A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: memvola on June 05, 2012, 03:08:42 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 11:28:05 AM

In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.

One can argue that it works that way, not because Americans are more vigilant, but there isn't any real threat against the regime.

And yet, less "criminals" suffer under the fist of the government in both those countries (in peace time). You think more "good people" suffer under China's regime, and that's why you perceive a contrast. That's an ad hoc judgement and results from how you are raised in the first place. How do you know (or how does the State know) those kinds of offenders should not be killed? What if everyone was okay with it, out of fear or out of being brainwashed by a dream?

I'm not saying the USA is worse or anything like that, but it seems to me that your claim requires you to be neutral in these cases.

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 01:03:35 PM

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state.

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope. The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you. They can come to your house when they like and do as they please. And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court. It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right. If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

This is what I was talking about. The picture you present is also a dream. Seriously, why do you omit a possible transitional period? Why don't you question what could be done to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?

With this attitude, how on Earth can you think Bitcoin could succeed? Look at history. There hasn't been a single currency who survived State monopoly, even gold. Besides, the history of Bitcoin is nothing but a series of thefts and scams.

I do a lot of business in China and I have a friend who was arrested last week. Life for Chinese people who are not Party members is very arbitrary and they don't like it. The ideal of buying your own house and having freedom to do business is not some cultural artefact. People everywhere hate when an official comes along, arrests them and they have to pay to retain their own property.

I accept that I don't see how a transitional period to anarchy would work. Americans seem obsessed with locking up criminals. Take away your legal system and they will be obsessed with lynching criminals. I know you think the system is what makes Americans brutal. I think that its Americans make their own system brutal. You only have to look at Mick Huckabee and Michael Dukakis. 2 decent men whose political careers were terminated because they showed mercy to criminals.

Bitcoin is actually very useful for moving money without needing banks to help you. I don't think it will ever be used to buy drinks in a bar but it will be used to buy yachts and jets and the like.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 11:28:05 AM

In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die.

One can argue that it works that way, not because Americans are more vigilant, but there isn't any real threat against the regime.

And yet, less "criminals" suffer under the fist of the government in both those countries (in peace time). You think more "good people" suffer under China's regime, and that's why you perceive a contrast. That's an ad hoc judgement and results from how you are raised in the first place. How do you know (or how does the State know) those kinds of offenders should not be killed? What if everyone was okay with it, out of fear or out of being brainwashed by a dream?

I'm not saying the USA is worse or anything like that, but it seems to me that your claim requires you to be neutral in these cases.

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 01:03:35 PM

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state.

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope. The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you. They can come to your house when they like and do as they please. And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court. It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right. If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

This is what I was talking about. The picture you present is also a dream. Seriously, why do you omit a possible transitional period? Why don't you question what could be done to prevent those problems from happening in the first place?

With this attitude, how on Earth can you think Bitcoin could succeed? Look at history. There hasn't been a single currency who survived State monopoly, even gold. Besides, the history of Bitcoin is nothing but a series of thefts and scams.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 12:37:17 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 11:28:05 AM

But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.

The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.

Then you need to read it again.

In a proper system, the person who is acting on behalf of the community to enforce order has to follow a law that is made by someone else and has to get permission from a judge. Its called separation of powers.

Imagine you abolish the US government and all forms of the US state.

You still live in a community that thinks it right to stop people smoking dope. The ex-cops, army, FBI and so on are still there but now they no longer need warrants to come after you. They can come to your house when they like and do as they please. And if they decide that you deserve punishment, there won't be a court. It will be done then and there and your punishment will be whatever they think right. If one of them is really against drugs, you may be killed.

Can you see the problem with this? And why having those guys subject to law is better?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 11:28:05 AM

But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.

The two largest problems I see in this post is that the tribalism and theocracy in Somalia represent anarchy instead of just another form of government and that the killing of citizens by law enforcement is the only measure of state violence.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 11:09:54 AM

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 11:03:49 AM

There is this thing called history. It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness. You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes. But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.

So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?

You see that's where reality and daydreams part company. In Syria or China, if you offend the government or a member of an important family, you die. In the US, if you carry out an egregious killing, you may die but first you have 10 or so years of trials and appeals. The reason for that is that the US executive requires authority from its judiciary to kill someone.

I'm sure you have some anecdote about someone who died despite this system. But its a comparative thing - there is a greater chance of being killed by a warlord in Somalia than by the FBI in the US.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 11:03:49 AM

There is this thing called history. It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness. You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes. But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.

So how well does the state model restrain the actions of the government? Just to pick on the the US for the moment, I don't see any effective restraint at all. Agents of the government seem to be able to act with near impunity and have an unimaginable amount of resources at their disposal. Exactly what is being restrained here?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 10:53:22 AM

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 03:56:35 AM

But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion. Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.

How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?

There is this thing called history. It shows that there has never been a society where failure to restrain violence did not result in unpleasantness. You can argue that history is not more than personal experiences and anecdotes. But you can't argue that allowing people have unrestrained power has ever proved a good long term system.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Hawker on June 05, 2012, 03:56:35 AM

But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion. Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want.

How do you know what you are saying is objectively true instead of just being a story?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: justusranvier on June 05, 2012, 12:27:25 AM

Quote from: memvola on June 05, 2012, 12:16:32 AM

(yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here)

Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.

But what you are proposing is more violence and more compulsion. Ideas like the separation of powers were created and implemented to restrain the violence that allowing anyone with power to do what they want. You want to take the restraints away. That is not a strong moral argument.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: memvola on June 05, 2012, 12:16:32 AM

(yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here)

Not at all. The argument against the state is a moral argument, just like the argument against slavery. It is no more necessary for anarchists to predict how a society would function without a state than it was necessary for abolitionists to predict how agriculture would work in the absence of slave labor.

Everybody already accepts that compulsion is wrong when they are on the receiving end of it; the job of the anarchist is to get people to accept that the excuses which are commonly used to justify exceptions to this principle are invalid.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 04, 2012, 10:43:23 PM

You fail to recognize what a society of hiring militias would be like sans police and government intervention. Your only point of reference is what misfortunes might befall you in a world that has police. Sadly, it's the mistake most make here when advocating privatized liberties.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? From the point where I said millions would suffer?

First off, there isn't a prototype human being, or a "human nature" that has more of a say in this matter than the cultural norms. In other words, humans are very programmable. If we have to require them to be vigilant in some manner, why not require them to be vigilant in some other way? So I think the situation is contrary, you're arguing from lack of imagination, merely constructing an image about immediate outcomes of some enforced circumstances. I'm not so confident that a specific approach is better than what you propose as the ultimate solution, but it sure as hell is debatable.

For instance, when nukes were possible but not yet available, even discussing the feasibility of mutually assured destruction must have seemed crazy to most people. Is it counter-intuitive though? I don't think so. It just wasn't common sense. Now it is.

I think the idea is to identify the assumptions we need to make about the society in order for the conclusion to differ from your scenario (yeah, the burden is on the anarchists here). I don't find the "humans are crap" argument very satisfying.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

You fail to recognize what a society of hiring militias would be like sans police and government intervention. Your only point of reference is what misfortunes might befall you in a world that has police. Sadly, it's the mistake most make here when advocating privatized liberties.

memvola

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 02:37:03 PM

The truly dangerous people are the leftist and the religious who put you in the boot of a car and administer their own justice.

Evidently I'm better with the leftist and the religious than the police. Wink

Quote from: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 02:37:03 PM

What I am saying is that we know violence is inevitable but that a police force in a democratic state is a better bet than letting anyone with a money to hire militias and do what they want. I think that is true in countries that are half democratic with police forces that are sort of accountable as well. The better way is to have more democracy and more accountability.

I don't mean to revive the discussion, but since we've already established that the system itself is not enough, I don't see much difference between letting anyone hire militias and your democratic way, other than the fact that we've already paid the price of the latter. If you suddenly opened the floodgates and let people manage their own security, I'm sure the same would happen again, millions would suffer until a more coherent state is reached. That doesn't mean the core idea is bad. If we agree that interdependence and fluidity could be enough for such a solution to work, and that it would indeed be better, then maybe we can also find a way to make a leap without such a destructive path of evolution.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: hashman on June 03, 2012, 01:42:07 PM

...snip...

Yeah let me suggest something better, because I disagree completely. I'm sure you realize the statistics are against your argument. How many people are jailed by mobs? How many are killed by mobs? How many killed or jailed by police / representatives of the state? Do mobs create nuclear weapons, solitary confinement, guantanamo bay, etc etc?

But you are right to look for ideas for improvement rather than criticisms. Some ideas that have had some success around the world:

1) require state/police actions to be monitored and reviewed by peers
2) require patrols to have 1 male / 1 female to help defuse situations
3) maintain a well armed and trained militia
4) maintain procedures / rights such as "innocent until proven guilty" that combat the "people are violent" instincts you outline
5) consider psychological screening and testing for positions which invite abuse
6) eliminate laws such as prohibition which are designed to reward corruption

These things are not easy to maintain. fight the power: freedom requires constant vigilance.

All things we can agree on Cheesy

especially "freedom requires constant vigilance." Without transparency, there is a process called regulatory capture that means every institution ends up being corrupted by the problem it was set up to solve. For example, in the UK, the Department of Education is really the Department of the National Union of Teachers and the Financial Services Authority is really controlled by the banks its meant to regulate.

hashman

legendary

Activity: 1264

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 05:12:18 PM

Quote from: hashman on June 01, 2012, 04:04:30 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 10:41:26 AM

Quote from: hashman on June 01, 2012, 10:02:43 AM

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:42:42 PM

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering Wink

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places.. asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder.. the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links. You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness. It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love. Then what will you do or say?

In the real world, people are violent and that includes police. Police are generally restrained by rules and by law. Mobs are not. Police generally have to get evidence and go to court. Mobs kill on suspicion. For example, mobs riot to get rid of paedophiles and they attack paediatricians. Police don't do that. In my case, some Irish people were jailed for murder after being tortured by British police. Far far more were killed by British mobs. At least the victims of the police were eventually released and paid damages.

So given the choice between a mob and a police force, its obvious that the police force is better. If you don't like that, suggest something even better rather than say the police are not perfect so we have to endure mob law.

Yeah let me suggest something better, because I disagree completely. I'm sure you realize the statistics are against your argument. How many people are jailed by mobs? How many are killed by mobs? How many killed or jailed by police / representatives of the state? Do mobs create nuclear weapons, solitary confinement, guantanamo bay, etc etc?

But you are right to look for ideas for improvement rather than criticisms. Some ideas that have had some success around the world:

1) require state/police actions to be monitored and reviewed by peers
2) require patrols to have 1 male / 1 female to help defuse situations
3) maintain a well armed and trained militia
4) maintain procedures / rights such as "innocent until proven guilty" that combat the "people are violent" instincts you outline
5) consider psychological screening and testing for positions which invite abuse
6) eliminate laws such as prohibition which are designed to reward corruption

These things are not easy to maintain. fight the power: freedom requires constant vigilance.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: hashman on June 01, 2012, 04:04:30 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 10:41:26 AM

Quote from: hashman on June 01, 2012, 10:02:43 AM

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:42:42 PM

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering Wink

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places.. asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder.. the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links. You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness. It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love. Then what will you do or say?

In the real world, people are violent and that includes police. Police are generally restrained by rules and by law. Mobs are not. Police generally have to get evidence and go to court. Mobs kill on suspicion. For example, mobs riot to get rid of paedophiles and they attack paediatricians. Police don't do that. In my case, some Irish people were jailed for murder after being tortured by British police. Far far more were killed by British mobs. At least the victims of the police were eventually released and paid damages.

So given the choice between a mob and a police force, its obvious that the police force is better. If you don't like that, suggest something even better rather than say the police are not perfect so we have to endure mob law.

hashman

legendary

Activity: 1264

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Hawker on June 01, 2012, 10:41:26 AM

Quote from: hashman on June 01, 2012, 10:02:43 AM

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:42:42 PM

...snip...

We are a violent species - any system of government must begin from the reality that individuals will be as violent as you allow them to be and that its laws that restrain us.

So we are a violent species.. therefore we should give unaccountable people weapons and authority to do violence?
The police become necessary in a society in that juncture in the society where there is a division because those who have and those who have not - Malcolm X

Stop pretending that you don't live in a democracy where the police are accountable.

Where I live is irrelevant to the conversation, sorry I asked you but thanks for not answering Wink

Armed and uniformed gang members can get away with quite a bit of corruption and destruction in most places.. asset confiscation, indefinite detention, all the way to torture, murder.. the examples are so endless and daily there is no need to post links. You might want to consider your own health and that of your family before you go supporting that kind of madness. It will seem like somebody else getting the stick and you will find some way to rationalize that they deserve it until it is you or the people you love. Then what will you do or say?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 02:44:11 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 02:36:33 PM

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective.

On further analysis, your statement seems rather sad. Are you saying you can't adhere to what I listed as criteria for convincing argumentation? Please tell me which of those listed above are too difficult to adhere to?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: justusranvier on June 01, 2012, 02:44:11 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 02:36:33 PM

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective. How do I know ahead of time if a logical statement will sound reasonable to you, or if a set of facts comes from an organization that you approve of and avoids anything you consider to be a meme or herd mentality?

I feel like what you're saying is that if I write something that you agree with it you'll accept it and if you don't agree you won't. If that's the case I'm not at all interested in that conversation.

The burden lies with you to be convincing and, since you seem to want to prove something, then the burden further lies with you to prove your arguments.

I suggest you get to proving. If you've got proof, then how could I refute it?

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 01, 2012, 02:36:33 PM

1. Convincing facts, logic, well articulated points which do not cite sham organizations which can be demonstrated to be sham organizations, arguments which avoid memes such as 'Blue suits', arguments which do not sound like herd mentality from the latest libertarian 'think tanks', reasonable extrapolation of data, and a solid acknowledgement of historical cases when proposing ideas.

I was hoping for something a bit less subjective. How do I know ahead of time if a logical statement will sound reasonable to you, or if a set of facts comes from an organization that you approve of and avoids anything you consider to be a meme or herd mentality?

I feel like what you're saying is that if I write something that you agree with it you'll accept it and if you don't agree you won't. If that's the case I'm not at all interested in that conversation.

Topic: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre (Read 6961 times)