Government.

[inky]

Once again, Barotix, you fail to acknowledge the fact that not everyone has the same view. My idea of human rights is different from your idea of human rights. What if someone's idea of human rights are based on a misogynistic ideology? Or someone who believes that saving people from the fires of Hell is essential and that it is a fundamental human right to go to heaven?

Not every situation is suitable for people to simply lower the price of goods when people are starving. People will starve when the economy is down and resources are down. Yes, food prices are not gonna go up if there's an abundance of it, but that's not always the situation is it? You're looking at the process of trading goods on such a micro level that you fail to see the obvious flaws. There's a reason why governments conduct food inspection and impose rules regarding the safety of consumers (ever read Upton Sinclare's The Jungle?). In addition, in order for a certain change to occur which would lead to your idea of a Utopia, there has to be a powerful stimulus or stimuli to start it. The closest ones I've seen so far is the American revolution and the US civil war, which, by the way, required a leader, generals, and their own version of government to organize things before, during, and after the war/battle. A government can be ruled by an aristocracy, a monarch, or whatever else there is -- including a group of, what I would call, "villagers" who meet on certain days of the week to discuss what they would do about the guy who raped his neighbor a few days ago or where to get the money to fix the leaking water pipes underground. Eventually their little tree house or village hall would get too crowded and they would start depending on the patron of the family to represent; soon there will be too many and they would have to depend on a district representative; and sooner or later, an aristocrat, a monarch, or maybe another "democratic" American government.

-You do not or cannot acknowledge the fact that people are different from one another -- that freedom of thought does not mean those who cherish it would end up having the same conclusion.
-Your view of the economy refuses to see the flaws of such a system where mass-producers of goods are not subject to laws (keep in mind that not everyone values certain human rights).
-You fail to see that money, lust, and power are enough motivation for people to take advantage of such a vulnerable system.
-You fail to understand every point I made regarding the shift from our current system to that of your personal Utopia.
-You cannot comprehend the fact that the word "justice" has a broad term; that it is subject to justice being equal to a point in the continuum between forgiveness and what you would consider as vengeful and/or sick.

[Grandpa]

@Granps; plenty of people see holy books as nothing more than books. Many Atheist libertarians that I speak with quote the bible. It's ideas are very libertarian. It makes it easy to get Christians (especially fundamentalist) to join the cause of liberty. Many Christian libertarians quote the bible as well (that's a given). The Christian founders of America used the bible when they were creating this country. It's just a good book, but that doesn't mean I have to accept the spiritual aspects.

You misunderstand me. You don't have to accept spiritual aspects. The UN does not stand for true Libertarianism any more than they stand for true Christianity but they know how to talk the talk (like you're learning to). You say that the concepts of the holy book are libertarian. The bible is about God's nature, not man's.

You state that you don't have to accept "the spiritual aspects", okay - but you are preaching the spiritual aspects. You state, "I have trust in Human Ingenuity" but like your enemies you are a slippery one. What example can assure us that your trust is well placed? When has your so-called plan ever worked? Your religious faith in mankind is unfounded. If you are saying that man's nature is good - demonstrate your trust in your own life first. Did you even so much as unlock your door?

I trust in human ingenuity too - but I mistrust human nature. Many of the concepts you speak about come from a time when people looked out for each other. "A neighbor close is better than a brother far." Those saying were rock solid. Today a neighbor close means "don't drop the soap". You started this topic with a reference to Somalia. You've attempted to state that their economy is a true picture of that society. You've purposefully ignored every act of violence and continue to point to your imagined, heavenly place where one can live safely in peace. Your plan lacks the force necessary to accomplish your lofty goals.

In a time of war - beat your plowshares into swords - that is the only sound advice there is - and remember this comes from me, a pacifist. The world's economy isn't a safe place and transition from what we have now to your ideal won't happen without struggle. I would challenge you to subject your theory to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Simply put, those societies who have safety needs, who still struggle to satisfy the basic physiological demands and needs of life itself are not able to concentrate on growth or higher needs such as problem solving, morality, lack of prejudice, self esteem, confidence, and issues of respect. Starving people don't go to the library to "liberate" themselves; one simply cannot get there from here.

~Granps

[ThiefzV2]

im not going to read all thru 4 pages... can someone sum up in a paragraph the summary of what is debated and who are the debatees?

[Grandpa]

im not going to read all thru 4 pages... can someone sum up in a paragraph the summary of what is debated and who are the debatees?

Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy that wants to eliminate the state (formal centralized governments) and replace it with a system to provide for security from aggression against person and property by the private sector in a free market.

They advocate voluntarily-funded competitors rather than law enforcement and courts funded by taxation. Non-intrusive personal and economic activities would not be regulated, because the natural laws of the market – rather than politics – would order society. Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based in voluntary trade and non-initiation of force regarding private property, individual rights, and services and seek to maximize personal liberties and freedoms. Tort law would be replaced by contractual agreements with arbitrators and mediation being the final authority.

I probably shouldn't presume to define Barotix's position but I do trust him to to correct me if I omitted any relevant facts or information. Opponents of this ideology call it a utopia and argue that the destination might be "pretty" but the journey there is impossible.

~Granps

[ThiefzV2]

So im in not mistaken Barotix support a kind of government that is survival of the fittest?

[Grandpa]

So im in not mistaken Barotix support a kind of government that is survival of the fittest?

He advocates the elimination of governmental authority. Your observation is correct though, one might reasonably expect individuals to seek to take advantage and set themselves up as 'warlords'. There are other flaws as well. What to do about the poor who cannot afford to buy protection? I don't like the idea of turning a blind eye to the needs of the weak (or poor).

The other main argument against a deregulated society is that they (without an army) would lack the ability to defend themselves as a nation. Individual free-trade would be fine on a limited and isolated basis -- but in today's world? It seems to me that the whole thing would fail due to internal and external forces. I've tried to understand what means of support could be advanced but suspect that "education" isn't it.

Spoiler!

Those of us who play SilkRoad play a game that is based on an historical example of societies who attempted to control free trade and the market. Powerful countries and groups of men tried to better establish themselves by controlling the supply side of the supply / demand system. We "should" be able to learn from the games we play -- to pretend that society can somehow do what Barotix proposes in real life is silly. Ignoring rules doesn't make our play better in the game, why should we expect real life to be different? Can we really trust people to live and let live when they could easily exploit others?

~Grandpa

[Barotix]

Long Post

Spoiler!

Once again, Barotix, you fail to acknowledge the fact that not everyone has the same view. My idea of human rights is different from your idea of human rights. What if someone's idea of human rights are based on a misogynistic ideology? Or someone who believes that saving people from the fires of Hell is essential and that it is a fundamental human right to go to heaven?

In such a society people would have different views. I acknowledge that. Freedom means free thought and the freedom to choose. There are basic human rights that are unalienable:
The right to one's own body (this encompasses all human rights and is under property rights) and the right to private property. Next we must define a right. Many people argue that everyone has a right to education, a car, a television, a computer, etc but I don't speak of rights used to separate (Minority rights, Women's rights, The rights of children). Certain rights are universal, that is; you have claims to these rights in any time or place. Whether you are in 2008 or 4000 B.C. you have a right to private property. That is an unalienable universal right that cannot be challenged. Private property covers all human rights since you are your own property; therefore, you have a right to life and a right to interact with others. Because everyone owns their own body you or any others that seek power have no right to control others; therefore, use of force (unless to retaliate: [in which case you must weigh the risk VS rewards {i.e.} is it in your best interest to retaliate with greater force?]) is understood to be wrong or naturally prohibited. If one believes it is their right to go to heaven then they may practice whatever is required to enter heaven as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others (force them to agree that going to heaven is an absolute necessity). You see, such a society understands only sovereign individuals. As a child when one first learns how to speak; one does not understands concepts like government, country, nationalism, patriotism, etc.

Not every situation is suitable for people to simply lower the price of goods when people are starving.

Ah, but you see: The market will prepare for such events. Since we as a species understand the changing of seasons we would know when food would naturally be scarce and when there would be an abundance. Private property will prevent overgrazing and depletion of nutrients. If a society is sedentary and a farmer in such a society owns his land then he will do well to take care of the land. To prepare for the coming "death" (fall followed by winter) farmers will store the extra stock they have rather than put it on the market and decrease its value. The stock that was stored would be put on the market during a time when food supplies would be low. In todays modern age food can be produced year round with greenhouses.

resources are down.

Again, in such a society one would be able to know when more is needed. What catastrophe will cause resources to go down? Do you mean unexpected food shortages? What would cause the food shortages? The agriculture area will create enough food to feed themselves, sell for profit [i.e.] satisfy their selfish desire, and they would create an abundance that would be stored in the case of food shortages or low abundance. This would be sold on the market and shortages will be unnoticeable; the farmers won't be stocking up on food because they care about Jim or Sally. The agriculture department does that to make money and feed themselves. Those who want the food will buy it.

You're looking at the process of trading goods on such a micro level

Because goods are sold on such a micro level in every day life; in any economic stage goods are sold on a micro level. From individual to individual to individual. Large transactions that occur between governments occur because government takes from the majority of individuals to trade with other governments. A government is nothing more than a small group of individuals that create monopolies to further their own agenda; they steal from the majority, they lie to the majority, and they harm the majority.

There's a reason why governments conduct food inspection and impose rules regarding the safety of consumers

The market would have provided such rules. Governments may print and coin currencies but they did not come up with the idea. In a free market situation there would be competing currencies that all have wealth. In our world there are different currencies with different values but government bans the use of different forms of fiat, they ban the use of gold, and they ban silver as well. If a currency threatens the government's monopoly style stranglehold then the government will act.

In addition, in order for a certain change to occur which would lead to your idea of a Utopia, there has to be a powerful stimulus or stimuli to start it

The stimuli will be (as I stated earlier) education followed by the failure of global fiat monetary systems. Educated individuals will not be slaves to perpetual debt for eternity. Why must governments use propaganda to keep their subjects in line? Why does the MsM (the government's shield and sword) attempt to keep the people in perpetual fear and ignorance? Why must government create a common enemy (even if that enemy does not exist or is impossible to track and defeat) for the people to rally against? Because free thinking sentient beings are not born to be controlled and will see liers and scoundrels for what/who they are. Government cannot rule for long if they said everything they are doing in laymen terms. Government would soon collapse if it were foolish enough to reveal that it does not work for the people, but it works for itself. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why give a human power where power is not justified or needed? To wage wars? People do not start wars; government start wars and you and I, we fight the wars. We live to protect the government from other governments. What a way to live. I would rather live for myself; not for a coercive monopoly that cares only for itself. Why is government so reluctant to relinquish power? "But government is made of individuals" And so what if it is? In a free society any attempt to form a central government would be challenged. Warlords fight to prevent government from infringing on property rights. Understanding the nature of government is crucial to understanding why it is unnecessary. Understanding that human "nature" is selfish (being selfish is not bad; one is taught that being selfish is bad so it may be easier for government to extort and stay in power) and human behavior is ever changing; thus, any attempt to prevent change or control people is foolish. For example: Slaves that know they're enslaved but have a burning desire for freedom will not work efficiently for their masters. They will not complete task promptly and on time. They will do the bare minimum. Any slave given the freedom and the chance to do great things succeeds in such endeavors. In totalitarian governments; why do free-thinking intellectuals have more freedom than the "commoners?" Because government fears nothing more than an intelligent man, but without intelligent men a government cannot function. Why were slaves kept from learning how to read and write? Because education and the fre-flow of information/thought is liberation.

The closest ones I've seen so far is the American revolution and the US civil war, which, by the way, required a leader, generals, and their own version of government to organize things before, during, and after the war/battle.

Such a society is not forged from the flames of war. Government (even the weakest) only leads to Tyranny.

government.

All governments are controlled by a small group of men. In a government controlled society, with little private property, the tragedy of the commons will bring the people and the government to their knees. "Village elders." Such a free society is an advanced society.

You do not or cannot acknowledge the fact that people are different from one another -- that freedom of thought does not mean those who cherish it would end up having the same conclusion.

So you say free men will devise ways to harm their fellow free man to advance their own cause? Free thinking individuals will wish to remain free thinking. Any attempts to bring forth regulations and control will be fought.

Your view of the economy refuses to see the flaws of such a system where mass-producers of goods are not subject to laws (keep in mind that not everyone values certain human rights).

Free workers that are payed and treated courteously are far more efficient than disheartened workers.

You fail to see that money, lust, and power are enough motivation for people to take advantage of such a vulnerable system.

Any attempt to "take advantage" of free thinking individuals will result in equal if not greater resistance. Attempts to control others will end in failure.

You fail to understand every point I made regarding the shift from our current system to that of your personal Utopia.

You assert that government can only fall in violence:

tells an inspiring story of an underground band of freedom fighters in formerly communist Poland. Their spirit of freedom was kept alive despite a tyrannical Communist regime. Indeed, they not only held onto their belief in freedom, but they spread it, often at great risk to their lives. When the Communist authorities finally announced that they were relinquishing their power the reason they gave was that the Polish people had become "ungovernable." No regulations, no prisons, no secret police, no propaganda, no physical or political suppression could take away the people's freedom. They were free, whether the government liked it or not.

Free men will do everything in their power to remain free. No man can control a free man that truly believes in freedom. It will always come down to liberty or death. What is there to gain from taking control of such a society? The only way a free society can become enslaved (mentally and physically) is if they take the message of freedom for granted, if they underestimate their individual capabilities. What government would want to deal with such a society and when would government know when such a society was conquered? Governments conquer people by destroying their government and crushing their spirit. If you want to control another man then destroy his self esteem. If you want to destroy a society then make them destroy themselves.

You cannot comprehend the fact that the word "justice" has a broad term; that it is subject to justice being equal to a point in the continuum between forgiveness and what you would consider as vengeful and/or sick.

Justice is broad. One cannot initiate force unless it was to retaliate and even then it would have to be in their best interest to retaliate.

You've purposefully ignored every act of violence and continue to point to your imagined, heavenly place where one can live safely in peace.

The warlords of Somalia fight to prevent a formal central government. As for crime: private property climates crime.

You've attempted to state that their economy is a true picture of that society.

I simply stated Somalia is free. At the moment they are in a war but is it a war started by the Somalis?

"Maslow's hierarchy of needs"
1]They consist of needs for oxygen, food, water, and a relatively constant body temperature.

Oxygen, check. Food, check. Water, check. Relative constant body temperature, check. Does government make sure you have food and water? You meet those needs yourself. One seeks those needs out. If one can produce food then they will produce food. As for water. Tap water is not provided by government. It is provided by companies given "the right" to pump water into areas that don't have a direct water source.

[this is all I'm typing for today] I'll continue tomorrow. It would require several books to refute every point you bring up. Writing several books to argue on the internet is not on the top of my "agenda" yet.

Your plan lacks the force necessary to accomplish your lofty goals & transition from what we have now to your ideal won't happen without struggle.

Of course: The government would fight the people and the people would win.

to concentrate on growth or higher needs such as problem solving, morality, lack of prejudice, self esteem, confidence, and issues of respect.

Growth happens naturally. A starving man will think of a way to feed himself because he is selfish and does not want to die. If it means reading a book on agriculture and missing a few meals a starving man will do such a thing. If it means working for another man then a starving man will do such a thing. The best thing one can do for the poor or impoverished is to let them think of ways to help themselves. Giving a starving man food and water will only help him for a day it will also make him a liability if you continuously deal with his nourishment. A wise entrepreneur will teach a starving man: The best thing government can do for the poor or impoverished is to A]get out of the way or B]help them think of ways to help themselves. Teach them. Does one need a formal education to become an arbitrator in such a free society? If a starving man sees he can feed himself by helping settle disputes then he will do such a thing. What of the story of escaped slaves that become free? Surely, for most of their journey they were starving but they thought of ways to get out of starvation. Would fining a man that steals bread from your stand be wise? Take the man and teach him how to make his own bread, teach him how to make his own profit. The market is self-regulating.

Modern society is not fit for such a large transition yet. Such a society is one that has never been given enough time to perfect itself but small glimpses of free societies with central government vs societies that are "enslaved" with central government has shown that the freer a society is the more powerful said society is. If government took off the reigns without actually collapsing most would not notice. If government slowly started lifting restrictions on economic and civil liberty to the point that government played little to no role in the lives of the people crime would start to drop significantly and more jobs will appear on the market. Trade among governments or individuals creates peace. The only role government may play is the role of protector or "grand arbitrator." The difference between government arbitration and market arbitration is that government would not do it for a price. The problem is disputes are constantly arising; only professional arbitrators could see that each dispute gets it's fair share. Some disputes (most disputes) could be solved without the presence of a middle man.

[XemnasXD]

So im in not mistaken Barotix support a kind of government that is survival of the fittest?

He advocates the elimination of governmental authority. Your observation is correct though, one might reasonably expect individuals to seek to take advantage and set themselves up as 'warlords'. There are other flaws as well. What to do about the poor who cannot afford to buy protection? I don't like the idea of turning a blind eye to the needs of the weak (or poor).

The other main argument against a deregulated society is that they (without an army) would lack the ability to defend themselves as a nation. Individual free-trade would be fine on a limited and isolated basis -- but in today's world? It seems to me that the whole thing would fail due to internal and external forces. I've tried to understand what means of support could be advanced but suspect that "education" isn't it.

Spoiler!

Those of us who play SilkRoad play a game that is based on an historical example of societies who attempted to control free trade and the market. Powerful countries and groups of men tried to better establish themselves by controlling the supply side of the supply / demand system. We "should" be able to learn from the games we play -- to pretend that society can somehow do what Barotix proposes in real life is silly. Ignoring rules doesn't make our play better in the game, why should we expect real life to be different? Can we really trust people to live and let live when they could easily exploit others?

~Grandpa

ok...i was totally thinking the the sro reference...

your not that bad gramps....not bad at all....

[John_Doe]

+1

[Barotix]

Why does crime occur?

[inky]

Barotix, I hope you realize that we're going in circles here. Your definition of "unalienable rights" might be different than that of other people's. Freedom of thought means that they might have, and most likely will, differ in opinion regarding certain human rights. Even if they do acknowledge that, there's no guarantee that they will respect it. As for the economy, you're only looking at the surface and you don't take things that occur behind it all into consideration. You're looking at things, purely, from an optimistic point of view that it clouds your mind. You can't expect everything to go the way you believe it's supposed to go. Yes, people will act on their best interest but you can never be sure that they will act with regards to other people's "unalienable rights." Say the market did create rules, who's going to impose them? An angry mob?

By the way, I hope you realize that you're proposing a barter system of trade. Do you have any idea how impractical that is when you take things such as buying off companies or moving to a further region into consideration? If you look at the history of US currency, private banks used to issue their own paper money and miners used to turn their silver into coins. The problem with this system is that when people choose to purchase items from a different area, the seller might, and would probably, consider the buyer's currency to be of no use. Unless of course you're talking about trading a goat for a new sofa.

[inky]

Why does crime occur?

Take a naked girl and throw her in the middle of Bronx at 1AM in the morning. Leave a clear plastic bag full of money with your name on it with the sign: PLEASE DO NOT STEAL. Buy a new expensive flat screen tv, place it next to your window, leave the door open, then go on vacation for a week. Create a capitalist economy with rules but no one to impose it.

[nohunta]

Why does crime occur?

Depends on what you think crime is?

[Barotix]

Using money to buy some bubble gum from a corner store is barter? Using paper currency backed by an asset (preferably gold or silver) to buy an asset you consider to be of greater value is barter? The strongest currency will be the most widely used one; the currency that is stronger will change over time; therefore, most people will use the same currency.

unalienable universal rights

Universal means it applies to every time and place. Property rights occur everywhere, regardless of time, place, or situation. Unalienable and universal are interchangeable.

that they will act with regards to other people's "unalienable universal rights."

They will be acting to protect their universal rights. One will not attempt to force someone to confirm to their "way" for fear of retaliation. Non-initiation of force is a natural occurrence in the absence of written law. One would not rape sally if sally may have a concealed handgun. Knowing that one can defend themselves just as well as you can attack them will deter most, if not all, crimes. Criminals commit crimes because the rewards outweigh the risk, but what happens when the rewards (rape=sex=pleasure: because you keep bringing it up) are no where near the risk (that is: getting shot and dieing for attempting to violate someone physically). Where people are not allowed to carry concealed handguns crime is higher.

Say the market did create rules

Rules regarding what? "Rules of trade and commerce" will arise naturally. They won't be enforced by an angry mob; what caused the mob in the first place? A mob does not just appear over nothing. The laws will be understood and followed because they're mutually beneficial. If one does not follow the ever changing "rules of trade and commerce" they may be missing out on a possible profit; therefore they will follow the ever changing "natural rules and laws" that occur.

1]Take a naked girl and throw her in the middle of Bronx at 1AM in the morning. 2]Leave a clear plastic bag full of money with your name on it with the sign: PLEASE DO NOT STEAL. 3]Buy a new expensive flat screen tv, place it next to your window, leave the door open, then go on vacation for a week. 4]Create a capitalist economy with rules but no one to impose it.

Such arguments are silly. Crime occurs because the criminals see the victims as powerless. A criminal would not use force on a target that they know would retaliate with greater force.

1]I'm from the Bronx. The chances of a girl running around a public park in the Bronx naked at 1 AM is low. Give her clothes, a purse, and a concealed handgun. Lift laws that ban carrying concealed handguns. Now, knowing that your victim may have a concealed handgun is more than enough to decrease the number of rape victims significantly. Take it another step further; let's say every woman acquired a handgun and had it concealed. No let's say criminals know this. What rapist would rape knowing this? Rapist rape because women are weaker than men. If the rapist has a gun? What good would that do if the woman has a gun? If a suspicious man starts following a woman with a concealed handgun chances are she will pull it out and yell, "I have a gun don't come any closer." Even if the rapist also has a gun he probably won't shoot. A fearful person is likely to retaliate in self defense. If he comes closer after the initial warning he may be wounded or killed. One would not rape if the fear of greater retaliation was a reality. Understanding the criminal mind is key to understanding why crimes occur and how to prevent them.

2]Such a situation is unlikely; even then, what use is it if you're caught? Why would you break into someone's house to steal a bag of money if they're waiting there and you might be wounded or shot?

3]Since all streets are private apartment owners will likely have an armed neighborhood watch. A suburb may also have an armed neighborhood watch. Unlike in society with government where neighborhood watch must rely on state controlled police that only respond after the fact. Even today; we have neighborhood watches and apartment systems with guards that also live in the house. If each of these guards held a handgun any crime will be deterred. Some patrolling the streets in cars and others walking the streets. An organized security system would naturally arise due to necessity; if someone wants it then it will be sold. Say you're home. You yourself will have guns but in all likelihood they won't have to be used. What man (after learning the nature of criminals and their crimes: they prey on the weak and defenseless) would attack another man knowing that the man he is attacking can harm him just as well if not more than he can. Criminals do not prey on the strong; criminals attack those who cannot fight back effectively.

4]The market is self-regulating.

[Blurred]

1]I'm from the Bronx. The chances of a girl running around a public park in the Bronx naked at 1 AM is low. Give her clothes, a purse, and a concealed handgun. Lift laws that ban carrying concealed handguns. Now, knowing that your victim may have a concealed handgun is more than enough to decrease the number of rape victims significantly. Take it another step further; let's say every woman acquired a handgun and had it concealed. No let's say criminals know this. What rapist would rape knowing this? Rapist rape because women are weaker than men. If the rapist has a gun? What good would that do if the woman has a gun? If a suspicious man starts following a woman with a concealed handgun chances are she will pull it out and yell, "I have a gun don't come any closer." Even if the rapist also has a gun he probably won't shoot. A fearful person is likely to retaliate in self defense. If he comes closer after the initial warning he may be wounded or killed. One would not rape if the fear of greater retaliation was a reality. Understanding the criminal mind is key to understanding why crimes occur and how to prevent them.

I'm from the Bronx too, i was raised in the south Bronx.

Anyways why would someone want to lift a law that bans carrying concealed handguns? I guess you wanna see gang violence skyrocket.

[Barotix]

I'm from the Bronx too, i was raised in the south Bronx.

Anyways why would someone want to lift a law that bans carrying concealed handguns? I guess you wanna see gang violence skyrocket.

Gang violence would decrease. Gang bangers don't give a shit about gun laws. Most gun related crimes happen in areas with heavy restrictions on guns. When you ban something that isn't criminal you create criminals and help real criminals gain greater leverage over their victims. People don't want to die; someone would not attempt to rob a man if he knows the man might have a gun. Simply showing an unloaded shotgun when someone burst into your store to steal your money is enough to make the criminal run away with his tail between his legs. Taking away the right to protect oneself to the best one's ability does not decrease crime. Most gang bangers don't get guns legally.

[Jstar1]

Take it another step further; let's say every woman acquired a handgun and had it concealed. No let's say criminals know this. What rapist would rape knowing this? Rapist rape because women are weaker than men. If the rapist has a gun? What good would that do if the woman has a gun? If a suspicious man starts following a woman with a concealed

the scenario you describe is way too ideal. Do you honestly think that rapists will clumsily follow women so that they can point a gun at them and make them back off?

a rapist wouldnt do that, they aren't stupid enough to show that they are rapists. They'd do something more along like: wait until night and then sit in the ally and when a woman walks by, grabs them and gaffs them and then drag them off somewhere. Or at night when a woman is walking alone through a park or a trail, sneak up behind them and gaff them.

so much for a handgun, which would be useless at that point

[Reise]

Newsflash:

Not all states ban concealed weapons.

Not everyone carries their weapon even if they're able.

No one knows if someone else is armed, and the first one to draw theirs is likely to get what they're after anyway.

[inky]

Give everyone a handgun? I couldn't even trust myself with a handgun and you're telling to trust anyone with it -- that someone out there wouldn't take out their gun, shoot me, then leave? Do you have any idea how hard it would be to monitor people's activities in that Utopia of yours? And markets have to create and impose rules in order to protect consumers from things such as monopoly of goods production and products that might cause harm such as infected food or poisonous toys? Who would make sure that the Jews get their Kosher and just any meat passing itself as Kosher? What makes you sure that the owner would even care in the the first place? That he's in it for that warm, satisfying good feeling? As for the examples I gave you, I'm simply implying that someone will probably commit crime when an opportunity arises -- people do get tempted. The only thing I can tell you is that you need to think about the side of humans that you keep trying to ignore -- the same reason why weapons are created, why doors are locked, why you don't tell women to walk in dark alleys, why you don't wave your money around in the subway, why you don't leave your belongings on the street, why you lock your vehicle, why the term "forgiveness" and "crime" exists, why rules and laws are passed, and why punishment is necessary. I don't mean to offend you but right now you sound like a naive teenager who just finished reading some Cult Fiction novel written by some drugged-up Beatnik.

[Barotix]

Newsflash:

1]Not all states ban concealed weapons.

2]Not everyone carries their weapon even if they're able.

3]No one knows if someone else is armed, and the first one to draw theirs is likely to get what they're after anyway.

1]I'm well aware of this. If I wasn't aware of this I wouldn't have explicitly used "areas with strict guns laws, etc.." It means I acknowledge the fact that some areas are lenient.
2]Yet, in areas were laws regarding guns are lenient crime rates are lower.
3]This is not an excuse. One can not disregard the nature of real criminals. Crime rates will drop significantly.

@Jstar1, The scenario is equally as ideal as inky's "throw a naked woman in a park at 1 AM." Rapist aren't stupid; guns scare people. All rapist won't stop but most will. Let's say parks are privatized. Private institutions have armed security guards that successfully deter most crimes. What woman would walk in a park that was not guarded well? In a private park with cameras, a fee, and security there would be very few crimes.

that someone out there wouldn't take out their gun, shoot me, then leave?

There has to be a cause. Let's say you have a new pair of Jordons and a crip sees you. Let's say he knows that you might have a gun. Now lets also say that when he says give me your jordons you pull your gun and threaten to shoot. You will be afraid to actually shoot but if you're left with no choice (if he reaches for his gun) chances are you will shoot the hand that is reaching for a gun. Now let's say you're in a private park with cameras. The rest of the scenario flows out easily.

Do you have any idea how hard it would be to monitor people's activities in that Utopia of yours?

You ignore private property and armed security. How are people monitored in malls? Now let's say the streets and allies are privatized. How would you monitor people on your private street/alley way? Using the same method as the mall security. With cameras and patrolmen. Since everything is private what criminal would commit a crime. Now let's say a street has a lot of crime. One would be wise to avoid that street or alley because it is not well guarded or monitored. Now why would someone guard their street? Ask yourself why some people guard their stores, ask yourself why malls have security guards. The well guarded streets/areas will commerce than those that are badly guarded. One does not protect their property for the sake of others: A street owner would protect their street from crime and vandals because it is in their best interest. Just as some states try to decrease crime by making crimes easier to commit.

And markets have to create and impose rules in order to protect consumers from things such as monopoly of goods production and products that might cause harm such as infected food or poisonous toys?

Monopolies result from government interference. Market competition prevents monopolies, but when governments show favor to one company over another company and when government arbitrates with bias monopolies are easily formed. It is quite difficult to monopolize something because someone will always attempt to provide better service and break apart any monopolies. Monopolies only exist where government prevents fair and natural commerce&competition based on market values at that time.

Who would make sure that the Jews get their Kosher and just any meat passing itself as Kosher?

The Jews would make sure the Jews get their Kosher.

What makes you sure that the owner would even care in the the first place?

Providing bad service is not in one's best interest. Market competition creates naturally occurring excellence. Where competition is restricted, prevented, or regulated blunders may occur and jeopardize the market as a whole.

That he's in it for that warm, satisfying good feeling?

He's in it for a profit and will be inclined to provide better kosher than his competitors.

The only thing I can tell you is that you need to think about the side of humans that you keep trying to ignore

The selfish/cowardly side? I don't ignore it.

I don't mean to offend you but right now you sound like a naive teenager who just finished reading some Cult Fiction novel written by some drugged-up Beatnik.

I loled; yep, some old beatnik came up with libertarianism.

[Reise]

My post wasn't really directed at you Barotix since I know you understand the benefits of the 2nd amendment.

You can't tell me a rapist's first action wouldn't be to threaten the victim with a weapon though.

[Grandpa]

You've asked, "Why do people commit crime?" Seems like you honestly don't know. Let me add to your dilemma:

• Why do we commit adultery?
• Why do we covet?
• Why are we envious?
• Why are we greedy?
• Why do the rich attempt to exploit the poor?
• Why try to 'keep up with the Joneses'?
• Why do we want more than we can eat?

What is it about desire that fails to satisfy? What capitalist that you know personally has ever said, "Okay, I've got enough"?

Why is justice blind? I can trade platitudes with you all day. Ignoring the cause of the problem does nothing to solve it. You seem to have strayed from the normal party line and crossed into a NRA advocate - guns are your solution? I don't blame ya, it's a scary world out there. Why?

Spoiler!

The late Robert A. Heinlein wrote a book (the title escapes me) about a society similar to what you describe - a couple modifications though -- he proposed a minimalist government with an army and said that only those who volunteered to serve in the armed forces had a say in the government - if you weren't willing to die for your country, you could live here, but had zero influence. To that he allowed a freely armed citizenry -- and advocated lethal force against rudeness. His society believed that being rude to one another was the primary cause of the downfall of society. If you were polite, fine - you were safe. I liked the book, wish I could remember the title.

~Granps

[inky]

I think if someone is actually willing to rape a woman, he's most likely willing to take the risk of sneaking in from behind, pointing the gun at the woman, then raping her. One of the things that's been bugging me is -- where the hell would people get their guns from? And who's to say that everyone should get guns? You do realize that this is a serious issue which would most likely divide that Utopia of yours, right? If you tell me that people are gonna make gun shops, something tells me that a group of individuals are most likely going to cluster and start burning those shops down, especially since there's no riot police to stop them. If you're gonna tell me that some "private security" is going to stop them, where would they take them? To government-funded jails? Who's gonna pay for that security company? Income tax collected by a non-existent government in the form of 30 silvers, a goat, and an oven? In the end, it'll end up looking like a public lynching parade or the Ungeren riot--except everyone has guns.

I read the Communist Manifesto and it does sound like a great proposal for a new system...on paper. Sooner or later, someone will find a way to screw things up because of the unfortunate fact that people are tempted by money, power, lust, and land. Even if that's not the case -- that the so-called dictators were only doing things that they believe are good for the society or that they're trying to prevent someone else from taking their place and taking advantage of the system -- such an occurrence is still likely to happen (in fact, it already did happen several times).

[Barotix]

where the hell would people get their guns from? And who's to say that everyone should get guns?

They would get their guns from people that sell guns just as they do in our society. No one is "to say." As no one has a right to tell anyone else if they should own a gun or not. They can be against guns but they cannot force others to be against guns too.

something tells me that a group of individuals are most likely going to cluster and start burning those shops down, especially since there's no riot police to stop them.

There has to be a catalyst. What would cause a group of individuals in such a society to riot and protest? What are they rioting against? Why are they burning down the gun shop? For what reason would a group of humans do such a thing? Most people aren't willing to riot or cause a ruckus, Most people would rather just be left alone; if one is satisfied why would they riot against gun stores?

If you're gonna tell me that some "private security" is going to stop them, where would they take them?

Where would they take the rioters? Right, taking a group of disgruntled people to a school of crime is the best way to deal with them. The rioters would be made to pay for the damage they did to the store.

What is it about desire that fails to satisfy? What capitalist that you know personally has ever said, "Okay, I've got enough"?

Impossible. If everyone suddenly said; "I've had enough" we would no longer be moving forward. We, as a species, would be stagnant. The fact that don't say, "I've had enough" is good. It keeps commerce going. It keeps the market moving forward. The competition, the envy, "the wanting more and more" is not bad; you're not advocating a stagnant society, are you? Market competition is inevitable because man is selfish. Market competition creates high standards.

Who's gonna pay for that security company?

How do people pay for guards in private parks and other privatized institution? With the currency that is most powerful, or in the case of government controlled society it would be the currency that government printed even if the currency was nothing more than worthless toilet paper. If the street owner no longer wants the services of that company he can terminate the contract and switch to another. Any company that wants to remain a choice on the market will make sure to provide better service at a better price than it's contenders.

In the end, it'll end up looking like a public lynching parade or the Ungeren riot--except everyone has guns.

The anarchist society that you propose occurs when anarchist overthrow a government and intentionally cause chaos to create a new government under the control of the anarchist. The society I, and those like me, propose is one where people just ignore laws that infringe on civil and economic liberties. Eventually the government will deem the people unruly and surrender their power. A people who love freedom won't be easily controlled.

I think it would be better it I outright stated that such a society is a liaise faire society.
@Gramps, many conclude that minimalist government that does nothing more than arbitrate and deal with foreign nations on the behalf of the individuals is best. I don't think that fits the description of a coercive manipulative monopoly so I wouldn't really call it a government.
@Inky, I'm advocating the exact opposite of communism. Communism/Socialism/Strong Central Government is fail.

[inky]

Your idea of laissez faire sounds like a great sales pitch for a pyramid scam. It's good to a certain extent but what you're trying to create is a pure laissez faire system where there is no government involvement at all as opposed to limited involvement. When you start eating rotten meat and e. coli-infected greens, maybe you would be able to see my point more clearly. Here's a good read for you:



And how exactly are you going to make the rioters pay for the damages? Throw them to a tax-funded prison or gather in city hall to decide whether to execute them if they don't? What I see is a dead end, a non-existent piggybank, and another bloody riot.

[Barotix]

When you start eating rotten meat and e. coli-infected greens, maybe you would be able to see my point more clearly.

You're ignoring the fact that human beings are selfish.

Say Shop A is producing rotten meat and e. coli infected greens.
Now, say a disgruntled customer acquires capital and sets up shop to compete with Shop A; let's call his store shop B. If B wants to beat out A in revenue then he must produce better food products and better services, lets say B is successful and A is forced to produce better products and services if it wants to stay on the market. Let's say C, D, E, and F think they can do a better job than B and A. Now you have 6 Shops competing with each other to produce better services and products so they may "beat" their competition and have greater revenue. Now, lets throw in 27 more competitors. Lets say 2/3rds of the stores fail (This increases competition and forces the other competitors and the market to adhere to higher standards. How, why? The competitors must be better than their competition if they want to be better than the rest.). Lets repeat this process every 6 months. 27 shops, 2/3rds fail. Let's say every 18 months 1/9 of the total shops on the market fail as 9 new shops are introduced every 6 months. Now lets say every 2 years mergers occur and shops fall apart. Lets say 1/3rd of the total mergers are successful. The market creates excellence but it won't happen in a day or a week. Laissez faire societies are weakest in their infancies.

And how exactly are you going to make the rioters pay for the damages?

What are they rioting about?

[Love]

Why does crime occur?

couse people can, simple as that

[inky]

When you start eating rotten meat and e. coli-infected greens, maybe you would be able to see my point more clearly.

You're ignoring the fact that human beings are selfish.

Say Shop A is producing rotten meat and e. coli infected greens.
Now, say a disgruntled customer acquires capital and sets up shop to compete with Shop A; let's call his store shop B. If B wants to beat out A in revenue then he must produce better food products and better services, lets say B is successful and A is forced to produce better products and services if it wants to stay on the market. Let's say C, D, E, and F think they can do a better job than B and A. Now you have 6 Shops competing with each other to produce better services and products so they may "beat" their competition and have greater revenue. Now, lets throw in 27 more competitors. Lets say 2/3rds of the stores fail (This increases competition and forces the other competitors and the market to adhere to higher standards. How, why? The competitors must be better than their competition if they want to be better than the rest.). Lets repeat this process every 6 months. 27 shops, 2/3rds fail. Let's say every 18 months 1/9 of the total shops on the market fail as 9 new shops are introduced every 6 months. Now lets say every 2 years mergers occur and shops fall apart. Lets say 1/3rd of the total mergers are successful. The market creates excellence but it won't happen in a day or a week. Laissez faire societies are weakest in their infancies.

And how exactly are you going to make the rioters pay for the damages?

What are they rioting about?

1. You can't expect shops A-F to be on the same area. Besides, you actually think that the other shops who aren't selling infected goods are going to keep the price low when they know people are gonna' start demanding more for their items? You have to take in the law of supply and demand here. If one or two of stores that are selling OTC drugs, for example, managed to rise so far above the others and became a major retailer like Duane Reade or Rite-Aid Pharmacy, what makes you sure that everything will remain the same. And revisiting my previous point, you can't expect all of these stores to be in the same area therefore you can't expect everyone to know about it. Unless you have some sort of a giant monitor in the middle of town hall (where would one get the budget or why even think of creating it? I do not know). Both extremes -- complete laissez faire and high government involvement -- have already been done before and they, obviously, did not work.

Not only will your system create an even wider gap, it could even remove or lower the standards of the middle class. I'm sure that everything would look pretty if we all just woke up one day and everything magically turned into your Utopia. But you have to take the future into consideration. And based on precedents and the elements involved and missing, your Utopia has a very grim future.

2. I don't see how that's relevant to my question. I'm not saying that people don't need a reason to riot but it just seems like you're avoiding the question here. What are you gonna do, educate them about how it's okay for everyone to have guns? And, once again, who's to say? If you're planning to say "freethinkers" -- think again about my main point: people are different. If I was a member of such a society, I wouldn't mind carrying a gun but I would be pretty worried about other people carrying that weapon.

From my previous post:

Spoiler!

I think if someone is actually willing to rape a woman, he's most likely willing to take the risk of sneaking in from behind, pointing the gun at the woman, then raping her. One of the things that's been bugging me is -- where the hell would people get their guns from? And who's to say that everyone should get guns? You do realize that this is a serious issue which would most likely divide that Utopia of yours, right? If you tell me that people are gonna make gun shops, something tells me that a group of individuals are most likely going to cluster and start burning those shops down, especially since there's no riot police to stop them. If you're gonna tell me that some "private security" is going to stop them, where would they take them? To government-funded jails? Who's gonna pay for that security company? Income tax collected by a non-existent government in the form of 30 silvers, a goat, and an oven? In the end, it'll end up looking like a public lynching parade or the Ungeren riot--except everyone has guns.

------------------
Your idea of privatizing the production of money and letting different privately owned banks (another bad idea when no gov't involved) produce their own currency is enough to slow down and screw up the economy. Even if a bank manages to rise above the competition, there's no guarantee that their rates are going to benefit people, especially because they have no safety net to fall back in. Now if you're thinking of saying "then go to the competition," think about this bank being a product of merging two banks and it has the most branches in different places, therefore its currency is recognized in more places. Even at the most basic level, you actually expect people to prefer walking around with a bag of silver and gold coins in their money bag rather than a credit card? Oh wait, do you know how credit backed-up by silver and gold works? If you do, you know that this is already bad news.

[Grandpa]

Bravo Barotix, nice diatribe!
I'm sure you have convinced youself.


I, however, remain unconvinced.
The idea of waiting until the economy collapses to then step in and "save the day" smacks of passive aggression.
Give me aggressive aggression any day.
At least it's honest.

Look at the nature of what you suggest.
As stated before, I cannot place my trust in such things.

[Barotix]

[....]Clinked submit to early.