Topic: A Way To Be Free - Robert LeFevre - page 3. (Read 6889 times)

Quote from: hazek on May 31, 2012, 04:46:05 PM

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary. What would that be?

Those who value the services can pay for them. If the services deliver value, they will be funded. If they don't, they won't be.

You keep telling us about all these people who want a state so that it can force them to do what is "good" for them. Surely they will voluntarily pay for it?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:42:48 PM

Quote from: hazek on May 31, 2012, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:42:48 PM

What would that be?

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts. That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same. You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.

You truly are hopeless, I'm done with you.

Whenever the weakness of your own position is pointed out, you announce "slave I am done with you"

lol

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: hazek on May 31, 2012, 04:36:22 PM

Quote from: hazek on May 31, 2012, 04:36:22 PM

What would that be?

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts. That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same. You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.

You truly are hopeless, I'm done with you.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

What would that be?

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

You can't have a market regulated by consumers as you need legal enforcement of contracts. That means a state with a court system and a system of contract law.

Criminal law has to be the same for everyone and there can't be a way to opt out of it or so renegotiate it.

Property law for things like inheritance and divorce is much the same. You can't have one person saying he is a Muslim and that his wife gets nothing in a divorce while his wife says he wants 50% of the family assets.

None of this can be done efficiently by voluntary contract.

N12

donator

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1010

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

I’m with Hawker. Since humans are animals, violence, theft and even rape is inherent.

I cannot imagine privatized law, justice and execution not ending in terrible disasters caused by faulty incentives (it’s all about who pays best).

The only thing that would change my mind is an anarchist society that actually ends up being prosperous and peaceful. And of course doesn’t collapse within years because a state forms. This has never happened in history, so the burden is on the anarchists to show it can work and most importantly, be sustained.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ribuck on May 31, 2012, 04:33:25 PM

What would that be?

Like any other service provided by a market regulated strictly by market consumers (i.e. a free market): A voluntary contract.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:32:25 PM

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

Of course! But even in those countries, there is a common source of funding for the legislature, administration and judiciary: taxation.

Removing forceful taxation from the equation would add a further check (because those bodies would not be able to grow larger than the size the population wishes to fund), and would improve the balance (by changing it from a three-way to a four-way split of power: legislature, administration, judiciary, and citizens).

Remove taxation and you have to find another way to pay for your legislature, your administration and judiciary. What would that be?

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: hazek on May 31, 2012, 04:30:01 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:29:00 PM

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there. Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals. That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation? Roll Eyes

Let me break your statement down so you'll better see it: "If people are organized in an institution with checks and balances then they are better protected from their on individual weaknesses."

Its a statement that institutions that have checks and balances are better suited to the environment of human society and so do better.

And what is this statement if not one of causation? Roll Eyes

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1039

Quote from: hazek on May 31, 2012, 04:30:01 PM

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

Of course! But even in those countries, there is a common source of funding for the legislature, administration and judiciary: taxation.

Removing forceful taxation from the equation would add a further check (because those bodies would not be able to grow larger than the size the population wishes to fund), and would improve the balance (by changing it from a three-way to a four-way split of power: legislature, administration, judiciary, and citizens).

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:29:00 PM

Quote from: Hawker on May 31, 2012, 04:29:00 PM

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there. Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals. That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation? Roll Eyes

Its a statement that institutions that have checks and balances are better suited to the environment of human society and so do better.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

So you wont say I didn't show any evidence.. ^ is a perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly: correlation does not equal causation http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

Actually the failure is yours there. Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals. That is not a statement of causation.

No? What is it then if not a statement of causation? Roll Eyes

Let me break your statement down so you'll better see it: "If people are organized in an institution with checks and balances then they are better protected from their on individual weaknesses."

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

A perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly, correlation does not equal causation.

Actually the failure is yours there. Institutions with checks and balances are better protected from the weaknesses of individuals.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

So you wont say I didn't show any evidence.. ^ is a perfect example of how you don't know how to think logically correctly: correlation does not equal causation http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

I think the difference between us is that I have a far lower opinion of my fellowman than you.

I've often noticed that apologists for the state have low opinions of their fellowmen. Contempt, even.

The old saying of "it takes one to know one" springs to mind.

Those who cherish freedom and voluntaryism, on the other hand, tend to respect their fellowmen and can see the great potential of human nature if unchained.

There is a reason why countries with institutions that have checks and balances do better than ones that offer absolute power Tongue

ribuck

donator

Activity: 826

Merit: 1039