RoR: Forum

Post 60

Thursday, February 14 - 11:42am

Link

Edit

Rick:

As I've long suspected, John doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't think so.

I originally wrote:

Anarcho-capitalism again is the absence of a monopoly government within a specific geographical area.

Rick responds:

And then when I pointed out specific geographical areas that are not examples of anarcho-capitalism

Oh brother! Rick, are you right in the head? What would you call the United States? A specified geographic area. We can expound on that and give a more detailed definition, and say it's not just any arbitrary specified area you come up with, but only specific ones where a jurisdiction exists, i.e. a governing body that holds a monopoly use of force over a territory it has specified as its boundaries, in fact I gave that as the definition over and over and over again. You are only harping on the first part of the definition "a specified area" and continue to ignore the rest of the definition that offers us a more detailed explanation. Please, pay attention more closely. You're just being obtuse about this.

You write:

his response is: "Rick, why would I use the word I'm defining in its definition?"

To which I can only say "Huh?" The word being defined was 'anarcho-capitalism' and there was no suggestion that he should use that word in it's definition.

Unbelievable! Rick my response was directly from what you said here:

didn't (and still don't) see the word "jurisdiction" in your definition.

Which was a response from what I said here:

What I define is a jurisdiction. A legal-frame work that exists within a specified set of boundary lines.

I used the word "jurisdiction" as a word similar to "monopoly government", i.e a synonym. Ever heard of that? So when you ask "I didn't see the word jurisdiction in your definition" is because I'm defining jurisdiction, as a synonym to monopoly government. Ok?

And then he tries to confuse things even further by bringing in 'jurisdiction', a term he clearly does not understand. Jurisdiction means which court has the ability to hear which case. It has no necessary relation to geographical area (although it sometimes does).

No not sometimes, just about always. Name me a jurisdiction where it does not have authority over a specifically defined (not any arbitrary geographical area you pick Rick like North America) geographical area.

In fact there have been several recent cases of lawyers picking which of several state courts or federal courts to file their suits in. Any of those courts could have jurisdiction but only the one where the suit is filed actually does.

That's because there may be a disagreement on who has the power to prosecute if the crime transpired over multiple jurisdictions. Say if a murderer conspired with someone in Rhode Island to kill someone in Connecticut and then dumped the body in New Jersey. Since the crime transpired over three jurisdictions, an agreement between these three jurisdictions must be met to decide which one will have the trial, when such an agreement is met the jurisdictions coalesce so we have a de facto single legal frame-work, not multiple ones. It also doesn't mean Texas has any authority to have the trial, it's not just arbitrarily any jurisdiction, just the ones that have authority over the territory where the crime was committed, and not with a different set of competing laws.

Furthermore, here in the US there are city police, county police, state police, and the FBI � any of which could claim 'jurisdiction' depending on the facts of the particular case and the desires of the particular agencies. Hardly a case of monopoly.

And yet you would not call this anarcho-capitalism either. Odd Rick, then what would you call it if not a monopoly government? Which is it? Are we in a monopoly government or aren't we? But that's besides the point, it's still a monopoly government because the city, county, state and federal police all operate under one legal framework. They must all follow the same due process. The FBI does not read a different set of miranda rights to a suspect from the local police, the jurisdiction is decided based on where the crime took place and the nature of the crime. They don't all compete with each other and prosecute the crime with different conflicting laws.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/14, 12:57pm)

Post 61

Thursday, February 14 - 1:55pm

Link

Edit

Marotta:

John: From the corporation's point of view, it makes no difference that the governments are territorial monopolies. The corporation picks and chooses where it wants to make things and sell them on the basis of the laws. Restrictive laws are bad for business.... unless they are good for your business... Two MNCs can be in two different countries, one makes things in a third country and the other sells them in a fourth. The contractual terms -- not the daydreams of the politicians -- define what part of this or that comes under what jurisdiction. It might be that the contract specifies some fifth place where both companies have a common interest.

I don't dispute this. But this doesn't mean there are multiple sets of legal frame-works competing with each other under the same specified geographical area as anarcho-Capitalism is defined to be. Yes bad laws in a jurisdiction can drive away business, but it's one set of bad laws in one area, not multiple sets of laws with varying degrees of bad and good all conflicting with each other under the same jurisdiction. For example there isn't multiple sets of laws that conflict with each other in Connecticut. When we talk about a company choosing where to do business with, it's no different than an individual choosing which state or country they want to live in. They certainly base their decision on the laws of those states or countries, but once they choose to reside in a particular state or do business in a particular state, they are subject to that state's or country's one set of laws, one monopoly government. Another words it's still one legal frame-work side by side compared to another legal frame-work in a different geographical area.

You do not need to go so far in place and time and theoreticals. Look at your own AUTOMOBILE LOAN. In which state was the car made? In which state did you buy it? Now: in which state are the laws to be interpreted?

This question is completely meaningless without any further context. What is the specific nature of the dispute regarding the car? Where did the dispute transpire and between which parties? Then one can answer that question. The jurisdiction is not arbitrarily chosen but depends on the nature of the dispute, where it takes place, and in some cases in which jurisdiction in the contract the two parties agree to settle their dispute (but even with a contract of which jurisdiction to settle the dispute, a business operating out of CT selling cars to customers in RI still can't just arbitrarily decide well we're going to have the trial in Texas cause we like their laws better), you would actually have to be doing business in Texas to have the dispute settle there.

The point is that minarchists claim that there must be a geographic monopoly to the law. As you can see, there is not.

This viewpoint makes no sense. So in essence you are arguing that we already have a system of anarcho-Capitalism to which you are advocating we switch to a system of anarcho-Capitalism? Well which is it, is it a monopoly government or is it anarcho-Capitalism?

Jim addressing Michael's post

Michael -- sanctioned post #56. What you appear to be saying is that with sufficient interjurisdictional mobility, government monopolies over a given territory can morph into something rather closely resembling anarcho-capitalism, even if some might quibble about the details or the definitions.

No Jim, if different jurisdictions coalesce into one legal frame-work it is not anarcho-Capitalism as it is generally defined to be. All Marotta has proven is that it is possible to move between jurisdictions, i.e. I can choose to live here instead of there, or I can do business here instead of there, once the decision is made you are not existing in multiple jurisdictions with different sets of competing laws. If anything this is a confusion of cause and effect. While you are sitting there deciding "Hmmm, should I live in CT or RI" you are not existing in both CT and RI and thus living under a system of anarcho-Capitalism, you are merely deciding to leave the current jurisdiction you are in to move to a different jurisdiction. Monopoly government doesn't necessarily mean one world government over the entire span of the globe. It relates to territory, with monopoly government existing side by side with their respective boundary lines.

Post 62

Thursday, February 14 - 2:50pm

Link

Edit

No Jim, if different jurisdictions coalesce into one legal frame-work it is not anarcho-Capitalism as it is generally defined to be.

John, agreed -- it is certainly not pure anarcho-capitalism "as it is generally defined to be". Rather, Michael is pointing out that, with modern technology, you can approach something that, for practical purposes, looks and feels a lot like anarcho-capitalism without meeting the pure definition. And, frankly, I don't care if I'm living in something that is technically and purely anarcho-capitalism if it feels like freedom virtually all the time. For example, recently I bought a copy of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" over the internet. I'm was physically sitting in Hawaii while doing it, but the list of vendors were from all over the U.S., all operating under different legal codes, and all able to sell the book to me tax-free without the government stepping in and interfering with that transaction. The packets of data being sent bounced all over the globe. No government monopoly was dictating the rules of how we bargained and how I chose a vendor and what legal system would arbitrate disputes if they arose. It wasn't a purely anarcho-capitalist transaction, but it sure as hell felt like it, and that's good enough for me.

Now, with other technological breakthroughs, we might get more and more internet-type freedoms in our lives, gradually squeezing government into a tiny box we can virtually ignore. Good, eh?

Post 63

Thursday, February 14 - 3:39pm

Link

Edit

Jim:

John, agreed -- it is certainly not pure anarcho-capitalism "as it is generally defined to be". Rather, Michael is pointing out that, with modern technology, you can approach something that, for practical purposes, looks and feels a lot like anarcho-capitalism without meeting the pure definition. And, frankly, I don't care if I'm living in something that is technically and purely anarcho-capitalism if it feels like freedom virtually all the time. For example, recently I bought a copy of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" over the internet. I'm was physically sitting in Hawaii while doing it, but the list of vendors were from all over the U.S., all operating under different legal codes, and all able to sell the book to me tax-free without the government stepping in and interfering with that transaction.

????? [scratch head in bewilderment]

Well Jim, do you know why internet sales are tax free? Because the Federal government passed a law forbidding states from being able to attach a sales tax to internet transactions. This is ONE legal code that says NO OTHER LEGAL CODES CAN ATTACH A SALES TAX. If that's not a great example of a monopoly government at work I don't know what is. And if it's not then there is nothing to distinguish anarcho-Capitalism from monopoly government. The government is stepping in to forbid others from taxing your transaction.

No government monopoly was dictating the rules..

Actually yes there was...

of how we bargained and how I chose a vendor

Of course not! Why would they decide for you where you want to shop? The government, or at least a just and proper one, doesn't have a legitimate function of deciding what product you want to purchase or where, it's only legitimate function is to establish the legal frame-work for disputes. This doesn't mean you can't settle the dispute by deciding to go to private arbitration, only that you can't settle the dispute by initiating force against the other party. And the decision of a private arbitration settlement is legally binding.

....and what legal system would arbitrate disputes if they arose...

The legal system that has jurisdiction.

It wasn't a purely anarcho-capitalist transaction, but it sure as hell felt like it, and that's good enough for me.

Because something felt like anarcho-Capitalism, to you it was? Ok fine, if you want to feel like it was who am I to rain on your parade? :)

Post 64

Thursday, February 14 - 3:50pm

Link

Edit

Minarchists claim that there must be a monopoly of law within a territory. However, in the USA, we have layers of concurrency. Zoning laws, traffic laws, curfews... even murder and robbery might be local, state or federal matters. You all know the cliche where the criminal says, "You can't make a federal case out of it..." He is referring to concurrency of jurisdiction. Government agencies become jealous of their perogatives and when they do, you have competing governments within the United States.

Over our history, federal criminal authority has increasingly overlapped with the authority of the states. And it has done so even in areas where the crime at issue seems to be a crime that falls squarely into the state's bailiwick - and does not affect federal interests at all.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20031015.html

Although the FBI has jurisdiction over most bank robberies in the United States, offenses are investigated concurrently with local police; in fact, local agencies may handle the entire investigation. The FBI maintains the Bank Crime Statistics database (BCS), an important investigative tool that documents offender and offense characteristics across jurisdictions. Despite the federal role, the primary impact of bank robbery is inherently local, as citizens and political leaders look to local police for solutions. Local police are often best positioned to advise banks about preventive strategies because of their established relationships with local bank employees.

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/problem-bank_robbery.htm

A county coroner has the same jurisdiction over deaths occurring on a navy base over which Congress and the state of Washington have concurrent legislative jurisdiction as he has with deaths occurring anywhere else in his county ...
"Under concurrent jurisdiction the two sovereigns, the Federal Government and a State, occupy an area; each having all the rights accorded a sovereign with the broad qualification that such rights run concurrently with those of the other sovereign. Exact equivalence of rights is not present, however, for at all times, under this jurisdictional status as under all others, the Federal Government has the superior right under the supremacy clause of the Constitution ...

http://www.atg.wa.gov/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=8864

Post 65

Friday, February 15 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

Marotta:

Minarchists claim that there must be a monopoly of law within a territory. However, in the USA, we have layers of concurrency. Zoning laws, traffic laws, curfews...

Again you are confusing yourself. Yes we have zoning laws, traffic laws, etc all working concurrently and different laws from different levels of government, but they do not compete with each other as different conflicting laws. Where there may exist a conflict in one point in time of different laws (say a local government forbids the construction of a strip-club where the state says such restrictions are not permitted) a superior level of government (for example state law supercedes local law) make those conflicts go away because one law trumps the other.

There isn't one law that says red light at a traffic stop means go while another law says red light means stop. And again if such a conflict arises one law is discarded by an authority with a superior level of jurisdiction.

you have competing governments within the United States.

You've said this several times but you never addressed what I ask. When you say this, are you implying we currently live under anarcho-Capitalism or not? Does it make sense you are trying to prove we have competing governments as proof anarcho-Capitalism should be implemented even though you are pointing to instances that anarcho-Capitalism is already implemented? Do you not see the contradiction here?
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/15, 11:46am)

Post 66

Friday, February 15 - 12:52pm

Link

Edit

Again you are confusing yourself. Yes we have zoning laws, traffic laws, etc all working concurrently and different laws from different levels of government, but they do not compete with each other as different conflicting laws. Where there may exist a conflict in one point in time of different laws (say a local government forbids the construction of a strip-club where the state says such restrictions are not permitted) a superior level of government (for example state law supercedes local law) make those conflicts go away because one law trumps the other.

John, as a general rule I agree the U.S. has well-defined jurisdictions, with well-defined superior levels of government. But, at the margins this is not always so, because politicians, given a choice between obeying the various federal and state Constitutions and pandering for votes, will generally go for the votes. For example, look at the medical marijuana laws that various states have passed that are in conflict with federal drug laws -- essentially, the states are politely telling the feds to go to hell, and dragging their feet on cooperating when the feds try to assert their superior jurisdiction, because the local voters will hold the local politicians accountable for not upholding their laws. In addition, the politicians at the federal level who passed these drug laws essentially told the writers of the Tenth Amendment to go to hell, thus subverting THEIR higher jurisdiction. So, in this instance you have multiple levels of jurisdiction in the same geographic area fighting over control despite clearly defined rules that would govern affairs in a less messy world where politicians weren't tugged between loyalties to Constitutions versus loyalties to their constituents.

And the monstrous growth of the federal government in near-complete defiance of the Tenth Amendment would be evidence that these superior levels of government are at best sporadically enforced, leading to a certain degree of -- wait for it -- anarchy.

Post 67

Saturday, February 16 - 3:32am

Link

Edit

So, let me guess. You guys don�t know what the hell �heuristic� means either�

Post 68

Saturday, February 16 - 5:59am

Link

Edit

Heuristic is a fancy term for rule of thumb.

Bob Kolker

Post 69

Saturday, February 16 - 8:47am

Link

Edit

"So, let me guess. You guys don�t know what the hell �heuristic� means either�"

From wikipedia: "A heuristic is a method to help solve a problem, commonly informal. It is particularly used for a method that often rapidly leads to a solution that is usually reasonably close to the best possible answer. Heuristics are "rules of thumb", educated guesses, intuitive judgments or simply common sense."

Not knowing all the Objectivist lingo, or at least not wanting to sound pretentious by using words like "heuristic", is not the same as being incapable of using intuition and common sense to deduce that preemptive war helps build a large, powerful state that trampels our civil liberties, drains our income, and results in far less of the freedom that Objectivists purport to value ...
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 2/16, 3:19pm)

Post 70

Saturday, February 16 - 2:43pm

Link

Edit

That was an oblique (and possibly inept) attempt at humor, gentlemen. Not a definition search.

Jim�Do you find it helpful to add smiley faces after your veiled ad hominems?

Post 71

Saturday, February 16 - 3:38pm

Link

Edit

Dennis -- removed the smiley face per your request.

From wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

I don't think that my post #69 was ad hominem as you claimed in post #70, since by providing a definition of "heuristic", then showing I understand that definition by using it in the sentence following, I thought I was answering the question posed by you in post #67: "So, let me guess. You guys don�t know what the hell �heuristic� means either�"
.
I added the smiley face to let you know I was teasing you about the "pretentious" thing, and also teasing you by choosing (as my example of a sentence demonstrating my knowledge of the meaning of the word "heuristic"), to bring up the preemption thing after you made it clear elsewhere that you'd rather not discuss your POV on that topic, unless it is in an echo chamber with people who are in full agreement with you. Apparently either the humor fell flat, or it was * objectively * not funny at all to anyone.

I've removed the smiley face from the post -- if, to keep the peace, you want me to remove the preemption thing, and insert a different sentence correctly using "heuristic", I'll do that too.

Post 72

Saturday, February 16 - 4:39pm

Link

Edit

Some lack humor, Jim [other than in their humerus] - would worry over it....

Post 73

Saturday, February 16 - 7:10pm

Link

Edit

Jim�Your posts show clearly that you are incapable of using common sense. And that�s not ad hominem. Your last post explains that.

I just thought the use of a smiley face to offset the personal tone of your comment was worth noting. Do we really need to make a big deal of this?

Please make an effort to be careful when you talk about what other people have said. I never stated I would not defend my views on national defense. Most of the posts I have made here at RoR are devoted to that issue. (You can check out the history of posts on my profile to verify that.)

I did say I would not waste my time on the anarcho-capitalism debate, in or out of an echo chamber. I also won�t debate the credibility of alien abductions, whether the moon is made of green cheese, the 9-11 conspiracy theories or whether the holocaust was a hoax. I have my priorities.

Post 74

Saturday, February 16 - 8:31pm

Link

Edit

John Armaos asks: When you say this, are you implying we currently live under anarcho-Capitalism or not? Does it make sense you are trying to prove we have competing governments as proof anarcho-Capitalism should be implemented even though you are pointing to instances that anarcho-Capitalism is already implemented? Do you not see the contradiction here?

It is a matter of context. We can analyze The Falklands War in terms of nationalism and that would be fine. The Argetines decided to recapture their national honor with the recapture of lost territory. Britain defended and retook. We could also apply a human action (praxeological) point of view from Von Mises's works and see the Falklands War as socialist looting -- which inevitably left the looters worse off. If Argentina had won the war, it still would have been a net loss. In fact, it was a net loss for Britain, even though by nationalist standards, they won.

So, too with the current discussion.
1. Miniarchists maintain that there must be a monopoly of laws by geography. I have shown many instances where there are not -- the county coroner who forces an investigation on a federal navy base; bank robbery; etc., etc.. (So, governmental powers are not stictly hierarchical.) Yet, we have governments. So, I agree, there is a contradiction there. Some minarchist needs to resolve it, perhaps, but II think the miniarchist definition is wrong by empirical evidence.

2. I have shown where true conflicts of laws at the same level -- as between nations -- are settled privately for purposes of international trade and commerce. So, for them, there is no geographic monopoly of law.

3. I have shown that outside of pure government per se, we all adhere to social norms that come with sanctions. So, it is not necessary for there to be some monopoly of force to ensure that everyone behaves themselves. Most people behave quite well, sometimes in conflicting and contradictory social contexts. (I went to a Republican state convention this weekend. We had some forms to fill out. I asked the person next to me what they put down for Number Three and I put down the same thing. I cannot do that during an exam at my university, right? So, there are different rules in different social contexts.... and no one gets shot: physical force is not necessary.)

4. I have shown that in the real world, when people commit objective crimes, sometimes the resolution is non-governmental. Police agencies complain that corporations "cover up" crimes when they are victimized. In point of fact, the corporation and the perpetrator work out a solution without going to criminal court, which is their right, of course. This also contradicts the minarchist claim for a legal monopoly.

Whether we do have anarcho-capitalism or should have anarcho-capitalism depends on the context.

We are not always rational. We should be. When a person behaves irrationally that does not negate the validity of rationality as a standard. It does not mean that there is no rationality in the world. Rationality is at once a standard and a fact. So, too with anarcho-capitalism. It is how people do act (often) and how they should (for best results).

Post 75

Saturday, February 16 - 10:42pm

Link

Edit

Jim�Your posts show clearly that you are incapable of using common sense.

Dennis -- wow -- harsh, dude. Perhaps we should avoid responding to each other's posts if that is what you really think about me. I come here to have interesting discussions, and learn what notions of mine are mistaken and gain a more accurate philosophy of life, not to have my intelligence insulted. If I offend someone (or, more precisely, if they choose to take offense, since no one can force you to be offended) I would encourage them to let me know so I can apologise if, in retrospect, I feel I was out of line.

I apologise for saying stuff that you chose to take offense about. I'll try to steer clear of your comments from now on to avoid further hard feelings between us.

Post 76

Sunday, February 17 - 11:12am

Link

Edit

Marotta:

So, too with the current discussion.
1. Miniarchists maintain that there must be a monopoly of laws by geography. I have shown many instances where there are not --

No you haven't. You confusingly show instances where you think there is no monopoly of government such as pointing out international trade and overlapping jurisdictions. But you ignore the fact international trade occurs under international trade agreements (which is two jurisdictions coalescing into one in the context of trade between two territories), and overlapping jurisdictions in our country only means some are inferior to others over who has final authority. And when there were instances of anarchy, either war broke out or one authority won out over another over which law applies. Which is precisely why anarchy doesn't work, the definition of anarchy, that of competing legal systems, is nothing more than a state of war or conflict.

The county coroner who forces an investigation on a federal navy base; bank robbery; etc., etc.. (So, governmental powers are not stictly hierarchical.)

A disagreement between two levels of government is still sorted out by a level of government with superior jurisdictional authority. Ultimately these disagreements are sorted out by the Supreme Court.

Yet, we have governments. So, I agree, there is a contradiction there. Some minarchist needs to resolve it, perhaps, but II think the miniarchist definition is wrong by empirical evidence.

No, the empirical evidence you offer are different applications (i.e. the particulars) on the concept of "monopoly government". What you have proven is that it can be complex, there can be many different contexts to the law and to jurisdictions. But in no way have you empirically proven anything other than you are very confused by what you observe.

2. I have shown where true conflicts of laws at the same level -- as between nations -- are settled privately for purposes of international trade and commerce. So, for them, there is no geographic monopoly of law.

You have shown that where a conflict exists, such as between nations, a treaty can resolve such a conflict which means two jurisdictions coalesce into one over the context of trade between those nations. That's all you've shown. That isn't anarcho-Capitalism.

3. I have shown that outside of pure government per se, we all adhere to social norms that come with sanctions. So, it is not necessary for there to be some monopoly of force to ensure that everyone behaves themselves.

This is a non-sequiter. I do not think for everyone to behave a monopoly of force is necessary. Retaliatory force is only necessary in the context of someone initiating force, and most people don't initiate force, so for those people under a just and proper government they should not have any government interference into their lives. It is only that the application of justice, i.e. to use retaliation of force against a criminal, against someone who initiates force and disrupts someone's freedom, that a monopoly on what constitutes justified retaliatory force is necessary to ensure we have justice, and that the use of that force against a criminal does not itself become an initiation of force by using disproportional force or force against someone who is innocent or the use of force against someone where the crime stated is not a legitimate crime.

4. I have shown that in the real world, when people commit objective crimes, sometimes the resolution is non-governmental.

Excuse me, but you showed that contract disputes where one claims the other breached the contract can and often are (so often its 95% of the time) settled through private arbitration. No dispute from me there. Only that those private arbitration agreements are of course legally binding with the threat of force should one party renege, and as such if one party reneges on the agreement the use of force can and often is applied. Such is the case routinely for divorce settlements when one party reneges on the agreement and an officer of the court can put wage garnishments on the violator of that agreement with the use of force. Not by the arbitrary definition of what is appropriate force by a private party, but by the rules of a monopoly government on what is appropriate force.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/17, 11:15am)

Post 77

Sunday, February 17 - 3:51pm

Link

Edit

Jim:

John, as a general rule I agree the U.S. has well-defined jurisdictions, with well-defined superior levels of government. But, at the margins this is not always so, because politicians, given a choice between obeying the various federal and state Constitutions and pandering for votes, will generally go for the votes. For example, look at the medical marijuana laws that various states have passed that are in conflict with federal drug laws -- essentially, the states are politely telling the feds to go to hell, and dragging their feet on cooperating when the feds try to assert their superior jurisdiction...

And I support these states telling the federal government to go to hell for asking them to follow laws that are illegitimate. No one has a moral obligation to follow an unjust law. But this is an issue unrelated to the discussion. For I am not proposing any kind of monopoly government with any kind of rule of law, but only a specifically defined government with its only legitimate function being the establishment of due process, of what constitutes justified retaliatory force to protect the freedoms of individuals. Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong because it makes no distinctions between just or unjust uses of retaliatory force. A system of anarchy is one gang telling the other gang they're breaking their version of the law with no recognition of what constitutes a just law. Anarcho-capitalism says multiple governments can come up with a legal-framework and use their own subjective idea of what legitimate force should be within the same geographical area, so naturally if you have conflicting ideas of what is appropriate retaliatory force, how do you resolve such conflicts? Either by negotiation to establish a uniform system of due process, which means a de facto monopoly government because two governments coalesce into one, or you have warfare and the side with the bigger guns win. Since anarcho-capitalism says no one should have a monopoly on what constitutes appropriate retaliatory force, the only realization of this to reality is constant warfare (because after all what is negotiation between these governments on a uniform set of laws anything but a monopoly government?)

Post 78

Sunday, February 17 - 4:28pm

Link

Edit

John, as always, an interesting and well-articulated POV. I'd like to mull this over for a while before possibly responding. Thanks -- sanctioned it.

Post 79

Sunday, February 17 - 9:20pm

Link

Edit

I don�t understand why you take offense, Jim. Those are the exact words you used in your post #69 which was clearly addressed to me:

Not knowing all the Objectivist lingo, or at least not wanting to sound pretentious by using words like "heuristic", is not the same as being incapable of using intuition and common sense to deduce that preemptive war helps build a large, powerful state that tramples our civil liberties, drains our income, and results in far less of the freedom that Objectivists purport to value ...

When I mentioned that your smiley face (which you removed) seemed odd in the context of an ad hominem, you were totally mystified (post #71):

I don't think that my post #69 was ad hominem as you claimed in post #70�

So why is it okay for you to say it to me, but not for me to say it to you?

PLEASE NOTE: I was only saying this for the purpose of illustration. I thought this would be obvious from the next two sentences: "And that�s not ad hominem. Your last post explains that." Evidently it is necessary for me to spell it out.

For the record: I try very hard to avoid insulting anyone unless it is in direct response to a personal attack against me.

Neo-Conservative: a heuristic (operational) definition