|
jrodefeld posted:A community police force, voluntarily funded, can launch investigations and prosecute a violent criminal on behalf of the community at large even if there is no family member that can press charges. "Sorry, you didn't pay your bill this month, guess your rapist wins" Your a moron if you ever possibly thought this could work.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Sorry, you didn't pay your bill this month, guess your rapist wins" This is Molyneux DRO, your rapist always wins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have no idea why you assume this to be true. The discussion was not about violent crimes but about existing property rights claims. The burden of proof rests on those that want to overturn existing property rights. Have a property right in your home or in a business is obviously a lot different than someone being a violent criminal. I extrapolated and exaggerated. You really do need a sense of humor. From the way you describe things, I have to assume that every DRO simply has a set of rules... lets call them laws, that you have to obey to live in society. If I murder someone, then the DRO (which I must have to live) will arrest me on behalf of everyone. 'Voluntary' fees paid by every single person covered by a DRO (everyone) will cover all of the costs of the trial and I assume my eventual incarceration. So... tell me how this is different from what we have now? Everyone pays into a communal pool, and a single entity dispense justice. I suppose there is the fact that there are a number of different DRO's impacts things... but, not really. I mean every DRO is going to have a law against murder right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
I really wish the solar system was littered with self sufficient O'Neil cylinders or what ever and we could give one to a bunch of libertarians and just watch their society unfold. I'd honestly love to know how it would turn out and exactly how and how fast it descends into violence and warlords, or a single mega-corp more oppressive and controlling than any government but totally not a government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Sorry, you didn't pay your bill this month, guess your rapist wins" This is why Valhalla DRO is best, No need of a police force, Trial by combat always solves things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
True justice will only be served when the privatized police force, the privatized prison system, and the privatized courts are all be owned by the same billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I really wish the solar system was littered with self sufficient O'Neil cylinders or what ever and we could give one to a bunch of libertarians and just watch their society unfold. I'd honestly love to know how it would turn out and exactly how and how fast it descends into violence and warlords, or a single mega-corp more oppressive and controlling than any government but totally not a government. I'm pretty sure someone would take them for all they were worth and run. If attempts to start libertarian societies in the real world are any indication, anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:
More like, how are you going to charge him if you can't reach him through the massive crowd of DRO hiring agents trying to beat down his door and give him a job? Natural competition will result in those most competent at violence being highly sought after for their skills! It'll be like being a super successful hacker in the 90's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Caros posted:If there is one thing that I find hilarious about libertarian DRO society, its that anything is legal so long as there isn't anyone with standing left alive to sue you. This sounds like the mafia when you really piss them off. At least, in the movies, they'll leave a widow and the children. Unless you really cross them, then they'll wipe you out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have no idea why you assume this to be true. The discussion was not about violent crimes but about existing property rights claims. The burden of proof rests on those that want to overturn existing property rights. Have a property right in your home or in a business is obviously a lot different than someone being a violent criminal. But what mechanisms exist for that to happen. If you dig up my post on the matter, I show how patently ridiculous Law and Order in a Libertarian society. Why am I paying to investigate the murder? Who decides where the justice goes. Because the whole point of your society is that there isn't a monopoly police force. So is it a finder's keeper thing? Is it whoever ends up with the hot potato last? Once again, you just assume that these things are going to work out. But you can't even answer a basic question like "How is this going to work without devolving into a weird game of pass the corpse onto somebody else" since if the police are a business, which they would be, it would not do them well to investigate crimes that won't end up in them getting paid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
JRod keeps saying things like "community" but in an anarchist society I'm not sure what that entails, much less what a "community police force" means in a society where I am supposed to only enter into contracts with people I voluntarily choose to. Can my community choose a DRO I don't like? Can a community pick a DRO that everyone but one person agrees to? Can one community have 5 DROs all active within it? Also why are DROs some kind of special service that it's voluntarily funded instead of regular member fees? How did JRod decide how DROs will or won't fund themselves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Bob James posted:True justice will only be served when the privatized police force, the privatized prison system, and the privatized courts are all be owned by the same billionaire. The same benevolent billionaire, mind you. Also, since when did I agree that my DRO fees would pay the cost of investigating a homeless man's murder? He was probably a criminal anyway. What other benefits are non-members enjoying on my dime for the 'good of society'? That sounds like socialism to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I really wish the solar system was littered with self sufficient O'Neil cylinders or what ever and we could give one to a bunch of libertarians and just watch their society unfold. I'd honestly love to know how it would turn out and exactly how and how fast it descends into violence and warlords, or a single mega-corp more oppressive and controlling than any government but totally not a government. EVE Online already exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:JRod keeps saying things like "community" but in an anarchist society I'm not sure what that entails, much less what a "community police force" means in a society where I am supposed to only enter into contracts with people I voluntarily choose to. Can my community choose a DRO I don't like? Can a community pick a DRO that everyone but one person agrees to? Can one community have 5 DROs all active within it? Also why are DROs some kind of special service that it's voluntarily funded instead of regular member fees? How did JRod decide how DROs will or won't fund themselves? If you're not in the DRO, you're outside the law--nobody in Nonagresstopia will punish you for your crimes, but neither will they come to your defense if you need it. DROs, private police forces, mafias, etc. all provide the same service: I sign up with Valhalla DRO, and you sign up with Ragnarok DRO, and when you beat me up they talk to each other to figure it out. That's a right you sign away when you sign up. Sounds a lot like a state, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have no idea why you assume this to be true. The discussion was not about violent crimes but about existing property rights claims. The burden of proof rests on those that want to overturn existing property rights. Have a property right in your home or in a business is obviously a lot different than someone being a violent criminal. I think they talk about it like that since it's stark, one of the libertarian tenets is ownership of the self, and libertarianism is already talking about violence and defining violence in relation to property, so taking it literally (for humor's sake, and because it's a worrying subject. That being explained, what I'm trying to say is that...well, I guess to avoid restating my entire post I'm going to try saying something different. People lie. Why would you accept property claims on face value? I hate to appeal to authority, but as an example, I'll admit to being the Duke of New York. I literally own all of New York. And yet, there are people who refuse to acknowledge my status as A Number One, and trespass on my land, act like they're the owners of my property. What should I do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:If you're not in the DRO, you're outside the law--nobody in Nonagresstopia will punish you for your crimes, but neither will they come to your defense if you need it. DROs, private police forces, mafias, etc. all provide the same service: I sign up with Valhalla DRO, and you sign up with Ragnarok DRO, and when you beat me up they talk to each other to figure it out. That's a right you sign away when you sign up. No, it sounds like a bunch of gangs that are at various states of war with each other and will drop your "protection" the moment it becomes inconvenient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:No, it sounds like a bunch of gangs that are at various states of war with each other and will drop your "protection" the moment it becomes inconvenient. What, you think Valhalla DRO is going to let those Ragnarok pussies push them around??? I meant the "join up or be less than nothing" part, which is most of what J is mad about in the first place 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have no idea why you assume this to be true. The discussion was not about violent crimes but about existing property rights claims. The burden of proof rests on those that want to overturn existing property rights. Well that's convenient. We come in, kill your friends and family, drive you off your land, then when your grandson comes back after we've learned that stealing is wrong and banned initiation of force it's "Oh sure, just prove you owned the land according to white man's law. What, your ancestors never gave you a deed and we murdered all the eyewitnesses from your tribe? Oh welllll!" How about we give all the resources back to the indigenous people since we know they were here first? And then any capitalist who wants to contest his ownership and prove the property is rightfully his just needs to go to court and present the evidence. Businesses are careful accountants after all, as you've said, so this should be no problem. It's not in a businessman's rational self-interest to fail to keep his paperwork in order obviously, so any who haven't are bad businessmen anyway and we shouldn't be propping those moochers up with police power to keep them on land they can't prove they own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't know what this means. If property was acquired illegitimately and this can be proven, then the current occupant should forfeit the right to that property or give it to those it was stolen from. Go back to Europe then. Seriously, get. The majority of land in North America was literally stolen from people who didn't have the concept of land ownership. And the best way to do it in the present is for the government to pay reparations. Where does this money come from? Taxes. Why? Because this is an easy way to average out the debt load from the descendants of the assholes who stole the land? Don't like it? Leave the continent, this is justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:What should I do? *A deep voice in '90s audio fidelity rings out* "Pick up the phone, and call Valhalla DRO" Valhalla DRO, enforcing any claim, for the right price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
WilliamAnderson posted:Go back to Europe then. Seriously, get. The majority of land in North America was literally stolen from people who didn't have the concept of land ownership. Hate to spoil it for you but the majority of European land is also stolen, our crimes just stretch back further into the past is all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well that's convenient. We come in, kill your friends and family, drive you off your land, then when your grandson comes back after we've learned that stealing is wrong and banned initiation of force it's "Oh sure, just prove you owned the land according to white man's law. What, your ancestors never gave you a deed and we murdered all the eyewitnesses from your tribe? Oh welllll!" All what resources? All resources that exist within the boundaries of the United States? We should give all land and resources to the roughly two million native Americans that currently make up barely half a percent of the US population? Are you serious? I take a backseat to no one in my condemnation of the historical treatment of Native Americans. It really was a genocide of unimaginable proportions. But you are being especially disingenuous with this line to argument since your position is not that all current resources within the United States should immediately be handed over to descendants of Native American tribes who lived in the 18th and 19th centuries. No thinker that I know of advocates such a thing. It is absurd to think that Native American tribes had any reasonable standard of ownership over the entire continent. Settlers had every right to come over and homestead land. They had no just right to murder the natives or force them out of the land that they commonly used. Our ancestors should have negotiated in good faith and worked out their differences, respecting reasonable property boundaries for the natives and not using force against them. Libertarians try to be as fair minded about the redress of past property theft as is possible. There is no statute of limitations on theft. There is a natural limit in that the farther back in history, the more difficult it becomes to prove property ownership or theft. But if evidence can be presented, then stolen property should justly be returned. This is an important discussion but we shouldn't lose sight of the great contemporary injustice that exists with property that the State claims ownership over. The State, just as the Corporation, cannot have rights to own anything. Only individuals have rights. The State, far from protecting private property, is the greatest violator of private property rights. I support the principle of syndicalism, which I have discussed before, to transfer current "public" or State controlled property into private hands if it cannot be determined with accuracy who had the property title to the land before the agents of the State seized it. Those who work on the land, contractors, employees, and others who have mixed their labor with the land should be granted proportional ownership of the formerly State controlled land based on their extent of use of that land. We should reinforce the rights of legitimately acquired private property ownership in the present while doing our very best to return stolen property (and all State controlled property is stolen and thus illegitimate) into the hands of those with the most legitimate claim to ownership, i.e. the first former owner that can be identified who acquired the property in a legitimate way. Neither I, nor you, nor anyone else can devise any sort of policy that can undo all historical injustices of the past. Given that you yourself don't have any more workable a solution than I to deal with the theft of Native American property, then you ought to shut up and stop criticizing me on this point. Surely you would favor social welfare programs for Native Americans or some form of reparations, but how would that redress property theft in the past? If property theft was the original problem, more property theft is not the solution. The only solution, if one exists at all, is to properly identify which property was stolen and whose ancestors had a legitimate claim to that property. Then the seizure of that property is not theft, but a form of compensation resulting in justice. I concede that it will be unlikely that much property could be overturned because the theft of property happened so long ago and evidence to support overturning of current property claims would indeed be challenging. But we should never ignore the justice of redressing all property rights violations that can be proven, no matter how long ago they might have happened. Moving forward, it is much more important to deal with currently ongoing property rights violations that the State perpetrates on the rest of us. If we can theorize about the potential of Native Americans proving property theft one hundred and fifty years ago, surely property theft through eminent domain or confiscation of income taxes that occurred last year can and should be redressed immediately by any society that values justice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
What are you, a loving utilitarian now? NA belonged to the people who lived here first. Almost everything that exists in America was made from or purchased with the resources from land taken from the natives. It is all fruit from a poisonous tree, and to remain consistent with the system of morals you propose this property must be returned, full stop. You can start by returning the territory delineated in the U.S. government's treaties with various tribes (pretty much all of which were broken). For groups like the Iroquois and Cherokee, at the very least, it should be fairly easy to determine what rightly belongs to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:All what resources? All resources that exist within the boundaries of the United States? We should give all land and resources to the roughly two million native Americans that currently make up barely half a percent of the US population? I agree. Let us abolish the Americans With Disability Act, and slay the lame. Only then will we be free from the tyranny of the State.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is absurd to think that Native American tribes had any reasonable standard of ownership over the entire continent. Settlers had every right to come over and homestead land. Oi, you can't just sneak this in there. Why did they have a right to come over and homestead the land?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 09:15
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:It is absurd to think that Native American tribes had any reasonable standard of ownership over the entire continent. Settlers had every right to come over and homestead land. They had no just right to murder the natives or force them out of the land that they commonly used. Our ancestors should have negotiated in good faith and worked out their differences, respecting reasonable property boundaries for the natives and not using force against them. Cool. The next time that you go on vacation I'm coming over to your house to homestead your land. Oh, you disagree with this? Okay fine, let's try to reach some common ground. I've been mixing my labor with the land that was formerly your back yard, so clearly anywhere that you see a corn stalk should belong to me. But I was also receiving checks from an industrial solvents plant down the road in exchange for letting them dump hazardous waste products in the corner over there; you weren't really using any of this space effectively, I've just increased its economic potential. In exchange for agreeing to let me keep all of the farming land in what was formerly your back yard, I'll agree to let you keep the hazardous waste corner, which includes any additional payments that VallhallaCo decides to offer for more waste shipments. Heh, you're practically robbing me, you're getting such a good deal! Hey I also started renting out your bedroom to some meth heads; they small bad, but they pay the rent on time. Hey, don't get mad at me, I thought that the house was abandoned! How was I to know that you were using this land? Here, if it makes you feel better I'll let you have 10% of the rent payments. Geeze guy, you're going to drive me broke! If you don't like any of these agreements, then you can go talk to my representatives at Valhalla DRO. I'm sure that you'll be convinced to accept my extremely generous offer!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Hey, I found a safe inside of the house, and it was full of gold! I didn't realize that the gold belonged to anyone, I thought that the house was abandoned so I took the gold and I bought a bunch of magic beans. I'm sorry jrod, you can have some of the magic beans if you want. The gold was abandoned, it's not like you have any real claim to it, you weren't even here!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Like I said earlier, if you want to murder someone legitimately and legally in Libertopia, just go to their land while they're away and plant a tulip or something, then shoot them when they initiate violence by trespassing on your new land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:Like I said earlier, if you want to murder someone legitimately and legally in Libertopia, just go to their land while they're away and plant a tulip or something, then shoot them when they initiate violence by trespassing on your new land. Sounds like I'll make a killing selling landmines and various other disincentive devices. Oh, and anti-disincentive devices too. A Fear Merchant has to put food on the table too, you know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
Thinking more about your voluntarily funded police force, I have some questions: Are they under any obligation to police the bad areas? Say if there were two neighborhoods looking for protection: Galt's Garden's, a gated community with loads of money, and Shitville, impoverished and crime-filled. Can't they just take the rich, safe job and leave the bad area to the gangs? You say a homeless person's murder would still be investigated even though he presumably isn't a contributor. Why? As a resident of Galt's Gardens, why do I care if the vermin of Shitville are killing each other? Is it just murder you make exceptions for or is it other crimes too? Do you envision different tiers of service based on ability to pay? If whether and how much you pay determines your safety, what's the difference between these private police companies and protection rackets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Caros posted:I extrapolated and exaggerated. You really do need a sense of humor. That's something I keep circling back to: why wouldn't DROs or Covenant Communities or whatever resolve to states in the far field? More generally, what would stop states from reforming in Libertopia, and why didn't that stop them from forming the first time around? The whole praxeology system that says such a society is workable is derived from the Axiom of Human Action, so, what, were humans not Acting before states first became a thing? What's changed about human nature since people first started wearing fancy hats and calling themselves kings, and how is that reflected in the rigorous logical framework of anarchocapitalism?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
The obvious solution is to let the free market determine what is and isn't a crime. If the DRO will prosecute it, then it's a crime, if not, it isn't. If the DRO sends you to jail, you deserve it. The DRO obviously gets to collect fees for prosecution and incarceration by confiscating the property of those who break the law, but that will definitely not give them an incentive to arrest, prosecute, and jail anyone they want, for profit.Nolanar posted:That's something I keep circling back to: why wouldn't DROs or Covenant Communities or whatever resolve to states in the far field? More generally, what would stop states from reforming in Libertopia, and why didn't that stop them from forming the first time around? The whole praxeology system that says such a society is workable is derived from the Axiom of Human Action, so, what, were humans not Acting before states first became a thing? What's changed about human nature since people first started wearing fancy hats and calling themselves kings, and how is that reflected in the rigorous logical framework of anarchocapitalism? As demonstrated by Luftwaffle, AnCap and Libertarianism in general are basically just precursors to fascism. Grand Theft Autobot fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:As demonstrated by Luftwaffle, AnCap and Libertarianism in general are basically just precursors to fascism. I would have gone with feudalism, since that's the name for a system where all land is privately owned and law and jurisdiction are just a series of personal contracts between individuals. And ultimately we saw where feudalism leads: a pile of bloody wars over the stupidest poo poo imaginable (generally property claims and succession, coincidentally!), and then right back into states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Hey J, if you'd ever like to engage with an actual substantive criticism of an actual argument you've presented, instead of tilting at trolly windmills, maybe you'd like to finally give this month-old unanswered post a crack. Stop bitching about how you don't want to argue about these dumb things, and actually address a substantive point. There are plenty to engage with, so why not start with this one? Muscle Tracer posted:You do not understand "inelasticity." Let me give you a two-part example:
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
jrodefeld can you explain how the Lakota somehow lacked a "reasonable standard of ownership" but Ann Romney riding a horse around on her land does not meet that standard? Is it just because Ann Romney is white, or has written language?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Ann Romney has a paper from the US Government saying she owns the land. Where was the Lakota's US Government-issued ownership deed? Oh don't have one do they. That's what I thought 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Caros posted:Here is your consise reply. It is the same reply I have given to you multiple times you've brought up this topic and I expect you will ignore the parts that trouble you the same way you did the last upteen times we've had this discussion. I would appreciate if Jrodefeld could respond to this post I made. Especially since he bitched about no one responding to the post that I was responding to. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
You see, the white settlers called "no takebacks" so there's nothing that can be done at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
spoon0042 posted:You see, the white settlers called "no takebacks" so there's nothing that can be done at this point. Do you have a flag?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:05
|
|