Re: Re: POLITICS - Libertarian Anarchism (was Open source ...

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

I'd written:

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

steal

> >people's drugs.

Heidi replied:

> ?? 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).

I come from a small town setting where abusive relationships are very common,

and I assure you the police do next to nothing to remedy the situation

whatsoever.

I'm not sure what " small, non-policed societies " you're referring to, but I'm

guessing you mean the stats recently posted on hunter-gatherers?

Hunter-gatherer societies differ from ours in a multitude of ways, not simply

the absence of a state. They differ in culture and technology. We have

tasers, for example; they don't. More importantly, some these societies have no

concept of the sanctity of the individual's life, nor property rights. Diamond

reports that the Fayu's murder rate was diminished considerably, not by the

introduction of a state or other complex methods of adjudication, but

culturally:

" Eventually, as a result of Doug's visit, one group of Fayu invited a

courageous husband and wife missionary couple to live with them. The couple has

now

resided there for a dozen years and gradually persuaded the Fayu to renounce

violence. " p266.

Some ancient societies practiced cannibalism. Was the problem that they

didn't outlaw it? Of course not-- it is cultural. No one in our society could

think for a moment of consuming human flesh without wincing, not because it's

illegal.

But we can look at this rather scientifically. While hunter-gather societies

had high murder rates, we can look at what is most effective in preventing

those high murder rates in our society:

-- When Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring all homeowners to possess

at least one gun, violent crime dropped 89%. That's nearly disappeared! The

presence of a police force didn't prevent that crime from occurring; but an

armed population nearly eliminated it.

-- When concealed permits are legalized, there is a direct correlation

between the number of people using them and the amount the crime rate drops.

Conversely, there isn't such a clear relationship between number of officers

deployed and crime rate.

-- What do criminal's fear? Survey's of convicted criminals report that 75%

say they fear robbing a house when someone's home because the owner might have

a gun. But they don't fear robbing when no one's home, even though the

police have guns?

> I didn't say anything about centralized.

You implied it, by assuming that if a somewhat centralized organization

fails, a more centralized one must take its place, rather than a less

centralized

one.

>Just ... who does the policing?

Citizens, and protection agencies. The evidence seems to indicate that an

armed citizenry would be nearly sufficient.

> 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?

You're the one who qualified Libertarianism " with no government. " The

ordinary response would be " the government, " since mainstream Libertarianism

allows

for a government restricted to protection of person and property, defense, and

enforcement of contracts, paid for by excise taxes.

And what do you mean by " power " ? What about the Rural/Metro private fire

folks-- do they go around bopping people on the head with the lizard's they

capture? They certainly are in a position of power-- it's in their hands

whether

homes burn down or not. They're doing a mighty fine job.

When my brother-in-law pulls a gun

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

> her?

First, while that's a conceivable possibility, it is quite clear to anyone

with any experience with drugs that someone pulling a gun on someone because

they're high is a rare occasion. Most drug violence is due to the high cost of

drugs, which is in turn caused by drug prohibition-- not the mere act of

getting high.

Second, she'd do well to have a taser. Third, say she pulls out the gun.

Under the current system, what is she to do? How is she going to call the cops

if he has her hostage?

Furthermore, under the current system, the cops have no liability to protect

her at all. Courts have ruled again and again that cops have no

responsibility to protect individuals. In fact, here's a whole list of such

rulings:

members.aol.com/copcrimes/brophy.html

On the other hand, a private protection agency that has a contract with your

sister-in-law would be bound by contract and therefore responsible to protect

her if given notice to make such protection possible.

> >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?

What are you talking about? Studies done with pilate voucher programs show

that increased mobility between schools and increased number of choices cause

improved performance in public schools, despite " sucking money from them. "

This has been done in several cities, and the results are dramatic.

> >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.

I'm not talking about taxes, I'm talking about organization. Markets work

best with no central decision-making to coordinate them, and centrally planned

economies simply fail. Even if you are to argue that markets work best with

" tweaking " from a government, which is just false, but something that's too big

and too tangential to get into right now, a market economy still works

overwhelmingly by allocating resources with no central coordination, as compared

to

central planning, so it is much more analogous to a society where defense is

decentalized, then centralized in a monopoly police force.

> >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.

In most places it's very hard to carry concealed weapons. In most cities,

the general policy is to simply not issue the permits. When they issue permits

indiscriminately, crime rate goes way, way down. Lott talked about this in

the interview Suze posted.

> 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.

But you were asking a) how a society could function without police and how

a society would protect itself from a private police force bent on tyranny

Now you respond by showing the omnipotence of the current system of monopoly

police force?

If the populace is armed, the police cannot tyrranize the *populace* who have

more guns than a police chief. If you are saying the police could unfairly

discriminate against *certain individuals* then that is simply a joke, because

obviously under the current system the same is true, and more importantly,

some police forces tyrranize entire communities.

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.

Whose point are you arguing? Yours or mine?

> >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.

You're the one who posited the question, how would libertarianism work " with

no government. " If Joe even said that, I missed it when I read the passage

you quoted.

I'd like to dissociate the issue from libertarianism per se, because

libertarianism is not anarchism, and there are no questions of its feasibility.

There are questions about anarchism's feasibility, but it certainly isn't

totally implausible.

You posited an army. Why do I then need a state for it to pledge alleigance

to, when I never posited the army in the first place?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/22/04 9:31:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >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!

,

Nice crack. But in the absence of a personal body guard or self-defense, how

would she, under the current system, obtain protection in such a situation?

I'm not asking how justice would be brought upon her assailant, but

specifically how she would be protected from harm.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/22/04 10:23:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Probably depends on the town, etc. but the women I've known

> HAVE gotten help from the police dept.

I don't doubt at all that police *can* help. But police can't really take an

active role without some activity on the victim's part. Most abuse cases go

on and on in an endless cycle, and it takes a lot for the person, and it is

probably a minority of cases, to actually initiate a break in that cycle and

seek help.

The point is, having the police there doesn't stop you in any way whatsoever

from getting beaten in a particular scenario. Folks who get help don't get

help to actually prevent a beating. They might get help when they decide to get

out, keeping the guy away from them.

But police are sometimes effective and sometimes not. There are cases where

women are in abusive relationships, who *do* notify the police, try to get

guns because they are being threatened in the immediate, can't because of

cooling

period, and then die the next day, even though police had notice. And as I

posted, when police are ineffective, they aren't held responsible.

There's no reason that in these cases, a private agency couldn't protect the

woman-- just like private fire can be superior at lower cost to folks.

But that isn't the point:

> the point is, if liberarianism says violence is not allowed, who

> stops the violence, and how?

Again, Libertarianism per se has a *government*. So please, please, please

make this necessary distinction between Libertarianism per se on the one hand,

and the specific brand of Libertarianism that is a minority of American

Libertarians on the other, that is most appropriately called anarcho-capitalism.

Now, under an anarchist system, private protection agencies could provide

protection services, like private fire services currently do, and there would be

much less crime to prevent because of the lack of restrictions on guns,

provided communities smartened up and took advantage of that lack of

restriction.

The difference would be that a) the private protection would probably be

vastly superior at lower cost, much like private fire is, and they would have

a

contractual agreement by which they were liable for your protection, unlike

the current policing system, which just ignores the real dangerous areas

because they're too dangerous.

> Right. Via religion, which is another sort of " centralized " institution.

That's preposterous. In what way is two people-- a husband and wife--

voluntarily being invited to live with the people and teach them, using moral

suasion, " centralized " ?

Sure, at some point you can trace the *values* to an institution that had

*some* sort of centralization, but that's clearly irrelevant, since the values

were *not* transmitted through such a centralized institution in this instance.

Furthermore, I don't oppose " centralization " per se. I don't oppose a

centralized corporation if it is freely competing with other corporations. I

don't

oppose a centralized religion if it is freely competing with other religions.

I *do* oppose a centralized _monopolized_ religion, or " corporation, " where

the interactions aren't voluntary.

> Humans have come up from huge amounts of violence

> via religion, the state, and trade.

Trade? Trade is the most anti-violent force that has ever affected humans,

and is the one, singular force that promotes peace and freedom in the world.

How does violence come from trade?

All three of which are,

> at times, coercive, abusive, and violent on their own.

It's imposible for trade to be abusive. If you violently take my property,

that isn't trade. If you force me to give up my property for something you

exchange, and you force the exchange, that isn't " trading. "

> However, of the three, only the state has, at this point,

> allowed individual voting rights.

That's a very, in my view, inaccurate analysis. Of the three:

RELIGION-- Membership is voluntary, except when said religion is adopted by

the State. Decrees are obeyed voluntarily, except when said religion is

adopted by the State.

STATE-- Membership is involuntary. Decrees are enforced by force, regardless

of the method of legislating such decrees.

TRADE-- All exchanges are entirely voluntary. Every single exchange is under

complete control of both parties, and thus every single transaction is

subject to the direct will of the person affected by the transaction.

It is TRADE that is the truly free and democratic option. I can elect

someone to make thousands of decisions for me per year, and vote once. On the

other

hand, I control every single purchase I make directly, every day.

It is trade that undermines oppressive governments. This is recognized by

both Marxist analysis and Liberal analysis. It is basically universally

accepted by every school of thought. The free trade of voluntary exchanges

between

people allows for the accumulation of wealth, which causes the " bourgeoisie " to

demand the protection of property rights from the state, hence the initiation

of the concept of " rights " into the political spectrum. The last thing an

oppressor wants is a free economy, because it undermines his legitimacy.

> " Religion " isn't cultural in the sense a homegrown culture

> is -- there is often and usually a " command center " (i.e. the Pope)

Not like the Pope is. The Pope's power grew gradually over two millenia, was

never recognized as such by the Eastern half of the Church, and isn't

recognized as such by the some 2500 Protestant denominations (probably more than

that

now). Islam has had military leaders, but hasn't had a Caliph for hundreds

upon hundreds of years. Etc, etc.

> that decides what is right and wrong. So that is no longer an

> example of non-centralized humans getting their act together --

> it is an example of a rule-based system, with the rules being

> organized, in this case, by the religion.

That's a total misrepresentation of Christian history. In point of fact,

Christian disputes were settled by consensus, and the Pope was considered

subject

to that consensus. Furthermore, the decisions were always based upon two

things:

1) The Bible

2) The " Fathers "

The Bible is a collection of writings from dozens of authors. The " Fathers "

are a collection of dozens of leaders who arose NOT by having specific

positions in the Church, but by being recognized as holy people who taught in

line

with the tradition of the Church, and who were inspired by God.

These values were simply NOT determined by any central earthly authority.

> Religion is a great competing power for the state ... look

> at the demand by the Ayatollah for voting in Iraq ... what the

> military couldn't do, he can by motivating his followers ...

I agree. Some researchers believe that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity

because Christians were providing education, charity, and medical care with

such widespread effectiveness, and therefore undermining the legitimacy of the

State.

Just the same, private industry can assume the roles of protectors,

fire-fighters, educators, and beneficiaries, and do it farm more effectively at

lower

cost than the State, and thereby undermine the legitimacy of the State, and

THAT is why the State wants to monopolize those services.

Ultimately, if the State falls it will be BECAUSE private industry has stolen

its legitimacy. So, in that case-- the point is moot. Let's see if private

fire can succeed, and if it does, and widely enough, we don't need to

" abolish " State fire, because it will simply fall apart when no one wants its

services.

> >-- When Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring all homeowners to

> possess

> >at least one gun, violent crime dropped 89%. That's nearly disappeared!

> The

> >presence of a police force didn't prevent that crime from occurring; but an

>

> >armed population nearly eliminated it.

>

> First, all your examples are for crime in the criminal sense. Having a gun

> doesn't prevent a woman from being abused by her husband. And what are they

> counting as " violent crime " ? Folk carry concealed weapons around here ..

> they also discharge them, when drunk, at folks that make them angry.

> Our neighbor, a homicide detective, said that is the most common homicide

> he sees. Ditto in central LA. Ditto in the Old West.

> Now if only the NICE RESPONSIBLE people are armed ... but that would require

> permits ...

You are ignoring the STATISTICS. Why then do the STATISTICS, according to

Lott, show that when the policy is INDISCRIMINATE the crime rate goes down

through the floor?

Sure you can explain why you wouldn't expect it to, but can you explain why

it *does*?

> I might point out that in hunter-gatherer societies, everyone is equally

> armed also. I sense these statistics are anomalous.

Yes, but in hunter-gatherer societies they operate on the basis of

collectivism. Collectivism is the basis for war, and collectivism is the basis

for the

denial of human and property rights.

Furthermore, you aren't taking into account technology. It's much easier for

Bob to steal Jane by killing Joe, Jane's husband, when he can see whether or

not Joe is sleeping next to the campfire, or in his thatch-roof hut. It's

another story entirely to try to break into a modern house with modern locks

when

you have no idea whether or not the person is sleeping-- after all we have

light bulbs in our society, and whether or not the person has a rifle.

Furthermore, you can't possibly claim Lott's statistics are " anomalous " when

he took into account ***every single town, city, county, in the country***

over 18 years. How could you possibly get anomalous statistics out of such a

practice?

Furthermore, his critics have gone through great pains to prove such an

anomaly, but the best they can do is point out that when you eliminate two

thirds

of the counties plus Florida, there is still a drop in crime with guns but it

isn't statistically significant. If there was such a clear anomaly, couldn't

someone point it out better than that?

> >>I didn't say anything about centralized.

> >

> >You implied it, by assuming that if a somewhat centralized organization

> >fails, a more centralized one must take its place, rather than a less

> centralized

> >one.

>

> I was asking the question ... if violence is the one thing not allowed

> under Libertarianism, how do you prevent it?

Under Libertarianism per se, again, you prevent it with the government, which

is funded by minimal excise taxes. You had actually asked the question, 'how

do you implement libertarianism with no government?' which is an entirely

different question, and I'd appreciate the distinction.

So far it sounds like

> it is basically the Old West scenario ... everyone wears a gun.There

> wasn't,AFAIK, any major drop in homicide rates at the time.Might be a

temporary one

> for awhile,as in Georgia, or if everyonewas very religious.

Drop in homicide rate over what? Over New England, where everyone had a gun?

Everyone had a gun in the entire country, because everyone needed to hunt,

and generally everyone served in the militia. Do you happen to know what the

murder rate was in either scenario?

> >>Just ... who does the policing?

> >

> >Citizens, and protection agencies. The evidence seems to indicate that an

> >armed citizenry would be nearly sufficient.

>

> Didn't work for the hunter-gatherers. Doesn't work in central LA

> either.

You are ignoring the facts that

1)It isn't easy for a law-abiding citizen in central LA to get a concealed

weapons permit

2)Whenever indiscriminate policies regarding such are implemented, the crime

rate drops dramatically, and inner cities show the *most* drop out of all

other conditions

3)It actually *has* worked in LA, for example, in the LA riots, when Korean

store-keepers defended themselves with now-banned " assault rifles, " and those

who didn't, had their stores burn to the ground, while those who did, had them

left standing, and those who tried to get guns and couldn't because of the

mandatory " cooling periods " couldn't defend themselves either.

> >>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?

> >

> >You're the one who qualified Libertarianism " with no government. " The

> >ordinary response would be " the government, " since mainstream

> Libertarianism allows

> >for a government restricted to protection of person and property, defense,

> and

> >enforcement of contracts, paid for by excise taxes.

>

> Which is why I brought up the police, because your version says there can be

> police.

> But then I said someone has to police the police, etc. etc. and pretty soon

> you have a fairly robust state.

Sure. Libertarianism per se doesn't eliminate the state. It is fairly

robust in doing what it's supposed to do, and nothing else. Under

Libertarianism

per se, the valid functions of government are

-- defense of the country

-- defense of person and property

-- enforcement of contracts

So, what's the deal? Sure, you can have police. Sure, you can have an army.

Sure, you want them to perform " robustly. " Why must you confound that with

a State that oversteps its bounds?

> >And what do you mean by " power " ? What about the Rural/Metro private fire

> >folks-- do they go around bopping people on the head with the lizard's they

>

> >capture? They certainly are in a position of power-- it's in their hands

> whether

> >homes burn down or not. They're doing a mighty fine job.

>

> Ben and Jerry's does a fine job too. Enron didn't.

So why is it that when the General Accounting Office comes up with figures

dwarfing the Enron Scandal about all the money missing from the Pentagon budget

or the Post Office, you aren't hollaring for massive restrictions on the power

of the State like you are for Enron? Why aren't we prosecuting the

government?

What about the study a few years ago that found the government to be the #1

violator of pollution regulations in the entire country? Why aren't you on the

government's back like you are on the corporate polluters?

> Microsoft doesn't.

Microsoft has done a pretty shabby job with some things, but it has

undoubtedly made computers more user-friendly for the bulk of the population.

It

wouldn't have made it in business had it not been offering a product people

wanted.

> Monsanto doesn't.

According to whom? Monsanto develops products and sells them to people who

want them. It seems to me like they're doing a fantastic job. Is it that

*you* don't like their products? Don't buy them; I don't. The only problem I

have with Monsanto is the possible prospect of genetic pollution from GM crops--

but had not the leftist nuts whining about Monsanto's overstretched " corporate

power " gotten the terminator seed off the market, we wouldn't have to worry

about it.

If some schmuck

> became CEO of Metro he could go around demandingextortion from the folks he

> is supposed to be serving or " accidentally " setting fires for folks that

> don't buy his services.

He *could* but notice that he *doesn't* because he has to get *money* from

them. Thus, he does a good job. Can you at least admit, in this instance, that

private fire is able to accomplish things that public fire simply cannot, do

to the emphasis of innovation in the private sector?

You can make all sorts of claims about what " will " or " could " happen with

private fire, but the fact is that in reality it is playing out opposite: they

are emphasizing *prevention* and everyone is better off. What do the *people*

think? The polls show they overwhelmingly support Rural/Metro over the

municipal departments.

So someone has to stop him. Sooner

> or later you get into policing ... sooner or later you

> get into standards. Sooner or later you re-enact most

> of the 1900's --

No, not really. In that portion of history, you had an undeveloped market

that was quickly monopolized as a knee-jerk reaction, because the private sector

wasn't given a chance. Like I said before, the oil drillers were sabotaging

each other and fighting just like the firemen were, but Rockefeller saved the

industry with superior service. The fire fighting was in the dirt because it

needed a good entrepreneur to come along and grab up a lion's share of the

market and stabilize it, like Rockefeller.

Furthermore, this " crazy " fire CEO would just lose business to the other

private companies that exist out there.

Couldn't you make the same argument for virtually any other portion of the

private sector? What if you have some maniacal real estate CEO who starts

buying up buildings left and right and burning them down? What would we do

then?

And thus, why aren't you advocating a government take over of all housing and

real estate?

And if we *do* end up with private fire nationwide, it will be because the

private companies stole the business from the municipal departments. So the

question is moot-- customers don't have to go with the private folks if they

don't want to.

>

> First, while that's a conceivable possibility, it is quite clear to anyone

> >with any experience with drugs that someone pulling a gun on someone

> because

> >they're high is a rare occasion. Most drug violence is due to the high

> cost of

> >drugs, which is in turn caused by drug prohibition-- not the mere act of

> >getting high.

>

> ??? Maybe we have rich drug users. Aphetimine psychosis doesn't

> cost all that much. And it doesn't take drugs ... there are all

> those bipolar folks and others ... really, I've seen too much

> mental imbalance to want to live with someone like that

> who is also armed.

I had two friends who beat each other up with baseball bats when the blacked

out on xanax-- a legal drug-- but most drugs will not produce such states, and

they are rare occurrences in the aggregate of drug related crime, afaik.

>

> >Second, she'd do well to have a taser. Third, say she pulls out the gun.

> >Under the current system, what is she to do? How is she going to call the

> cops

> >if he has her hostage?

>

> She has him arrested. She gets public assistance to stay at a safe

> house. (underfunded programs, granted). She gets a restraining

> order. She takes him to court. There are a whole slew of gov't

> programs to help ... NOT enough.

But the government can't protect her if he shoots her. She has no way to

escape him, once he's pulled the gun, except by persuasion or self-defense. In

a

libertarian anarchist society she would have a variety of options, including

a safe place to stay (why gov't funded?) and including hiring protection.

Although it seems clear to me that, if her brother is a drug-using psycho, her

only lasting protection is to get herself a taser. Still... if private industry

can do fire, why not protection?

>But before the gov't programs,

> there were actually laws that said the wife was " property " more

> or less, and the husband's duty was to keep her disciplined.

Actually, it is pretty much universally conceded by women's historians that

the primary force that initiated women's independence was the industrial

revolution.

> >On the other hand, a private protection agency that has a contract with

> your

> >sister-in-law would be bound by contract and therefore responsible to

> protect

> >her if given notice to make such protection possible.

>

> With what money?

With the money she wouldn't be spending on taxes. With the money that she'd

save when the government's inflationary policies are abandoned, and the prices

of consumers' goods drop dramatically. With the money that would be saved

from a convoluted tax code that employs vast amounts of useless people enforcing

it, interpreting it, figuring out how to get people out of it, and

transporting it from people to the federal gov't back to the state, back to

departments.

Since private fire offers better service for LESS cost than the municipal

fire, why would you expect private protection to be MORE expensive than

municipal

protection?

> Plus this is a community property state.

It's a what?

> Before desegregation, a black person could not get into any school

> that white folk went to. The gov't and a bunch of liberal do-gooders

> changed that.

And according to a lot of black people, much for the worse. McWhorter,

for example, who considers himself a liberal, though is branded a

" conservative " by the black-leftist establishment, claims that the stereotypes

about

" trying to be white " when one does good in school arose in this era, and that

black's were making much quicker progress when they had their own schools, that

was

sabotaged by integration.

The voucher program helps a different set of people ...

> mainly it DOES give impetus to change, because the people who use

> the vouchers are typically the type of wealthy folk the schools WANT.

That's just plain false. Wealthy people don't need vouchers; the whole point

of the vouchers is to give *poor* people the same chance that rich people

have to go to private school.

> But no one wanted the black kids. (I'm not against vouchers, but I

> should point out that they ARE a gov't program -- a giveaway of sorts.

I never said I agreed with vouchers. I'm pointing out that in such programs,

the institution of decentralized evaluation in a market-based system produces

vastly superior results to a state-run evaluation system.

> If we ONLY had private schools, many kids would never get an

> education ... with vouchers you get " free money " to send your

> kid to a better school, courtesy the gov't. I would think

> would not want his tax money going to education other folk's kids).

That, again, is false. It ignores a whole variety of issues, perhaps most

significantly the astronomical harm that the government does to the economy that

makes everyone poorer, especially the poor, and ignores the way the

government's inflationary policies effectively redistribute the wealth from poor

people

people of higher wages.

With inflationary policies, demand for capital goods gets overestimated,

which generates these " booms, " which are followed by recessions or depressions

when the market strikes back against the displaced malinvestment. Thus, the

wages rise in certain sectors related to capital goods, and the sectors related

to

consumers' goods remain with low wages. As productivity rises, prices

*would* fall, but the prices are stabilized by the massive inflation induced by

the

Federal Reserve.

Now, without the inflationary pressure, wages would rise somewhat in the

consumer goods sectors because of higher investment in that area, but that's not

to say they would even out. What IS important, is that the PRICES of consumer

goods would FALL, which distributes the increased wealth *proportional* to

one's wages, whereas if prices stay stable, the only folks who get an increase

in

wealth are those whose wages rise.

So all this talk about how the 90s boom is only making the rich richer and

not the poor richer, is purely the government's fault, because the boom was

generated by the loose, inflated credit induced by the government. And, in

fact,

had wages risen in the same proportions, with none of the wages at the bottom

rising, the bottom would STILL have gotten richer because of falling prices,

which the government prevented.

So you are arguing on the assumption that wealth distribution would be the

same, which is a false premise. We would collectively be massively richer, but,

more importantly, the *poor* people would be much richer, and the wealth

would be distributed among the bottom more evenly than it is today.

> Me too. The best systems us a combination of central vs. not, via a system

> of

> rules that are enforced by a central authority. Your economic example

> is a fine one ... the economy has tons of rules, and they are enforced, esp.

> as regards banks, balance sheets, lying to investors, how the stock markets

> work, etc. Within those rules, people play pretty freely. That isn't the

> same

> as central planning.

In an anarchistic setting you would have " rules " too, but they would be

enforced by different mechanisms. And most of the economic rules do vastly more

harm than good, but that's another story.

> >In most places it's very hard to carry concealed weapons. In most cities,

>

> >the general policy is to simply not issue the permits. When they issue

> permits

> >indiscriminately, crime rate goes way, way down. Lott talked about this in

>

> >the interview Suze posted.

>

> Well, knowing a few folks who have concealed weapons

> permits, I'd have to disagree. It's only difficult if you have

> a criminal background. But the criminals commonly DO carry

> concealed weapons, so I can't see what the issue is.

According to Lott, it's often difficult in the inner city, because the folks

issuing the permits are very reluctant to grant them, but in the cases where

they have been more liberal and granted them indiscriminately, crime goes way

down. (Because the gangs don't get their weapons at the store).

More importantly, the issue isn't simply legality, it's whether they people

*use* them or not. We live in an anti-gun culture, so even where it's legal,

it often isn't practiced. But what you actually see is a direct correlation to

the amount of people taking advantage of the legality, not the simple

legality.

Did you read the Lott interview? He discusses all this, but I'd rather not

discuss it in more detail unless you've read it.

> >But you were asking a) how a society could function without police and

> how

> >a society would protect itself from a private police force bent on tyranny

>

> >Now you respond by showing the omnipotence of the current system of

> monopoly

> >police force?

>

> I'm saying that IF you have a police force, it can't be under the control

> of the population, it's illogical. Our current police force is hardly

> omnipotent,

> and it does get corrupted, but there are other forces more equally

> matched to it (like, the head of the force is elected and can be

> replaced). In this hypothetical libertarian society where violence

> is not allowed, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for

> preventing violence (or corruption).

You stop buying their services. You're relying on not having some hell-bent

maniacle police officer just as much as I am. In your scenario, there is no

less chance that a maniac can take over the police force-- since they have the

guns-- or the Army-- since they have the guns-- and no longer be at mercy to

" elections. " Your police chief has the guns. So he is only " elected " to the

extent he *submitts* to being elected and everyone believes it. So you are

applying a double standard. Sure, I suppose you could have a maniac that all

the

sudden doesn't care about his customers and just overruns the world with his

guns, but not anymore than you could under the current situation, which just

proves its unlikliness.

If your police chief goes postal and all his officers obey him because he's

gained their alleigance, what is your " election " going to do if they have all

the guns?

Only if you all carried guns you'd have more protection ;-)

> >If the populace is armed, the police cannot tyrranize the *populace* who

> have

> >more guns than a police chief. If you are saying the police could unfairly

>

> >discriminate against *certain individuals* then that is simply a joke,

> because

> >obviously under the current system the same is true, and more importantly,

> >some police forces tyrranize entire communities.

>

> Some police forces tyrannize entire countries ... even armed ones. The

> individuals

> cannot fight back unless they are organized ... centralized if you will.

> They

> would have to form an organization to fight back, which would eventually

> morph into a " state " , which would eventually have rules and maybe voting

> and taxes and regulations ...

Or start tyrannizing the population again. Look at what the Black Panther's

did. Read some Eldridge Cleaver if you want to know how the police treated

their communities. The Black Panthers, whatever their faults, were basically

saying, 'look, this is *our* turf', and the monopolized state says, 'no, you

have to work through us.' The people in the middle had no control over the

matter. Where as a market-based police system allows the consumer to decide.

> That an armed populace is no good against armed police? You are the

> one saying that if folks are armed you wouldn't have to worry

> about a corrupt police force?

They're no match against the American Military Machine. But that just goes

to prove the problem of having a monopolized state. The State has the power to

monopolize all force, and is powerful enough to allow or disallow any use of

force or weaponry as it sees fit.

> Joe said the basis of Libertarianism was basically, violence was not

> allowed.

> So now, it seems that to have no violence, you need some sort of state

> and police force (which I did infer you would say, at least about the

> police).

> So once you have a state, you have taxes ... at that point, is

> Libertarianism

> about the SIZE of the state? About how much violence is allowed?

Libertarianism per se, as distinct from anarcho-capitalism, which can also be

considered a certain brand of Libertarianism, has a state. It isn't so much

about the SIZE as the FUNCTION of the State.

The State is permitted to

-- have a military for defense, negotiate treaties, etc.

-- have a police force to enforce the law (essentially to counter the

initiation of violence)

-- enforce contracts.

That's it. The State is there. The State does its job effectively. The

State does no more.

> >You posited an army. Why do I then need a state for it to pledge

> alleigance

> >to, when I never posited the army in the first place?

>

> To keep the police in line .... your police I guess are kept in line by the

> populace?

They are primarily kept in line by the profit motive, because they have to

serve their customers. However, they could be run by maniacs just as YOUR

police system could be run by maniacs, and an armed populace would be the best

defense.

Again, this is as distinct from Libertarianism per se, if you will, the

common denomonator of libertarian thought, where a police force is a legitimate

function of the state.

> I kind of wonder though, without an army, how you'd keep the other

> countries from attacking. I guess the populace would have to have

> fighter jets too, or else you'd have to convert all the countries

> to libertarianism at the same time ... where are those missionaries

> when you need 'em? Or do we all get together and hire a mercenary

> army ... if we do that, are we required to contribute to the mercenary

> army or are donations voluntary?

That's a good question. I can't answer for sure, but I doubt anyone would

attack an armed populace of an industrial nation. They'd have to be as maniacal

as the Mongols, because when you're fighting the populace you have to kill

every last one.

It's worth considering that the US didn't always have a standing army, and I

believe the American population remained hostile to the idea until the Civil

War.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>I'd written:

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

>steal

>> >people's drugs.

>Heidi replied:

>> ?? 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).

>

>I come from a small town setting where abusive relationships are very common,

>and I assure you the police do next to nothing to remedy the situation

>whatsoever.

Probably depends on the town, etc. but the women I've known

HAVE gotten help from the police dept. But that isn't the point:

the point is, if liberarianism says violence is not allowed, who

stops the violence, and how?

concept of the sanctity of the individual's life, nor property rights. Diamond

>reports that the Fayu's murder rate was diminished considerably, not by the

>introduction of a state or other complex methods of adjudication, but

>culturally:

>

> " Eventually, as a result of Doug's visit, one group of Fayu invited a

>courageous husband and wife missionary couple to live with them. The couple

has now

>resided there for a dozen years and gradually persuaded the Fayu to renounce

>violence. " p266.

Right. Via religion, which is another sort of " centralized " institution.

Humans have come up from huge amounts of violence

via religion, the state, and trade. All three of which are,

at times, coercive, abusive, and violent on their own.

However, of the three, only the state has, at this point,

allowed individual voting rights.

" Religion " isn't cultural in the sense a homegrown culture

is -- there is often and usually a " command center " (i.e. the Pope)

that decides what is right and wrong. So that is no longer an

example of non-centralized humans getting their act together --

it is an example of a rule-based system, with the rules being

organized, in this case, by the religion.

Religion is a great competing power for the state ... look

at the demand by the Ayatollah for voting in Iraq ... what the

military couldn't do, he can by motivating his followers ...

But we can look at this rather scientifically. While hunter-gather societies

>had high murder rates, we can look at what is most effective in preventing

>those high murder rates in our society:

>

>-- When Kennesaw, Georgia, enacted a law requiring all homeowners to possess

>at least one gun, violent crime dropped 89%. That's nearly disappeared! The

>presence of a police force didn't prevent that crime from occurring; but an

>armed population nearly eliminated it.

First, all your examples are for crime in the criminal sense. Having a gun

doesn't prevent

a woman from being abused by her husband. And what are they

counting as " violent crime " ? Folk carry concealed weapons around here ..

they also discharge them, when drunk, at folks that make them angry.

Our neighbor, a homicide detective, said that is the most common homicide

he sees. Ditto in central LA. Ditto in the Old West.

Now if only the NICE RESPONSIBLE people are armed ... but that would require

permits ...

I might point out that in hunter-gatherer societies, everyone is equally

armed also. I sense these statistics are anomalous.

>> I didn't say anything about centralized.

>

>You implied it, by assuming that if a somewhat centralized organization

>fails, a more centralized one must take its place, rather than a less

centralized

>one.

I was asking the question ... if violence is the one thing not allowed

under Libertarianism, how do you prevent it? So far it sounds like

it is basically the Old West scenario ... everyone wears a gun.

There wasn't, AFAIK, any major drop in homicide rates at the time.

Might be a temporary one for awhile, as in Georgia, or if everyone

was very religious.

> >Just ... who does the policing?

>

>Citizens, and protection agencies. The evidence seems to indicate that an

>armed citizenry would be nearly sufficient.

Didn't work for the hunter-gatherers. Doesn't work in central LA

either.

> > 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?

>

>You're the one who qualified Libertarianism " with no government. " The

>ordinary response would be " the government, " since mainstream Libertarianism

allows

>for a government restricted to protection of person and property, defense, and

>enforcement of contracts, paid for by excise taxes.

Which is why I brought up the police, because your version says there can be

police.

But then I said someone has to police the police, etc. etc. and pretty soon

you have a fairly robust state.

>And what do you mean by " power " ? What about the Rural/Metro private fire

>folks-- do they go around bopping people on the head with the lizard's they

>capture? They certainly are in a position of power-- it's in their hands

whether

>homes burn down or not. They're doing a mighty fine job.

Ben and Jerry's does a fine job too. Enron didn't.

Microsoft doesn't. Monsanto doesn't. If some schmuck

became CEO of Metro he could go around demanding

extortion from the folks he is supposed to be serving

or " accidentally " setting fires for folks that don't buy

his services. So someone has to stop him. Sooner

or later you get into policing ... sooner or later you

get into standards. Sooner or later you re-enact most

of the 1900's --

First, while that's a conceivable possibility, it is quite clear to anyone

>with any experience with drugs that someone pulling a gun on someone because

>they're high is a rare occasion. Most drug violence is due to the high cost of

>drugs, which is in turn caused by drug prohibition-- not the mere act of

>getting high.

??? Maybe we have rich drug users. Aphetimine psychosis doesn't

cost all that much. And it doesn't take drugs ... there are all

those bipolar folks and others ... really, I've seen too much

mental imbalance to want to live with someone like that

who is also armed.

>Second, she'd do well to have a taser. Third, say she pulls out the gun.

>Under the current system, what is she to do? How is she going to call the cops

>if he has her hostage?

She has him arrested. She gets public assistance to stay at a safe

house. (underfunded programs, granted). She gets a restraining

order. She takes him to court. There are a whole slew of gov't

programs to help ... NOT enough. But before the gov't programs,

there were actually laws that said the wife was " property " more

or less, and the husband's duty was to keep her disciplined.

>On the other hand, a private protection agency that has a contract with your

>sister-in-law would be bound by contract and therefore responsible to protect

>her if given notice to make such protection possible.

With what money? Plus this is a community property state.

>> >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?

>

>What are you talking about? Studies done with pilate voucher programs show

>that increased mobility between schools and increased number of choices cause

>improved performance in public schools, despite " sucking money from them. "

>This has been done in several cities, and the results are dramatic.

Before desegregation, a black person could not get into any school

that white folk went to. The gov't and a bunch of liberal do-gooders

changed that. The voucher program helps a different set of people ...

mainly it DOES give impetus to change, because the people who use

the vouchers are typically the type of wealthy folk the schools WANT.

But no one wanted the black kids. (I'm not against vouchers, but I

should point out that they ARE a gov't program -- a giveaway of sorts.

If we ONLY had private schools, many kids would never get an

education ... with vouchers you get " free money " to send your

kid to a better school, courtesy the gov't. I would think

would not want his tax money going to education other folk's kids).

>> 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.

>

>I'm not talking about taxes, I'm talking about organization.

Me too. The best systems us a combination of central vs. not, via a system of

rules that are enforced by a central authority. Your economic example

is a fine one ... the economy has tons of rules, and they are enforced, esp.

as regards banks, balance sheets, lying to investors, how the stock markets

work, etc. Within those rules, people play pretty freely. That isn't the same

as central planning.

> In most places it's very hard to carry concealed weapons. In most cities,

>the general policy is to simply not issue the permits. When they issue permits

>indiscriminately, crime rate goes way, way down. Lott talked about this in

>the interview Suze posted.

Well, knowing a few folks who have concealed weapons

permits, I'd have to disagree. It's only difficult if you have

a criminal background. But the criminals commonly DO carry

concealed weapons, so I can't see what the issue is.

>

>But you were asking a) how a society could function without police and how

>a society would protect itself from a private police force bent on tyranny

>

>Now you respond by showing the omnipotence of the current system of monopoly

>police force?

I'm saying that IF you have a police force, it can't be under the control

of the population, it's illogical. Our current police force is hardly

omnipotent,

and it does get corrupted, but there are other forces more equally

matched to it (like, the head of the force is elected and can be

replaced). In this hypothetical libertarian society where violence

is not allowed, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for

preventing violence (or corruption).

>If the populace is armed, the police cannot tyrranize the *populace* who have

>more guns than a police chief. If you are saying the police could unfairly

>discriminate against *certain individuals* then that is simply a joke, because

>obviously under the current system the same is true, and more importantly,

>some police forces tyrranize entire communities.

Some police forces tyrannize entire countries ... even armed ones. The

individuals

cannot fight back unless they are organized ... centralized if you will. They

would have to form an organization to fight back, which would eventually

morph into a " state " , which would eventually have rules and maybe voting

and taxes and regulations ...

>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.

>

>Whose point are you arguing? Yours or mine?

That an armed populace is no good against armed police? You are the

one saying that if folks are armed you wouldn't have to worry

about a corrupt police force?

>

>> 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.

>

>You're the one who posited the question, how would libertarianism work " with

>no government. " If Joe even said that, I missed it when I read the passage

>you quoted.

>

>I'd like to dissociate the issue from libertarianism per se, because

>libertarianism is not anarchism, and there are no questions of its feasibility.

Joe said the basis of Libertarianism was basically, violence was not allowed.

So now, it seems that to have no violence, you need some sort of state

and police force (which I did infer you would say, at least about the police).

So once you have a state, you have taxes ... at that point, is Libertarianism

about the SIZE of the state? About how much violence is allowed?

>There are questions about anarchism's feasibility, but it certainly isn't

>totally implausible.

>

>You posited an army. Why do I then need a state for it to pledge alleigance

>to, when I never posited the army in the first place?

To keep the police in line .... your police I guess are kept in line by the

populace?

I kind of wonder though, without an army, how you'd keep the other

countries from attacking. I guess the populace would have to have

fighter jets too, or else you'd have to convert all the countries

to libertarianism at the same time ... where are those missionaries

when you need 'em? Or do we all get together and hire a mercenary

army ... if we do that, are we required to contribute to the mercenary

army or are donations voluntary?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> Probably depends on the town, etc. but the women I've known

> HAVE gotten help from the police dept. But that isn't the point:

> the point is, if liberarianism says violence is not allowed, who

> stops the violence, and how?

People would defend themselves with guns, just as they do now. The

possibility of getting shot by a victim is a very effective deterrent.

Private guards would patrol commercial and residential districts, just

as they do now. People would put locks on their doors and bars on their

windows, just as they do now. How much crime is really stopped by

police, anyway? Their primary function is not to protect victims, but to

track down criminals afterwards. They come in handy in extended

Columbine-type situations, but those are frequently stopped by the

arrival of armed civilians, and it stands to reason that they could

pretty much always be stopped immediately if even a small fraction of

those present were armed (does anyone have statistics on robberies of

gun shops?).

Here's an example of private action eliminating crime where the state

had given up:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1091

> First, all your examples are for crime in the criminal sense. Having

> a gun doesn't prevent a woman from being abused by her husband.

Of course it does, if she's willing to use it. She doesn't need a gun,

though. People who are married tend to live together, and people who

live together tend to have opportunities to kill each other in their

sleep. A knife will do just fine. I'd acquit if she could document the

abuse. Or she could run away. Unfortunately, there's just not much

anyone can do to help an abuse victim/enabler who won't help herself.

> And what are they counting as " violent crime " ? Folk carry concealed

> weapons around here .. they also discharge them, when drunk, at

> folks that make them angry.

How often does that happen? There were 110 firearms homicides in

Washington state in 2002, and I think that it's a safe bet that a good

chunk of them were intentional:

http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehsphl/chs/chs-data/death/dea_VD.htm

> Our neighbor, a homicide detective, said that is the most common

> homicide he sees. Ditto in central LA. Ditto in the Old West.

I'll be blunt: You have a history of saying things that are demonstrably

false. I'm not accusing you of lying--it's just that you seem to know a

lot of things that aren't necessarily so, and I don't have time to check

all your facts. Can we see some backup for these claims?

> I was asking the question ... if violence is the one thing not allowed

> under Libertarianism, how do you prevent it? So far it sounds like

> it is basically the Old West scenario ... everyone wears a gun.

What do you know about the Old West that doesn't come from Hollywood?

Not that I know much about it myself, but here's another perspective:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176g.html

> Before desegregation, a black person could not get into any school

> that white folk went to. The gov't and a bunch of liberal do-gooders

> changed that.

Those were government schools. The government segregated them. When the

courts ordered desegregation, Wallace, a governor at the time, I

think, personally stood in the door of the schoolhouse to keep black

children out. You can't give government the credit for fixing a problem

when it's the source of the problem to begin with.

> The voucher program helps a different set of people ...

> mainly it DOES give impetus to change, because the people who use

> the vouchers are typically the type of wealthy folk the schools WANT.

> But no one wanted the black kids.

What private schools rejected black children whose parents were able to

pay, with or without the aid of vouchers?

> (I'm not against vouchers, but I

> should point out that they ARE a gov't program -- a giveaway of sorts.

> If we ONLY had private schools, many kids would never get an

> education ... with vouchers you get " free money " to send your

> kid to a better school, courtesy the gov't. I would think

> would not want his tax money going to education other folk's kids).

I oppose vouchers for the same reason that I oppose theft for any other

purpose. More specifically, I also oppose the use of vouchers for

private school because I know that the government will use them to

regulate private schools. I suppose that some sort of school choice

system that allowed parents to choose among nearby government schools

might be an improvement over the status quo, but the ultimate goal in my

view is complete abolishment of government schools.

>> In most places it's very hard to carry concealed weapons. In most

>> cities,

>> the general policy is to simply not issue the permits. When they

>> issue permits indiscriminately, crime rate goes way, way down. Lott

>> talked about this in

>> the interview Suze posted.

>

> Well, knowing a few folks who have concealed weapons

> permits, I'd have to disagree. It's only difficult if you have

> a criminal background.

That's because you live in Washington state, where the gun laws are

fairly liberal. Unless you have some pull, it's virtually impossible to

get a permit in most areas of Californistan.

> But the criminals commonly DO carry

> concealed weapons, so I can't see what the issue is.

You don't need a good reason to make an issue of something.