A few questions for statists

matthew8

Why should the government have the right to confiscate money?

Why should the government have a right to run businesses they had no part in setting up?

Why should the government have the right to tell you what you can smoke, drink or eat?

Why should the government have the right to tell you when to socialise?

Why should the government have the right to give away your money to other nations?

Why should the government have the right to interfere with other sovereign nations?

Why should the government have the right to tell you how many fish you can catch?

Why should the government have the right to lock you up because you don't like a certain group of people?

Why should the government have the right to decide what is right?

Why should the government, which is supported by less than a quarter of the citizens typically, which lies to the public, which is irresponsible, which covers up abuse, which spends ridiculous amounts of money on its own luxuries, tell you what to do?

Arfan

To your questions a question.

Who is the government?

oscarBravo

I'm not sure what a "statist" is, other than "someone marginally to the left of a ridiculously right-wing position", but I'll have a stab at [some of] these.

matthew8 wrote: »

Why should the government have the right to confiscate money?

Why do you use the term "confiscate"? It's like the guy that started the thread about hunting recently, who used the word "murder" to describe the hunting of animals. It indicates a completely closed mind with no interest in accepting that there's any other way of looking at the situation.

If you actually want a conversation rather than a rhetorical rant, reframe and ask the question again.

Why should the government have a right to run businesses they had no part in setting up?

Why should (say) Carly Fiorina have a right to run a business she had no part in setting up?

Why should the government have the right to tell you what you can smoke, drink or eat?

I don't recall the government telling me I can't eat or drink anything.

Why should the government have the right to tell you when to socialise?

I don't recall the government telling me when to socialise. The government sets limits on the times when alcohol can be sold in licensed premises, but that doesn't set the boundaries on when I can socialise.

Why should the government have the right to give away your money to other nations?

It doesn't. The government receives money in the form of taxes, which then become the state's money, which the state uses as it sees fit.

Why should the government have the right to interfere with other sovereign nations?

International law sets the boundaries on such interference.

As a tangent, it's slightly funny that the last two questions explicitly acknowledge the existence of sovereign nations, which - by definition - have governments, all the while decrying the actions of governments. It's almost as if it's OK for everyone else to have governments, but not you.

Why should the government have the right to tell you how many fish you can catch?

Because without such limits, some fish species would be fished to extinction.

Why should the government have the right to lock you up because you don't like a certain group of people?

It doesn't.

Why should the government have the right to decide what is right?

It doesn't, except insofar as it is given that right by the electorate.

Why should the government, which is supported by less than a quarter of the citizens typically, which lies to the public, which is irresponsible, which covers up abuse, which spends ridiculous amounts of money on its own luxuries, tell you what to do?

Because otherwise people will do whatever they want, which is called "chaos". It's not a good thing.

apoeiguq3094y

To answer all the questions: there are a large portion of assh0les out there who would ruin the party for the rest of us if they were allowed to carry on with their anti social behaviour.

The government is elected by the people for the people - its a follows the will of the majority of the people. Just because you don't agree with the majority view, doesn't mean that we should stop having a government.

Maybe you could answer these questions:

Why should the government provide social protection?
Why should the government provide infrastructure for the people to use?
Why should the government protect people who cannot protect themselves?

Jake Rugby Walrus666

For people to live together, to form society, the good of the majority must outweigh the good of any individual person.
The liberty of the individual is restricted to benefit the majority or society.

The alternative is every man for himself. The strong take what they want and the weak lose out. From the looks of it Ive always thought that the free law types wouldn't do very well in that type of world. They are well sheltered from the harsh world by dole payments and protecting laws.

matthew8

Arfan wrote: »

To your questions a question.

Who is the government?

A group of corrupt people chosen by less than one third of the people, generally, who typically rule a nation.

Why do you use the term "confiscate"? It's like the guy that started the thread about hunting recently, who used the word "murder" to describe the hunting of animals. It indicates a completely closed mind with no interest in accepting that there's any other way of looking at the situation.

Confiscate is a totally suitable word, because if you don't give the money you go to jail.

Why should (say) Carly Fiorina have a right to run a business she had no part in setting up?

Because the business owner set up the business in a way that would let this happen.

I don't recall the government telling me I can't eat or drink anything.

There are plenty of banned substances which can be eaten and drank.

I don't recall the government telling me when to socialise.

The government does this, they decide when people are allowed drink in pubs.

The government sets limits on the times when alcohol can be sold in licensed premises, but that doesn't set the boundaries on when I can socialise.

Pubs being closed down when the government wants them to close down is an obstruction to socialising.

It doesn't. The government receives money in the form of taxes, which then become the state's money, which the state uses as it sees fit.

So the government should have no accountability to the people they take money from about where the money goes?

International law sets the boundaries on such interference.

As a tangent, it's slightly funny that the last two questions explicitly acknowledge the existence of sovereign nations, which - by definition - have governments, all the while decrying the actions of governments. It's almost as if it's OK for everyone else to have governments, but not you.

So it's okay to dig into others' sovereignity because we gave away ours to the United Nations? I'm not calling for no state by the way.

Because without such limits, some fish species would be fished to extinction.

So the solution is to dump thousands of fish into the sea, as per the law.

It doesn't.

Hate law locks people up.

It doesn't, except insofar as it is given that right by the electorate.

The people who vote are a minority.

Because otherwise people will do whatever they want, which is called "chaos". It's not a good thing.

Freedom is chaos. Got it. First good answer of the thread, well done.

To answer all the questions: there are a large portion of assh0les out there who would ruin the party for the rest of us if they were allowed to carry on with their anti social behaviour.

That doesn't answer half the questions.

The government is elected by the people for the people - its a follows the will of the majority of the people. Just because you don't agree with the majority view, doesn't mean that we should stop having a government.

It doesn't follow the will of the majority, the majority don't vote, and of those that do, typically half, or less than half, vote for the government.

Maybe you could answer these questions:

Why should the government provide social protection?
Why should the government provide infrastructure for the people to use?
Why should the government protect people who cannot protect themselves?

If the people really want to provide all these, they will do it willfully, not forcefully.

For people to live together, to form society, the good of the majority must outweigh the good of any individual person.
The liberty of the individual is restricted to benefit the majority or society.

There is society outside of government, you know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't recall the government telling me I can't eat or drink anything.

Ha! Are you sure about that? Yes, soon the benevolent government will be protecting us from the vilest and most evil of all foodstuffs: Raw Milk!

Arfan

matthew8 wrote: »

A group of corrupt people chosen by less than one third of the people, generally, who typically rule a nation.

Well get out there and start rebelling! Evil thrives so long as good men do nothing.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Think about the wildlife. And passive smoking.

Not every law is going to be acceptable to everyone. And some might not be right at all. I just answered the general question posed in op "why should i have to do what the govt tells me..."

matthew8

Arfan wrote: »

Well get out there and start rebelling! Evil thrives so long as good men do nothing.

The problem with that is someone typically ends up dying.

BluntGuy

Matthew8, with due respect, while I am very liberal when it comes to social issues and would possibly share much of your viewpoint in that regard, I think your questions (and indeed responses) on this thread are framed in a rather emotive, hyperbolic manner that doesn't lend itself well to giving satisfactory answers. None-the-less...

matthew8 wrote: »

A group of corrupt people chosen by less than one third of the people, generally, who typically rule a nation.

What's your alternative? Humans are corrupt. Any system is prone to corruption. And you can't say we don't need some form of government. We quite clearly do.

Confiscate is a totally suitable word, because if you don't give the money you go to jail.

Even in your (presumably socially and economically libertarian) ideal society, taxes would still be paid for the provision of police to protect your private property. Inevitably, there would at least be some people who do not wish to pay these taxes. Are these people being robbed?

Because the business owner set up the business in a way that would let this happen.

That's a fairly rubbish response. Your objection was specifically to a government "running businesses" that it had no part in "setting up". Why is it wrong for a government to be involved but not wrong for an individual who had no part in the business either to be involved? Is your objection to a government involvement in general? Because that would make more sense.

There are plenty of banned substances which can be eaten and drank.

I am for the regulated legalisation of drugs, but the idea of not having food and drink regulations, which from your general attitude one could infer, is asinine in the highest.

The government does this, they decide when people are allowed drink in pubs.

Pubs being closed down when the government wants them to close down is an obstruction to socialising.

An "obstruction" that one can easily overcome - if alcohol is such a dependent variable in one's ability to socialise -, by having adequately prepared reserves of alcohol at one's home should the "party" have to continue.

My problem is you simply can't say "people have a right to drink in public bars whenever they want" and leave it at that. The rights of other people have to be taken into consideration as well. Whilst people do have to take personal responsibility for what they do whilst under the influence, surely for example, local residents have a right not to have rowdy drunks outside their homes disrupting their sleep and their subsequent productivity at work, all night?

While I am not familiar with many studies that have been done on alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour, I would imagine that some form of compromise, with some degree of preventative measure to limit the infraction on other people's freedom, as we have at present is probably the optimum solution. Understandably, there is no solution which can eliminate such behaviour completely nor do I want to start using slippery slopes... if you allow X then Y then Z etc. but accepting that limits are to some degree arbitrary, I would suggest that some limits is better than none.

To not have any such measures would mean a potentially likely increase in antisocial behaviour, which would quite obviously result in more police calls being made (at increased cost). Given your seemingly dogmatic opposition to taxation, I can't imagine this would be something you would welcome.

So the government should have no accountability to the people they take money from about where the money goes?

Of course the government should have accountability. Why would anyone argue against that? Total strawman.

So it's okay to dig into others' sovereignity because we gave away ours to the United Nations? I'm not calling for no state by the way.

I am being slightly vague here, but I do not agree with unnecessarily interfering with other nations. However as someone who supports social justice for all, and not just nation states or my particular viewpoint/religion or whatever, I do think there are circumstances (such as when human rights are being blatantly abused) in which action is not only welcome, but necessary. Everyone is entitled to freedom. If that means a temporary infraction on the "right" of a foreign government to enslave or terrorise its people, then I view it as the lesser of two evils.

So the solution is to dump thousands of fish into the sea, as per the law.

I don't know much about fisheries, but I imagine the solution proposed by current laws is a good deal more sophisticated and thought out than simply "dumping fish into the sea".

Hate law locks people up.

I do not agree with so-called "hate speech" laws, and I disagree with the blatantly anti-freedom blasphemy law we have, but I am struggling to think of any instances of this recently. And certainly the act of publically encouraging violence towards another group on basis of ethnicity or whatnot, should not be tolerated.

The people who vote are a minority.

Would it be okay if it was a majority proposing laws you disagree with?

Freedom is chaos. Got it. First good answer of the thread, well done.

Absolute freedom is.

It doesn't follow the will of the majority, the majority don't vote, and of those that do, typically half, or less than half, vote for the government.

Your alternative, por favor? Again are you okay with everything as long as it's the real majority who says something? Because I know I'm certainly not.

If the people really want to provide all these, they will do it willfully, not forcefully.

People who are in need of disability care or hospital treatment don't have time to wait for this "willful" provision you implicitly seem to think will magically surface. Nor do I have time for people to "willfully" build the road network I use to travel on.

matthew8

What's your alternative? Humans are corrupt. Any system is prone to corruption. And you can't say we don't need some form of government. We quite clearly do.

Obviously humans are corrupt, but there is less capcity in which to be corrupt in a miniscule government.

Even in your (presumably socially and economically libertarian) ideal society, taxes would still be paid for the provision of police to protect your private property. Inevitably, there would at least be some people who do not wish to pay these taxes. Are these people being robbed?

People should be let opt out of the system if they want to.

That's a fairly rubbish response. Your objection was specifically to a government "running businesses" that it had no part in "setting up". Why is it wrong for a government to be involved but not wrong for an individual who had no part in the business either to be involved? Is your objection to a government involvement in general? Because that would make more sense.

I forgot to include the word "forcefully".

Would it be okay if it was a majority proposing laws you disagree with?

It would remain unsatisfactory to me because I couldn't simply opt out of the system, but it would be better.

People who are in need of disability care or hospital treatment don't have time to wait for this "willful" provision you implicitly seem to think will magically surface. Nor do I have time for people to "willfully" build the road network I use to travel on.

I'm not against the idea of government building roads, but in privatised health systems in first world countries patients get treated first, and then they ask for money.

Most of your other answers were fairly good to be honest, and there's no real point to debating them further as I get the feeling we both understand eachother's viewpoint.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

When you weigh in on the side of the lunatic fringe of your political philosophy, you only end up damaging any possibility of that philosophy gaining acceptance.

You wouldn't accept that I should have the freedom to take your car without your permission; and I don't accept that fishermen should be able to fish entire species to extinction. In neither of those philosophies is anyone free to do whatever they want.

Stupid thread is stupid. I'm out.

krd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You outlaw, you!

Because the Vintners Association want you down in one of their members pubs, spending money. I think it's a requirement for members of rural Fianna Fail (is there any other at the minute), to own a small dirty pub.

The other arguments against dope are bogus - no one wants children smoking the stuff. But that applies to cigarettes and alcohol.

Dope can be harmful, in the same way fast food can be. Far more people will eat themselves into an early grave, than will get messed up by drugs and alcohol.

It's similar with the arguments against home distilled spirits. That it will give you permanent brain damage, that you'll go blind. It's an absolute nonsense. If you fill a bucket with sugar and water - or crushed grain or potato - throw in some yeast, leave it for a few days and drink the contents - you will get drunk, you will not go blind. If you distil the alcohol, and drink it, you will get drunk, you will not go blind - (you'll only go blind if some idiot uses wood chips instead of sugar). Today with modern mass production, electronics, etc - a still could be in every home, and people would pay the true production costs for alcohol, which are very low.

The restrictions we have on alcohol production are very similar to the restrictions on bread making that used to exist across Europe. In many places only the Church was allowed to bake bread. Absurd as it sounds - that's the way it was. The fat bellied men of the Vinter's, with their dirty pubs, are just another kind of monk, we're obliged to support. You can't smoke dope, because these bollocky men would have to do something a little more economically productive than pouring liquid into glasses.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because otherwise people will do whatever they want, which is called "chaos". It's not a good thing.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, yes, you have. In a debate between an anarchist and a centrist, you've taken the side of the anarchist. You'll then moderate that position when challenged on it, because in fact you believe that there should be a government and that it should be allowed to tell people what to do (within strictly-defined limits).

I'll reiterate the point that if you want your brand of relatively moderate libertarianism to be taken seriously as a credible political philosophy, you need to be the one arguing with matthew8 and pointing out that his worldview is unworkable. Instead, you're falling into the same trap of saying that because a government does something less than perfectly, the only possible answer is to take government completely out of the picture and everything will magically get better. In the process, you get mentally categorised into the lunatic fringe with him, and further damaging the image of libertarianism as being the same thing as anarchy.

Stop agreeing with the anarchists (even if only by arguing against the people who argue against them). Their philosophy is daft and unworkable, and you know it. We all know that there have to be governments; the question should be, how much government? Silly debates like this don't help.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

When you weigh in on the side of the lunatic fringe of your political philosophy, you only end up damaging any possibility of that philosophy gaining acceptance.

Lunatic fringe? Simply for asking what right does the state have to confiscate private wealth? If you disagree with how I have phrased this, why?

I think this is a very important discussion worth having, especially considering the worldwide "tax the rich" movements that are currently thriving. We should be trying to figure out on what grounds does the state retain the right to tax whatever percentage of people's income they want? Surely a discussion of that nature would be important in order to understand the line between the individual and the government-- is there a level at which any more taxation is just plain wrong? Which begs the question: does the state implicitly own everything?

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

Lunatic fringe? Simply for asking what right does the state have to confiscate private wealth?

The belief that governments shouldn't exist is the lunatic fringe, at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum from the belief that private property shouldn't exist. I have no common frame of reference for a rational discussion with someone who believes either of those things.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Rather than get into a point-and-counterpoint discussion (which, as you know, I'm generally perfectly happy to do) I'll point out again that this was a discussion started by someone who clearly believes that there should be no state, and no government (although he also clearly hasn't thought that position through, but that's another story). I took an opposing position, and you and Valmont argued with me rather than with him.

My position is somewhat different from yours; his position is, frankly, nuts. The fact that the libertarians are arguing with me instead of with him suggests that your position is closer to his than to mine.

Once you accept that a social contract exists, you are implicitly acknowledging that the state has the right to levy taxes to pay for its end of the social contract. The argument about how much tax should be levied is a separate one from the question as to whether someone should be able to opt out of the very concept of law and order, which matthew8 has proposed.

If you want to draw a distinction between libertarianism as a practicable political philosophy and the daftness of outright anarchism, you really ought to start by not attacking people who point out the silliness of anarchism. This thread started off with two clear sides, and both you and Valmont chose the side of the anarchist. There may be a case for doing so if I was espousing a dyed-in-the-wool communist manifesto in opposition to him, but I didn't.

(I started watching the video but haven't had time to watch it through. I'm all in favour of more intelligent, including market-based, approaches to conservation, as long as there's an acknowledgement that they can't work without government oversight. If you were posting that video as a rebuttal to anyone's argument, it should have been matthew8's.)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you want to draw a distinction between libertarianism as a practicable political philosophy and the daftness of outright anarchism, you really ought to start by not attacking people who point out the silliness of anarchism.

Or by pointing out the silliness of people thinking the government doesn't control what they eat or drink, when they are at this minute about to ban real milk. Daftness indeed.

I'm not an anarchist either, but I find asking anarchistic questions about the role of the state to be useful in revealing certain truths about statist axioms like the "social contract", in that it does imply, as PB said above, that all private wealth is only ours due to government benevolence and that they could take it back if the expedience of the moment requires it-- still in the name of the woolly and ambiguous "social contract".

"I'll have that, thanks"
"Oi! That's mine"
"Ah but the social contract you've never seen or consented to says otherwise!"

*Yoink*

matthew8

Please don't use the word lunatic, it's not great if we want a proper discussion. I don't mind a system being in place that has taxes, but why should everyone be forced into the system. Is it really that extreme to have an option to opt out?

Suryavarman

matthew8 wrote: »

Please don't use the word lunatic, it's not great if we want a proper discussion. I don't mind a system being in place that has taxes, but why should everyone be forced into the system. Is it really that extreme to have an option to opt out?

If everyone decides to opt out, how will the Government be funded?

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

Or by pointing out the silliness of people thinking the government doesn't control what they eat or drink, when they are at this minute about to ban real milk. Daftness indeed.

The frame of the question is what I find objectionable. The idea that the government "controls what you eat and drink" implies that there is a civil servant sitting at my dinner table taking samples of every plate before I eat from it.

The government doesn't tell me I can't drink raw milk, and isn't going to. It's going to restrict the sale of raw milk. If I want to drink raw milk, I'll still be able to do so. You can argue about whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate the sale of raw milk, but if you frame it as a question of whether or not the government should be able to regulate the sale of anything, you're begging the question.

There are ways of asking the question as to whether or not the government should prohibit the sale of raw milk (or heroin, or plutonium, or ivory) that make for interesting discussions on those topics, but a petulant demand as to why the government has any right to regulate anything ever isn't one of those ways.

I'm not an anarchist either, but I find asking anarchistic questions about the role of the state to be useful in revealing certain truths about statist axioms like the "social contract", in that it does imply, as PB said above, that all private wealth is only ours due to government benevolence and that they could take it back if the expedience of the moment requires it-- still in the name of the woolly and ambiguous "social contract".

I don't find them particularly useful. Either you accept the concept of a social contract or you don't. If you do, then there's the basis of an interesting discussion as to how far that contract should go. If you don't, then you're almost certainly a hypocrite - but that's a separate discussion.

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

Please don't use the word lunatic, it's not great if we want a proper discussion. I don't mind a system being in place that has taxes, but why should everyone be forced into the system. Is it really that extreme to have an option to opt out?

If you opt out of paying for law enforcement, is it legal for me to take your property?

matthew8

Suryavarman wrote: »

If everyone decides to opt out, how will the Government be funded?

If everyone opts out, then we won't fund the government because clearly people won't want it. It would be hard to opt products out of the system so VAT could fund a fair bit of the government.

matthew8

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you opt out of paying for law enforcement, is it legal for me to take your property?

If you don't want to pay for a police force, you shouldn't get one. That said, such an incident could only happen between 2 people who have decided that they don't need a police force. I'd pay for a police force.

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

If you don't want to pay for a police force, you shouldn't get one.

So I can steal your stuff, and you have no recourse to the law.

That said, such an incident could only happen between 2 people who have decided that they don't need a police force.

Then I'd pay for the police, and steal stuff from people who didn't. If they tried to steal it back, I'd call the cops and have them arrested.

matthew8

oscarBravo wrote: »

So I can steal your stuff, and you have no recourse to the law. Then I'd pay for the police, and steal stuff from people who didn't. If they tried to steal it back, I'd call the cops and have them arrested.

No you're not getting it right. If you pay for the police that means that you can be arrested for crimes, regardless of who your crimes are against. I imagine very few people would opt out of law enforcement, unless the law became totally unacceptable, so it's a non issue really.

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

If you pay for the police that means that you can be arrested for crimes...

So if I don't pay for the police, I can't be arrested for crimes?

BluntGuy

matthew8 wrote: »

Obviously humans are corrupt, but there is less capcity in which to be corrupt in a miniscule government.

Capacity which will inevitably increase in other areas. Humans will corrupt any system, regardless of the "amount" of government.

This isn't an argument for a "large" government, I just think regardless of who's running something, corruption is probably going to come into it at some point.

People should be let opt out of the system if they want to.

I think OscarBravo is adequately covering this point, but how can society have an opt out clause? Surely many people would simply attempt to opt out at point of maximal convenience to them? Is that even a society? Utterly unworkable.

With regards to the police, I get the feeling that even you don't believe the system you propose would work.

I forgot to include the word "forcefully".

Government have to act in a coercive manner to enforce necessary regulations and contracts. This is unavoidable. There is a huge argument to be had about which regulations are necessary of course.

It would remain unsatisfactory to me because I couldn't simply opt out of the system, but it would be better.

If it has the same detrimental impact on your life, I fail to see how it's particularly better for you.

I'm not against the idea of government building roads, but in privatised health systems in first world countries patients get treated first, and then they ask for money.

Different debate entirely on healthcare, but I would then ask why you accept it's okay for government to build roads (and presumably airports, water pipes and other critical infrastructure). What is the distinction here? Why may a government agency be better suited, than say a collective of private individuals, when it comes to building roads but not running hospitals?

Most of your other answers were fairly good to be honest, and there's no real point to debating them further as I get the feeling we both understand eachother's viewpoint.

I tend to read a lot of these threads, but don't actively participate in them. From what I've seen you're quite passionate about your chosen economic philosophy, though I don't think elements of it are workable. And as said above, I don't think you think they're workable either.

Red Hand

Valmont wrote: »

Ha! Are you sure about that? Yes, soon the benevolent government will be protecting us from the vilest and most evil of all foodstuffs: Raw Milk!

The "sale of raw milk" is banned, not the consumption. You can buy a cow and suck straight from the pap if you so wish.

Methinks, it's about people not getting sued if they sell contaminated milk. Not about restricting your raw milk parties.

Red Hand

Valmont wrote: »

I'm not an anarchist either, but I find asking anarchistic questions about the role of the state to be useful in revealing certain truths about statist axioms like the "social contract", in that it does imply, as PB said above, that all private wealth is only ours due to government benevolence and that they could take it back if the expedience of the moment requires it-- still in the name of the woolly and ambiguous "social contract".

"I'll have that, thanks"
"Oi! That's mine"
"Ah but the social contract you've never seen or consented to says otherwise!"

*Yoink*

The social contract comes down ultimately to the threat of force. If you swindle me, then I won't deal with you again (or alternatively, violence will ensue). It's better to have a social contract regulated by a government...the difference between going to jail for not paying someone for something vs having their legs broken and ribs rearranged...hmmmm....which is more desirable?

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if I don't pay for the police, I can't be arrested for crimes?

Cruel!

20Cent

Definition form wikipedia:
Statism (French; étatisme) is a term usually describing a political philosophy, whether of the right or the left, that emphasises the role of the state in politics or supports the use of the state to achieve economic, military or social goals. People who believe that the state is either good or necessary are called statists.

Who isn't a statist?

Suryavarman

20Cent wrote: »

Definition form wikipedia:
Statism (French; étatisme) is a term usually describing a political philosophy, whether of the right or the left, that emphasises the role of the state in politics or supports the use of the state to achieve economic, military or social goals. People who believe that the state is either good or necessary are called statists.

Who isn't a statist?

Anarchists?

matthew8

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if I don't pay for the police, I can't be arrested for crimes?

If someone who has opted out commits a crime against another person who has opted out, that is the only case that will not result in a conviction.

Capacity which will inevitably increase in other areas. Humans will corrupt any system, regardless of the "amount" of government.

If government capacity increases, then the government isn't being libertarian, and if we could get regulations on government capacity that would be great. Self regulation is best regulation, especially for the government as they can use the law to regulate thensmelves.

This isn't an argument for a "large" government, I just think regardless of who's running something, corruption is probably going to come into it at some point.

Obviously.

I think OscarBravo is adequately covering this point, but how can society have an opt out clause? Surely many people would simply attempt to opt out at point of maximal convenience to them? Is that even a society? Utterly unworkable.

The opt out option should be available at the age of 18 for one month and be a decision made for life. Children couldn't opt out.

With regards to the police, I get the feeling that even you don't believe the system you propose would work.

Well wait a second, I think that pretty much everyone wouldn't opt out of the police and would pay for them, so it's a non-issue.

Government have to act in a coercive manner to enforce necessary regulations and contracts. This is unavoidable. There is a huge argument to be had about which regulations are necessary of course.

Again, if people don't care about contract enforcement they will opt out, but they probably would like if their contract was enforced so that they could be paid a salary.

If it has the same detrimental impact on your life, I fail to see how it's particularly better for you.

I would feel better and be at peace with the establishment because I would know that the majority are getting their way.

Different debate entirely on healthcare, but I would then ask why you accept it's okay for government to build roads (and presumably airports, water pipes and other critical infrastructure). What is the distinction here? Why may a government agency be better suited, than say a collective of private individuals, when it comes to building roads but not running hospitals?

There isn't a great profit to be made off of tolls on roads so they may not bother.

Eliot Rosewater

matthew8 wrote: »

If someone who has opted out commits a crime against another person who has opted out, that is the only case that will not result in a conviction.

Have you read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia? If you haven't, you should, and if you're not stubborn, you may very well change your opinion.

Robert Nozick "derives" the libertarian micro-state from first principles. In particular he "refutes" the kind of anarchism you promote here. What's interesting is that his refutation kind of uses the argument you're using. He says that people will have to, generally, join some kind of police force for protection.

matthew8 wrote: »

I imagine very few people would opt out of law enforcement, unless the law became totally unacceptable, so it's a non issue really.

He then argues that competing law enforcement agencies would battle it out, literally. In the absence of any over-arching authority, law enforcement agency A would exact compensation from someone covered by agency B through any means possible, including simple battles of force with agency B. One agency would eventually dominate, and all members of the society would join this agency as they require the best protection. One cannot compete against the dominant agency because it literally out-guns you.

Nozick also argues that the dominant agency would be required to cover the tiny micro-minority of people who don't have any cover, because (if I remember correctly) it would not in the interest of the dominant agency for this micro-minority to be pitching battles and otherwise exacting compensation themselves, in a way alternative to the usual means of compensation the agency. The agency has an incentive to streamline compensation processes for everyone.

In the end, he says, this dominant agency is just the libertarian "night watchman" state: nearly everyone contributes to it and everyone benefits by it. What's interesting is that the conclusion of your argument is pretty much the same: if you took your point of view to its natural conclusion you might very well, like Nozick, "derive" the libertarian state.

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

If someone who has opted out commits a crime against another person who has opted out, that is the only case that will not result in a conviction.

So if I don't pay for the police, but someone who has paid for police steals my stuff, the police will arrest the person who is paying them, in order to secure justice for the person who isn't paying them?

oscarBravo

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Have you read Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia? If you haven't, you should, and if you're not stubborn, you may very well change your opinion.

No Kindle edition, dagnabbit.

matthew8

oscarBravo wrote: »

So if I don't pay for the police, but someone who has paid for police steals my stuff, the police will arrest the person who is paying them, in order to secure justice for the person who isn't paying them?

Yes, but please stop nitpicking on a complete non-issue.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

If you don't want to pay for a police force, you shouldn't get one. That said, such an incident could only happen between 2 people who have decided that they don't need a police force. I'd pay for a police force.

So, you benefit for free from the general law and order attained by the people who opted in to paying for the police? or do we get to live in special "police zones"

I'm intrigued.

matthew8

RichieC wrote: »

So, you benefit for free from the general law and order attained by the people who opted in to paying for the police? or do we get to live in special "police zones"

I'm intrigued.

It's a non-issue really, as pretty much everyone would pay for the police.

RichieC

matthew8 wrote: »

It's a non-issue really, as pretty much everyone would pay for the police.

But you wouldn't have too.. no jail if you didn't? no law on the books saying pay this or jail/ bigger fine?


you really think people wouldn't skive off paying that, leaving garda without wages and having police station closures?

And do not try fob it off as a non issue, It is not a non issue. It is a central issue.

Chuck Stone

The amount of crystal-balling in this thread is perplexing.

'Oh anarchism/voluntarism can't work and society would break down. We need a government and statutory enforcement apparatus because bad people exist in the world'.

How obvious. That bad, ambitious, people exist is a reason for not having a monopoly of violence if anything.

[Max] Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on violence has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

What's the last thing you want to give an evil person(s)?

Control of the state and an army.

oscarBravo

matthew8 wrote: »

It's a non-issue really, as pretty much everyone would pay for the police.

As I've said before, if a system isn't designed to handle edge cases, it's a poorly designed system.

Valmont

oscarBravo wrote: »

There are ways of asking the question as to whether or not the government should prohibit the sale of raw milk (or heroin, or plutonium, or ivory) that make for interesting discussions on those topics, but a petulant demand as to why the government has any right to regulate anything ever isn't one of those ways. I don't find them particularly useful.

I'm of the opinion that in order to promote the idea of a small restricted government, one must begin to look upon it as a necessary evil. Only then can we convince people to demand controls and limits to stop its growth. As long as the state is viewed as some sort of noble institution that we should be grateful for then that is all the justification it needs to grow, expand, and destroy like it does in its current fascist form.

So while I agree partially with your sentiments regarding anarchism, I still think there is a need for that type of discourse in order to reveal the true nature of the state and thereby bolster the case for a restricted one.

oscarBravo

Valmont wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that in order to promote the idea of a small restricted government, one must begin to look upon it as a necessary evil. Only then can we convince people to demand controls and limits to stop its growth. As long as the state is viewed as some sort of noble institution that we should be grateful for then that is all the justification it needs to grow, expand, and destroy like it does in its current fascist form.

So while I agree partially with your sentiments regarding anarchism, I still think there is a need for that type of discourse in order to reveal the true nature of the state and thereby bolster the case for a restricted one.

I see your point, but from my point of view an anarchist has sleepwalked into a fairly simple logical trap and damaged the entire "we don't need a government" argument pretty severely.

Do I think the government should ban the sale of raw milk? I do not. I also think that phrasing it as "why does the government control everything I put in my mouth?" is an approach to the argument that's doomed to failure from birth.