Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 25. (Read 28705 times)

Lickus Mis Scrotum

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

At least he's logically consistent. If people need a national government to avoid or mediate interpersonal conflicts then national governments need a world government to avoid or mediate international conflicts. Of course, once we have a worldwide democracy, India and China will run the show.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

That's a pretty good summary of the issues.  Basically, libertarian/anarchy society is trying to DEvolve us back into the state of nature.  It just isn't sustainable because the natural tendancy is to Evolve out of the state of nature.  Thus, it would take a entity using FORCE to keep the world in the state of nature... but alas... then it wouldn't be the state of nature, so it's all an oxymoron anyway.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

In all of my research regarding the law, the proper role of government, and other similar systems, I just can't seem to see the possibility of a perfect anarchy, or left of anarchy, such as some version of libertarianism.

see: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

Which is to say, if we all played by the obvious rules (do no harm, do as you have agreed to) then society could be perfectly content with an anarchy. That of course, isn't what we have. There are, and always will be criminals, and they will still break the basic tenets of an orderly society. They just can't seem to keep their hands to themselves. So what do we do? The only thing we can. Provide for a means of punishment. Presumably these punishments should be proportional to the crime, but significant enough such that the would-be criminal might think twice about what he/she is about to attempt.

Of course, even that isn't a sufficient enough deterrent for some, but that's the best we can do. As it were, "an eye for an eye" is as close to 'just' as we can get.

So here's the question. Do we let governments compete for the definition of what law is, or do we permit the few (whoever they are) whom we vote in as overseers of this process, and put checks and balances in place so they can't arbitrarily circumvent the basic principles? I think, although I can't be sure, that if we had a menagerie of competing governments, it's likely that they would eventually devolve into feudal waring tribes. I could imagine them each seeking retribution on the other for violations of their societal laws. This would go on forever. It would be nice if there was a universal standard, but even given the rhetoric of these threads/forums, even the basics can't be agreed upon.

The principles are what we won't compromise on. hence "principles".


Underlining and italicizing a set of words doesn't make it a link.

Nothing about my views have changed. It's rather dishonest to try to frame the discussion as if they have. I've never been interested in achieving your ideal society, only the libertarian ideal society.


I won't compromise libertarianism. Your rhetoric fails.

Have a look at the link. The answer's in there.

So you're willing to compromise now. "It's not perfect but it works" is fine when it comes to a libertarian society, but abhorrent when it comes to our current society. As long as it's based on your ideals it doesn't have to be perfect, but if it's not then it should be discarded.
I shouldn't bother you too much about it though, realizing that you have to make compromises is a good first step.

Which is what? I'm curious.

The goal is to make a system based on keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission i.e. a system compatible with libertarianism. If that's how you define "better" then we agree.


My point is that it works. It's not perfect but it's a solution and one that's compatible with keeping your hands to yourself.

I thought the goal was to create something better? A mule is a solution to a transportation problem, but I think most people would prefer a car. Same thing here, there is a solution that does "work", but most people would want something better. And they already have it.

And "millions of people have used it"? Does numbers matter now? If so, then billions of people have used the other system. What's your point?

Markets can determine risk. There can be private courts. Nothing you've said makes a bit of difference.


I'm sure you would have said the same thing about abolishing slavery.

And what is so non-sensible about "keep your hands to yourself"?

Jeffersons idea were not new or controversial even when he wrote them.  The Declaration of Independence was read avidly all over the world because it was sensible.

Watch what happens if I rewind this conversation oh, say, 250 years:

"Jefferson linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of liberals saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince liberals your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it passed.  Right now, you live in a Monarchy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no Kings and multiple competing States."

That won't work.  Title insurance requires a measurable risk.  If you have multiple competing claims of ownership and no court system to arbitrate, you can't get insurance.  Title insurance also requires a legal framework - you can't buy it without a state.

myrkul linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of libertarians saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince libertarians your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it voted for in an election.  Right now, you live in a democracy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no states and multiple competing police agencies.

Millions of people, myself included, have used the system and it satisfied their requirements. It's no surprise that coercive governments are willing to abandon a working system for something better regardless of its coercive nature. The point is, there is a solution and instead of just admitting it, you want to claim it's "not good enough" and "unpopular". That's called moving goalposts.