Is there another category?

[Thomasio]

Really? That's a valuable answer?

If selling 50,000 pounds of beef a month on the size of Connecticut shall reach 19 trillion on the size of the US, you'll have to wait a few millennia.

In fact, Connecticut is roughly 1/2000 of the US and if you estimate a pound of beef at roughly $5, you'd get

50,000 pounds * 2000 size * $5 = $500 million a year

or in other words, it takes 38,000 years to pay off 19 trillion

or in again other words, at THAT rate, you won't even make enough money to pay 0.25% interest on 19 trillion debt.

 

So again, how shall the debt be paid and who pays the rest, if all state property isn't enough?

Again, if this is a sellout to the highest bidder, does that mean you literally want to hand over control over your country to the richest individuals?

And still, how do you want to prevent religions from taking over by the plain force of their numbers, once their is no state anymore financing a making of laws and their enforcement?

[shirgall]

Really? That's a valuable answer?

If selling 50,000 pounds of beef a month on the size of Connecticut shall reach 19 trillion on the size of the US, you'll have to wait a few millennia.

In fact, Connecticut is roughly 1/2000 of the US and if you estimate a pound of beef at roughly $5, you'd get

50,000 pounds * 2000 size * $5 = $500 million a year

or in other words, it takes 38,000 years to pay off 19 trillion

or in again other words, at THAT rate, you won't even make enough money to pay 0.25% interest on 19 trillion debt.

 

So again, how shall the debt be paid and who pays the rest, if all state property isn't enough?

Again, if this is a sellout to the highest bidder, does that mean you literally want to hand over control over your country to the richest individuals?

And still, how do you want to prevent religions from taking over by the plain force of their numbers, once their is no state anymore financing a making of laws and their enforcement?

 

I put up one example of a privatized park, not a solution for government debt.

 

You're right, it's not enough, but it's something. The Bureau of Land Management "owns" an incredible amount of land. It would be nice to make use of it.

[David Ottinger]

Pantheist is one you're missing. 

[Donnadogsoth]

A better question is this:  when the glorious Ancap revolution comes, who will gain control of America's nukes?

[jughead]

Assuming someone is free, legally, to make extraordinary claims about the existence of a god, there is no burden of proof.

 

A burden of proof is only ever required in the case of a violation or alleged violation of the NAP.

 

Making claims as to the existence of a god or gods does not violate the NAP, therefore there is no burden of proof on the person making the claim.

 

I don't think anyone here would suggest that you can't make extraordinary claims, with or without evidence. I don't think the NAP is at issue here. My view is that belief in extraordinary claims in the absence of evidence, or contrary to reason and evidence, may not violate the NAP but it says a lot about the person who holds these beliefs. In assessing people with limited time and information, as we all must do on a daily basis, such irrational belief is a significant piece of information that can't be denied.

[jimmo100]

Well, I can't discuss two opinions contradicting one another.

Jimmo100 says in a free society only individuals can own a property, shirgall says, a club will buy a public property ...... now what?

Could you two clear that up, before quoting me with your comments?

 

Furthermore ...... in a free society, who will receive the money from a club "buying" a property, that upon start of the free society, as soon as the state doesn't exist anymore, belongs to nobody?

First come first serve? Whoever can put a lock on the gate first becomes the owner for free?

Thomasio, please either quote me or address me by screenname when replying to me. Thanks.

 

You can't discuss two opinions contradicting each other? Why not? They come from two different people. Happens all the time.

 

From my side, when I say only individuals can own property, I don't mean individuals can't be co-owners of something. For example owning shares in a company is fine. But here, your rights are well defined and can hence be well defended. Organizations don't have any rights outside of the rights of the individuals in the group. Same goes for responsibilities. My only point was that a free society doesn't free individuals from accountability for their actions.

 

Shirgall can speak for himself, I'm sure.

[jimmo100]

Well, I really must have misunderstood a whole lot of things, from what you said as well as from what a free society is.

So let me ask, just to clearify that for me:

 

In a free society what will happen to buildings like the Cologne Dome, St. Peters Basilica in Vatikan City, and all the 1000s of religious buildings?

They must be abandoned? Cannot be maintained anymore?

If they can be maintained, who is to pay for the maintenance?

If religious organizations hold their mess in there, who is going to forbid that, or is it perfectly ok if a group of people makes use of a property that nobody owns?

What if some other organization, maybe the Red Cross wants to use a church as a hospital for the poor?

Who would judge, who can use a church and who cannot, and if some judge has made a decision who would enforce it?

 

The last question goes along with:

If a free society still has a law, who will pay for the justice system, the law enforcement and how is that any different from paying taxes to a state that keeps law and order up?

Are you saying for you a in free society laws remain as they are, only there won't be a state to enforce it anymore, but some other organization will take care of that? Wouldn't that be a "police state"? Or is a police state what you imagine as a free society?

 

Last but not least, in a free society that still has a law, who gets to make the laws? Who gets to say what's right and what's wrong? Democratic decisions? Or dictated by some kind of regime?

Personally, I'm not yet fully convinced of the Ancap postition. So I lean more towards Minarchism. But I'm definitely interested in how something such as a 'private law society' might work.

 

It seems to me both camps' positions involve progressing towards at least a massive shrinkage of the scope of the state. Ancaps go further. Some have called it a 5 - 10% difference. That's not all that much. Not looking at it from where we stand, now.

 

One of the criticisms of Minarchism is that a relatively free society *was* achieved, in pre-civil war USA, but could not be maintained and that it 'only' lasted 60 - 70 years.

 

My God, man, what I wouldn't give to have even 5 - 10 years of 90% of the current scope! Would people make the same mistakes? Geez.... you'd have to think very little of people to expect them to have learned absolutely nothing from the last 240 years. People do learn from mistakes of the past.... depending on what there is to help them remember how it was and how it came about. Not everyone wants to be reminded of their bad decisions, so of course there will be some but anyway that is another discussion.

 

To get on to your questions, more specifically, I just want to make the point that what you are talking about is what shrinkage of the current scope of a particular state would entail. Don't confuse a free society for the one people might have to endure in order to get there. The entire process of privatization from start to finish would have to occur before you could with any accuracy call your society 'free' and will in all probability not be a clean-cut affair. An Interventionist state, of any proportion - in order to exist, must violate private property rights. Hence the label 'necessary evil' which some use to describe it. One shouldn't be too surprised at any difficulty involved in unraveling the mess it leaves in its wake. But I don't know for sure. I certainly wouldn't want to underestimate what human beings can achieve. But regardless, none of it is beyond negotiation. We have proof that peaceful negotiation is possible amongst human beings. We can learn from our mistakes. That should not be glossed-over. We shouldn't assume that luxury.

 

What would become of previously-public real estate such as the big church buildings? One suggestion might be to restore ownership to the earliest appropriator of the land if there was any coercion used to deprive them of it in the first place. Any contractual rights established through fiat would fall away, legally. Possibly gradually, to give people some notice to adjust. If none could prove original title/use, then current users would be next in line with none of the government-granted privileges which may have been conferred. It could get messy. But people would not be confined to the current system where you can't do a thing without getting government permission. Like the old man in the movie Shawshank Redemption. He'd been denied his freedom for so long, that he couldn't cut it on the outside. He couldn't 'squeeze a drop' without asking permission to relieve himself. In much the same way - though perhaps not charactured, people have become institutionalized. This is why people panic at the thought of having no heavy authoritarian to keep the 'peace' or make any heady in negotiation. People would be free to find solutions where we aren't, currently.

 

Incidently, I don't blame people for having that state of mind... it's a natural result of what happens when you screw around with peoples' lives. I'm just saying if you take away the limits, there may be some difficulties, some pain, but generally people will find their feet.

 

I assume, Thomasio, that you are familiar with the positions of Ancapism and Minarchism when it comes to law and justice. There is a ton of literature which covers this ground. I'm not saying you can't still have questions. I know I do. But I do expect anyone to look at the work which has been done already to explain the basic ideas. Then again, maybe you *have* looked. What has been your experience so far in the digesting the literature available on the topic of law and justice in free societies? Who's work have you looked at? Where, specifically, have they failed to convince you?

 

From what I can see, in a Minarchist society, you still have a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory. But the scope of those laws is minimal. And - crucially - you have what has been largely relinquished in the USA i.e. individual responsibility for remaining vigilant over the scope of the state. Such a monopoly will invite corruption. That is a given. The natural tendency would be for its scope to increase. But to minimize the chance that it would go unchecked, Jefferson and Franklin, made it clear that it was up to individuals to keep making those checks happen. The less the state has to do, the easier it is to maintain those checks i.e. the smaller the scope, the less each person has to be vigilant over. The theory which I, personally, don't believe has been invalidated just because it was not adhered to, is that individual responsibility cannot be done away with if any society is to remain free or relatively free. That is what I get from it, anyway. So you have rules and measures for handling instances of theft and violence. Also, in a Minarchist society no-one has the power to prevent experiments, outside of its territory, in government which resembles Anarcho-Capitalism or even Socialism. If there are people who want to experiment there is no problem. But try to get a Socialist, who believes interfering in the affairs of others is his duty, to agree that people should be free to make mistakes. Good luck with that. Socialists generally find the idea of learning from past mistakes to be anathema.

[Thomasio]

A better question is this:  when the glorious Ancap revolution comes, who will gain control of America's nukes?

 

For once, that's a quote I find actually useful.

Pretty good question, anyone care to answer that?

Can anyone imagine any private individual qualified to take control over the nukes without becoming a thread to the whole world and if yes, how would a free society make sure that one would actually get the control, rather than the richest bidder, which might be some religious organization?

 

For the rest, I'm out.

A state that shall pay it's debt so the free society doesn't have to start under a mountain of debt, but nobody knows how, a society that doesn't want to have law makers nor wants to pay for law enforcement, but still requires laws, a business structure that shall begin with the wealth status everybody gained under the current system, but is suppoed to be fair for everybody, seems to me that's all contradictions at the most basic level, which cannot be resolved, so there's no point in discussing it.

[jimmo100]

[... who will gain control of America's nukes?]

 

For once, that's a quote I find actually useful.

Pretty good question, anyone care to answer that?

 

Hopefully not a bunch of criminals, like we have now.

 

Criminals would have a much harder time of gaining influence in a free society.

[Donnadogsoth]

Hopefully not a bunch of criminals, like we have now.

 

Criminals would have a much harder time of gaining influence in a free society.

 

This subculture is like playing a card game.  Whenever any problem or confusion or fear arises, a random Ancapper plays the FREE SOCIETY! card and answers everything.  It's brilliant!

[A4E]

Excuse me, just want to share some interesting reading.

[jimmo100]

This subculture is like playing a card game.  Whenever any problem or confusion or fear arises, a random Ancapper plays the FREE SOCIETY! card and answers everything.  It's brilliant!

You don't have to be an Ancapper to know that 'freedom' applies to non-criminals.

 

I should know because I'm not an Ancapper.

[Koroviev]

This subculture is like playing a card game.  Whenever any problem or confusion or fear arises, a random Ancapper plays the FREE SOCIETY! card and answers everything.  It's brilliant!

 

Oh you mean similar to the god exists outside of the universe card. I understand now thanks.

 

You don't have to be an Ancapper to know that 'freedom' applies to non-criminals.

 

I should know because I'm not an Ancapper.

 

Freedom applies to everyone not just non-criminals. Freedom does not mean no consequences but even a criminal is free to go live on their own in the woods in a free society heck they could even stay in town even though they would probably find it harder to get food, water, electricity, etc. There are consequences if you want to be a criminal in a society. Anarchism means no rulers not no rules.

[Donnadogsoth]

Oh you mean similar to the god exists outside of the universe card. I understand now thanks.

 

It would be a strange creator who existed inside his creation.

[jimmo100]

Freedom applies to everyone not just non-criminals. Freedom does not mean no consequences but even a criminal is free to go live on their own in the woods in a free society heck they could even stay in town even though they would probably find it harder to get food, water, electricity, etc. There are consequences if you want to be a criminal in a society. Anarchism means no rulers not no rules.

 

Well, I'm talking about criminals who are criminals by virtue of their law breaking. Otherwise they are not criminals. Unless of course you are referring to criminals who are on the run.... but what kind of freedom is that?

 

Freedom does not belong to criminals in a society which protects the law-abiding against criminal acts.

 

Did you read the earlier messages leading up to the part you replied to, Koroviev? If you read them, I think you'll see we are coming from similar viewpoints. I was making the point that in a free society criminals' influence in society would be sharply curtailed.... and therefore the world would be safer - when it comes to control over nuclear weapons - than it is now with authoritarians at the helm.

[MrNlul77]

??????

[Thomasio]

... in a free society criminals' influence in society would be sharply curtailed....

 

.... which leads back to the question:

In a free society, who gets to say whats right and wrong, who gets to make the laws and who pays for law enforcement?

Who prevents religion from taking over the law making?

Without a constitution that separates religion from state, and a state enforcing the constitution, in a mostly religious country, even a democratic voting on the law might get you to a religious law making.

[jimmo100]

"In a free society, who gets to say whats right and wrong, who gets to make the laws and who pays for law enforcement?"

In a free society people don't have to say what's right and what's wrong. They said it before there was a free society. If you don't like the rules anymore, you are free to move to a society with rules more suitable to your viewpoint. Anyone is free to leave... at any time. There will be no wall, no exit fee and no requirement to get permission. Who pays for law enforcement? The beneficiaries pay. Who else?

"Who prevents religion from taking over the law making?"

 

Religion is not an actor, hence there is nothing 'religion' *can* take over. Individuals *are* actors, but in a free society they would be bound by rules. Rules which protect from theft and violence. If you consider that religion is just a set of beliefs, and you are looking to move to a country which has no religion, then you're going to have a hard time finding a society which you can call home. Even atheists have beliefs. How else could they claim the right to speak? If they didn't believe they had a right to the use of their own physical bodies?

So of course, any society consists of people who hold beliefs. If no-one held any beliefs, there would be no viewpoints. Everyone would claim that nothing exists.... and in order for that to be true, you'd have to stop making the claim and go extinct from the planet, the universe.

 

The only time there is any valid criticism of religion is when it(religion) is infused with coercion. I keep mentioning there is a difference between religion in Iran and the USA. It has to do with the 'Separation of Church and State'.
 

If people want to change the laws, it will of course be because they have new and different ideas. But they will be the late-comers. And the precedent for this scenario is not even fictional, it's science-fictional. Such scenarios are plucked straight out of the interventionist mindset, which as we know incentivizes privilege-seeking and state protection. (see edit note)

"Without a constitution that separates religion from state, and a state enforcing the constitution, in a mostly religious country, even a democratic voting on the law might get you to a religious law making."

Try to distinguish between coercive and non-coercive religion, Thomasio. If you speak of the USA, you should really be using the term generically. Because the church no longer has coercive power at its disposal.

 

So it doesn't matter that a country's people are 'mostly religious'. In a free society, 'religious' law making is just another attempt to decrease or increase the scope of the state, depending on how far you take the initial reduction of the scope of the state i.e. Ancapism or Minarchism.

Also, I see you make no distinction between a limited democracy and an unlimited democracy. It's just 'democracy'. Is there a reason why you conflate them?

 

This should really be answered, because there is a pretty fundamental distinction to be made. The one incorporates the notion of secession, the other dare not utter the word for fear it would draw attention to the concept.
 

Thomasio, one of the US founders said something I heard for the first time the other day which encapsulates the difference between a free/largely free society and an interventionist society.

 

I don't recall which founder it was but I think it was Franklin or Washington.

 

He said, speaking in reply to someone, 'You can have your Republic... if you can keep it'. Or words to that effect.

The idea, here is that a free society cannot ever be taken for/as granted. It must be continually guarded, jealously. No citizen can afford to hit the snooze button. Each and every adult person has the duty to remain vigilant.. specifically over the scope of the state. (this is where most of the difficulty arises in making the transition to the free/largely free society)

 

Again, I'm not Ancap but I'm open to other ideas and criticisms. But for me, the above idea really gets to the heart of the matter. Because if you examine what makes a Socialist a Socialist, it is that he is looking for some paternalistic entity to relieve him of the burden of individual responsibility. If you go back and watch the debate between Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux you should see what I'm getting at. Of course the typical Socialist is unaware of how he came to be in this infantilized state of mind. Now, from personal experience and observation, it seems anyone can be put into this infantile state, unless you are wise to how it is accomplished. It can be induced in anyone but crucially it requires that the person consent at some point in time, and on some level, to a half-truth or an outright lie. The way it is induced is by presenting the person with essentially a very scary picture of the world. The inducer will have to manufacture the reality if it doesn't already exist and if it exists but isn't quite scary enough, he must embellish the dangerousness. The instant shock has the effect of shutting down the average person's natural tendency to question an assertion. The result is that the unsuspecting are like sheep led to the slaughter. The effect is similar to tucking a chicken's head under its wing. It goes into a trance-like state and stops fighting for its own autonomy. There may well be other more brazenly brutal methods in use. You'd have to study up on the not-so-titillating details of once-secret government projects. But this very effective method of putting people into a state of fear, renders them dependent on the paternalistic entity. They will more or less blindly follow from then on, until something or someone leads them back to their senses. Most of the time reasoning alone is not sufficient. It appears most libertarians have a very hard time with this. We could do with all the help we can get.

I speak for myself when I say there is little to nothing altruistic about this libertarian urge to reason with those unfamiliar with the liberty movement's narrative. It is done from purely selfish motives because I know that if this many people continue to be led astray, due essentially to their inability to tell friends from enemies, my own chances of survival become very much compromised. So I'm acting in my own self-interest in trying to engage people.

[Edit: Sorry, let me take some of that back....to say it is science fiction that in a Minarchist society there may be temptation to again grow the state would itself be science fiction. But maybe only in the beginning... before people had a chance to see how a largely voluntary society would turn out. It would certainly go against the natural incentives to engage in protection-seeking once it became clear that a free society was a far better way to increase the standard of living in general throughout the society. I will concede it is hard to imagine but its only because we have all grown up in an Interventionist system, to an increasing degree. Think of the people who still to this day are convinced - and rightly so - that protectionism is bad for everyone. In the long run, even for the privileged. There are many many clear-thinking individuals. If anything, this clear thinking would become more prevalent in a largely voluntary society. Also, remember that much of the current rent-seeking takes place due to the overwhelming pessimism which itself is compounded by Collectivism of every strain including Cronyism, which is most often labelled as 'private', 'laissez-faire' and/or 'free enterprise'.]

[AccuTron]

...

 

Criminals would have a much harder time of gaining influence in a free society.

It strikes me that people like very much to be lied to, as long as they feel good along the way.  Nothing new under the sun (well, okay, the internet is a big one).  I'm picturing the snake oil salesman with his wagon and horse, working frontier society.  Even with the net, a lot of snake oil variants get sold.

[Thomasio]

Who pays for law enforcement? The beneficiaries pay. Who else?

 

Because the church no longer has coercive power at its disposal.

 

Ermmmmm ...... is there anyone else to whom this doesn't make sense?

 

To me it seems, a free society is actually free only to those with money and weapons power.

Whoever can pay the most people to work for him can enforce whatever he likes.

 

Therefore a religious organization, even if it isn't coercive can simply pay to get religious rulings, such as Sharia law enforced.

Even if it isn't Islam, is there any doubt that the Catholic Church owns more than enough wealth, to pay for getting things their ways, especially since they could be sure, once they get things their ways they can squeeze their "investment" back out of the people.

 

Does anyone honestly believe, the estimated $170 billion spent by the catholic church per year in the US alone, which is equal to what Apple or GM make worldwide, could be overcome by a bunch of poor people who just want to live in peace?

Does anyone believe, once religions are no longer bound by a constitution that prevents them from political power, they wouldn't funnel their money power into gaining political power?

 

TODAY churches have no coercive power, in a free society, be sure they would get just that.

[jimmo100]

Ermmmmm ...... is there anyone else to whom this doesn't make sense?

 

To me it seems, a free society is actually free only to those with money and weapons power.

Whoever can pay the most people to work for him can enforce whatever he likes.

 

Therefore a religious organization, even if it isn't coercive can simply pay to get religious rulings, such as Sharia law enforced.

Even if it isn't Islam, is there any doubt that the Catholic Church owns more than enough wealth, to pay for getting things their ways, especially since they could be sure, once they get things their ways they can squeeze their "investment" back out of the people.

 

Does anyone honestly believe, the estimated $170 billion spent by the catholic church per year in the US alone, which is equal to what Apple or GM make worldwide, could be overcome by a bunch of poor people who just want to live in peace?

Does anyone believe, once religions are no longer bound by a constitution that prevents them from political power, they wouldn't funnel their money power into gaining political power?

 

TODAY churches have no coercive power, in a free society, be sure they would get just that.

 

"To me it seems, a free society is actually free only to those with money and weapons power.

Whoever can pay the most people to work for him can enforce whatever he likes."

 

If you define freedom as being left alone to make the rules as you go i.e. arbitrarily, that matches my definition of a coercive government.

 

But clearly coercion and freedom are opposites.

 

Do you at least agree that conflating freedom and coercion doesn't make sense? We should at least agree that in principle the two are their opposites. Maybe then we can start again.

 

If some criminal comes along and calls rape consensual sex, it doesn't change the true definition of rape, right? This is what has happened in the current system. Law breakers were not prosecuted and then started referring to their gains as legitimate i.e. they claim to be leaders of 'free enterprise', 'champions of 'laissez-faire' and of 'free markets' and advocates of 'privatization'.  But they are using these terms fraudulently. They are operating under market principles which are the antithesis of these terms. And this fraud doesn't(or shouldn't, in the minds of the consumer) alter the original definitions.

 

Just because you stop playing according to the rules of the game doesn't necessarily mean there was something wrong with the rules. You broke the rules, you should leave the field of play. Go and start a game which you have created.... and recruit your own players through voluntary means.

 

If you stop playing according to the rules of Minarchism i.e. if you commit theft or violence, you get prosecuted. If you don't get prosecuted, is the system broken? Or have the players failed to act(via their appointed referee)? Of course the rule breaker is going to prefer to make up his own rules as he goes along.... if he is permitted to do so. The game of Minarchism necessarily includes begin vigilant over the referee. If he tries to make rules which go beyond the two originally agreed to, he no longer represents the players and he should comply or leave the game.

 

Crony capitalists have acquired a special pass.... it was handed to them by the ref.... and the players did nothing. Because they failed to act according to the rules of the game. The less the ref has to do the easier, quicker and cheaper it is to a) recognize when he crosses the line, and b) to correct the problem.

 

Saying that freedom will always devolve into coercion is like saying players in a game shouldn't play a part in keeping the referee in check.

 

I thought that is what Jefferson meant when he said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

"Therefore a religious organization, even if it isn't coercive can simply pay to get religious rulings, such as Sharia law enforced."

 

And the players should do exactly nothing when the ref starts turning a blind eye and handing out special favours? This is the crucial aspect.... individual responsibility.

 

Think back and tell me who it was who told you you wouldn't have to take individual responsibility for keeping the scope of the state limited? They betrayed you. You don't have a right to make someone else limit the state. Nobody does. It is not something money can buy. This of course has to be agreed upon first, before it can come into existence. It's a principle to live by, largely unique to Minarchism.

 

Consumers are not going to like this one bit. It's a hard sell.

 

"Even if it isn't Islam, is there any doubt that the Catholic Church owns more than enough wealth, to pay for getting things their ways, especially since they could be sure, once they get things their ways they can squeeze their "investment" back out of the people."

 

Owns: present tense. You are talking about an Interventionist society, here. Not a free society,

 

"Does anyone honestly believe, the estimated $170 billion spent by the catholic church per year in the US alone, which is equal to what Apple or GM make worldwide, could be overcome by a bunch of poor people who just want to live in peace?"

 

I certainly don't.... poor people cannot be relied upon to scrutinize political track records. To keep a state in check. That is really what designates a condition of poverty. People are unable to determine their own futures... because they live under a system characterized by coercion. No the ball is in the hands of the middle class. Theirs is this sliver of an opportunity we have remaining. The poor people - if they weren't so busy living hand to mouth would know their future lies in the hands of the middle class. If you want to know what chance the poor have, look at what chance the middle class has. In an Interventionist system they - the middle class - have a target on their backs. As Mises said, middle of the road policies always lead to Socialism.

 

"Does anyone believe, once religions are no longer bound by a constitution that prevents them from political power, they wouldn't funnel their money power into gaining political power?"

 

In a free society it would require a change to the role of the players and the job description of the referee. If both parties failed to fulfill their role, then it wouldn't mean the system broke it would mean the players and the ref stopped playing the game and decided to do something else.

 

In a free society, having a lot of money is not sufficient to secure a transaction. You need the other parties consent. With property owned legitimately, there is no problem if the transaction goes ahead. If there is, please point it out (WITHOUT referring to an Interventionist system).

 

"TODAY churches have no coercive power, in a free society, be sure they would get just that."

 

Again, you are conflating the meaning of two opposites. If you use the terms according to their dictionary definitions you can't go wrong. Why would you choose to use the vocab of authoritarians and cronies over honest people?

It strikes me that people like very much to be lied to, as long as they feel good along the way.  Nothing new under the sun (well, okay, the internet is a big one).  I'm picturing the snake oil salesman with his wagon and horse, working frontier society.  Even with the net, a lot of snake oil variants get sold.

'Like' is too strong a word in my opinion, AccuTron. I prefer 'Prefer'.

 

They prefer an easy way out which doesn't bring about bad consequences.... hear no evil see no evil is a good enough approach for them. If they were reminded of the consequences by most people they rub shoulders with.... they would choose a different course of action.

 

In a free society, consumers have the law on their side when it comes to fraud (which is a form of theft). But apart from that they are free to collaborate with other consumers to find a willing supplier at an agreeable price and at an agreeable quality.

[jimmo100]

I don't think anyone here would suggest that you can't make extraordinary claims, with or without evidence. I don't think the NAP is at issue here. My view is that belief in extraordinary claims in the absence of evidence, or contrary to reason and evidence, may not violate the NAP but it says a lot about the person who holds these beliefs. In assessing people with limited time and information, as we all must do on a daily basis, such irrational belief is a significant piece of information that can't be denied.

jughead,

 

I agree with the sentiments you express. I hope you prove correct in your assessment of no-one here insisting coersion is required to ensure certain thoughts are not thought.

 

A free market in ideas is, for me, the ideal and a pre-requisite to liberty. Actions on the other hand, should of course be limited, legally, as per the many posts above.

 

p.s. Did you know prominent atheist Sam Harris called for an end to all religion? To me that simply sounds like a call for an end to the freedom to think for one's self. Do a search and note the complete lack of distinction between coercive and non-coercive religion. That I find pretty alarming, considering the size of his following.

[Will Torbald]

p.s. Did you know prominent atheist Sam Harris called for an end to all religion? To me that simply sounds like a call for an end to the freedom to think for one's self.

 

I find this alarming, as it assumes that religion has thought in it at all. How do you even reconcile this contradiction? It is impossible to think and be religious at the same time.

[jimmo100]

I find this alarming, as it assumes that religion has thought in it at all. How do you even reconcile this contradiction? It is impossible to think and be religious at the same time.

Will,

 

The freedom to think includes the freedom not to think.... at least not any more than it takes to respect private property.

 

What is your beef if your property rights are not violated? I think I could hazard a guess and say it is not out of altruistic concern for the thoughtless. But if not, then why not let them pay the price for their own folly? What have you got to lose? Let them knock themselves out if that is what they want to do.

[Donnadogsoth]

Will,

 

The freedom to think includes the freedom not to think.... at least not any more than it takes to respect private property.

 

What is your beef if your property rights are not violated? I think I could hazard a guess and say it is not out of altruistic concern for the thoughtless. But if not, then why not let them pay the price for their own folly? What have you got to lose? Let them knock themselves out if that is what they want to do.

 

Will Torbald is alluding to something that I have spoken about previously:  the need for a culture to go along with freedom.  Freedom without culture to restrain and mould it is mere license.  Will thinks this culture should include the abolition of religion.  He's wrong, remove religion and there will be catastrophe, as we see in the decadent West with its suicidal birthrates, particularly in the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden which are compounding their destruction with unlimited alien (and alien religious) immigration.  What is needed is what I have termed the ligamental principle, to bind populations together in solidarity that will form the basis for their interactions beyond the mere "I won't hurt you/you won't hurt me" premise of the NAP.

[Will Torbald]

Will,

 

The freedom to think includes the freedom not to think.... at least not any more than it takes to respect private property.

 

What is your beef if your property rights are not violated? I think I could hazard a guess and say it is not out of altruistic concern for the thoughtless. But if not, then why not let them pay the price for their own folly? What have you got to lose? Let them knock themselves out if that is what they want to do.

 

The kind of "end of religion" Harris advocates is not the forceful end you might think. No one is sending a swat team into a church, but it's the end of thinking religiously. There simply is no reason to be religious except for indoctrination. There is no such thing as "the thoughtless", only the deceived and the deceivers.

[Thomasio]

Do you at least agree that conflating freedom and coercion doesn't make sense? We should at least agree that in principle the two are their opposites. Maybe then we can start again.

 

Of course I agree, I just believe, if you abolish the currently only institution that enforces the current law, you will not automatically get better laws.

You will get a short moment of freedom during which money power will decide who owns what.

Directly after that has been settled 100s of millions of poor people, who own no property nor have any money, starving and desparate for any kind of job, will get hired by those who managed to grab some property and have money leftover.

This structure, of super rich individuals, having 100s of 1000s people under their control by the plain fact that without the rich on top they would be starving, gives these super rich ones the power to make the poor vote for whatever they want them to vote for and enforce whatever law they want them to enforce.

 

The Catholic Church or better their strawmen surely will be among the top of the list, especially because all the believers will even volunteer to help them and that means, you'll get after a VERY SHORT period of your desired freedom a religious dictatorship.

The only thing that might prevent that, would be someone like the Koch brothers getting hold of the nukes and THAT I believe would come out even worse.

[jimmo100]

Of course I agree, I just believe, if you abolish the currently only institution that enforces the current law, you will not automatically get better laws.

You will get a short moment of freedom during which money power will decide who owns what.

Directly after that has been settled 100s of millions of poor people, who own no property nor have any money, starving and desparate for any kind of job, will get hired by those who managed to grab some property and have money leftover.

This structure, of super rich individuals, having 100s of 1000s people under their control by the plain fact that without the rich on top they would be starving, gives these super rich ones the power to make the poor vote for whatever they want them to vote for and enforce whatever law they want them to enforce.

 

The Catholic Church or better their strawmen surely will be among the top of the list, especially because all the believers will even volunteer to help them and that means, you'll get after a VERY SHORT period of your desired freedom a religious dictatorship.

The only thing that might prevent that, would be someone like the Koch brothers getting hold of the nukes and THAT I believe would come out even worse.

I believe what you are trying to say is that individuals will never reclaim the pre-required individual responsibility. And that because they failed before, it must prove they will always fail.

[Thomasio]

I believe what you are trying to say is that individuals will never reclaim the pre-required individual responsibility. And that because they failed before, it must prove they will always fail.

 

What I'm trying to say is, IFFFF I understood correct, how you want to switch from our current system to a free society, you will not get what you dream of.

As long as you keep the money in the hands it is in right now, you preset the stage for what will happen after that money is free to do whatever its owners like to do.

The only way to a truly free society would be if you make an ABSOLUTE clean cut of EVERYTHING on EVERYONE.

Declare ALL money worthless, declare ALL property ownerless, down to every single piece of bread you have in your household.

Declare ALL business ownerless, all shares of stock worthless and make that WORLDwide.

 

Not sure how you would get from there to decide who obtains ownership of something, without civil war combatting for property, but suppose you could find a fair way, where the diligent become the owners of something and the lazy remain poor.

 

THEN you may get to a level where individual responsibility will be worth something.

 

But I doubt, even you wouldn't want THAT kind of complete cut for a start.

[jimmo100]

 

jimmo100, on 30 Dec 2015 - 9:49 PM, said:

Will,

 

The freedom to think includes the freedom not to think.... at least not any more than it takes to respect private property.

 

What is your beef if your property rights are not violated? I think I could hazard a guess and say it is not out of altruistic concern for the thoughtless. But if not, then why not let them pay the price for their own folly? What have you got to lose? Let them knock themselves out if that is what they want to do.

 

The kind of "end of religion" Harris advocates is not the forceful end you might think. No one is sending a swat team into a church, but it's the end of thinking religiously. There simply is no reason to be religious except for indoctrination. There is no such thing as "the thoughtless", only the deceived and the deceivers.

 

The real question is, "Does he believe it is a person's right to be wrong about some belief they hold, even if the holder remains law-abiding?"

 

And the answer is, "No, he doesn't."

 

I think it's safe to say Sam Harris is an advocate of increasing interventionism. Which means he opposes individual liberty. Scrutinizing his position relating to individuals bearing responsibility for their bad choices, it becomes evident to all who still maintain a critical eye.

 

Sam Harris, on the founding fathers:  "Even if the [Founding Fathers] were as religious or deranged by their religiosity as the Taliban, their beliefs now are illegitimate."

 

Just when you think he might be talking specifically about their religious beliefs which had nothing to do with the constitution, he says...

 

"I'm not eager to monkey with the Constitution. It has to happen at the level of popular, grassroots expectations of what it means to be a rational, well-educated human being."

 

So in other words, someone has to monkey with the constitution. And it would be better if it was monkeyed-with at a grass-roots level.

 

I say he is a fake. He claims to be pro-rationalism and being reasonable but he considers the values of the founders and the constitution itself to be irrational. The constitution is essentially an attempt at limiting government powers. The guy is pretending to have mankind's best interests at heart but it's pretty clear he would like to remove limits to government power.

 

What's the bet there are already astro-turf movements afoot or in the pipeline, using crony-corporate funding to target the youth with anti-constitutional propaganda.

[Donnadogsoth]

The real question is, "Does he believe it is a person's right to be wrong about some belief they hold, even if the holder remains law-abiding?"

 

And the answer is, "No, he doesn't."

 

I think it's safe to say Sam Harris is an advocate of increasing interventionism. Which means he opposes individual liberty. Scrutinizing his position relating to individuals bearing responsibility for their bad choices, it becomes evident to all who still maintain a critical eye.

 

Sam Harris, on the founding fathers:  "Even if the [Founding Fathers] were as religious or deranged by their religiosity as the Taliban, their beliefs now are illegitimate."

 

Just when you think he might be talking specifically about their religious beliefs which had nothing to do with the constitution, he says...

 

"I'm not eager to monkey with the Constitution. It has to happen at the level of popular, grassroots expectations of what it means to be a rational, well-educated human being."

 

So in other words, someone has to monkey with the constitution. And it would be better if it was monkeyed-with at a grass-roots level.

 

I say he is a fake. He claims to be pro-rationalism and being reasonable but he considers the values of the founders and the constitution itself to be irrational. The constitution is essentially an attempt at limiting government powers. The guy is pretending to have mankind's best interests at heart but it's pretty clear he would like to remove limits to government power.

 

What's the bet there are already astro-turf movements afoot or in the pipeline, using crony-corporate funding to target the youth with anti-constitutional propaganda.

 

Kind of like how the oligarchy quietly tolerates the growth of anarcho-capitalism, in the secure knowledge it atomises the population and disengages them from political participation?

[jimmo100]

Kind of like how the oligarchy quietly tolerates the growth of anarcho-capitalism, in the secure knowledge it atomises the population and disengages them from political participation?

 

Donnadogsoth, what you say here may or may not be true but I'm not sure I get how your reply relates/might relate to what I said.

 

Would you mind elaborating on how it might relate, first?

 

When you say 'Kind of like'.... can you point out the likeness?

[jimmo100]

What I'm trying to say is, IFFFF I understood correct, how you want to switch from our current system to a free society, you will not get what you dream of.

As long as you keep the money in the hands it is in right now, you preset the stage for what will happen after that money is free to do whatever its owners like to do.

The only way to a truly free society would be if you make an ABSOLUTE clean cut of EVERYTHING on EVERYONE.

Declare ALL money worthless, declare ALL property ownerless, down to every single piece of bread you have in your household.

Declare ALL business ownerless, all shares of stock worthless and make that WORLDwide.

 

Not sure how you would get from there to decide who obtains ownership of something, without civil war combatting for property, but suppose you could find a fair way, where the diligent become the owners of something and the lazy remain poor.

 

THEN you may get to a level where individual responsibility will be worth something.

 

But I doubt, even you wouldn't want THAT kind of complete cut for a start.

 

 

No, I think the switch must, above all, be a bottom-up, rather than a top-down affair. That is to say individuals must opt back in to limiting powers of government. Your narrative pre-supposes I want to use political power to change things. I want less political power to be available to individuals, with the NAP forming the entirety of the scope of political power. You are correct in that distortions in wealth, brought on by increases of political power, would not vanish overnight.

 

BUT.... the only way to maintain those distortions, *would* vanish 'overnight' (I use that term figuratively. Although there is nothing which prevents it from being literal, the shrinkage would have to occur literally overnight, too).

 

I think it would have to be a grass-roots awakening.... as opposed to a top-down - which would include astro-turfing - affair.

[Donnadogsoth]

Donnadogsoth, what you say here may or may not be true but I'm not sure I get how your reply relates/might relate to what I said.

 

Would you mind elaborating on how it might relate, first?

 

When you say 'Kind of like'.... can you point out the likeness?

 

I'm suggesting that the oligarchy is smart and sees ways to derail movements towards freedom, such as

 

"What's the bet there are already astro-turf movements afoot or in the pipeline, using crony-corporate funding to target the youth with anti-constitutional propaganda."

 

Sorry if I derailed your thread, my comment seemed in the ballpark.

[jimmo100]

I'm suggesting that the oligarchy is smart and sees ways to derail movements towards freedom, such as

 

"What's the bet there are already astro-turf movements afoot or in the pipeline, using crony-corporate funding to target the youth with anti-constitutional propaganda."

 

Sorry if I derailed your thread, my comment seemed in the ballpark.

No problem.

 

I agree that they have honed their perception so as to be finely tuned to any serious potential threat arising from freedom movements.

 

They seem very adept at handling blunt instruments. Their perception is so finely tuned it's hard to reconcile it with the notion that 'you only live once'. It's so finely-tuned it seems as though they must have been at it for lifetimes.

 

It's certainly well beyond the suspicion of most freedom fighters. And the elite's successful record speaks for itself.... but for a few blips on the radar, it(deflecting attention away from their methods) appears to have been child's play.

 

On the other hand, who knows where we'd be now were it not for concerted efforts towards the preservation of liberty in the past. Seems 60-70 years of something vastly different to anything the world remembers had a huge impact in the world. I won't say all good. A free market is essentially a wealth-generating tool. The wealth generated can be used for constructive or destructive ends. If you generate a lot of wealth and then promptly fall asleep in front of that enticingly comforting fire i.e. the state, one shouldn't be surprised if one's house burns down.

 

One thing a free market can never do is generate sufficient wealth to render the individual responsibility of a self-proclaimed liberty-advocate i.e. to remain vigilant, unnecessary.