Topic: I'm skeptical about the State.

[jimbo]

Interesting points. No system would be immune from corruption. What we are talking about is what sort of system would promote good behavior and deter bad behavior. I am curious at to what you mean by high degree of accountability in our current system. What could I produce for you to prove to you that we do not have such a thing, or anything close to it?

By accountability I mean that there is always a 'higher up'. That's not to say that police don't get away with a great deal that a non-officer wouldn't (I agree that they do), but I'm saying that a private police force would be held even *less* accountable. You say they would lose their jobs for not performing, but supposedly, so would our current police. Having a private police force would not eradicate human error (which I do believe accounts for most of our police's wrongdoing)-- yet it would be MUCH more open to individual corruption. Who would be watching over the individual enforcers, making sure that they aren't taking bribes, or forcing extra "protection fees" (like the mob), on people?

Private, competing police forces would not be guaranteed jobs by tax money that is forced from the citizens. Instead they would be subject to lose their jobs for inaction or abuse of power because they would be subject to profit and loss. When is the last time you read about a private security officer wrongfully killing, abusing, or beating the shit out of a consumer and keeping his job? I could fill this board with stories of police unaccountability and abuse that should make any decent human being want to puke. Yet the faith in the system remains unshaken. (A) The police in this country have ZERO duty to protect you, only to provide for the "public good" which is completely undefinable. You have zero redress if the police fail to protect  you, even if you call them and tell them you are in danger (B) Police are all but immune from being punished for actual wrong doing. Like all humans they are self-interested and will look out for each other before some random citizen. The system shields bad behavior. That is not accountability.

You cannot compare current private security forces with our police forces. They perform completely different services. If you replace the police with private security forces, I think that you'd have MORE false arrests, beatings, etc.. On top of that, who's going to fire them? Do they have boss? If so, now you're talking about having an incredibly powerful person enforcing rules as they see fit.

I agree that the current system has some major problems-- I just think the system you propose would have bigger problems.

A lot of this seems like the argument from personal incredulity. You haven't provided any systematic theory for why the current system of forceful interaction is more desireable than one of voluntary interaction. You have said you think things will be worse without police being able to extract their pay through force.

Take out police and replace it with any other service in the economy. How does that work? The free market is much more responsive to individual wants and needs than government. Take Enron (before you scream about evil capitalists know that Enron was heavily embedded in our political structure) for example - even with all of its government connections, it went from being on the largest and most powerful corporations in  the world to worthless almost overnight. Why? Consumer confidence. But how about government agencies who completely fail, repeatedly at their goals,  and officials who slaughter hundreds of thousands of people?!!

Are you familiar with public choice theory, for which James Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in Economics? I think it would shed important light on this subject if you're interested - that is the subject of public agency accountability, and the failures of public policy.

[jimbo]

By what right do you claim to send armed men to my house and use phyiscal force to imprison me? And why would it be immoral for me to defend myself against these men? I'm not clear on the philosophical justifications you are using to make these claims advocating violating my human rights.

I do not send armed men to your house; the government does and this is not immoral.  The government exists because of the consent of the governed.  This does not mean that every single person must consent.  What it does mean is that the government must demand a consensus of a majority of the governed.  That consensus then empowers representatives to make laws and stipulate punishments for disobeying those laws. 

You like organizations such as the ACLU and Amnesty International so you are obviously concerned about the world as well. And you advocate VOTING as a way to stop war? And you ask me for empirical evidence for MY system? Have a look around this site and tell me how confident you feel driving to the ballot box this fall. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Read my previous post regarding this.  However horrific the 20th century wars were, the death rate pales in comparison to what history shows man does in the absence of government. 

Besides, instances of bad government are not an argument for eliminating all governments, but for eliminating bad governments.

So majority rule and might-makes-right are principles you adhere to?

[Jad]

A skeptical examination of the claim that the government is good, just, right, seeks peace, provides protection from theft, violence, illiteracy, drugs, sexism, racism, and so forth should result in peals of laughter at the first shred of evidence.

A skeptical examination of the claim that the intention of this government is to be just, seek peace, and provide protection of individual rights holds up just fine.

I disagree.  The claim: individuals in the government tell us ceaselessly that the intention of government is to be just, seek peace, etc. holds up.  Skeptics of government claim that its intention (to whatever degree a concept can have an intention) is to use its monopolistic claim on legitimate violence to enrich the politically connected at the expense of everyone else.

I submit that the validity of the two claims of intention should be determined empirically.
 

That's exactly what our government is supposed to do, but obviously it fails in some areas.

If we accept your premise about the intention of government, can you tell me an area in which the government does not fail?

If we accept my premise, the government is clearly an unmitigated success.

[jimbo]

Since when do intentions of anything mean anything? If I punch you in the face and say I didn't intend to hurt you - will you be persuaded?

What governments do matters.

[roger]

So majority rule and might-makes-right are principles you adhere to?

Did I not say that men institute governments to alleviate "might-makes-right".  Nothing you show demonstrates how anarchism would not degenerate to might-makes-right while all of human history shows that it would. 

All instances of this voluntary interactions you laud, such as the Law Merchant, existed because of the protections of the governments, not in spite of them.  Even today many industries handle disputes internally through arbitration.  Why can they do this?  Do they do this in retaliation to the state?  No, they do this because the state maintains order.  They do this because they have recourse to the state if the arbitration system breaks down. 

I have continuously advocated for higher levels of arbitration to alleviate wars and "might-makes-right".  Why hasn't there been a war in western Europe for 60 years yet it was common place before that?  Because the states submit to a higher power than themselves; namely, the UN and the EU. 

[jimbo]

So majority rule and might-makes-right are principles you adhere to?

Did I not say that men institute governments to alleviate "might-makes-right".  Nothing you show demonstrates how anarchism would not degenerate to might-makes-right while all of human history shows that it would. 

All instances of this voluntary interactions you laud, such as the Law Merchant, existed because of the protections of the governments, not in spite of them.  Even today many industries handle disputes internally through arbitration.  Why can they do this?  Do they do this in retaliation to the state?  No, they do this because the state maintains order.  They do this because they have recourse to the state if the arbitration system breaks down. 

I have continuously advocated for higher levels of arbitration to alleviate wars and "might-makes-right".  Why hasn't there been a war in western Europe for 60 years yet it was common place before that?  Because the states submit to a higher power than themselves; namely, the UN and the EU. 

roger: "This does not mean that every single person must consent.  What it does mean is that the government must demand a consensus of a majority of the governed.  That consensus then empowers representatives to make laws and stipulate punishments for disobeying those laws. "

No appeal to morals or principles, only what the majority says. If there was a majority who voted to reimplement slavery would that change the nature of slavery in your mind? Whether an action is right or wrong is not dependent on how many people think it so. If the majority of Americans didn't "believe" in evolution - would that say anything about the validity of the theory?

I am saying that your theory of government is philosophically hollow and inconsistant with the moral beliefs you claim to hold. By claiming that the "government" is the one who imprisons me, you wipe your hands clean. The government does not exist. There are people and buildings. You claim that it is OK for one group of people to violate my human rights because another group, without my consent, voted it so. That is not a very robust theory.

[EhJayArr]

A lot of this seems like the argument from personal incredulity. You haven't provided any systematic theory for why the current system of forceful interaction is more desireable than one of voluntary interaction. You have said you think things will be worse without police being able to extract their pay through force.

Bah. You're twisting my words. I said nothing about the desirability of the systems, only that I think the current one works better than the one you propose would. Since it's you saying your system would work better, the onus is on you to tell us why.

And while I'm saying that the current police force does have problems (you call that extracting pay through force-- as was said before, ENOUGH with the hyperbole), I think that it has fewer, less-severe problems than the police force you propose would have. The reasons why I feel this way have been brought up numerous times by myself and others, but not responded to. I do realize that it's tough to answer all the points raised when a few people are arguing with many.

Take out police and replace it with any other service in the economy. How does that work? The free market is much more responsive to individual wants and needs than government. Take Enron (before you scream about evil capitalists know that Enron was heavily embedded in our political structure) for example - even with all of its government connections, it went from being on the largest and most powerful corporations in  the world to worthless almost overnight. Why? Consumer confidence. But how about government agencies who completely fail, repeatedly at their goals,  and officials who slaughter hundreds of thousands of people?!! They cheated on their numbers, and lied to their shareholders. --there, FTFY  [/quote]

k... how's your system going to work better than the current one?

Are you familiar with public choice theory, for which James Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in Economics? I think it would shed important light on this subject if you're interested - that is the subject of public agency accountability, and the failures of public policy.

I'm not, and no doubt I'd be very interested in it. You still haven't addressed many of the major issues that have been raised.

[Jad]

I’m not sold on DRO’s as I currently understand them (as I mentioned before, I think predicting what a market would do with disputes would be like A.G. Bell predicting how wireless telephone service would be provided).  However, I am pretty sure that a DRO would not be able to, for example, invade the middle east because its customers would probably shy away from the trillion dollar increase (collectively) in their monthly bill.  And the fees would have to increase years before any military force was fielded.

The assertion that DROs would not resort to violence is completely without evidence.  The history of human interaction demonstrates that resorting to violence is exactly what occurs when there is no recourse to a higher governing body (and to a lesser extent even when there is).  Take inner city gangs: people join voluntarily to gain either power or protection in the absence of effective policing and these gangs routinely resort to violence. 

I don't disagree that whatever replaces the overwhelming violence of state policing might itself use violence.  If I employ someone to protect me and someone else attempts to harm me, I hope very much that violence is employed to protect me.  Currently the people tasked with protecting me are busy kicking in peoples' doors and dragging them off to prison for things I don't care about, but for which I must pay.  This is more than expensive and inconvenient, but values that I hold are being directly and horribly violated in my name with my money.

On a tangential note: inner city gangs are the direct result of government violence—starting as far back in the causal chain as slavery (followed by Jim Crow, public education, section 8 warehousing, and the war on drugs).  I think it is an error to view gangs as an organic phenomenon.

I have not yet seen any rational for DROs not to behave like this if it were in their interests. 

If it is in someone’s interest to do something, meaning that doing X is the highest value thing that they can do, they will do it.  This is precisely why the worst possible thing one can do is grant a person the ability to use violence against others who are expressly forbidden to defend themselves.  The system (not implying central design) must work in such a way that it is in the interest of the protection agencies not to violate the trust of their clients.  The very best way to do this, of course, is to allow the clients to break off the relationship without being dragged into prison.

[roger]

No appeal to morals or principles, only what the majority says. If there was a majority who voted to reimplement slavery would that change the nature of slavery in your mind? Whether an action is right or wrong is not dependent on how many people think it so. If the majority of Americans didn't "believe" in evolution - would that say anything about the validity of the theory?

People act morally or immorally.  It would be immoral for people to vote to re-institute slavery.  Governments are simply a tool for implementing that act. 

Once we accept the concept of government, we do, of course, need to argue about what limits should be placed on powers.  But it is a slippery slope fallacy to argue that because the people could empower government to do an evil, then all government is evil.

I am saying that your theory of government is philosophically hollow and inconsistant with the moral beliefs you claim to hold. By claiming that the "government" is the one who imprisons me, you wipe your hands clean. The government does not exist. There are people and buildings. You claim that it is OK for one group of people to violate my human rights because another group, without my consent, voted it so. That is not a very robust theory.

I neither wipe my hands clean, nor accept full responsibility.  I see nothing inconsistent with this.  Does a murderer need to consent to be imprisoned?  A rapist?  A thief?  Why can we decide punishment for these individuals but not for the tax evader?

[jimbo]

FeBolas, if calling something by its true name is hyperbole then so be it. The extraction of payment by force via taxation is the VERY thing I am arguing against. So I wil not discontinue to call state actions murder and theft becase those words make people uncomfortable.

I am not sure what you want as far as "proof" my system will work "better." It will not be based on violence, as the one you propose. Better. Police will be more accountable via people having the option to not pay for their services. Better. Competition breads innovation. Better.

[KarenX]

For the people who bother to opt in, anyway.

[jimbo]

No appeal to morals or principles, only what the majority says. If there was a majority who voted to reimplement slavery would that change the nature of slavery in your mind? Whether an action is right or wrong is not dependent on how many people think it so. If the majority of Americans didn't "believe" in evolution - would that say anything about the validity of the theory?

People act morally or immorally.  It would be immoral for people to vote to re-institute slavery.  Governments are simply a tool for implementing that act. 

Once we accept the concept of government, we do, of course, need to argue about what limits should be placed on powers.  But it is a slippery slope fallacy to argue that because the people could empower government to do an evil, then all government is evil.

I am saying that your theory of government is philosophically hollow and inconsistant with the moral beliefs you claim to hold. By claiming that the "government" is the one who imprisons me, you wipe your hands clean. The government does not exist. There are people and buildings. You claim that it is OK for one group of people to violate my human rights because another group, without my consent, voted it so. That is not a very robust theory.

I neither wipe my hands clean, nor accept full responsibility.  I see nothing inconsistent with this.  Does a murderer need to consent to be imprisoned?  A rapist?  A thief?  Why can we decide punishment for these individuals but not for the tax evader?

Someone tell me how this is not indoctrination at its finest? Where is the skepticism, the cold blade of reason?

You equate not paying taxes for a system that is immoral with murder, theft, and rape. If I withhold sanction of murder, theft, and rape by the government (i.e. war, taxation, imprisonment, police abuse, torture, etc. etc.) then that is the same as theft, murder, and rape. We really are entering into a world where up is down and down is up.

[roger]

I’m not sold on DRO’s as I currently understand them (as I mentioned before, I think predicting what a market would do with disputes would be like A.G. Bell predicting how wireless telephone service would be provided).  However, I am pretty sure that a DRO would not be able to, for example, invade the middle east because its customers would probably shy away from the trillion dollar increase (collectively) in their monthly bill.  And the fees would have to increase years before any military force was fielded.

The assertion that DROs would not resort to violence is completely without evidence.  The history of human interaction demonstrates that resorting to violence is exactly what occurs when there is no recourse to a higher governing body (and to a lesser extent even when there is).  Take inner city gangs: people join voluntarily to gain either power or protection in the absence of effective policing and these gangs routinely resort to violence. 

I don't disagree that whatever replaces the overwhelming violence of state policing might itself use violence.  If I employ someone to protect me and someone else attempts to harm me, I hope very much that violence is employed to protect me.  Currently the people tasked with protecting me are busy kicking in peoples' doors and dragging them off to prison for things I don't care about, but for which I must pay.  This is more than expensive and inconvenient, but values that I hold are being directly and horribly violated in my name with my money.

That is a reason for correcting our laws and government, not for disposing of government.  As political units become smaller, the rate of violence increases.  This is argument for worldwide government, not for disposing of government.

On a tangential note: inner city gangs are the direct result of government violence—starting as far back in the causal chain as slavery (followed by Jim Crow, public education, section 8 warehousing, and the war on drugs).  I think it is an error to view gangs as an organic phenomenon.

The phenomenon is widespread outside of that history.  People band together to protect themselves.  When faced with a threat and without recourse to a higher authority, they use violence.  Again, an argument for a higher level of government.

I have not yet seen any rational for DROs not to behave like this if it were in their interests. 

If it is in someone’s interest to do something, meaning that doing X is the highest value thing that they can do, they will do it.  This is precisely why the worst possible thing one can do is grant a person the ability to use violence against others who are expressly forbidden to defend themselves.  The system (not implying central design) must work in such a way that it is in the interest of the protection agencies not to violate the trust of their clients.  The very best way to do this, of course, is to allow the clients to break off the relationship without being dragged into prison.

But the protection agencies would certainly have the incentive to violate the trust of those who are not clients unless a controlling authority forced them not too.  This leads back to government.

[Jad]

Did I not say that men institute governments to alleviate "might-makes-right".  Nothing you show demonstrates how anarchism would not degenerate to might-makes-right while all of human history shows that it would. 

Nothing I’ve seen shows me that governments alleviate “might-makes-right,” in fact, it seems that governments are the absolute most egregious exploiters of “might-makes-right.”

All instances of this voluntary interactions you laud, such as the Law Merchant, existed because of the protections of the governments, not in spite of them.  Even today many industries handle disputes internally through arbitration.  Why can they do this?  Do they do this in retaliation to the state?  No, they do this because the state maintains order.  They do this because they have recourse to the state if the arbitration system breaks down. 

I don’t want to step on your guys’ discussion, and I’m not an expert on these matters, but I believe that things such as Law Merchant existed, because the apparatus of the “state” (in a wide sense of the word) failed to provide successful arbitration.  If I remember correctly, the penalty of being “shunned” by fellow merchants proved much higher price than having the Baron of some crap province in the Netherlands put a price on your head.

I have continuously advocated for higher levels of arbitration to alleviate wars and "might-makes-right".  Why hasn't there been a war in western Europe for 60 years yet it was common place before that?  Because the states submit to a higher power than themselves; namely, the UN and the EU. 

Before 1945, the leaders of governments were immune from the consequences of their war mongering (the occasional beheaded Tzar aside).  After the innocent citizens of two Japanese cities were vaporized in yet another act of government, it became clear that invading certain countries might actually have a consequence for the leadership of the aggressor nation.  When Western “leaders” wanted to give billions of dollars to their weapon peddling friends, they now had to invade countries in the third world.  The Soviets did the same. 

You ask why western Europe hasn’t had a war in 60 years (Greece, Turkey, uprisings in the eastern block, Ulster, and the Basque regions aside).  My counter question is, isn’t the presence of nuclear weapons (or in the case of, say, the Netherlands, protection by nations with nuclear weapons) a better predictor of being invaded (as in, it predicts that you won’t be invaded).  This allows the entry of China, N. Korea, India and Pakistan (recently) into the category of “peaceful” nations.

The idea that nations submit to the UN does not bear up under scrutiny.  Powerful nations ignore the UN or use it to legitimize their invasion, colonization, and financial domination of smaller, weaker nations.  Weaker nations ignore the UN when dealing horizontally with other weak nations (unless, of course, a powerful nation wants to manage the financial apparatus or resources of the country, then the UN will station soldiers there).

[roger]

Someone tell me how this is not indoctrination at its finest? Where is the skepticism, the cold blade of reason?

You equate not paying taxes for a system that is immoral with murder, theft, and rape. If I withhold sanction of murder, theft, and rape by the government (i.e. war, taxation, imprisonment, police abuse, torture, etc. etc.) then that is the same as theft, murder, and rape. We really are entering into a world where up is down and down is up.

I did not equate them.  I said that if society, via government, can demand sanctions for one crime, why not another?  And if society can demand that you not kill or rob your neighbor, why cannot it demand that you pay your share to enforce that system?