizens "offsprings", which is subjective and DISHONEST. Human individuals do not owe their existence to government. The opposite, in fact, is the case. If you fail to comprehend these points, I've given you more credit for intelligence than you deserve.

No. The "retribution-minimization permit" which I was referring to, does not grant permission to drive -- it grants a kind of get-of-of-excessive-fines if you ever get into an accident. Leo, please, think harder about what it is that I am actually saying before you attempt to respond (my young nephew can even get this point -- and he's only 11).

You are teaching your nephew to rationalize. Your "R-M P" is an absurd product of a sick imagination. Please do not teach children your dishonest ways. Better to teach Objectivism principles and allow children to reach their own conclusions.

A permit is the same as a license. If one fails your "fricken' test" he/she will not be granted a permit, and must drive without government's "permit-sion".

You're assuming that some folks won't be accountable to other folks. You're assuming that some folks will "get to make the rules" without being accountable to the public at large.

Accountable for what? It seems an obtuse non-point.

Today's so called "law makers" are not accountable to the "public at large" for their "law" making process. They are, supposedly, subject to the same "laws" which they impose on others. But, those "snakes" are very slippery and hard to bring to justice. That's the same situation which will exist in your little government.

You're assuming that subjectivity -- rather than objective justice -- will rule the day and the land. In short, you're making an ASS out of U and Me (ASSUME).

You need no help in making an ASS of yourself.

"Government" (people thereof), by its inherent controlling nature, SUBJECTS individuals to rules of behavior determined by a few people claiming to know what's best for society. How does that employ Objectivist principles?

And you are wrong about this specious subjectivity ruling the day. An Objectivist society would scoff at your projected subjectivity. It's because of the kind of creatures that we are -- that we can know what kind of principles that are objectively right to live by.

You don't even respect the philosophy you claim to practice.

Labelling yourself Objectivist evidently does NOT mean you're employing Rand's principles in your thought processes, especially in your case. My observation shows that most Objectivists are more likely to follow Rand's conclusions than to use her principles to think and reason for themselves. Objective reasoning leads independent thinking individuals to Market Anarchism, not a subjective central government.

===================
And, knowing that "government" presents the greatest threat to human life is a great reason to work toward its elimination.
===================

Groundless speculation (ie. back it up -- or shut up).

Back up to post # 78 where I included an article by Stefan Molyneux entitled "Does more government equal less violence?"

===================
Your assumption that "police would come to an agreement with the road owners" has been refuted.
===================

Then post a damn link, you chicken.

Refuting your shallow assumption only requires common sense. Those who see government for the immoral institution it is would not grant access to government employees, whose function is the arbitrary enforcement of legislative "opinions". Police do not serve "the people" they serve their master and protect their master's corrupt system.

When I look at the statistics, I see the most pollution at a time of the greatest life-expectancy. It looks like you have more homework to do, Leo (because your thoughts are absurd).

As usual you've answered with out of context shallowness. What does over-all life expectancy have to do with a concentrated group of businesses spewing pollution in the normal course of business?

Have you ever been to Los Angeles? Spending considerable time outdoors there could cause severe burning and watering of your eyes and damage to your lungs, especially if you're physically exerting yourself. Growing up there and remaining there throughout adulthood could shorten one's life. I think some research has been done by recording the poor condition of some dead gang member's lungs. Smog will take its physical toll, at least, on long term residents.

Now I know that you do not know what it means to be an Objectivist (thank you for making that perfectly clear, Leo)

Advocating a subjective central government, as you do, makes you anything but objective. You seem to just follow the majority of people, claiming to be Objectivists, without ever know exactly what you're advocating.

Anonymous border-crossing is bullshit, Leo. Admit it. Admit that it is even more dangerous than allowing known citizens to explode incendiary devices on their own property. Why are you overlooking this obvious aspect of reality?

Do you know the difference between "a point" and "the point"?

I merely pointed out an area that YOU choose to regulate which would provide a situation for a victimless crime. You contradict yourself so often. First you say "down with all victimless crimes" and in the next breath you advocate regulations. You can not have it both ways!!

What you overlook is that it is possible to have objective justice. In your narrow-minded view -- it is always a subjective justice one (legally-defined) "person" against another. You ignore that there might be objectively efficient rules for human action. This is wrong of you.

Aren't citizens SUBJECTS of government (a ruling class)? You actually expect "objective justice" to emanate from a fraudulently structured "government". I fear you are not intelligent enough to comprehend this subject.

That's it, and that's all.

I hope, for once, you're being truthful. But, I think you mean you'll post your dishonesty elsewhere. You should not post another syllable anywhere until you have some honest objectivity to offer. And, please do not abuse the impressionable minds children with your disinformation.

Post 168

Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 7:34pm

Leo,

===============
Charging a fine (for an activity or lack of activity) is a penalty for a CRIME. Calling it anything else is dishonest, ignorant, or just plain asinine. Which of the three are you?
===============

The fine only comes after an accident. The fine is on a sliding scale (those with the permits pay little; those without, a lot). This is akin to a smart insurance policy -- where rationality is "rewarded." Insurance policies don't "kick-in" until the accident -- my permit idea is irrelevant until one, too. It's a way to minimize the cost of a mishap. It's smart.

===================
You are teaching your nephew to rationalize. Your "R-M P" is an absurd product of a sick imagination. Please do not teach children your dishonest ways. Better to teach Objectivism principles and allow children to reach their own conclusions.

A permit is the same as a license. If one fails your "fricken' test" he/she will not be granted a permit, and must drive without government's "permit-sion".
===================

As above, anyone can drive -- it only "pays" to take a test proving that you drive WELL. This is such a clear and unmistakable point -- it surprises me you STILL miss it.

===================
Today's so called "law makers" are not accountable to the "public at large" for their "law" making process. They are, supposedly, subject to the same "laws" which they impose on others. But, those "snakes" are very slippery and hard to bring to justice. That's the same situation which will exist in your little government.
===================

Au contraire'. In MY little government, legislators would have to personally pay for losses in the economy or society that can be traced back to their decisions. If they were to pass a law to raise corporate tax rates -- and a drop in employment, or increase in outsourcing, were to ensue -- then the 100 senators, as well as the House of Representatives, would have to personally pay for the lost US wealth. THIS is what I'm talking about, when I talk about a public accountability.

If lawmakers had to personally pay for their mistakes, then mistakes would be few and far between. We only need a Constitution which makes this objectively-just principle luminously clear and unmistakable.

===================
"Government" (people thereof), by its inherent controlling nature, SUBJECTS individuals to rules of behavior determined by a few people claiming to know what's best for society. How does that employ Objectivist principles?
===================

That's just it. Because objective values exist to be discovered (and demonstrated) by man -- "a few people" CAN know what's best for society. It's about Objectivist principles, Leo. Study them some more and, like me, you'll begin to understand.

===================
Objective reasoning leads independent thinking individuals to Market Anarchism, not a subjective central government.
===================

Gotcha'! Now, Leo, you've "done it." You went and said that objective reasoning leads somewhere. Now, you are on the spot. Thank you for putting yourself there, by the way. You've now mentioned that objective reasoning leads to Market Anarchism. Now it is on your shoulders (the one making the positive claims) to actually MARSHALL such reasoning.

It's not enough to say that it's been worked out somewhere, in some dark alley, by some unnamed mastermind. If what you say is true -- then you should be able to lay it out -- in a few dozen lines or less. Bring it on, Leo. Let's see what you "got."

===================
Have you ever been to Los Angeles? Spending considerable time outdoors there could cause severe burning and watering of your eyes and damage to your lungs, especially if you're physically exerting yourself. Growing up there and remaining there throughout adulthood could shorten one's life. I think some research has been done by recording the poor condition of some dead gang member's lungs. Smog will take its physical toll, at least, on long term residents.
===================

A dead gang member's lungs??? Do you have ANY idea what the HELL THESE GUYS SMOKE??? Please. Spare me the nonsense, Leo.

===================
First you say "down with all victimless crimes" and in the next breath you advocate regulations. You can not have it both ways!!
===================

Good point, Leo (a rarity from YOU). I cannot have it both ways. There HAS GOT to be a no-fly zone over the White House, for instance. There cannot be another way than THAT. Anything else is outright absurd. There HAS GOT to be some, minimal regulations on the freedom of humankind -- in order to preserve the kind of society in which humankind can flourish.

Hmmm, I wonder what YOUR solution to this self-same problem would be.

===================
Aren't citizens SUBJECTS of government (a ruling class)? You actually expect "objective justice" to emanate from a fraudulently structured "government".
===================

See above.

Ed

Post 169

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 1:38pm

The fine only comes after an accident. The fine is on a sliding scale (those with the permits pay little; those without, a lot). This is akin to a smart insurance policy -- where rationality is "rewarded." Insurance policies don't "kick-in" until the accident -- my permit idea is irrelevant until one, too. It's a way to minimize the cost of a mishap. It's smart.

Actually its rationalizing an erroneous definition for permit to fit a subjective agenda. Every dictionary proves you wrong and dishonest.

The "state" plays no part in an automobile accident. It is neither crasher or crashee. Both are lawful drivers (according to you) whether they have government's permission or not. Those are the ONLY two parties who can objectively participate in a dispute along with an impartial mediator. The "state" may not be impartial. It would be easy to favor the licensed (permitted) driver over the unlicensed regardless of who's actually at fault. Your system is subjective.

Stop rationalizing!

As above, anyone can drive -- it only "pays" to take a test proving that you drive WELL. This is such a clear and unmistakable point -- it surprises me you STILL miss it.

I understand your twisted shallowness perfectly. Permit = License = permission to drive. You can't change definitions or rules of law to fit your subjective agenda. But, I'm not surprised at your continued ignorance of these FACTS.

Au contraire'. In MY little government, legislators would have to personally pay for losses in the economy or society that can be traced back to their decisions. If they were to pass a law to raise corporate tax rates -- and a drop in employment, or increase in outsourcing, were to ensue -- then the 100 senators, as well as the House of Representatives, would have to personally pay for the lost US wealth. THIS is what I'm talking about, when I talk about a public accountability.

More subjectivity. How is that scenario even possible? There could be numerous reasons for economic losses. A pending downturn could be inevitable regardless of any legislation. Escaping blame is a politician's forte, even if they are at fault. And, now you consider corporate taxation (legal theft by force) within the realm of legislation. Governments are inherently immoral and inevitably corrupt; and it's all made possible by a fraudulent structure.

If lawmakers had to personally pay for their mistakes, then mistakes would be few and far between. We only need a Constitution which makes this objectively-just principle luminously clear and unmistakable.

You have difficulty providing objective answers to rational questions, and you think you're competent to objectively determine what's best for all individuals. Many would consider that delusional. Advocating a subjective institution is what a subjectivist would do.

That's just it. Because objective values exist to be discovered (and demonstrated) by man -- "a few people" CAN know what's best for society. It's about Objectivist principles, Leo. Study them some more and, like me, you'll begin to understand.

I haven't met anyone claiming to be Objectivist who didn't speak subjectively. Hell, you can't even recognize your own rationalizations when someone draws you a map.

You know little about objectivity and are blind to your ignorance. What you advocate is subjecting individuals to government in-order to apply, so called, objective justice. And, the structure of your government will be the same as currently used by our socialistic government. How can any Objectivists advocate fraud? Answer: They suffer from the "end justifies the means" syndrome.

Gotcha'! Now, Leo, you've "done it." You went and said that objective reasoning leads somewhere. Now, you are on the spot. Thank you for putting yourself there, by the way. You've now mentioned that objective reasoning leads to Market Anarchism. Now it is on your shoulders (the one making the positive claims) to actually MARSHALL such reasoning.

It's not enough to say that it's been worked out somewhere, in some dark alley, by some unnamed mastermind. If what you say is true -- then you should be able to lay it out -- in a few dozen lines or less. Bring it on, Leo. Let's see what you "got."

What's the title of this thread? The simple FACT that government is inherently immoral is reason enough to consider the moral solutions offered by Market Anarchism.

I've posted several articles which make a logical case for and explains several possibilities showing the viability of Market Anarchism. Common sense solutions provide moral answers to the problems caused by government. If you're sincerely interested you'll read Stefan Molyneux's articles.

A dead gang member's lungs??? Do you have ANY idea what the HELL THESE GUYS SMOKE??? Please. Spare me the nonsense, Leo.

The point remains the same, that highly concentrated smog is harmful to human health. Disagreeing is inane. Even if you have issues with gang member's lungs, there are many people suffering real symptions of pollution exposure. Therefore, regulating smog producing industries is a real possibility for any government.

===================
First you say "down with all victimless crimes" and in the next breath you advocate regulations. You can not have it both ways!!
===================

Good point, Leo (a rarity from YOU). I cannot have it both ways. There HAS GOT to be a no-fly zone over the White House, for instance. There cannot be another way than THAT. Anything else is outright absurd. There HAS GOT to be some, minimal regulations on the freedom of humankind -- in order to preserve the kind of society in which humankind can flourish.

Hmmm, I wonder what YOUR solution to this self-same problem would be.

Now you sing a different tune. After listening to you and every other poster (claiming to be Objectivists) to this thread continuously flat out lie about not advocating regulations, until I proved it to you all. And you still think Objectivists are competent and can be trusted to know what's best for the "public at large". What a fucking joke!

The point made by showing YOU that your government will have REGULATIONS is that it must be fraudulently structured to enforce those rules.

The first step in solving threats at US borders is to stop acting as world police and interfering in the affairs of other countries. I've not heard of any terrorist threats made against Switzerland (a neutral country).

===================
Aren't citizens SUBJECTS of government (a ruling class)? You actually expect "objective justice" to emanate from a fraudulently structured "government".

See above.

No rational answer above. You advocate fraud and expect something objective to result. I think asinine best describes your stance.

Post 170

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:23pm

Leo,

You use words like knives, slicing away at those who engage you -- you even attack those who are in overall agreement with you (if they don't, immediately, acknowledge assent to the exact rhetoric you've generated). And, while it took some "doing" (because my patience is really quite exceptional) you have indeed proven yourself unworthy of my time and attention.

Goodbye, my brief adversary.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/14, 7:23pm)

Post 171

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 9:03am