Taxation is no different than extortion.

Great Debates
422

The video may or may not, but the classic answer is that if private protection services and private court systems exist, they will likely fall into competition, and the competition itself is not refereed. The worst case of this will be a state of war.

Er…demonstrated to your satisfaction, perhaps, but I persist in exercising my right to disagree.

Our current system of hierarchical government (nation, province/state, county, city, community) allows for consistency of laws at appropriate levels of influence. The national government handles national defense and such things as regulating the radio frequencies. States handle big water projects. Cities handle slum clean-up. etc.

A system that operates entirely at a local level will likely have problems that overlap boundaries. If Delaware limits radio broadcasts to 20KW and New Jersey permits 100KW transmissions, there is a problem. Same with water pollution. Kansas might have strict clean-water laws, but Indiana, upstream, might not, leaving Kansas to drink Indiana’s filth.

By being able to hire their own protective forces (militias or whatever) they can take the place of governments. It is the opinion of many that a stateless society will decay into the control of warlords and ganglords.

You certainly may disagree, but it is a view held by no few, and is not going to be easily rebutted.

I will certainly admit that the democratic system is no guarantee against corruption and criminality. The hell of it all is that there is no such thing as a perfect system of human self-governance.

The standard answer is to point to regions in the world where governments have broken down – parts of Sudan, parts of Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, various areas on the Arabian peninsula, various areas in Central America – and suggest that the problems there – local warlords, violence, criminality, tribalism are the natural outcome of too little government.

I know I’m just playing P-K4, but, well, it’s an argument I happen to believe is true.

423

Non-initiation of force is quite different from “non-aggression”. You can be quite aggressive in self-defense.

424

Because it would be a murderocracy, for lack of a better word. All power and wealth would be in the hands of whomever was the most willing and able to kill to get it. What’s known as The Law Of The Jungle.

Not that this would last long; modern people have the idea of government, so they’d rapidly organize themselves around gangs and warlords that promised at least some safety in return for allegiance. So you’d be right back at that state-based society you consider to be so awful, just a lot more impoverished, tyrannical and brutal.

By collapsing instantly the moment someone is willing to use force or cooperate with someone else to enforce their will. A stateless society would collapse within a day or two into a sea of bloodshed. The War of All Against All.

425

See post 414. It’s merely a semantic issue.

426

In life, you need three things to succeed at any endeavor. Structure, Vision, and Drive.

Structure = government. It sets our foundation to work upon. It accomplishes the tasks that are necessary for all people.

Vision = the people and their vote. Each person has a vote and sets the vision for government.

Drive = inherent survival drive of all people.

It’s not a perfect system but it’s the best we got. It’s certainly better than the alternative being suggested here. Libertarianism is far too chaotic to ever actually work. People need structure and they need to be treated like equals. That’s what government provides.

Furthermore, once the basic needs are provided for such as food, shelter, clothing, protection, justice, healthcare, education, etc… then you can actually free the market up more than you would otherwise. Once people have security in knowing these basic survival needs will be met, they are more able to explore advances that will benefit society as a whole.

427

I don’t think it is.

428

Care to explain the difference?

429

As I said before, you can be quite aggressive in self-defense.

430

I see. Your definition is a bit more specific.

431

“Aggression” normally refers to unprovoked attacks:

“Non-aggression” doesn’t mean no attacks, it means no unprovoked attacks. It’s synonymous with non-initiation of force.

432

In common speech it isn’t. In most people’s minds “aggression” is a synonym of “violence”. As you can see from your (2) - “any offensive action, attack, or procedure”.

433

Right, offensive, as opposed to defensive.

Bolding mine.

Note also “inroad or encroachment” above.

People may use “aggression” as a synonym for “violence”, but they are incorrect to do so. The non-aggression principle is not pacifism.

434

“Offensive” is defined as “attack”. You can “attack” in self-defense.

Let’s say that “non-initiation of force” is a much better and much more precise description of the principle than “non-aggression”.

435

Can, you, though?

Attack

  1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.

  2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

  3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.

  4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent’s statement.

  5. to try to destroy, especially with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor’s reputation.
    Seems pretty weighted toward initiating hostilities.

Meh, they mean the same thing to my reading, and we both seem to understand what the principle means well enough, so I don’t think it matters much.

436

:confused: :confused: :smack:
You want us to give examples of anarchist Farnabytopia?? That is rich.

Perhaps good examples of Libertarian (with a capital L) experiments would be Pinochet’s Chile, and some of the Eastern European countries immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union. But far from competing private security forces, these example states had security forces controlled by the same oligarchy (kleptocracy) that imposed other central controls. (These kleptocracy examples can be used in support of Friedmanism: GDP did improve, despite losses to equality, etc.)

But Farnaby rejects capital-L Libertarianism in favor of Libertarianism with a super-L. It’s hard to argue without a real-world example or near-example to contemplate. Farnaby suggested medieval Ireland but, AFAICT, later rejected his own suggestion. Lawless Somalia seems like a logical example. Let’s work with it as a model, if Farnaby has no counter-suggestion. (And do we really need a cite that Somalia was “infiltrated by bad guys”?)

437

A democratic republic is superior in this respect, as it can collect taxes to raise an army and use coercion against bad guys at the point of a gun. A Libertopian society depends on the kindness of strangers to mount any sort of defense against bad guys that might take away their freedom and impose tyranny on them.

438

That’s anarchist. Libertarians, at least US libertarians, desire a government based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Another principle common to libertarians is that force should only be used to stop force, not amorphous “crimes” like regulatory violations, drug use, or failure to pay taxes.

439

So if I walk into his garden and start eating his tomatoes, an American Libertarian wont use force to stop me? That’s good to know.

440

Theft is force. Property invasion is force.

441

Which means that they don’t believe in such laws at all for all practical purposes.

No, they aren’t. For something to be force, it has to involve, well, force. Being philosophically inconvenient to libertarians does not constitute “force”.