"I" do have more experience of domestic abuse than you assume. I happen to know very well the psychological terror and that it is often the victim who is made feel guilty. In the case I witnessed, the offender actually was a state servant, making the victim even be more in despair with feeling helpless and the whole society, the whole world against them.
So of course it's a bit bold to claim that the monopoly of the state has worsened the situation here, but I don't believe it has improved it much either.
"Trained policemen"? Hah, well I think "trained" and empathetic psychologists would be more appropriate in such a situation either way.
"I" am not a libertarian as said, but I believe it's right to question and challenge the philosophical concept of the "state", and to acknowledge that today's forms of living together is just one of many possibilities.
Topic: Do We Need Government? - page 5. (Read 6961 times)
Victims are naturally overwhelmed when they are being mistreated. So I meant "shelter" as the first impulse for them to (hopefully) know they exist and that they can run to.
What happens to the offender then is another question. In a free, anarchic society, he'll at least be ostracized. There'd probably be repuation systems. Today's prison systems are known to be inefficient don't help much to improve on our society. The video has some about that.
What happens to the offender then is another question. In a free, anarchic society, he'll at least be ostracized. There'd probably be repuation systems. Today's prison systems are known to be inefficient don't help much to improve on our society. The video has some about that.
Sorry but you have no experience of domestic abuse. Its often the victim gets ostracised - that's precisely why you need laws in the first place. Victims often fail to testify against their abusers. You need police who have the right training.
The undercurrent here is that in your view, its more important to worry about how we help the victim without the state instead of putting help for the victim front and centre. The best way to help in a domestic violence situation is to have the violent party arrested by the state and the carer of the children given access to barring orders. These are situations where the state is the most appropriate agency and worrying about finding a non-state agency is missing the point.
Victims are naturally overwhelmed when they are being mistreated. So I meant "shelter" as the first impulse for them to (hopefully) know they exist and that they can run to.
What happens to the offender then is another question. In a free, anarchic society, he'll at least be ostracized. There'd probably be repuation systems. Today's prison systems are known to be inefficient don't help much to improve on our society. The video has some about that.
What happens to the offender then is another question. In a free, anarchic society, he'll at least be ostracized. There'd probably be repuation systems. Today's prison systems are known to be inefficient don't help much to improve on our society. The video has some about that.
Except that in other countries, the woman can legally be beaten by her husband and can't even request a divorce on the grounds of physical abuse...
well i've heard society isn't that patriarchic anymore in the 21st century, and women can very well choose their own security firms.
You heard wrong. There are lots of weirdos and control freaks out there.
There'll be places the weak and abused can go. Those don't have necessarily to be security firms. Humans are good, many do voluntary service. Especially when they don't have to pay 90% of their earnings for income taxes, sales and other taxes. So there'll be shelters.
That's not one of the problems I see with libertarianism.
That's not one of the problems I see with libertarianism.
So as the security firm drives off and the beating resumes, the woman will have the satisfaction of knowing that human beings are good and that she can move to a shelter. You think that hats so much preferable to the present situation where the oppressive state arrests the man, do you?
There'll be places the weak and abused can go. Those don't have necessarily to be security firms. Humans are good, many do voluntary service. Especially when they don't have to pay 90% of their earnings for income taxes, sales and other taxes. So there'll be shelters.
That's not one of the problems I see with libertarianism.
That's not one of the problems I see with libertarianism.
well i've heard society isn't that patriarchic anymore in the 21st century, and women can very well choose their own security firms.
You heard wrong. There are lots of weirdos and control freaks out there.
well i've heard society isn't that patriarchic anymore in the 21st century, and women can very well choose their own security firms.
The private security thing always amuses me. Man is beating his wife; she calls the security firm and he yells "Your contract is with me - piss off or you are all fired!" and resumes beating his wife.
Even if you believe big government = corrupt gov.
Some government is needed to maintain some sort of organization and order.
Some government is needed to maintain some sort of organization and order.
yep, "small" government for a "small" military to "defend" against those pesky non-libertarian neighbors. 
Yes we need government this is a stupid question. I just believe that we need less government in some areas.
Libertarian pr0n 4 u. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItjiDWa48q4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItjiDWa48q4
Quote
Should government provide law enforcement? Most would argue that government is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Prof. Edward Stringhman, however, argues that government may not even be necessary at all.
To come to this conclusion, Prof. Stringham asks a few important questions. First, if something is really important, does it logically follow that government should provide it? Second, are markets capable of providing law enforcement and security in the modern world? Third, how are disputes currently settled between people of different countries?
Looking at the first question, it doesn't seem to be the case that important things must be provided by a government. For instance, think about food. Food is necessary for life, and yet, markets do an excellent job of providing food to consumers.
Even if you're convinced that markets can provide important things, you may think law enforcement and security are a special case that markets are incapable of providing in a modern world. However, markets already enforce private rules and provide security. Disney World, Las Vegas, and malls all have private rules that are enforced by private security.
Accepting the arguments above, you may still be skeptical about market's abilities to settle disputes between different systems of rules or law. This, in fact, was Ayn Rand's primary reason for advocating a minimal state. Current interactions in the real world provide examples as to how markets resolve these disputes. Think about an international soccer game or international trade. In both instances, individuals are interacting across state boundaries, and are only subject to the jurisdiction of their own territory. In these situations, these individuals contract with the arbiters such as a soccer league or a private court to resolve disputes.
Credits: This lecture was delivered in 2009 at the Metropolitan State College of Denver School of Business, as part of the Exploring Economic Freedom Lecture Series, directed by Prof. Alexandre Padilla. This video was produced and directed by Scott Houck, and edited by Adrienne Christy. Video production provided by the Educational Technology Center at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Video used by LearnLiberty.org with permission.
To come to this conclusion, Prof. Stringham asks a few important questions. First, if something is really important, does it logically follow that government should provide it? Second, are markets capable of providing law enforcement and security in the modern world? Third, how are disputes currently settled between people of different countries?
Looking at the first question, it doesn't seem to be the case that important things must be provided by a government. For instance, think about food. Food is necessary for life, and yet, markets do an excellent job of providing food to consumers.
Even if you're convinced that markets can provide important things, you may think law enforcement and security are a special case that markets are incapable of providing in a modern world. However, markets already enforce private rules and provide security. Disney World, Las Vegas, and malls all have private rules that are enforced by private security.
Accepting the arguments above, you may still be skeptical about market's abilities to settle disputes between different systems of rules or law. This, in fact, was Ayn Rand's primary reason for advocating a minimal state. Current interactions in the real world provide examples as to how markets resolve these disputes. Think about an international soccer game or international trade. In both instances, individuals are interacting across state boundaries, and are only subject to the jurisdiction of their own territory. In these situations, these individuals contract with the arbiters such as a soccer league or a private court to resolve disputes.
Credits: This lecture was delivered in 2009 at the Metropolitan State College of Denver School of Business, as part of the Exploring Economic Freedom Lecture Series, directed by Prof. Alexandre Padilla. This video was produced and directed by Scott Houck, and edited by Adrienne Christy. Video production provided by the Educational Technology Center at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Video used by LearnLiberty.org with permission.
Jump to: