Topic: Free markets and social problems: - page 2. (Read 8711 times)
He never explains what force forces one to comply with NAP.
Actually Fred, thats a new line for you. What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?
Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it. If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.
Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it. If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.
I do care about the interpretation of law and any of its attendant logical outcomes. I'll accept any ruling, from any lawgiver, in any place, and at any time should he/she/they properly apply the non-aggression principle. Every time.
How you like them apples?
Your statist rant is going nowhere. Repeating it oft, doesn't give it legitimacy any more than a hoard of invading mercenaries plundering the same town every day for a year is justifiable. Might makes right is so last millennia. Try to pretend to be a little more enlightened instead of an authoritarian whore puppet.
Still stuck aren't you? No state means no legal system so there would be no law to obey. Your non-aggression principle is only an aspiration - if you have a real life family dispute with real people who refuse to compromise, it takes force to settle it. Complaining that force isn't legitimate doesn't get around the fact that there are people who can only be dealt with by force.
Actually Fred, thats a new line for you. What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?
Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it. If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.
Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it. If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.
I do care about the interpretation of law and any of its attendant logical outcomes. I'll accept any ruling, from any lawgiver, in any place, and at any time should he/she/they properly apply the non-aggression principle. Every time.
How you like them apples?
Your statist rant is going nowhere. Repeating it oft, doesn't give it legitimacy any more than a hoard of invading mercenaries plundering the same town every day for a year is justifiable. Might makes right is so last millennia. Try to pretend to be a little more enlightened instead of an authoritarian whore puppet.
Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.
I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce. The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested. That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail. That requires a state.
Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?
A court enforces the law. It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons. Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this. Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.
Is that a "no, courts cannot exist without state"?
A system of independent courts, police and prisons cannot exist without a state. I understand some Islamic tribes have a "court of elders" type system but that isn't really a court with a legal system as we know it.
I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts. Property rights are created by the state. I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this." Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.
In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse. Its not voluntary. You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision. Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.
In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse. Its not voluntary. You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision. Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.
You are arguing, and you are not using facts. Laws are not facts. The actions that result from the execution of said laws are facts (observables). Laws are 'is-ought' constructs. To put it another way, laws are reified extrinsic objects (abstract concepts). If you need a dictionary, I'll wait.
I merely point out the illogicality of the interpretation of laws the state attempts to impose upon their subjects (personal freedom is remotely considered). Most of it is senseless drivel. You gave a perfect example of the aforementioned drivel. Thanks for driving the point home.
Actually Fred, thats a new line for you. What do you care if the interpretation of law is illogical when you don't acknowledge the lawgiver is legitimate in the first place?
Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it. If you have a better system with examples of where it works, great. Right now you are just being boring.
I'm not asking you to be burdened with demonstrating that you deserve freedom. I'm asking you to demonstrate how your solution will actually result in freedom.
That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.
Quote
I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?
That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.
And if I don't demonstrate an actual "suitable" solution (whatever that may be)? What then? I still have to remain under your "democratic" iron-fisted rule? If we're going to pretend to be gentlemen here, let's try to be a little more subtle with the authoritarian overtones. It's the least you could do. Fool me once, shame on me...
If you don't use the
Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.
I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce. The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested. That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail. That requires a state.
Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?
A court enforces the law. It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons. Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this. Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.
Is that a "no, courts cannot exist without state"?
What philosophical bullshit in this thread.
Government creates whatever laws they want, constitutional or unconstitutional, right or wrong, then they are enforced, then if it goes to the supreme court, the highest court in the land and the supposed last bastion of protection for the people, they hand down unconstitiontal opinion, and state their opinions are unconstitutional, when they are sworn to protect the people and protect the constitution.
Case in point ... police checkpoints and DUI stops. In their opinion the supreme court ruled, with dissenting opinion, that the overall collective good the checkpoints and dui stops do over-rides their minor constituional infringements.
Another prime example of government thinking the constitution is a worthless god damn piece of paper is the president ordering the assassination murder of american citizens without any due process, like some Star Chamber group of people in a back room somewhere doing what they want to whoever they want, when they want, however they want to do it just because they; can, are above the law, and they want to do it.
Hello? Is there anyone home ?
It boils down to force and it will come down to force and a war to get any freedom.
Pick a side.
Government creates whatever laws they want, constitutional or unconstitutional, right or wrong, then they are enforced, then if it goes to the supreme court, the highest court in the land and the supposed last bastion of protection for the people, they hand down unconstitiontal opinion, and state their opinions are unconstitutional, when they are sworn to protect the people and protect the constitution.
Case in point ... police checkpoints and DUI stops. In their opinion the supreme court ruled, with dissenting opinion, that the overall collective good the checkpoints and dui stops do over-rides their minor constituional infringements.
Another prime example of government thinking the constitution is a worthless god damn piece of paper is the president ordering the assassination murder of american citizens without any due process, like some Star Chamber group of people in a back room somewhere doing what they want to whoever they want, when they want, however they want to do it just because they; can, are above the law, and they want to do it.
Hello? Is there anyone home ?
It boils down to force and it will come down to force and a war to get any freedom.
Pick a side.
I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts. Property rights are created by the state. I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this." Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.
In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse. Its not voluntary. You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision. Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.
In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse. Its not voluntary. You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision. Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.
You are arguing, and you are not using facts. Laws are not facts. The actions that result from the execution of said laws are facts (observables). Laws are 'is-ought' constructs. To put it another way, laws are reified extrinsic objects (abstract concepts). If you need a dictionary, I'll wait.
I merely point out the illogicality of the interpretation of laws the state attempts to impose upon their subjects (personal freedom is remotely considered). Most of it is senseless drivel. You gave a perfect example of the aforementioned drivel. Thanks for driving the point home.
And besides, since when should I be burdened with demonstrating to some political authoritarian that I deserve my freedom?
I'm not asking you to be burdened with demonstrating that you deserve freedom. I'm asking you to demonstrate how your solution will actually result in freedom.
Quote
I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?
That's fine, as I don't really use the word state or government much - certainly I use those terms much less than you do.
Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.
I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce. The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested. That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail. That requires a state.
Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?
A court enforces the law. It uses a police force to enforce the law. A lot of disputes are over trivial matters, like petty theft, so the courts cannot depend on fees to support the judges, admin, police and prisons. Historically, courts and jails have been funded by taxation to get around this. Taxation really requires a state if you are going to have taxes get democratic approval.
Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.
I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce. The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested. That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail. That requires a state.
Can courts only exist with a state? Why or why not?
Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.
I know someone who went to jail rather than give up her house as part of a bitter divorce. The courts said it was not her house and when she refused to leave, she was arrested. That is how property rights work - if you don't accept them you go to jail. That requires a state.
There is nothing hard to understand about that. However, the burden falls upon you to persuasively argue and demonstrate that your way of doing things would actually work. It frankly sounds flimsy, and your philosophical ramblings on the subject only seem to touch on your insistence that it should be that way, without ever actually making it sound like it would believably work.
Furthermore, every time you mention the word slavery or something similar, you deserve to be not listened to. Hyperbole makes your case weaker, not stronger.
Furthermore, every time you mention the word slavery or something similar, you deserve to be not listened to. Hyperbole makes your case weaker, not stronger.
I may have a somewhat flimsy way of expressing what I think is freedom (it's much simpler than everything else I've seen or read) and how it could be a achieved, but I'm absolutely appalled and disgusted at the way government currently functions.
And besides, since when should I be burdened with demonstrating to some political authoritarian that I deserve my freedom? He certainly doesn't afford me the same (quid pro quo). It's a two-way street, otherwise you're merely overpowering me (force majeure) because you can, not because you should. Where's the logic in that?
I'll make you a deal. You stop using the words 'state' and 'government' and I'll stop using the words 'slave' and 'master'. Fair enough?
Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state. I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system. When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.
Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation? Yes or No?
Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation? Yes or No?
I accept that property rights are a "legal construction" insofar as one person recognizes that the property not in his possession, or within his control, is not his/theirs, and should not be infringed; and should he/they infringe, restitution may be the consequence.
The word legal has been abused and misconstrued so much, it has practically lost it's meaning. I prefer the words and/or phrases 'force' (physics domain), 'mutual consent', and 'private contract'. It makes you think a little harder about the legislative consequences of your actions.
How one goes about enforcing that is an entirely different matter altogether. A 'state' may accomplish this to some extent, but so can anybody else smart enough to provide the same service. You're arguing possible vs. impossible, instead of should vs. could.
I'm not arguing - I'm pointing to facts. Property rights are created by the state. I don't know if you have ever been divorced, but should you suffer that misfortune you come to see very clearly that saying "I own this" means nothing at all unless you can say "I legally own this." Even then, your ex gets to take a share of it off you.
In the real world, many people do not "mutually consent" to having their houses taken off them and given to an ex-spouse. Its not voluntary. You don't get to "opt out" and and find someone else to make a different decision. Property rights are legal rights created by the state and to have property you have to to have a state to enforce the rights that come with it.
Hawker, I believe you are conflating law with the State. Law can and has existed without the State. You do need law in order to have property rights. You are correct in saying that, but I don't think you are correct to assume that without a State there can be no law. Whether law under a State is more just, or efficient or desirable is a different argument.
Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state. I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system. When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.
Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation? Yes or No?
Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation? Yes or No?
I accept that property rights are a "legal construction" insofar as one person recognizes that the property not in his possession, or within his control, is not his/theirs, and should not be infringed; and should he/they infringe, restitution may be the consequence.
The word legal has been abused and misconstrued so much, it has practically lost it's meaning. I prefer the words and/or phrases 'force' (physics domain), 'mutual consent', and 'private contract'. It makes you think a little harder about the legislative consequences of your actions.
How one goes about enforcing that is an entirely different matter altogether. A 'state' may accomplish this to some extent, but so can anybody else smart enough to provide the same service. You're arguing possible vs. impossible, instead of should vs. could.
Logic demonstrates that any individual should have no more or less freedom and privilege than any other individual or group of individuals. What's so hard to understand about that?
There is nothing hard to understand about that. However, the burden falls upon you to persuasively argue and demonstrate that your way of doing things would actually work. It frankly sounds flimsy, and your philosophical ramblings on the subject only seem to touch on your insistence that it should be that way, without ever actually making it sound like it would believably work.
Furthermore, every time you mention the word slavery or something similar, you deserve to be not listened to. Hyperbole makes your case weaker, not stronger.
Fred, you can "is-ought" all you want but you don't have the right to take other people's property. The reason for this is simple; the state protects their legal ownership and it does not protect your "is-ought" baloney.
What on earth are you talking about!!!??? I have never, not once, not so much as breathed, or intimated that I would ever take other people's property or would justify theft. The state primarily protects itself. The citizenry is a secondary concern.
Are you high on something? Can you read? Is English not your first language? Your comprehension level is atrocious.
Your say that recognition of property rights is voluntary and doesn't need a state. I am pointing out that property rights are created by states - they don't exist without a legal enforcement system. When I say this you start your "slavery theft oppression" schtick.
Do you accept that enforceable property rights are a legal creation? Yes or No?
Fred, you can "is-ought" all you want but you don't have the right to take other people's property. The reason for this is simple; the state protects their legal ownership and it does not protect your "is-ought" baloney.
What on earth are you talking about!!!??? I have never, not once, not so much as breathed, or intimated that I would ever take other people's property or would justify theft. The state primarily protects itself. The citizenry is a secondary concern.
Are you high on something? Can you read? Is English not your first language? Your comprehension level is atrocious.
Jump to: