On no government vs minimal

[DrKrieger]

Well I can't even remember how long ago I started listening.  Bill Maher said on some comedy special that he was a libertarian (farthest from the truth of course) and teenage me decided to itunes search the ideology along with communism and all the rest that I heard.  An informed opinion right?

 

Well you had me pretty quick, my first download was ~50 that was "taxation" and I quickly moved to 1 and started rolling through.  Obviously I had to explore Rand Mises Hoppe Rothbard and whatever I could stay awake through.

 

Basically I'm older now, I've still been listening and the "truth about" has been just fantastic.  I just dont feel ancap can work.  I mean after 50 years of minarchism where the philosophy sets in I'll give you a chance but sorry, I have to sacrifice a little liberty to have a force that is the law over everyone when it comes to those  contracts and property rights.

 

Hell even the argument from efficiency would seem to apply to having each human interaction dependant on a contract.

 

If the NAP is a universal force why is a monopolistic organization of enforcement of that force immoral?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Do you have an argument?

[Agalloch]

If the NAP is a universal force why is a monopolistic organization of enforcement of that force immoral?

NAP isn't a force, it's a moral conclusion.

 

A monopolistic organisation that enforces the NAP is not immoral... Assuming, as is implied that this monopoly is not aggressive - which it can't be if it enforces the NAP - and is therefore a monopoly because it is Universally supported by all people. This is of course not a Government in case you thought otherwise.

[dsayers]

I have to sacrifice a little liberty to have a force that is the law over everyone

 

If it was a voluntary sacrifice, terminology such as "have to" is to conceal that. If you have to sacrifice, it was coerced, but by whom?

 

Either way, you don't have the authority to inflict unchosen positive obligations onto others, so this statement is pure fantasy.

 

Hell even the argument from efficiency would seem to apply to having each human interaction dependant on a contract.

 

When I go to the grocery store, the gas station, a restaurant, the hardware store, my friends' houses, I sign no contracts. They're all mutually beneficial, voluntary interactions. As such, the lack of contracts is infinitely more efficient by contrast. Not that efficiency is even up for consideration until the moral component is satisfied.

 

If the NAP is a universal force why is a monopolistic organization of enforcement of that force immoral?

 

Enforcement of what? Property rights isn't an edict, it's how we're able to interpret interactions as moral, immoral, or amoral.

 

Monopolistic organization is vague. Is it coercive or not is the important question.

 

To answer the question I believe you were trying to ask, government violates property rights and therefore could never accurately be described as protecting property rights.

[cab21]

When I go to the grocery store, the gas station, a restaurant, the hardware store, my friends' houses, I sign no contracts.

 

what is a receipt if not the recognition of a contract?

do these stores just let you come in and take their product without exchange?

if you go take from a store without paying, aka a contract, it's theft.

not all contracts need paper to still be contracts. transfer of property is contractual though.

[dsayers]

if you go take from a store without paying, aka a contract, it's theft.

 

If you go someplace and take something, it's theft because you are exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This has nothing to do with a contract.

 

what is a receipt if not the recognition of a contract?

 

A contract is something two parties agree to prior to the exchange it outlines. A receipt is proof that value was exchanged and the issuer of the receipt transfers ownership of the items listed to whom it's issued to. This takes place AFTER the exchange.

[cab21]

If you go someplace and take something, it's theft because you are exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This has nothing to do with a contract.

 

walking in the store in the first place is a contract. you are going into the store because you are allowed into the store in the first place, and the store can choose to remove consent from you being on the property. a store will consent to allowing people in the store, but not to stealing, so in that way its breeching the understanding that people are welcome in the store as long as they follow rules of the store. this can make the crime shoplifting instead of breaking and entering and theft.

 

A contract is something two parties agree to prior to the exchange it outlines. A receipt is proof that value was exchanged and the issuer of the receipt transfers ownership of the items listed to whom it's issued to. This takes place AFTER the exchange.

 

the reciept is proof of the contract that happened in order for the exchange to take place. there would be no receipt or exchange without a contract prior to the exchange. ownership would not be transfered if there was no contract before the exchange. the transfer of the goods is not done without a contract before it happens and a receipt after it happens.

[dsayers]

Have you explored why you need for my initial statement you quoted to be false? It's leading you to trying to reinvent the definition of contract rather than considering that your understanding might be inaccurate.

 

walking in the store in the first place is a contract

 

This is an assertion only. I've never seen or heard of anybody having to agree to anything in order to enter. The closest thing I can think of to an exception would be those no shirt, no shoes, no service signs of yesteryear. Those referenced service, not entry. Or I've heard of more upscale restaurants requiring their patrons have a suit jacket to be allowed in.

[cab21]

Have you explored why you need for my initial statement you quoted to be false? It's leading you to trying to reinvent the definition of contract rather than considering that your understanding might be inaccurate.

 

im considering that my understanding might be inaccurate, that's why i asked. i don't need for your statement to be false.

This is an assertion only. I've never seen or heard of anybody having to agree to anything in order to enter. The closest thing I can think of to an exception would be those no shirt, no shoes, no service signs of yesteryear. Those referenced service, not entry. Or I've heard of more upscale restaurants requiring their patrons have a suit jacket to be allowed in.

 

these being examples of conditions that people must agree to or the person would not be welcome in the establishment.

 

perhaps the word im looking for is consent, rather than contract, with consent being part of a contract.

 

whether or not one wants to say a contract was involved, one could look at consent and the morality of consent.

 

a person buys from a grocery store because each party consented. if the grocery store owner did not consent, the owner would kick the person out without selling the goods, or have closed the store before the person entered, or told the person he not welcome in the store

 consent can be considered a moral assertion

 

if someone says "i went over to my friends house without needing a contract, maybe that does sounds different than "i went over to my friends house without my friends consent". that consent itself is different from a contract could be the case.

 

acknowledgement of property ownership, and consent that goes along with such acknowledgement when entering someone else s property is going to create more peace than people refusing to acknowledging and consent to the property ownership of others. signed contracts/receipts play a role in acknowledging exchange of ownership or acknowledgement of ownership registration wise. i think  the mutual acknowledgement of who owns what is part of what goes on when people consent to entering a store, or letting people enter a store.

 

saying peaceful human interaction depends on common understanding and consent rather than signed contracts i think seems accurate, but i also think signed contracts play a part in such common understanding and consent.

 

a signed contract on it's own have it's trouble when a person has a moral theory that the contract was signed, but without consent, or a court system that considered the contract something a person should not be allowed to consent to morally.

[dsayers]

I don't know what you're talking about. You challenged my claim that one doesn't need a contract to ENTER a store. That post is a whole lot of effort to refute it without actually addressing it.

 

signed contracts/receipts

 

Again, these words are not interchangeable. Contracts are created before an exchange. Receipts require the exchange to have already occurred.

[Mike Fleming]

The problem that you have is that, in reality, there is no such thing as minimal government.  How could there be?  It is like the ideal of communism.  It exists in theory only.

 

If you accept government then you accept whatever government evolves into.  It cannot be controlled and minimised.  It's not human nature to think people won't try to expand the role of the government.  If you listen closely to many libertarians you will hear this all the time.  There are many different ideas about what a minimal government is.  There is no consistent view accepted by all minimal government proponents.  

 

The truth is there are only 2 options, government, of whatever size, or no government.  Thinking that you can create and maintain a minimal government is folly.

 

As for ANcap theory, all we are saying is that we should have free market competition in law and order instead of having one group with a monopoly in any geographical area.   Forced monopolies are almost always very inefficient and you can see this with the current police and law court system.  Do the police really provide a good service?  I'm not saying there are aren't good policemen but it's a public service organisation and they just aren't known for good service.  The law is decided by a bunch of politicians who are lobbied and bribed to pass laws.  The more opaque the law becomes, the more inaccessible to the average person.  As a result you end up with far too much of societies precious resources been redirected to the law profession.  I could go and on with this but suggest you look up David Friedman's work.  He has done a lot of work in the anarchist law area.  

[cab21]

I don't know what you're talking about. You challenged my claim that one doesn't need a contract to ENTER a store. That post is a whole lot of effort to refute it without actually addressing it.

 

a person is only allowed to enter a store if the owner consents to the entry.

there are laws about legal entry into a store, and people agree to not break those laws, or they do break the laws and face prosecution for breaking the law.

a "open" sign as supposed to a "closed" sign is a indication that people in general can enter the store , or not enter the store.

private stores may have their own rules posted on the door for entry, or have guest lists and tickets for entry.

Costco for instance only allows registered members into the store legally.

 

if there are no contracts, then a person enters a store without agreeing that the store owner owns the store, and without agreeing that the property in the store belongs to the store owner.

 

Again, these words are not interchangeable. Contracts are created before an exchange. Receipts require the exchange to have already occurred.

 

they are part of the same process

first comes contract, then payment, than receipt of payment.

[JamesP]

I don't think I've ever signed a receipt when I've paid with cash unless there was a promise of delivery at a later date.

[dsayers]

if there are no contracts, then a person enters a store without agreeing that the store owner owns the store

 

Do stores exist in nature? No, they are man made. As such, if you walk into a store that you do not own, you know that you do not own it. There is no contract. Thieves are not prosecuted for violations of contracts.

 

they are part of the same process

 

This begs the question. You have yet to establish that entering a store is contractual, so we don't know if they are part of the same process. Also, whether they're part of the same process or not wasn't what was being challenged there. What was being challenged was your indication that the words are interchangeable despite being completely different. When you made this mistake the first time, I corrected you. Then you re-asserted it as if no correction was made. When that was pointed out, you're changing the subject to being part of the same process.

 

That continues to be a LOT of effort to avoid the truth. Do you own your own store? I'm trying to fathom why somebody would NEED store entry to be contractual as to warrant this level of effort to make it so.

[cab21]

Do stores exist in nature? No, they are man made. As such, if you walk into a store that you do not own, you know that you do not own it. There is no contract. Thieves are not prosecuted for violations of contracts.

 

there is a difference in prosecution between shoplifting and breaking and entering.

there are specific shop lifting laws, indicating a difference between shop lifting and other crimes of theft.

a shoplifter was welcome into the store, but not welcome to steal

other crimes of theft include people not welcome into the store, and not welcome to steal.

since there is a different crime depending on if the person was welcome into the store or not, that shows different catagories of theft.

 

 

This begs the question. You have yet to establish that entering a store is contractual, so we don't know if they are part of the same process. Also, whether they're part of the same process or not wasn't what was being challenged there. What was being challenged was your indication that the words are interchangeable despite being completely different. When you made this mistake the first time, I corrected you. Then you re-asserted it as if no correction was made. When that was pointed out, you're changing the subject to being part of the same process.

 

That continues to be a LOT of effort to avoid the truth. Do you own your own store? I'm trying to fathom why somebody would NEED store entry to be contractual as to warrant this level of effort to make it so.

 

i gave the example of costco.

 

i don't own my own store, but i am a member of stores like costco that do require  a membership.

with government ( or dro) registered stores, one knows what law the store is supposed to follow, what legal system will be used if someone is suspected of breaking that law. that would be different than each store having it's own system of law, each with different ways of prosecution.

knowing what legal system is at work i think is important so a person knows what laws the store has, and what happens if someone walks into the store to break those laws, or if someone in the store does something to a customer.

 

the law of the store is the main ishue, if one does not want to call that a contract.

a contract is a agreement of what a person can or can't legally do.

1.

an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

 

if someone enters a store, and that store has a contract with a legal enforcement, knowing that the company follows that contract is important, rather than a company that just does what it wants.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract

this page has a example of implied in fact contract.

 

 

 

[dsayers]

That's a lot of effort with almost no consideration of contracts.

 

a contract is a agreement of what a person can or can't legally do.

 

No, it is a formal exchange of voluntarily created positive obligations. When a store owner opens his doors to the general public he is granting temporary, conditional use of his property. The visitor gives nothing in exchange by coming onto/into his property. Theft is theft because it's stealing, not because it's a violation of a contract.

 

This is one of the first points I made in regards to your challenge. Since you've now out-efforted me into coming full circle, I have no reason to expect that making the loop a 2nd time will yield different results. I hope you figure out why you need store entry to be contractual, for self-knowledge's sake. This conversation is over.

[RestoringGuy]

if a shopkeeper has stepped away to use the toilet, and meanwhile you enter and make purchase by leaving correct money on the counter, is it theft? Consider another thought experiment.  If you are in a store with a long checkout line, walk to the service desk, leave money on the counter, photograph it and walk out, do you not have adequate legal proof that payment was made?  It may seem rude, but what is unethical and/or illegal about it?  The price sticker says x dollars, it does not say paid also by waiting in line.  By creating an implication that you must wait in line, I am seeing this as a statist-style demand, rather than a simple exchange of value in the free market.  I say this because those conditions are never negotiated or agreed upon like prices can be.  I am skeptical whether contracts are "implied" in shopping, but even if they are, the sale is nothing but trade between goods and money.  It seems like only cultural baggage that decides what is the polite way for money and goods to be exchanged.

 

Certainly both parties can totally opt-out of doing business with one another.   But once they choose to engage, there can emerge a condition where one party must be polite "by implication" according to the other's cutural standard, but the other has to verbally negotiate for the same unspoken consideration.  It seems to be a totally asymmetric relationship dictated by the state.  It should not matter who owns the store.  Whether you are in a store, the salesman is in your house, or both are on a neutral place like a sidewalk.  I claim one exclusive side of the exchange should not be ethically allowed to assume a bunch of unnegotiated things.

[cab21]

No, it is a formal exchange of voluntarily created positive obligations. When a store owner opens his doors to the general public he is granting temporary, conditional use of his property. The visitor gives nothing in exchange by coming onto/into his property. Theft is theft because it's stealing, not because it's a violation of a contract.

 

 

 

that is a different definition of contract than i have ever seen. contracts that i have seen and definitions in legal dictionaries have included negative obligations as something that can be part of contracts. legal dictionaries also indicate of contracts that can be implicit rather than formal.

 

for there to be a store owner, there needs to be a system in place to recognize ownership

for someone to grant tempory, conditional usage, there needs to be a system that recognizes private property.

what the visitor gives is the recognition of the stores ownership and private property, neither  automatically exist in nature.

 

the entry into the store has negative obligations of recognizing the stores ownership, private property, and the conditions of entry , and legal system used if the conditions and negative obligations are violated.

 

positive obligations happen when the customer makes a purchase, but the negative obligation is there whether or not there is a purchase.

 

in that definition where only positive obligations are contracts, then there would not be contracts to enter the store.

 

 

if a shopkeeper has stepped away to use the toilet, and meanwhile you enter and make purchase by leaving correct money on the counter, is it theft? Consider another thought experiment.  If you are in a store with a long checkout line, walk to the service desk, leave money on the counter, photograph it and walk out, do you not have adequate legal proof that payment was made?  It may seem rude, but what is unethical and/or illegal about it?  The price sticker says x dollars, it does not say paid also by waiting in line.  By creating an implication that you must wait in line, I am seeing this as a statist-style demand, rather than a simple exchange of value in the free market.  I say this because those conditions are never negotiated or agreed upon like prices can be.  I am skeptical whether contracts are "implied" in shopping, but even if they are, the sale is nothing but trade between goods and money.  It seems like only cultural baggage that decides what is the polite way for money and goods to be exchanged.

 

Certainly both parties can totally opt-out of doing business with one another.   But once they choose to engage, there can emerge a condition where one party must be polite "by implication" according to the other's cutural standard, but the other has to verbally negotiate for the same unspoken consideration.  It seems to be a totally asymmetric relationship dictated by the state.  It should not matter who owns the store.  Whether you are in a store, the salesman is in your house, or both are on a neutral place like a sidewalk.  I claim one exclusive side of the exchange should not be ethically allowed to assume a bunch of unnegotiated things.

 

 

 

i think in a free market a store would be allowed to choose how it's customers make purchases, and can compete on that level.

this can depend on the needs of the store, one store might need to keep inventory and track of what it sells more than another store. someone just dropping cash on the table could make more work for the store owner, and the owner would want a higher price for the additional work involved. cash registers also can have  scanners that deactivate the security system from going off if the person tries to leave the store without deactivating the product.

[RestoringGuy]

i think in a free market a store would be allowed to choose how it's customers make purchases, and can compete on that level.

this can depend on the needs of the store, one store might need to keep inventory and track of what it sells more than another store. someone just dropping cash on the table could make more work for the store owner, and the owner would want a higher price for the additional work involved. cash registers also can have  scanners that deactivate the security system from going off if the person tries to leave the store without deactivating the product.

Sure there seem like good reasons why a store would want to do business that way, just as there are added services I'd want to tack on for them (free delivery, installation, disposal of packaging, etc)..  But why does their way get to be assumed, but customer requirements have to be explained and pre-approved before they have weight?  Sometimes they spell it out (some assembly required) but most of the time they have no further obligation to help you.  Fair enough, but you shouldn't somehow have obligation to help them.There are times I paid for something, and they give me a ticket and I have to drive around back and wait a half hour.  No warning, I must jump though hoops and my property is hostage until I do so.  Or maybe I get charged wrongly, or charged twice.  Or countless other fraudulent tactics I have witnessed.  I have to raise a fuss to even slightly influence how things go, but their influence is not always constrained in the same way.  Sure sometimes it is constrained, like at a restaurant you can refuse to pay until they make things right.My question is, if I just drop money on the table and leave, am I doing the transaction unethically?  Not whether it's good for them.  Their inventory system is precisely not my concern, just as my unspoken wishes are not their concern.  Often there is no explicit request on their part, you are supposed to assume you are a slave to their inventory and loyalty system. I take free market to mean they do not get implied privileges over the customer.  All parties are equal.  Both sides can equally refuse to comply with requirements of the other.  If one side is allowed to make sneaky assumptions, the other can also make sneaky assumptions.  If it stays asymmetric, it seems like statism by a different name.

[cab21]

Sure there seem like good reasons why a store would want to do business that way, just as there are added services I'd want to tack on for them (free delivery, installation, disposal of packaging, etc)..  But why does their way get to be assumed, but customer requirements have to be explained and pre-approved before they have weight?  Sometimes they spell it out (some assembly required) but most of the time they have no further obligation to help you.  Fair enough, but you shouldn't somehow have obligation to help them.There are times I paid for something, and they give me a ticket and I have to drive around back and wait a half hour.  No warning, I must jump though hoops and my property is hostage until I do so.  Or maybe I get charged wrongly, or charged twice.  Or countless other fraudulent tactics I have witnessed.  I have to raise a fuss to even slightly influence how things go, but their influence is not always constrained in the same way.  Sure sometimes it is constrained, like at a restaurant you can refuse to pay until they make things right.My question is, if I just drop money on the table and leave, am I doing the transaction unethically?  Not whether it's good for them.  Their inventory system is precisely not my concern, just as my unspoken wishes are not their concern.  Often there is no explicit request on their part, you are supposed to assume you are a slave to their inventory and loyalty system. I take free market to mean they do not get implied privileges over the customer.  All parties are equal.  Both sides can equally refuse to comply with requirements of the other.  If one side is allowed to make sneaky assumptions, the other can also make sneaky assumptions.  If it stays asymmetric, it seems like statism by a different name.

 

i think  there would be competition for customer service. stores would build up brands and reputations with clients. one company might have cheaper prices and less customer service, while another offers more customer service with a greater price. there could be in the nature of the relationship between buyer and seller, that the seller hold a higher hand, but if buyers choose to they can even out the relationship by not buying from from those that make it too much of a power game.

 

with a DRO, something like only going to shops with the DRO or a certain rating can be a way to build a market for more symmetrical relationships.

refusing to comply with the other in a free market really just amount to not making the trade. really what would be wanted is for the store owner to care about the needs of the customer and the customer to care about the needs of the store owner, that builds value added relationships.

one party can state how that party buys , and the other can state how that party sells, and if the two agree on the methods the transaction makes sense.

 

just dropping the money on the table would be unethical if that is not how the store owner wants to do business, so it depends on if the store owner consents to such a transaction or not.

 

i would not say this creates a privilege of store owner over the potential customer, since each still have to reach a voluntary agreement for the transaction. the store owner only gets the trade if the customer wants to make the trade, and the customer only gets the trade if the store owner wants to make the trade.

 

neither side is allowed to commit fraud, and i would say there is legal equality between the two.

[RestoringGuy]

just dropping the money on the table would be unethical if that is not how the store owner wants to do business, so it depends on if the store owner consents to such a transaction or not.

 

i would not say this creates a privilege of store owner over the potential customer, since each still have to reach a voluntary agreement for the transaction. the store owner only gets the trade if the customer wants to make the trade, and the customer only gets the trade if the store owner wants to make the trade.

Yes that makes perfect sense when both parties are open and communicative.  But as you travel and go into shops, it would seem the case that the owner can conceal their "wants" of how to do business.  For example, if I want different service options, normally I have to ask for it in advance and have it pre-approved. But the shopkeeper feels free to exert their demands after an agreement to buy has been made.  The salesman makes the pitch, I say "I'll take it", and out comes their additional requirements.  Stand here, sign that, pickup over there.

 

If it's unethical for me to drop money on the table and leave, I think if a shopkeeper makes any added demands (check out line, inventory, loyalty, etc.) that should also be classified as unethical to the same degree.  It violates how I want to do business.  Now certainly that can all be sorted out and communicated, just as I can send them an email "expect money on your table at 3pm".  But I am talking about cases where it isn't communicated, the shopkeeper does not bother to negotiate this with me ahead of time, shouldn't it be treated as fraud and/or theft from the customer?  That's where I get confused.  Do the shopkeeper and customer have to negotiate before binding notice can be given?  I am afraid the assumption that a DRO adopts is that the shopkeeper just has to post notice, but customer cannot because they have to ask deliberately and separately for each transaction.  Customer cannot get away with a EULA website, or cannot wear a shirt that says "I'll pay you later without interest".  So once commitments are made ("I'll buy it at our negotiated price"), the two parties are judged by different standards.  Only one gets a cloak of institution ethics, and they can say you should've known.