Free Market in action - Boy dies because he didn't have 80 dollars

[7960]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

...... if the cheater is going to continue cheating, and they just showed up in town as a "stranger," then I'm sure the citizens would want to know a bit about this feller before they trusted him.

You'd think, but then again every spring I read stories about gypsies doing shitty paving jobs and taking off in the middle of the night with lots of money and unfinished jobs. And every summer I read stories about people paying someone to paint their house only to have it start peeling in a few months and by then the guy is gone. And every winter I read stories about plow drivers taking money for contracts and then never showing when it snows................and the list goes on.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by 7960

You'd think, but then again every spring I read stories about gypsies doing shitty paving jobs and taking off in the middle of the night with lots of money and unfinished jobs. And every summer I read stories about people paying someone to paint their house only to have it start peeling in a few months and by then the guy is gone. And every winter I read stories about plow drivers taking money for contracts and then never showing when it snows................and the list goes on.

Understood....

....but if one doesn't do their due diligence, then one can expect such results IMO.

I agree that one of the fallacies that exists in today's society is that people are "sold" on the person that is "selling" them...in other words, they "trust" a person by what they say rather than completely doing their homework before said purchase of service.

Ignorance is part of the problem... I'm actually addressing this in my book, so you bring up a valid point.

Fed Up

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

For Republicans: Don't you feel a moral obligation that kids should have regular medical checkups?

No. How do we know the cost in terms of what society would have to give up to pay for this service? Unless you are able to put forth an analysis of the 300 million people in the U.S. showing that the cost of them having to take their children to the doctor once a year would be a better use of their funds than everything else they can spend their money on.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Libertarians: How, in a less regulated system, could this have been stopped?

You clearly do not understand free market arguments. No one that understands a free market argues that it is flawless. Only that it is the best solution.

People die and get injured in all systems, but it would happen far less in an unregulated market.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

Fed Up: you seem not to actually understand what the term anarchy means, because the simple act of developing a legal code with negative consequences for breaking them means anarchy is no longer a fitting term.

In anarchy it is possible to have mutual agreed upon rules of conduct, yes, but if one person does not agree to those rules and then is punished for it (i.e., blacklisted merchants in your example from medieval Europe), then they are no longer existing within a truly anarchist society. Instead it is a mob rule society that is more in line with pure democracy than with anarchy.

Anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchy. For example, look at this interview with Rockwell:

Johnsson: Some say you're an anarchist; is that true?

Rockwell: The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well.

As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I'm with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I'm completely against that idea.

The "anarchy" put forth by Rothbard, Rockwell, and others obviously isn't that much like what anarchy is thought to mean in the modern context. Anarcho-capitalism, according to them, is not without rulers or without law, it is merely without the modern state.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by lew

Anarcho-capitalism is not true anarchy. For example, look at this interview with Rockwell:

The "anarchy" put forth by Rothbard, Rockwell, and others obviously isn't that much like what anarchy is thought to mean in the modern context. Anarcho-capitalism, according to them, is not without rulers or without law, it is merely without the modern state.

All that this means is that anarcho-capitalism is a mislabeled belief system beacuse it really has nothing to do with anarchy at all, which is really what I've been arguing the whole time.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

All that this means is that anarcho-capitalism is a mislabeled belief system beacuse it really has nothing to do with anarchy at all, which is really what I've been arguing the whole time.

Rothbard himself disliked the term "anarchist."


Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard

We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by lew

Rothbard himself disliked the term "anarchist."


Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard

So just how would one go about being "in the middle" of being anarchist and being [pro]archist? How does one navigate a compromise between being against the existence of rules, and being for the existence of rules? What middle ground is there to take between being for order and against order? Indifference? I am not a fan of Mr. Rothbard, and this particular quote doesn't help his case with me one bit.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

So just how would one go about being "in the middle" of being anarchist and being [pro]archist? How does one navigate a compromise between being against the existence of rules, and being for the existence of rules? What middle ground is there to take between being for order and against order? Indifference? I am not a fan of Mr. Rothbard, and this particular quote doesn't help his case with me one bit.

Because Rothbard is not against rules.


Just like the Rockwell quote I already posted:

Johnsson: Some say you're an anarchist; is that true?

Rockwell: The term anarchist is mostly used to mean someone who believes that if the state and law are gotten rid of, all property would become collectively owned. It was the great insight of Murray Rothbard that this is not the case: private ownership and the law that support it are natural, while the state is artificial. So he was an anarchist in this sense but to avoid confusion he used the term anarcho-capitalist. This doesn't mean that he favored somehow establishing a capitalist system in place of the state. What he said is that capitalism is the de facto result in a civilized society without a state. Has this position made advances? Yes, but not so many that we can use the term anarchism without causing confusion. If the purpose of words is to communicate, I'm not sure that the term does that well.

As to my own views, I do believe that society thrives best without a state. But I'm with Rothbard, Nock, Molinari, Chodorov, and others who believe in law and private government, such as we find in corporations, housing subdivisions, and church hierarchies. So if by anarchism we mean a society without law, I'm completely against that idea.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by lew

Because Rothbard is not against rules.


Just like the Rockwell quote I already posted:

The point I'm making is, if one isn't against rules, then there's no "middle" to take, one simply isn't an anarchist to any degree at all. There's no middle between anarchy and its alternative; either you've got anarchy, or you've got order, stratification, rules, et cetera to some degree. If one is in favor of order (et al.), one shouldn't use the word "anarchy" to describe one's position, not even a variation on it, such as anarcho-capitalism.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

The point I'm making is, if one isn't against rules, then there's no "middle" to take, one simply isn't an anarchist to any degree at all. There's no middle between anarchy and its alternative; either you've got anarchy, or you've got order, stratification, rules, et cetera to some degree. If one is in favor of order (et al.), one shouldn't use the word "anarchy" to describe one's position, not even a variation on it, such as anarcho-capitalism.

please take the following quiz.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, in part:
"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; . . . ." (2)
On the basis of your personal understanding of this sentence's meaning (not your knowledge of constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.
_____ 1) In time of war, a federal statute may be passed prohibiting citizens from revealing military secrets to the enemy.
_____ 2) The President may issue an executive order prohibiting public criticism of his administration. _____ 3) Congress may pass a law prohibiting museums from exhibiting photographs and paintings depicting homosexual activity.

_____ 4) A federal statute may be passed prohibiting a citizen from falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
_____ 5) Congress may pass a law prohibiting dancing to rock and roll music.
_____ 6) The Internal Revenue Service may issue a regulation prohibiting the publication of a book explaining how to cheat on your taxes and get away with it. _____ 7) Congress may pass a statute prohibiting flag burning.

Please consider your responses.


If your response to question one was "True," you chose to interpret the word "no" as used in the First Amendment to mean "some."
If your response to question two was "False," you chose to interpret the word "Congress" to refer to the President of the United States and the word "law" to refer to an executive order.
If your response to question three was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to the exhibition of photographs and paintings.
If your response to question four was "True," you have underscored your belief that the word "no" really means "some."
If your response to question five was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to dancing to rock and roll music.
If your response to question six was "False," you chose to interpret the word "Congress" to refer to the Internal Revenue Service and the word "law" to refer to an IRS regulation.

If your response to question seven was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to the act of burning a flag.
Unless your responses were: 1) False, 2) True, 3) True, 4) False, 5) True, 6) True, and 7) True, you chose to interpret at least one of the words "Congress," "no," "law," "speech," and "press" in what can only be described as something other than its ordinary sense. Why did you do this? Were your responses based on the "plain meaning" of the words or on certain normative beliefs you hold about the extent to which the federal government should be allowed to interfere with citizens' expressive activities? Were your responses objective and neutral or were they influenced by your "politics"?
I chose this portion of the First Amendment for my example because it contains the clearest, most definite legal language of which I am aware. If a provision as clearly drafted as this may be subjected to political interpretation, what legal provision may not be? But this explains why the legal system cannot be reformed to consist of a body of definite rules yielding unique, objectively verifiable resolutions of cases. What a legal rule means is always determined by the political assumptions of the person applying it.


The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly.
Our long-standing love affair with the myth of the rule of law has made us blind to the latter possibility. Like the Monosizeans, who after centuries of state control cannot imagine a society in which people can buy whatever size shoes they wish, we cannot conceive of a society in which individuals may purchase the legal services they desire. The very idea of a free market in law makes us uncomfortable. But it is time for us to overcome this discomfort and consider adopting Socrates' approach. We must recognize that our love for the rule of law is unrequited, and that, as so often happens in such cases, we have become enslaved to the object of our desire. No clearer example of this exists than the legal process by which our Constitution was transformed from a document creating a government of limited powers and guaranteed rights into one which provides the justification for the activities of the all-encompassing super-state of today. However heart-wrenching it may be, we must break off this one-sided affair. The time has come for those committed to individual liberty to realize that the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law.



Also see:Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes

Amazon.com: Order without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes: Robert Ellickson: Books

I'm not at a stage yet where I can paraphrase my thoughts into defending this type of theory as well as the professors who have done so. I do see through my research the possibilities of fruition, either now or after economic collapse.

Fed Up

[Jas0n]

Here, I'll cite your source for you:
faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Now maybe you can explain just how that test is relevant? (My answers, by the way, were: False; N/A; N/A; False; N/A; N/A; N/A.)

That law is necessarily vaguely written such that it "can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion" is sort of ridiculous then, isn't it? I'm no religionist by any means, but I'd like to ask you how vague you find the Ten Commandments? I really don't care for the worldview, but those people know how to write rules. They're not perfect but they're not particularly vague, either.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Here, I'll cite your source for you:
faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Now maybe you can explain just how that test is relevant? (My answers, by the way, were: False; N/A; N/A; False; N/A; N/A; N/A.)

That law is necessarily vaguely written such that it "can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion" is sort of ridiculous then, isn't it? I'm no religionist by any means, but I'd like to ask you how vague you find the Ten Commandments? I really don't care for the worldview, but those people know how to write rules. They're not perfect but they're not particularly vague, either.

I meant to site that source for you to read all he wrote...sorry...

...as I mentioned in my closing of that post, I'm not at a stage where I can paraphrase quite yet.

I thought it apropos based on his statement, "Were your responses based on the "plain meaning" of the words or on certain normative beliefs you hold about the extent to which the federal government should be allowed to interfere with citizens' expressive activities? Were your responses objective and neutral or were they influenced by your "politics"?"

As you can see by my Avatar, even those 9 folks are "influenced" by their "politics." So what we have in America, is a democracy of 9, that can change from time to time in the political spectrum.

Yes, I agree it is ridiculous and the problem lies in what Hasnas says; "I refer to the myth of the rule of law because, to the extent this phrase suggests a society in which all are governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges, there is no such thing. As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan "America is a government of laws and not people" is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn't be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth's danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom."

I should have included the following statement as well, "The citizens' faith in the rule of law allows them to hide from themselves both that their position is as politically motivated as is their opponents' and that they are attempting to impose their values on their opponents as much as their opponents are attempting to impose their values on them. But, again, as in all cases of denial, the comfort gained comes at a price. For with the acceptance of the myth of the rule of law comes a blindness to the fact that laws are merely the commands of those with political power, and an increased willingness to submit oneself to the yoke of the state. Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one's own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others' freedom as well."

So we/I can't offer solutions unless there is agreement on the problem. According to Hasnas, many in America are not aware of the problem with the result being a relinquishment of one's freedom. The more "laws" that we get, the more we give up this freedom and now we are even in some cases allowing international law to supersede U.S. law. This is how we eventually lose our sovereignty, when you allow government to dictate the course.

It is when Congress allowed the Law of the Land to be ignored with the passing of the Federal Reserve Act that has now resulted in the fighting of an undefined enemy. If it is true that "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)," then what is being done to counteract this type of abuse? Are 99% of Americans even aware of such abuse? If not, why not?

I tried to offer the solution in Robert Ellickson's; "How Neighbors Settle Disputes" and readily admit, again, that I am in the beginning of my research as I was first introduced to this concept by Edward Stringham, author of Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice (Independent Studies in Political Economy) at the Austrian Scholars Conference at Mises University a year ago.

But it is through debates and discussions such as this that I might see potential weakness or strengths, but so far, any weakness is minute compared to the strengths IMO. This is not to say that there are not weaknesses in the strengths as I believe there is no perfect system.

As far as the 10 commandments and religiosity goes: A Biblical Defense of Anarcho-Capitalism (someones put a lot of work into this).

One concept I did like in my research was that the victim, under our current criminal system of law and punishment, is left out of the loop in terms of compensation as the criminal is spending time behind bars. If the victim agreed to fore-go the time behind bars in lieu of compensation from the criminal via their wages or service, then the state is not responsible for "care" of the criminal and the victim receives compensation for the crime committed. This may not fit all crimes, but many. Of course I'm for decriminalization of drug laws as it is, but I digress....

I am not capable of the time it would take to defend all I have said above and I don't even know if I was coherent...so please just make statements of agreements or disagreements and I'll continue my research. (I'm still working on an answer in another thread on the "free rider" issue).

But I will ask one question....How many of us out there that just accept government and the rule of law as is and expect to continue to be free?....especially when said government ignores the Law of the Land?

Fed Up

[lew]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

The point I'm making is, if one isn't against rules, then there's no "middle" to take, one simply isn't an anarchist to any degree at all. There's no middle between anarchy and its alternative; either you've got anarchy, or you've got order, stratification, rules, et cetera to some degree. If one is in favor of order (et al.), one shouldn't use the word "anarchy" to describe one's position, not even a variation on it, such as anarcho-capitalism.

But that's the entire point. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules." It also doesn't mean "without order."


Anarchy has its own rules and order - these are just enforced without a centralized state.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

But that's the entire point. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules." It also doesn't mean "without order."


Anarchy has its own rules and order - these are just enforced without a centralized state.

Anarchy does mean "no rules" and "without order," but it's not limited to those definitions.

It could also mean, as you suggested, rules and order without a centralized state.

Either works.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Anarchy does mean "no rules" and "without order," but it's not limited to those definitions.

It could also mean, as you suggested, rules and order without a centralized state.

Either works.

Yeah.


And I'm not the only one that thinks that.

[Jas0n]

Originally Posted by lew

But that's the entire point. Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules." It also doesn't mean "without order."


Anarchy has its own rules and order - these are just enforced without a centralized state.

Semantically, anarchy means exactly that: no rules, no order.

If rules and order exist, then you don't have anarchy. But that's a matter of semantics. Let me pose this question: you say that a system of anarchy has rules and has order. How are those rules defined, and how is that order maintained? Is there an objective set of rules which apply to everyone and are enforced equally, or are the rules and their application left to the whim of whoever has the physical ability to enforce whatever rules they invent?