Topic: "Book club" - page 4. (Read 6482 times)

This merry-go-round again? We've covered this. My arguments haven't changed. Go back and read 'em.

If nothing else, then there is always charity. You may (and probably will) argue that that is still socialized, and you're right. But they voluntarily agree to pay the bills of those who are unable to, and that is an important distinction.

So if he can't pay who's paying? In emergency rooms they don't check really for insurance, they treat you. If you don't have insurance and can't pay then the cost will be passed to the rest of society. I.e. it's socialized.

You avoid the question.  If Joe has no defence agency, there is no restriction on Tannahelp killing him is there?  They won't be investigated, let alone punished.

Deliberately distorting it then. Thanks for your honesty.

If he has no Defense agency, he is still capable of signing the same agreements to arbitrate with the other agencies as they are, he's just on his own for defense. Those who refuse protection would most likely be the "survivalist" types, and be armed to the teeth anyway.


Me? I don't run an ambulance service. But if I did, I'd find it hard to collect if my patients died while waiting for insurance to clear, so I would focus on keeping them alive first, and worry about payment later. Thus the use of the word "bill", as in "bill me later"

Are you gonna ask a critically injured person -  do you have money? Or save him first?

I've understood it fine. 

If Joe has no defence agency, he can be killed.  I take it you are agreed on that?

As I suspected, you misunderstand the position, or are deliberately distorting it. Read the chapter again, paying special attention to the section (which is 4 paragraphs long) which begins "But wars are very expensive,"

We start with "Government is an agency of legitimized coercion."

We come to Joe being accused of stealing a TV.  Tannahelp, the security company, tells him to surrender himself or they will take him by force.  Joe has his own defence company.  The dispute goes to arbitration and he loses.  Tannahelp, the security company, at this point is an agency of legitimized coercion; it has the authority to take back the TV and to punish Joe.  

In effect, Joe has a new government called Tannahelp, hasn't he?  

Anyway they decided to kill him.  Joe's agency, Dawn Defense, may object that this is too severe.  He may have paid them to make sure that no-one ever has the right to kill him.
In this case, "If, by some chance, the customers of the two agencies feel equally strongly, perhaps two courts will be chosen, one of each kind, and cases allocated randomly between them."

On other words, its a random chance whether or not Joe gets killed by his new government despite his explicitly entering a contract that said he was not to be killed.

So, these private companies can arrest and kill you merely on suspicion if you don't have a security company.
If you do have a security company, its random chance whether or not you get what you paid for.
If you lose at arbitration, you lose everything.  You can be killed if the arbitration company selected by your new government allows that.

You think all that is OK?

I said I found nothing to disagree with regarding the system of market law described therein, did I not?

I have just skimmed the chapter again, to be sure, and I saw no sentence that I disagreed with. I may have missed one, but I doubt it.

One thing I did notice, that I dislike, is that he uses the word "court" when referring to private law. He makes it clear what he is discussing upfront, but though I would prefer he use "arbiter", he can be forgiven not using a new term when speaking to an uninitiated audience.

And you agree with that chapter?  Or is it only some sentences in that chapter that you think are ok?

Yes, I have. The chapter I am speaking of is "Police, Courts, and Laws - on the Market".

You haven't answered the question.  Have you read the book?  Tell me what chapter you are talking about.

I found nothing to disagree with in the system of Market law described in the book. Either you misunderstand my position, his position, or both. I suspect the latter.

But you don't agree with the description of market law.  What you describe and what he describe are very different.

Have you actually read the book? 

I proposed it mostly for the description of market law. Perhaps you would like another book to read? I can suggest one much closer to my own views, if you like.

You don't agree with its central premise that the NAP is bunk or that a state is needed.  Apart from agreeing that racial discrimination should be legalised again, I can't see what you agree with in that book.

I don't agree with all of it. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

So its a good book but you don't agree with it? 

lol fine. 

Because I can respect a man's position, even if I disagree with him. Also, a moderate position is a better introduction than an extreme one.

Ouch!