tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post8303203547565583311..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: Mommy PactSteven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-27194255814206803212008-06-28T22:18:00.000-07:002008-06-28T22:18:00.000-07:00The bottom line is, you cannot morally support ini...<EM>The bottom line is, you cannot morally support initiating violence against someone for doing what you think is just a bad idea.</EM><BR/><BR/>Sure you can, if your moral code considers some things worse than coercing others. And many--most--people do. As it happens, I agree that victimless crimes are a bad idea. But even a libertarian government would still be a government, would still establish laws and enforce them.<BR/><BR/>Marty's Darwinian point is correct. In the real world, anarchism <B>doesn't work</B>. Humans have tried countless forms of social organization--but there's never been a real, functioning anarchist society on any but the most primitive and small scales. If you cannot protect your society from threats internal or external, your society is doomed no matter how ethically pure it may be. Anarchism, like communism or complete pacifism, is a hothouse flower; it cannot survive in nature, only where protected from threats by isolation or larger, less pure institutions.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01994430001543710190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-1634233717106257672008-06-28T19:12:00.000-07:002008-06-28T19:12:00.000-07:00Paul: Thanks for the help I was finally able to re...Paul: Thanks for the help I was finally able to read the five articles. They have convinced me that democracy is indeed the worst form of government. Except for all the rest. And I will believe in a society with no government when I see a successful example. Molyneux mentions Darwin. Well Darwin's survival of the fittest concept would suggest societies work better with a government since all surviving societies have some form of government.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-4501916380955341632008-06-28T00:47:00.000-07:002008-06-28T00:47:00.000-07:00Mark Jones: "Does the phrase "organized crime" mea...Mark Jones: <I>"Does the phrase "organized crime" mean anything to you?"</I><BR/>Yes, it's a group of men and women who intimidate others by force of arms and collect tribute called 'takes'...no, wait, that's the 'government...<BR/>But to answer in a way that you probably intended, this 'organized crime' you speak of really got its start in this country as a result of prohibition. Take a product or service that people are willing to pay for, hire a bunch of armed troops to prevent honest 'ordinary' people from engaging in the trade and voila; you create the environment for 'organized crime'.<BR/>From the gangsters of the 1920's to the thugs on our streets today pushing drugs, it is the government that is creating the conditions for enormous profits to be had filling the demand for these products. Make all the 'moralistic' complaints you want about how alcohol and drugs are bad for society; you fly in the face of evidence that the cure is indeed worse than the disease. Once they have an economic base, yes, they then stand to threaten other innocent people to protect their 'turf'. Just as violence abated after prohibition, so it would once we recognize the current folly of persecuting people for 'victimless crimes' (talk about an oxymoron...).<BR/>The bottom line is, you cannot morally support initiating violence against someone for doing what you <B>think</B> is just a bad idea. <BR/><BR/>p.s. to Marty S:<BR/>To get the articles Brian linked:<BR/>go to<BR/>http://www.strike-the-root.com/<BR/>click on the link 'Root Strikers' on the right side of the page near the top, then click 'John Lopez' from the list of names; you will see the four articles listed.<BR/>And, while you're there, you might look for the name Stefan Molyneux and check out his article addressing most of the issues you and Brian expressed called 'Everyday Anarchy, Part 3'.<BR/>Only if you dare!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-65048454670142316202008-06-26T16:14:00.000-07:002008-06-26T16:14:00.000-07:00Brian: Just got back from vacation and read your r...Brian: Just got back from vacation and read your response. Thanks for the link, but I can't seem to follow it. I can get to http://www.strike-the-root.com/<BR/>but when I try to bet to the columns page I get a you don't have permission message. Were you able to get there and if so what do I need to do. Thanks again.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-60222940705730858322008-06-26T11:57:00.000-07:002008-06-26T11:57:00.000-07:00A few months back, there was an article in the Phi...A few months back, there was an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer about how around 1900 many communities drove black residents out at gunpoint. I think Nancy Lebovitz told me about this a few weeks before it appeared in the newspaper. (Nancy, do you recall where you found it?) <BR/><BR/>So, suggesting that black people leave the South may have been the <I>least</I> offensive approach here.Pagan Topologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01611788563582362688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-40442061852835021162008-06-24T19:21:00.000-07:002008-06-24T19:21:00.000-07:00What do you think?Pretty much what Mark said. If ...<I>What do you think?</I><BR/><BR/>Pretty much what Mark said. If I may add: if you think what you're describing is workable you're deluded.<BR/><BR/>If I may cherry pick ..<BR/><BR/><I>Such people would not be unaware of the potential threat presented by the government of 'X' and would be likely to marshal some resources (provided on a free market basis) to meet it.</I><BR/><BR/>People are friggin' blind to their own problems until they smack them in the face.<BR/><BR/><I>Further, if the people of 'X' found themselves surrounded by nations of peace and prosperity, how long would it take for the exodus from tyranny to become a flood?</I><BR/><BR/>You are ignoring very recent history and human nature. Berlin Wall? Where is the exodus from China since they went into 'poverty and isolation mode' after WW II?<BR/><BR/><I>War can only be effective if there is a 'government' to 'take over'.</I><BR/><BR/>I can name a score of cultures and societies that were over-run by acquisitive Europeans. The indios didn't have a government in the modern sense for the invaders to take over but they had natural resources that were coveted - slaves to Chrisianize, gold to mint, land to own.Brian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-4227203984829796282008-06-24T16:39:00.000-07:002008-06-24T16:39:00.000-07:00Even if Nation X did not attack Nations A, B, and ...Even if Nation X did not attack Nations A, B, and C, you're ignoring homegrown bad guys. Does the phrase "organized crime" mean anything to you?<BR/><BR/>Are you willing--and able--to successfully resist the mafia when they decide, in the absence of a government that's even _trying_ to restrain them, to take ownership of your successful business? How? You may be bigger and badder than any single mafioso, but you can't beat all of them. And that's assuming they didn't just shoot you out of hand, or threaten your family.<BR/><BR/>You and your friends could organize as well, but now we've stepped up to gang warfare or rival factions fighting for control of the environment.<BR/><BR/>No, the only long-term answer (as imperfect as it is), is a government as benign and responsive to its citizenry as we can make it, with power enough to restrain the worst would-be offenders, and with enough limits on its authority that it doesn't turn out to be a cure worse than the disease.<BR/><BR/>I know the anarchist argument is that it <I>is</I>, pretty much by definition. And as a libertarian, I have a lot of sympathy for that position. But human nature being what it is, I believe that anarchism--like communism--is a hothouse flower that cannot function in the wild.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01994430001543710190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-11858995322022851372008-06-24T09:32:00.000-07:002008-06-24T09:32:00.000-07:00"What keeps the acquisitive Country Xs in the worl..."What keeps the acquisitive Country Xs in the world from having it all their own way?"<BR/>Brian, I understand your question comes from a genuine desire to have a practical world. But what <B>seems</B> practical to us is greatly influenced by our beliefs; if these are flawed than the conclusions we draw may be in error. I am reminded of Bastiat's treatise 'What is Seen and what is Not Seen' in which he points out that Foresight can be a gentler and more effective teacher than Experience.<BR/>For instance, given the scenario you propose; "Countries A, B and C follow your program. Country X does not", what can we reliably predict about the conditions in these regions? Countries A, B and C, being free of coercive force would enjoy the benefits of prosperity and would have their populations engaged in the better survival of their families which would necessarily include the protection of their lives and property. Such people would not be unaware of the potential threat presented by the government of 'X' and would be likely to marshal some resources (provided on a free market basis) to meet it. Further, if the people of 'X' found themselves surrounded by nations of peace and prosperity, how long would it take for the exodus from tyranny to become a flood? What is generally not seen in these hypothetical constructs is that it is not the people who go to war but it is the rulers of their <B>governments</B> who promote and organize wars. People who are not forced to surrender their property to a 'ruler' have no economic interest in violent conflict; it's bad for business. War can only be effective if there is a 'government' to 'take over'. Individuals co-operating on a voluntary basis make poor spoils as there is no infrastructure of violence (taxes, incomprehensible laws against victimless crimes, etc.) to help the victor work his hard won 'gold mine'. If you think it through, you will discover that the moral values (I suspect)you hold; armed robbery is bad, liberty is good and people who are harmed deserve compensation (all of which are systemically violated by 'governments') are actually true and eminently 'practical'!<BR/>What do you think?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34869029718500175772008-06-24T08:26:00.000-07:002008-06-24T08:26:00.000-07:00"Is evil a necessary component of a just society? ..."Is evil a necessary component of a just society? Sure, if it's composed of fallible human beings, who do things, and who interpret the things that others do, as evil."<BR/>I'm curious, Steven, what is your methodology for determining good from evil? And could it be applied as a general principle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-8307667269445187262008-06-24T04:10:00.000-07:002008-06-24T04:10:00.000-07:00So it isn't that men want unreasonable standards o...<I>So it isn't that men want unreasonable standards of beauty from women. They want it from their sexual partners. Guys who like sheep probably like really pretty sheep. Nothing personal, ladies.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, nothing in the world cuter than male sexuality.<BR/><BR/>I've been decently treated by men in spite of my public and utterly disgusting failure to be tall, thin, or blond, but the public thing makes me crazy.<BR/><BR/>The most recent thing turned up in Lee Child's recent <I>Bad Luck and Trouble</I>. I'm going to be talking spoilers, and he's one of the best action adventure writers, so if you care about such things, you might want to read the book.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, part of the plot involves Dean, a man who's being blackmailed by threats to have his daughter gang raped. After the threat has been defused, Jack Reacher (the hero) sees a photograph of the daughter. She's 14 and a little gawky, but she's going to be beautiful in two years (blond and tall and presumably thin) and for thirty years after that.<BR/><BR/>"Reacher understood Dean's distress...."<BR/><BR/>This reads to me as though Dean caring about his daughter would have been harder to understand if she's been plain.<BR/><BR/>Reacher is presented as a compulsive drifter, but basically sane about women and a good guy.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-5168109518201680612008-06-23T23:52:00.000-07:002008-06-23T23:52:00.000-07:00Brian--exactly. If you magically cause all governm...Brian--exactly. If you magically cause all governments to vanish, you're left with isolated individuals...for about as long as it takes some of them to organize themselves and start robbing and ruling others by violence and threats thereof. That's inescapable as long as humans are humans. Unless you can find an organized group large enough to fend them off, you're screwed. That's why I'm not an anarchist.<BR/><BR/>I'm a libertarian--I accept the necessity for (limited) government, if only to fill the power vacuum that would otherwise be filled by armed gangs of thugs with an organization that is as minimally intrusive as possible. So questions about how a "libertarian" society of private prisons and private police and private jails would function are pointless; those would be features of an anarchist society--but I'm not an anarchist and don't need to defend that position.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01994430001543710190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-58592979729027202912008-06-23T23:20:00.000-07:002008-06-23T23:20:00.000-07:00Marty, I'm no Libertarian. I googled and found th...Marty, I'm no Libertarian. I googled and found this<BR/><BR/>http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/lopez/lopez_archive.html<BR/><BR/>Four essays, reasonably short length that seem to cover what you're looking for.Brian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-31213044078885327782008-06-23T19:05:00.000-07:002008-06-23T19:05:00.000-07:00Brian: The wiki article is just general libertaria...Brian: The wiki article is just general libertarian stuff. What I would be interested in is something that describes what a Libertarian justice system would look like and how it would be financially supported. In 30 pages or less. Any references.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-46467794176936525782008-06-23T13:23:00.000-07:002008-06-23T13:23:00.000-07:00Is there a good write up,not too long, that answer...<I>Is there a good write up,not too long, that answers these questions.</I><BR/><BR/>When all else fails, wiki it!<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian<BR/><BR/>I don't know if the wiki page is too long but - man Libertarians are a cranky and divisive bunch. There are probably 3-4 'mainstream' answers for each of your questions.Brian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-89180059569051143372008-06-23T12:31:00.000-07:002008-06-23T12:31:00.000-07:00I really don't understand how this libertarian soc...I really don't understand how this libertarian society is suppose to work. In these posts you talk about privatizing the prisons. But before you send some one to prison you need to first catch and try them. Who does this. Are the courts and police also private. Before you can catch and try someone you have to define what is a crime. Who decides what is a crime. Who pays for this and who decides how much everybody involved gets paid.<BR/>Is there a good write up,not too long, that answers these questions.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-86353726713954531272008-06-23T10:03:00.000-07:002008-06-23T10:03:00.000-07:00Is evil a necessary component of a just society? ...Is evil a necessary component of a just society? Sure, if it's composed of fallible human beings, who do things, and who interpret the things that others do, as evil.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-77965599657381690912008-06-23T08:03:00.000-07:002008-06-23T08:03:00.000-07:00If the thing that governments are best at is fight...<I>If the thing that governments are best at is fighting wars, than wouldn't it follow logically that if you eliminated the ability to accumulate resources by force, you would eliminate war? Just a thought...</I><BR/><BR/>I'm missing something, clearly.<BR/><BR/>Countries A, B and C follow your program. Country X does not.<BR/><BR/>Country X - granted they are throwbacks but they're now heavily armed throwbacks - have all kinds of incentive to strong-arm A, B and C.<BR/><BR/>It does not seem that you've eliminated 'war', but only A B and C's ability to wage war.<BR/><BR/>What keeps the acquisitive Country Xs in the world from having it all their own way?Brian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-15322506525745845342008-06-22T22:57:00.000-07:002008-06-22T22:57:00.000-07:00Mark Jones said: "...the reason why the nation-sta...Mark Jones said: "...the reason why the nation-state is the dominant form of government is because it's the form best suited to accumulating and expending the resources necessary to fight a war. Better than tribes, clan, feudalism, pretty everything else humans have tried. And since even the most peaceful nation needs to be able to keep the bad guys at bay, that's pretty important. And the very features of the state that are most disliked by libertarians (taxation, conscription and the power to regulate individual behavior) are the ones that make states so effective at fighting."<BR/><BR/>Let's look at this for a second...<BR/>The nation-states you are referring to here are run by governments that accumulate these war-fighting resources how? By coercion backed by deadly force called 'taxes'. If the thing that governments are best at is fighting wars, than wouldn't it follow logically that if you eliminated the ability to accumulate resources by force, you would eliminate war? Just a thought...<BR/><BR/>And btw, if you "just don't believe that government force is the best (or even a good) way to get many things done.", I invite you to make the case (with logical argument rather than 'well, everybody knows...') that government force is a good way to do <B>anything?</B><BR/><BR/>The bottom line is, that if you get the real basics wrong, the system can never be fixed. Please address these questions:<BR/><BR/>Who owns you? Who can claim the moral right to your life or property if you behave in a manner that harms no one?<BR/>Is evil a necessary component of a just and prosperous society? Why or why not?<BR/><BR/>www.freedomainradio.com<BR/><BR/>Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression;<BR/>http://ruwart.com/Pages/Healing/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-78945535377758390482008-06-22T12:03:00.000-07:002008-06-22T12:03:00.000-07:00derrick bell proposed something like this. instead...derrick bell proposed something like this. instead of a black (anti) tax he would have proposed a discrimination tax. if you want to discriminate you can, but you'd pay a tax that would go indirectly to the discriminated group.Lester Spencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02545778619369769610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-66720275196135588332008-06-22T11:58:00.000-07:002008-06-22T11:58:00.000-07:00Affirmative ActionSince I took a big hit on taxes ...Affirmative Action<BR/><BR/>Since I took a big hit on taxes last year, I first thought 'I'll take no taxes, Bruce.' :-)<BR/><BR/>But then I thought what good would zero taxes have done me if no one would've hired me in the 60s because they had no incentive to do so and thought discrimination was acceptable? I may not have to pay taxes anyway because I'd be underemployed or unemployed.Vérité Parlant https://www.blogger.com/profile/09033679321805951686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-6686518434375517522008-06-21T22:46:00.000-07:002008-06-21T22:46:00.000-07:00If you could swap the whole Affirmative Action sys...If you could swap the whole Affirmative Action system for a 100% black tax cut (=be black, pay zero tax), which would you choose?<BR/> I'm not libertarian. Liberty is a vector, not a place. Like social solidarity. But if Libertarians had been in power and pushing the '64 Civil Rights act, (I think) they'd have done it by tax cut. It's a missed opportunity, like '40 acres and a mule'. (More a 'what if', of course).<BR/> And it's what I'd like to see today's Affirmative Action evolve into.<BR/><BR/>Bruce PurcellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-56532202166065107782008-06-21T14:03:00.000-07:002008-06-21T14:03:00.000-07:00Men tend to be visual creatures, turned on by the ...Men tend to be visual creatures, turned on by the visual. Whenever a man tries to be politically correct to the point where he denies that his head turns when his idea of the right proportions on a woman walks by, I get suspicious and figure he's a liar.<BR/><BR/>Women like what's easy on the eyes also, but many women tend to be more turned on by aural stimuli, talk, talk, talk, and the promise of financial security. Humans lately go to great lengths to deny our differences. It's part of our madness, I suppose, a desire to prove we're more enlightened than apes.<BR/><BR/>Whenever we generalize we're in danger of getting into arguments, but I think there are general rules regarding common human behaviors. While we may know of exceptions to the rule, most folks are the rule.Vérité Parlant https://www.blogger.com/profile/09033679321805951686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-78107008118926995092008-06-21T03:16:00.000-07:002008-06-21T03:16:00.000-07:00On the prison question : there is a hell of a moti...On the prison question : there is a hell of a motivation to drop the recidivism rates. many programs and models that are attempted fail because their are simply too many prisoners. Example state of maine switched to a direct care model. simply put placing several staff in a living "pod" with the inmates. as opposed to an indirect model with staff and inmates separated by bars. this has been done on a federal level with success. lowered rates of assault, improved interaction between staff and inmates. it should have worked in maine. it didnt. instead of having 3-7 staff in a pod providing high levels of interaction we had 1-2. so instead of focusing on the inmates staff has to focus on house keeping paperwork ect. assaults inmate on inmate and inmate on staff went way up. on a jail level aca standards go out the window because there are too many prisoners. having prisoner sleep in hallways libraries ect is a real security hazard but it is done because their is no other way crowding is too much.<BR/><BR/>the article Nancy linked, Prisons are evil? over simplified pov. yes staff and admin sometimes lie. yes there is corruption. I have been a co at the state county and military levels their is a camera on you at all times. an aggreived prisoner can talk to family case workers lawyers ect. a staff member can be thrown under a bus by the admin if it is expedient so he / she better know the rules have a good union behind them. and stay on their ps and qs. I have never worked in a private facility so i cant imagine how they deal with certain issues. my personal view is prisons have to remain in public jurisdiction. a part of The problem is schools churches family these are where crime is stopped and these institutions are failing. no easy solutions either. far easier to point a finger away than towards ourselves. we are in some ways a really screwed up culture. we value material things, abhor consequences ect. This is the price we pay.<BR/><BR/>LangdonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-86424852049450264732008-06-20T23:11:00.000-07:002008-06-20T23:11:00.000-07:00Frankly, one of the most disturbing things I have ...<I>Frankly, one of the most disturbing things I have heard white Conservatives with Libertarian leanings say is that blacks should have just left the south</I><BR/><BR/>I can see the attraction - if you're not welcome or wanted then leaving sounds like a mighty fine idea. As an abstract idea it's great.<BR/><BR/>Unless you have a clue as to what you're talking about.<BR/><BR/>I assume the speakers are talking about the Reconstruction period? Blacks may or may not have been welcome in the South - but they were already there. They weren't wanted in the North, that's for sure.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyone else think it's folly to privatize the prison system? Where in the living hell is their motivation to drop the recidivism rate? From a business perspective, the smartest thing they can do is produce professional criminals</I><BR/><BR/>Government-run prisons have the same deal. Bureaucracies naturally want to increase in size - the more people and budget the better.Brian Dunbarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12952894032434503816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-24096316525214809902008-06-20T18:04:00.000-07:002008-06-20T18:04:00.000-07:00Re Kami's point about private armies:The book "The...Re Kami's point about private armies:<BR/><BR/>The book "The Sovereign Individual" (I forget the author) pretty much made the unrebuttable (as far as I can tell) argument for the necessity of the state. Which is: the reason why the nation-state is the dominant form of government is because it's the form best suited* to accumulating and expending the resources necessary to fight a war. Better than tribes, clan, feudalism, pretty everything else humans have tried. And since even the most peaceful nation needs to be able to keep the bad guys at bay, that's pretty important.<BR/><BR/>*And the very features of the state that are most disliked by libertarians (taxation, conscription and the power to regulate individual behavior) are the ones that make states so effective at fighting.<BR/><BR/>So, no--no private armies, please.<BR/><BR/>And I can't speak for all or, really, any, libertarians except myself. But no, I don't think of myself as part of the select few hundred. I just don't believe that government force is the best (or even a good) way to get many things done.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01994430001543710190noreply@blogger.com