Re: Re: POLITICS - Libertarian Anarchism (was Open source in)

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

> if you decided to have a libertarian

> society with no government, how would anyone

> ENFORCE libertarianism? I suppose would say,

> well, you have to have police to make sure

> no one uses violence.

Actually, I would say you have to have police to beat up teenagers and steal

people's drugs.

Well, then suppose

> the police chief is corrupt (like that never

> happens!) and decides to start using violence.

> Who will then bring the police into line? The

> army? But who pays for the army?

You seem to be thinking in terms of centralized = effective, even though

that's been disproven in any social experiment of recent history we could offer.

You are operating on the assumption that the police are more effective than

people in defending property and persons, and that if the police chief is

corrupt, there is a succeeding hierarchy of centralization, each stage of which

is

more effective. So, as usually happens when police stations are corrupt, the

state police take over. If they're corrupt, the army takes over.

But, in fact, from economics to defense against violence, we see that we get

the most effectiveness when we maximize decentralization.

For example, schools: What if our schools don't perform? We need

standardized tests!

So we hear. But in actuality we find that the most effective way to improve

schools is to institute choice, where the evaluation is in the hands of

parents and teachers, not the state or a bureacracy.

Economics: We've seen central planning, and we've seen unorganized economy

with no centralization, and what we've found is that the monetary supply is more

stable without central banking, and that resources are allocated more

accurately without central planning.

Guns: As has been discussed already, putting self-defense in the hands of

the individual lowers the crime rate. And maybe it would be even better with

tasers than guns.

So, the fact remains that experience shows in the US that the more guns

people own and carry concealed freely, so long as criminals aren't the only ones

who do so, the lower the crime rate is.

So, the solution wouldn't be MORE centralization, it would be LESS

centralization. If most adults in a given community have guns and know how to

use them,

how on earth could a measly police chief possibly be a threat? If gun

ownership protects law-abiding citizens from criminals, why wouldn't it protect

them

from police chiefs?

What if the army

> decides to take over? Who brings them into line?

Again, this is a moot point, because there would be no reason to bring the

Army in. However, are you seriously suggesting that with a standing Army and a

monopoly state we actually have some defense against the Army? The only thing

preventing the army from taking over is the psychological alleigance of the

Army to the state. If that disappears, they're the ones with the guns.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Actually, I would say you have to have police to beat up teenagers and steal

>people's drugs.

?? What about the murder rates in small, non-policed

societies? (the person most likely to injure a woman

are the men she knows ... esp. her husband).

> Well, then suppose

>> the police chief is corrupt (like that never

>> happens!) and decides to start using violence.

>> Who will then bring the police into line? The

>> army? But who pays for the army?

>

>You seem to be thinking in terms of centralized = effective, even though

>that's been disproven in any social experiment of recent history we could

offer.

>You are operating on the assumption that the police are more effective than

>people in defending property and persons, and that if the police chief is

>corrupt, there is a succeeding hierarchy of centralization, each stage of which

is

>more effective. So, as usually happens when police stations are corrupt, the

>state police take over. If they're corrupt, the army takes over.

I didn't say anything about centralized. Just ... who does the policing?

The history of the world is that ANYONE with power tends to

start injuring people (from husbands to Pinkertons). Since you say

Libertarians believe violence should not be allowed, I say -- who

KEEPS it from happening? When my brother-in-law pulls a gun

on my sister (because he is high on drugs, mind you), who defends

her?

>So we hear. But in actuality we find that the most effective way to improve

>schools is to institute choice, where the evaluation is in the hands of

>parents and teachers, not the state or a bureacracy.

?? Is it proven? Did that work for the blacks in Mississippi, before forced

desegregation?

>Economics: We've seen central planning, and we've seen unorganized economy

>with no centralization, and what we've found is that the monetary supply is

more

>stable without central banking, and that resources are allocated more

>accurately without central planning.

Like I said earlier, an any system, " centralized " vs. " decentralized " processing

both need to happen, it's a question of balance. But that doesn't mean

you don't have taxes.

>Guns: As has been discussed already, putting self-defense in the hands of

>the individual lowers the crime rate. And maybe it would be even better with

>tasers than guns.

Which already is the case, if people want to do it. I haven't seen any

meaningful limitations on people carrying guns in this part of the

world.

So, the solution wouldn't be MORE centralization, it would be LESS

>centralization. If most adults in a given community have guns and know how to

use them,

>how on earth could a measly police chief possibly be a threat? If gun

>ownership protects law-abiding citizens from criminals, why wouldn't it protect

them

>from police chiefs?

Because it doesn't. If I was a drug lord in central LA, and the police came

to bust me (because I didn't pay him off this month), then

they would ... even if I had my own little armada. Shoot, the

folks at WACO were certainly armed. As soon as you

have a police force big enough to police " bad guys " then

they could bring down " good guys " too.

>

>What if the army

>> decides to take over? Who brings them into line?

>

>Again, this is a moot point, because there would be no reason to bring the

>Army in. However, are you seriously suggesting that with a standing Army and a

>monopoly state we actually have some defense against the Army? The only thing

>preventing the army from taking over is the psychological alleigance of the

>Army to the state. If that disappears, they're the ones with the guns.

Exactly ... that is why I'm confused. There has to be a " state "

for the army to be allegent TO ... and likely a " state " to pay

their pensions etc. to entice them into the army. Which means

a central gov't of some sort, and taxes. So if you want a non-violent

existence, that seems to posit police, army, state, and taxes.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>When my brother-in-law pulls a gun

>on my sister (because he is high on drugs, mind you), who defends

>her?

Silly! Her personal bodyguard!

-

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> Since you say

> Libertarians believe violence should not be allowed, I say -- who

> KEEPS it from happening? When my brother-in-law pulls a gun

> on my sister (because he is high on drugs, mind you), who defends

> her?

Well, we don't live in a libertarian society, so who did protect her? Did a

policeman just happen to be standing by? Did he stand by patiently while

she called for help?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>Well, we don't live in a libertarian society, so who did protect her? Did a

>policeman just happen to be standing by? Did he stand by patiently while

>she called for help?

>

> Berg

First, lest my sister read this, it's an amalgam of a few

women I've known, not her. But basically, yeah,

they got the cops to help eventually ... restraining

orders, arrests, etc. There are gov't systems to help

women and children, and the guys are more afraid

of those other armed guys than they are of their wife.

Ditto for child support... the state can garnish their

wages ...

-- Heidi