The video was just funny. An old woman making jokes no matter how bad is funny.
Anyway I just read a post about blah blah blah libertarians are stupid they want organized crime.
Um no they actually dont. They actually are for the opposite. They arent anarchists because they approve of a government to protect ALL citizens from any coercion or force inside or outside of the country (this includes protecting the individuals from the government as well).
No organized crime and no "government"
Topic: 10 top reasons why organised crime would be better than the State (Read 3584 times)
July 08, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
"Oh, it actually works fine, were not for foreign interference." I got the same argument from discussion with orthodox Communists and other -ists as a last resort explanation why their utopia turned to nightmare. I find this argument void. External influence is unavoidable fact and no amount of dreaming will get rid of it. If the society is not cohesive enough to resist it, then sorry, it won't.
You're making the assumption that society can't be "cohesive" without a government extorting people. Seems to me that Afghanistan has fought off invasions for centuries against outsiders without having a central government.
Just that IF society (anarchist or otherwise) cannot handle outside influence, then its BS.
Governments can be very different, not all are violent oppressors and on small scale most types of ideology actually perform better. Perhaps the solution is many small "countries" of 1000 people and a military alliance - whatever the solution, its likely not Russia/Somalia.
If you have a real solution besides anarchy, please do tell.
July 08, 2012, 12:44:57 PM
"Oh, it actually works fine, were not for foreign interference." I got the same argument from discussion with orthodox Communists and other -ists as a last resort explanation why their utopia turned to nightmare. I find this argument void. External influence is unavoidable fact and no amount of dreaming will get rid of it. If the society is not cohesive enough to resist it, then sorry, it won't.
You're making the assumption that society can't be "cohesive" without a government extorting people. Seems to me that Afghanistan has fought off invasions for centuries against outsiders without having a central government.
July 08, 2012, 11:48:09 AM
"Oh, it actually works fine, were not for foreign interference." I got the same argument from discussion with orthodox Communists and other -ists as a last resort explanation why their utopia turned to nightmare. I find this argument void. External influence is unavoidable fact and no amount of dreaming will get rid of it. If the society is not cohesive enough to resist it, then sorry, it won't.
Fair point. It worked fine compared to what they had before.
July 08, 2012, 11:30:27 AM
"Oh, it actually works fine, were not for foreign interference." I got the same argument from discussion with orthodox Communists and other -ists as a last resort explanation why their utopia turned to nightmare. I find this argument void. External influence is unavoidable fact and no amount of dreaming will get rid of it. If the society is not cohesive enough to resist it, then sorry, it won't.
July 08, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
So, it seems to me that ideal libertarian country is Russia because their government mostly emerged from victorious Mafia/KGB faction? Or Somalia?
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
ummm...Somalia is recovering from a UN-imposed warlord called Siad Barre. Things have IMPROVED since they have became anarchist.
Not true. Somalia is being used as a proxy battlefield by its neighbours. When it was just Somali's in anarchy, it worked fine. It still works fine in "Puntland" which is basically a tribal anarchy. But the rest of the country is being ruined by foreign interference.
This is true as well, but Google Siad Barre - he fucked up the country real good with his brand of "scientific Socialism"
Could it be we agree on something?
July 08, 2012, 10:29:22 AM
So, it seems to me that ideal libertarian country is Russia because their government mostly emerged from victorious Mafia/KGB faction? Or Somalia?
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
ummm...Somalia is recovering from a UN-imposed warlord called Siad Barre. Things have IMPROVED since they have became anarchist.
Not true. Somalia is being used as a proxy battlefield by its neighbours. When it was just Somali's in anarchy, it worked fine. It still works fine in "Puntland" which is basically a tribal anarchy. But the rest of the country is being ruined by foreign interference.
This is true as well, but Google Siad Barre - he fucked up the country real good with his brand of "scientific Socialism"
July 08, 2012, 10:25:45 AM
So, it seems to me that ideal libertarian country is Russia because their government mostly emerged from victorious Mafia/KGB faction? Or Somalia?
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
ummm...Somalia is recovering from a UN-imposed warlord called Siad Barre. Things have IMPROVED since they have became anarchist.
Not true. Somalia is being used as a proxy battlefield by its neighbours. When it was just Somali's in anarchy, it worked fine. It still works fine in "Puntland" which is basically a tribal anarchy. But the rest of the country is being ruined by foreign interference.
July 08, 2012, 10:19:00 AM
So, it seems to me that ideal libertarian country is Russia because their government mostly emerged from victorious Mafia/KGB faction? Or Somalia?
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
ummm...Somalia is recovering from a UN-imposed warlord called Siad Barre. Things have IMPROVED since they have became anarchist.
July 08, 2012, 10:13:17 AM
So, it seems to me that ideal libertarian country is Russia because their government mostly emerged from victorious Mafia/KGB faction? Or Somalia?
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
Looking forward for a romantic libertard to move there and blog the joys of living in absolute freedom there...
July 08, 2012, 12:18:29 AM
Cbeast, I apologize - allow me to express my sorrow by sending you 1 bitcoin.
Though your generosity is touching, such a heartfelt expression is apology enough. Bitcoin accepted at the donation address on my weblink are intended for charitable purpose, of course. July 07, 2012, 11:06:28 PM
Cbeast, I apologize - allow me to express my sorrow by sending you 1 bitcoin.
Though your generosity is touching, such a heartfelt expression is apology enough. Bitcoin accepted at the donation address on my weblink are intended for charitable purpose, of course. July 07, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
Cbeast, I apologize - allow me to express my sorrow by sending you 1 bitcoin.
Though your generosity is touching, such a heartfelt expression is apology enough. Bitcoin accepted at the donation address on my weblink are intended for charitable purpose, of course. July 07, 2012, 08:51:56 PM
Cbeast, I apologize - allow me to express my sorrow by sending you 1 bitcoin.
July 07, 2012, 08:40:49 PM
Scanning your history of posts leads me...
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to scan my posts #1 fan.
July 07, 2012, 08:23:10 PM
Scanning your history of posts leads me...
Thank you for taking the time out of your day to scan my posts #1 fan.
July 07, 2012, 07:57:46 PM
Convention of geniuses.
Scanning your history of posts leads me to believe you spent a great deal of time on this one. While it has roughly the same number of sentences as most of your posts (1), it includes two polysyllabic words. Thank you for your input! July 07, 2012, 07:34:49 PM
Convention of geniuses.
July 07, 2012, 07:17:32 PM
The Mafia isn't meaningfully different from the Roman Empire in character, motivation or methods (Italians conducting violence for profit)... and the Roman Empire provided pretty good governance (Northern Europe learned civilization from them).
The reason that 'organized crime' is problematic today is because they have to compete with much stronger national governments... making it a high-risk low-reward game, that attracts the desperate and stupid - the smart people just go into 'legitimate' business and professions. Notice the children of successful mobsters tend to go legit. Also the Mafia's fragile hold on power makes it necessary for them to use brutal and desperate methods - the Mafia can't imprison a person for example, or garnish wages, so their retributions take 'other' forms.
'Rule by the Mafia' is simply absolute monarchy/autocracy and would operate and evolve identically. And monarchy actually worked quite well. Western civilization rose on monarchy, and is in decline under democracy.
That is a very romantic notion of thugs. Monarchy OTOH is a function of feudalistic and perpetual war. I don't see much technological development coming out of feudal nations today or historically. And don't play the NAZI card, their technology was stolen and very limited in scope.The reason that 'organized crime' is problematic today is because they have to compete with much stronger national governments... making it a high-risk low-reward game, that attracts the desperate and stupid - the smart people just go into 'legitimate' business and professions. Notice the children of successful mobsters tend to go legit. Also the Mafia's fragile hold on power makes it necessary for them to use brutal and desperate methods - the Mafia can't imprison a person for example, or garnish wages, so their retributions take 'other' forms.
'Rule by the Mafia' is simply absolute monarchy/autocracy and would operate and evolve identically. And monarchy actually worked quite well. Western civilization rose on monarchy, and is in decline under democracy.
I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
I'm sorry to hear.
Do you think you would feel opposite though if your family member was killed by an American soldier?
July 06, 2012, 01:43:03 PM
I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
I'm sorry to hear.
Do you think you would feel opposite though if your family member was killed by an American soldier?
July 06, 2012, 12:45:57 PM
I get why people are hating on governments, but we seriously need to try to find some solutions, not just abandon all society/civilization.
That's too easy. You can not just defend something by arguying that without it it would be the end of civilization. I just don't agree with this prediction.
Get rid of governments and something else will emerge. Maybe it will be chaos, maybe it will be just another form of government. I don't know. What I know is that I'm so fed up with elected governments that I want to accept the risk of trying something else.
Good plan. North Korean and Syria have skipped the farce of electing governments and its great in every...oh wait, its a bloody nightmare.
July 06, 2012, 10:57:08 AM
I get why people are hating on governments, but we seriously need to try to find some solutions, not just abandon all society/civilization.
That's too easy. You can not just defend something by arguying that without it it would be the end of civilization. I just don't agree with this prediction.
Get rid of governments and something else will emerge. Maybe it will be chaos, maybe it will be just another form of government. I don't know. What I know is that I'm so fed up with elected governments that I want to accept the risk of trying something else.
July 06, 2012, 10:42:08 AM
+10 for Hawker.
I get why people are hating on governments, but we seriously need to try to find some solutions, not just abandon all society/civilization.
I get why people are hating on governments, but we seriously need to try to find some solutions, not just abandon all society/civilization.
July 01, 2012, 03:04:59 PM
More research on David Friedman...
Consider the cost of a rights enforcement agency. In today's system, with a police force, we might have 1,000 officers for a particular geographical region. They cost X dollars.
In Friedman's system, he says we'll have a choice between many agencies. How many? One? That's not a choice. How about five? So for equivalent coverage, that's 5,000 officers. So the cost to the customer is 5X. Wonderful.
Oh, there's an alternative. The rights defense agencies contract with the same 1,000 officers. Paid mercenaries, so to speak. Strange. But at least the cost is down to X again.
Oh, and regarding Friedman's knowledge of the environment, I'm still waiting for it.
Consider the cost of a rights enforcement agency. In today's system, with a police force, we might have 1,000 officers for a particular geographical region. They cost X dollars.
In Friedman's system, he says we'll have a choice between many agencies. How many? One? That's not a choice. How about five? So for equivalent coverage, that's 5,000 officers. So the cost to the customer is 5X. Wonderful.
Oh, there's an alternative. The rights defense agencies contract with the same 1,000 officers. Paid mercenaries, so to speak. Strange. But at least the cost is down to X again.
Oh, and regarding Friedman's knowledge of the environment, I'm still waiting for it.
July 01, 2012, 02:38:13 PM
myrkul has sort of left reality so far behind it isn't really worth it anymore. One day his dream world has arbitration which can't compel attendance. The next day it can. In this thread, he says guys who kidnap, rape and kill girls are preferable to guys who are elected. What's the point in debating that?
You make a fine point. Of course, that point is based on a complete misunderstanding of my case....Perhaps if you did research of the topic on your own instead of just relying on my (admittedly sometimes imperfect) defense of it, you would understand better. Just a few posts up, there's an excellent link, which would be a fine way to spend a small segment of your evening.
I'm doing research on David Friedman. Please show me where his theories factor in environmental issues. I want to see that he has strong knowledge in that field - not just a superficial understanding.
July 01, 2012, 02:26:02 PM
myrkul has sort of left reality so far behind it isn't really worth it anymore. One day his dream world has arbitration which can't compel attendance. The next day it can. In this thread, he says guys who kidnap, rape and kill girls are preferable to guys who are elected. What's the point in debating that?
You make a fine point. Of course, that point is based on a complete misunderstanding of my case....Perhaps if you did research of the topic on your own instead of just relying on my (admittedly sometimes imperfect) defense of it, you would understand better. Just a few posts up, there's an excellent link, which would be a fine way to spend a small segment of your evening.
July 01, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
...snip...
It is how he'd like it. I specifically stated in another thread that NAP would devolve (or evolve) into a mafia like environment. Buying defense and security would be buying protection from a mafia family, and the prices would be high.
It is how he'd like it. I specifically stated in another thread that NAP would devolve (or evolve) into a mafia like environment. Buying defense and security would be buying protection from a mafia family, and the prices would be high.
myrkul has sort of left reality so far behind it isn't really worth it anymore. One day his dream world has arbitration which can't compel attendance. The next day it can. In this thread, he says guys who kidnap, rape and kill girls are preferable to guys who are elected. What's the point in debating that?
July 01, 2012, 02:06:47 PM
Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends. To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.
I agree completely, but again, I think you have mistaken terrorist organizations for organized crime. She was referring to this organization, and ones like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia
Yes. When I lived in Boston, all the coin machines in bars came from one mafia family, the Bulgers. I'm told another Italian family owned the right to dispose of trash. If you wanted to compete, you would have to kill them. If they disapproved of you, they would kidnap and kill you. Whitey Bulger is on trial for the death of a girl who was raped and strangled. Before that, for years, one of his enforcers "owned" the girl and her mother and had been having his way with her since her puberty.
That's honourable? That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?
It is how he'd like it. I specifically stated in another thread that NAP would devolve (or evolve) into a mafia like environment. Buying defense and security would be buying protection from a mafia family, and the prices would be high.
June 29, 2012, 05:34:17 PM
If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#
This is getting cross-posted in the other threads. If you doubt the fairness of NAP and market anarchy, This will be a good use of 23 of your minutes.
June 29, 2012, 05:16:31 PM
I suggest you run for election. You may be surprised to find that even the people you totally disagree with are decent guys who want to make the world a better place.
Be that as it may, forcing their decisions on other people is not the way to do it....
Quote from: C. S. Lewis
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
June 29, 2012, 04:57:17 PM
So you feel that being controlled by people who kidnap, rape and murder of a girl is better than a system where you elect a government. How does that fit your posts about the NAP?
But I did not elect the government we have now, the vast majority of government employees are not elected, anyway, and if you think government does not kidnap, and murder, and if not actively participate, then at least turn a blind eye to rape, to say nothing of torture, then you are more naive than you think I am.
I suggest you run for election. You may be surprised to find that even the people you totally disagree with are decent guys who want to make the world a better place.
June 29, 2012, 01:58:01 PM
I was expecting more compelling reasons, funny nonetheless
If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#
Relevant part, Right enforcement agencies : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o&feature=player_detailpage#t=183s
If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#
Relevant part, Right enforcement agencies : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o&feature=player_detailpage#t=183s
June 29, 2012, 12:56:10 PM
So you feel that being controlled by people who kidnap, rape and murder of a girl is better than a system where you elect a government. How does that fit your posts about the NAP?
But I did not elect the government we have now, the vast majority of government employees are not elected, anyway, and if you think government does not kidnap, and murder, and if not actively participate, then at least turn a blind eye to rape, to say nothing of torture, then you are more naive than you think I am.
June 29, 2012, 09:50:58 AM
If you think kidnap, rape and murder are less intrusive than traffic rules, you have a funny sense of "style"
I may have a romantic idea of organised crime, but to me it is much more about racket, drug traffic and proxenetism.
By comparaison, state is about racket (taxes), sequestration (jail) and endoctrination (schools and publicly financed medias).
June 29, 2012, 09:48:17 AM
That's honourable? That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?
Didn't say it was the preferred way of doing things, just that it is better than the system we have now. I also didn't say they were nice people, but at least they're honest about it. I believe I've thoroughly discussed the method I would prefer.
I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
I'm sorry to hear that. What happened to the rogue cartel member? Was he brought to justice?
So you feel that being controlled by people who kidnap, rape and murder of a girl is better than a system where you elect a government. How does that fit your posts about the NAP?
June 29, 2012, 09:45:27 AM
First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.
I think you missed the point of the old lady.
In a nuttshell: it's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of style.
Even when a mafia war ends up with a unique winner, it doesn't have to necessarly end up with a bureaucratic, private life intrusive government. The lady speaker was not bashing the uniqueness of the government, but what it does and how it does it.
If you think kidnap, rape and murder are less intrusive than traffic rules, you have a funny sense of "style"
June 29, 2012, 08:27:00 AM
First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.
I think you missed the point of the old lady.
In a nuttshell: it's not a matter of scale, it's a matter of style.
Even when a mafia war ends up with a unique winner, it doesn't have to necessarly end up with a bureaucratic, private life intrusive government. The lady speaker was not bashing the uniqueness of the government, but what it does and how it does it.
June 29, 2012, 07:54:35 AM
I'm sorry to hear that. What happened to the rogue cartel member? Was he brought to justice?
No. The crime was cleaned up by the police. The evidence was destroyed. The cartel takes care of its own, even the rogue ones. June 29, 2012, 06:38:18 AM
That's honourable? That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?
Didn't say it was the preferred way of doing things, just that it is better than the system we have now. I also didn't say they were nice people, but at least they're honest about it. I believe I've thoroughly discussed the method I would prefer.
I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
I'm sorry to hear that. What happened to the rogue cartel member? Was he brought to justice?
June 29, 2012, 06:23:58 AM
I don't. I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.
EDIT: watched it. This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime. 2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.
I think you are confusing organized crime with terrorist organizations.
I know a guy from pakistan who's grandma was kidnapped by some al queda group. They put her in a house and kept her comfortable (she even had a maid) but basically wouldn't let the family see her again until they paid up however many rupees equal around 10k USD. Eventually they just paid rather than have the military go in (it was the cheapest and least dangerous way to resolve the situation).
June 29, 2012, 04:53:54 AM
I find this repulsive. Having a family member murdered by a rogue cartel member because he refused to do their bidding makes me realize more and more that most libertarians are sociopaths.
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
[edit] Present company excepted, of course!
June 29, 2012, 04:42:06 AM
Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends. To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.
I agree completely, but again, I think you have mistaken terrorist organizations for organized crime. She was referring to this organization, and ones like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia
Yes. When I lived in Boston, all the coin machines in bars came from one mafia family, the Bulgers. I'm told another Italian family owned the right to dispose of trash. If you wanted to compete, you would have to kill them. If they disapproved of you, they would kidnap and kill you. Whitey Bulger is on trial for the death of a girl who was raped and strangled. Before that, for years, one of his enforcers "owned" the girl and her mother and had been having his way with her since her puberty.
That's honourable? That's how you would like the country to be run? Really?
Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends. To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.
I agree completely, but again, I think you have mistaken terrorist organizations for organized crime. She was referring to this organization, and ones like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia
Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete. First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.
Exactly.
I don't. I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.
EDIT: watched it. This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime. 2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.
I think you are confusing organized crime with terrorist organizations.
Kidnapping is usually done for profit; not for political ends. To describe the sadists who do that as "honourable" and preferable to an elected government is fatuous.
As I said, their is a theory of law called "command theory" that essentially sees the state as the logical end of gang warfare if there is no pre-existing state. I don't buy it myself as Hart seems to have a fuller description of how states and laws really work.
http://www.lawiki.org/lawwiki/Hart%27s_theory_of_law
I don't. I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.
EDIT: watched it. This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime. 2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.
I think you are confusing organized crime with terrorist organizations.
Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete. First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.
Watch the video. Guarantee it will not be a waste of time. And if this is really your argument, why do you support the states that exist?
I don't. I acknowledge that people always end up with some kind of state and I aim to make sure its as decent as possible.
EDIT: watched it. This poor woman has never dealt with organised crime. 2 weeks chained to a radiator while her home is being sold to pay a ransom and she would have a very different view of their honour, simple rules, desire for you to succeed and all that other crap.
Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete. First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.
Watch the video. Guarantee it will not be a waste of time. And if this is really your argument, why do you support the states that exist?
Not wasting time on the video but its a well known legal theory that the state is what evolves when organised crime syndicates compete. First you have anarchy, then warlords and then one wins and that's your new government.
Maybe you've already seen this video but if not, check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so
Excellent video. I don't know if "better sense of style" is really worthy of number one, though.
Maybe you've already seen this video but if not, check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IErlI34-0so
Jump to: