Principles

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname A privately run government is still a government. The only thing I am assuming is that some body must exist that is capable of enforcing these basic laws.

But you have choices to choose who will you provide for security production. That is not government since you have choice, in accordance with a market economy to stimulate competition and exchange, and all contracts are voluntary, not coercive as a government does.

To quote Lew Rockwell:

"Stopping any voluntary institution in society is comparatively easy. All enterprises in a market economy can be brought to their knees by the simple act of refraining from buying. Families too are broken up by the simple act of walking away. Churches collapse when people lose interest in faith. Private schools go belly-up when the students stop showing up.

But states always and everywhere extract their revenue by force. People have no choice but to comply, or rather, they face the choice of complying or being physically punished. Of course, states prefer to elicit compliance through other means – by inspiring patriotic fervor or devotion to the prince. "

[loseyourname]

A privately run government is still a government. The only thing I am assuming is that some body must exist that is capable of enforcing these basic laws.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Perhaps. But when there is no government intervention in criminal behavior and the keeping of contracts, we become xxxxed.

So, if you don't have an argument for anarchy as a viable option, what is your point? Are you simply going to decry the existence of government while simultaneously admitting its necessity?

Why do you assume only government can intervene in criminal behavior? Why are private entities not capable of it?

That the government can engage in criminal behavior ( theft, murder, genocide ), and no one is there to judge it, yet it itself wants to be the arbiter of morality, then we have a problem, for such an entity will not make the best choices, and in fact we will have a very corrupt justice system ( as is the case ).

This was my point in why does government criminalize individuals for essentially doing the same thing that it itself engages in?

[loseyourname]

Perhaps. But when there is no government intervention in criminal behavior and the keeping of contracts, we become xxxxed.

So, if you don't have an argument for anarchy as a viable option, what is your point? Are you simply going to decry the existence of government while simultaneously admitting its necessity?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname You didn't make an argument for the viability of anarchy. Go buy an island, invite your friends, and set up no government. Then remember Lord of the Flies.

You are missing the point. You either forgot what you read in my thread on anarchy, that our everyday actions are anarchistic, and you are not familiar with the principles of free market economics. How is it "practical" the masses utter. Well, I never made an argument for the viability of the said theory, you just assumed I am, thus dragging me in a totally seperate direction.

One can argue, at least most free market economists do that when there is no government interference in the market, there is prosper and growth, what the capitalist revolution brought. That sounds pretty viable to me.

[loseyourname]

You didn't make an argument for the viability of anarchy. Go buy an island, invite your friends, and set up no government. Then remember Lord of the Flies.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Again, provide a better alternative. Anarchy is not viable. I have no qualms with your theory. I also have no qualms with the existence of government. Of course it exists to exert its will forcibly upon the people. I don't see what choice we have.

Anarchy is not viable? You did not show any errors in my previous premises or conclusion, thus what is your statement based on? So you accept being submissive? There are no "alternatives" in the way you are conceiving them. What you conceive to a government alternative, is yet another government. What choices we have is simply to live without government, that simple. Private institutions will do the rest.

For example. We pay taxes to government for its services, whether police or national defense. Government is already defined as a territorial monopoly of force. From an economic point of view, a monopoly is bad. If I as an individual consumer cite as an example the failure of government on the scene of national defense, and its policing services' corruption and overall lack of protection, and I want to take my business elsewhere, perhaps a private institution, or simply myself, I cannot do that, for I must pay the tax and I have no choice. That is coercion. No choice, means no liberty, no freedom. Thus when politicians or us speak of this country representing "liberty" that is not so. This country was not always so. The framers recognized the rights of a state militia for their recognized that a centrally organized state would be dangerous. Thus the right to secede was something agreed upon up until the Civil War.

Freedom is something outside of government. Government only curtails it and takes it away. Government believes that freedom is something it gives to individuals. Thus the contention is with a centrally organized ruling authority by coercion. From that it deductively flows that this is in obvious contradiction with the principles of economics. Either politics of Statism are seriously flawed, or the principles on which economics exist are false. And we all know that economic laws claim to be apodictically true empirical propositions, in other words praxeological laws, of human action and conduct. Hence it would be a categorical mistake to think of them as ever being confirmed or falsified by historical experience.

[loseyourname]

Again, provide a better alternative. Anarchy is not viable. I have no qualms with your theory. I also have no qualms with the existence of government. Of course it exists to exert its will forcibly upon the people. I don't see what choice we have.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Fine. Write up your own little version of a national constitution for us. Tell us how it might be possible for a government to operate in full honesty without going under. You don't like what we have? Give us an alternative, or give your tired rants a rest.

There is no government alternative to government. It's either despotism or anarchy.

The theory essentially rests on 3 empirically meaningful assumptions. First is that a government, the State, is a territorial monopolist of coercion and exploitation, and governemnt subjects as the victims of the initials action. Second is between a privately owned, inheritable monopoly, and a public uninheritable monopoly run by caretakers instead of owners. Third, the assumption of self interest on the part of the exploiting governments agents and its subjects, since government agents prefer more wealth, more income and more power, and their subjects prefer more wealth, income, and freedom.

From this then it deductively flows that a private owner of government would be more interested in the preservation of capital values, as opposed to a public caretaker of government ( which is essentially what the presented "democracy" is ). This is not a new idea and is equivalent to saying that a private slave owner will take better care of his slave, than a public one.

To criticize this you must prove either an error in the premises or the conclusion.

[loseyourname]

Fine. Write up your own little version of a national constitution for us. Tell us how it might be possible for a government to operate in full honesty without going under. You don't like what we have? Give us an alternative, or give your tired rants a rest.