"Freedom" thread or something - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: January 25 2013 at 07:55

HarbouringTheSoul wrote:

thellama73 wrote:

I'm happy to pay for law enforcement. I'm happy to pay for courts to render decisions and carry them out. I don't see why that implies taxes. I would like to have the ability to decline to pay for these services if I don't want them.

Law enforcement and jurisdiction aren't services. If you commit a crime, being arrested and dragged into court is hardly a service, much less a service you can decline in any way. If you were able to decline the "service" of law enforcement and jurisdiction, you could happily kill people and there would be no legal body that could do anything about it, because you didn't pay for its "services" and thus it has no power over you.

Just to play Devil's Advocate (I dont support private police and firefighters and etc) they are not services and you can't decline them....currently.

If they were to be privatized, it would become a service and you could decline it.

llama could better explain I'm sure, since I really can't grasp how it would work in reality.

I could get fire...if you choose Company A, and your house catches on fire only A is obligated to put it out and not B or C. Or if you don't choose any company guess you risk your house burning down

As for private police and courts and law, well I'm interested myself in how that would go down. Really getting into the realm of far out there now!

Edited by JJLehto - January 25 2013 at 07:58

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 25 2013 at 08:46

JJLehto wrote:

I could get fire...if you choose Company A, and your house catches on fire only A is obligated to put it out and not B or C. Or if you don't choose any company guess you risk your house burning down

As for private police and courts and law, well I'm interested myself in how that would go down. Really getting into the realm of far out there now!

[we've been here before] This is essentially how the modern fire-service started - back in the 17th century insurance companies sold fire insurance and provided fire-fighters to protect the policy holder's home as designated by a fire mark:

If a house caught fire the Fire Brigade was called. They looked for the fire mark and, provided it was the right one, the fire would be dealt with. Often the buildings were left to burn until the right company attended. Modern private fire services may put out your fire if it threatens to spread to a building they are paid to protect.

Private policing isn't so far out there - security companies, rent-a-cops and private investigators exist, also Citizen's Arrest is permitted in most countries. Private courts and law is harder to envisage, though not impossible.

What?

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 25 2013 at 08:54

^Private law enforcement is a scary idea as far as I'm concerned. Then those with enough money (large corporations) to have their own private police force will be able to impose their will on the masses. Here's something the libertarians love to push, freedom to buy or not to buy. Knock, knock, knock. "You're under arrest sir for not buying at least $500 worth of goods from Walmart this month, you have the right to, oh wait, you have no rights."

Edited by The Doctor - January 25 2013 at 09:19

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

rogerthat

Prog Reviewer

Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869

Posted: January 25 2013 at 09:23

JJLehto wrote:

A bias against trade?

I don't have a bias against trade. I just don't think of it as some panacea to all our problems...not in the current set up. Rather than bias, I find your ideas are rather theoretical and presume the existence of conditions that are not feasible in reality. Without complete mobility of labour and capital, a free market cannot work in perpetuity. Invariably, it will hurt some interest group which will seek protectionism and thereby create new imbalances. It's not ONLY due to ineptitude of an incumbent workforce that some jobs are outsourced...it is also - and much more so - because of cost advantage. It's not a New Yorker's fault if Bangalore or Manila is much cheaper. Ironic I should say that, I know. So anyway, as long as we have national flags and visas, some amount of protectionism is both inevitable and desirable to some extent.

JJLehto wrote:

Yes, market economies have large militaries but in both theory and practice they are generally peaceful. And do you want them to not have one? There needs to be a military LOL

So that brings us to the question, why do we have large armies? Because national boundaries have to be maintained and because a nation's resources have to be safeguarded. Ever increasing volumes of international trade still hasn't got the world any closer to taking Imagine to heart than at the time it was written. As for market economies being peaceful, that depends on their size and might. A small but prosperous economy would not be interested in war but there is nothing to show that large economies aren't. The biggest deterrent to full scale war today - and since the last 50 years or so - is not the free market but nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to bear the brunt of nuclear holocaust ever again so the only wars fought nowadays - by and large - are between a strong nation and a very weak one (relative to its opponent, that is).

JJLehto wrote:

Wont even comment on China warming up? Why? Obviously they are authoritarian and aggressive, and I can't speak for how the Chinese people feel....but as they have "liberalized" the government has slowly been giving up its past and trying to build alliances. Is it tactical? Sure...but still its happening.

I refused to comment because once again I feel your responses are coloured more by China's attitude to USA. Down here, I don't sense much warming up. Yes, trade between India and China has gone up significantly the last several years but there is always an air of distrust and coldness in the relationship and any odes to friendship are merely tokenism and not to be taken very seriously. As in the UN resolution passed against SL last year, several of China's decisions continue to be geared to maintain and improve its position in the South Asian region.

JJLehto wrote:

You're right about the turning friends thing but that's the game man! I dont like it, but the US has done it, France has done, all Europe has....in the international scene you try to turn people against others and what not.
It's not perfect and wont lead to some beautiful world peace but I think trade does great things with breaking barriers.

It does have the capacity to break some barriers but not all. As long as it doesn't hurt anybody, everybody loves free trade. The moment it does, people get back to protectionism and so they would. Free trade is a Frankenstein that has to be constantly reined in lest it spins out of control.

manofmystery View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335

Posted: January 25 2013 at 09:29

The Doctor wrote:

^Private law enforcement is a scary idea as far as I'm concerned. Then those with enough money (large corporations) to have their own private police force will be able to impose their will on the masses. Here's something the libertarians love to push, freedom to buy or not to buy. Knock, knock, knock. "You're under arrest sir for not buying at least $500 worth of goods from Walmart this month, you have the right to, oh wait, you have no rights."

That'd be an illegitimate use of force under the non-agression principal most libertarians operate under. Also, that is a damn near perfect description of what the IRS does and what Obama-care and other laws requiring the purchase of insurance already do. The difference is that because it's done by government there is no recourse because they are the law. What on earth would make one so defensive of the public "justice" system in this country? Is it that the US has the world's highest incarceration rate? Is it the no knock raids conducted by an increasingly paramilitary police force that destroys, and sometimes ends, the lives of innocent citizens in search for a few ounces of pot?

Edited by manofmystery - January 25 2013 at 09:31

Time always wins.

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 25 2013 at 09:51

manofmystery wrote:

And do you really believe that everyone is going to act under your libertarian non-agression principals? You place a lot more faith in people than I do. First, most people are not libertarians and would have no reason (except force of law) to adhere to your non-agression principals. And even you said "most libertarians" so not even every libertarian would adhere to such principals.

I think you have confused the fact that I think one system is better than the other with me actually liking the first system. I have a lot of problems with our criminal justice system as it now stands, including the pot raids, the death penalty and the "volunteer" jury system. Certainly, it can be improved and the way to do that is through political pressure. You can even see this political pressure starting to take hold in the area of the failed war on drugs. States are starting to legalize recreational pot use and I don't think it will be too long before the feds follow suit. There is a lot wrong with our criminal justice system, but we do have some say over that system (and you don't have to be rich to have some say - I prefer one person, one vote to one dollar, one vote) and for me the alternative is much, much worse.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: January 25 2013 at 09:52

Legitimate or illegitimate is only defined by the context of situation and persons involved.

Some humans abuse power, some humans work very hard to gather power. Whether the excuse is the law or divine right or bank balance or biggest b00bs, power will be leveraged. And the more distant the other, the more likely the abuse will be egregious.

The problem is the size of society. And there's no solution.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: January 25 2013 at 10:40

manofmystery wrote:

That'd be an illegitimate use of force under the non-agression principal most libertarians operate under.

The encroachment of legitimacy on such acts is incremental, there already exists contracts between suppliers and buyers on minimum order quantities and commit to buys, (for example so-called book clubs), in business these contracts are commonplace and imposed by suppliers legitimately and legally - goods will only be sold in prescribed quantities and a predetermined call-off rates. These contracts are entered into legally and consensually, at present failure of either side to comply with the agreement results in predefined fines and punishments, again all legal and consensual. Because these contracts and/or agreements are drawn-up by, (and in many cases imposed by), the supplier they are always weighted in favour of the supplier hence within the law the maxim is "buyer beware", or more accurately "buyer be aware". Seldom does the buyer win when the supplier reneges on the deal, and the suppler seldom loses when the buyer fails to meet their commitment. Aggression is a matter of intent that is pretty much exclusively in the domain of the supplier because it is always directed from big to small, upward aggression would be an unusual and rare exception - the phrase aggressive marketing and aggressive selling exists, aggressive purchasing is only practiced by supplies on their suppliers, (Walmat on their suppliers for example), not by the average consumer back to the supplier. The art of the confidence trick is to make the mark want what you have to offer, this is non-aggressive force and libertarian 'principals' offer no protection against that - getting people to sign-up to a minimum monthly spend in return for some loyalty incentive is not a difficult thing to sell, especially with effective aggressive marketing and promotion.

What?

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 25 2013 at 10:51

Negoba wrote:

Legitimate or illegitimate is only defined by the context of situation and persons involved.

The problem is the size of society. And there's no solution.

That is a very big part of the problem indeed, in a lot of areas, not just economics and power relationships. And there does seem to be no solution. Although, and maybe I've read too much sci-fi, but space does provide us with opportunities for colonization. But, first we'd have to expend the time and resources on exploration and developing terraforming processes. Do we really have that much time left? Sadly, I think that when things get out of balance, nature has a way of putting them back into balance with plagues, famines, or we might even do it to ourselves.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: January 25 2013 at 11:13

I see no way there is not going to be a crash (a big one) sometime in my children's lifetime. We're seeing small early warnings now. The (now world) monetary system is designed to fail. Not enough money exists to pay the interest debt owed.

Change will come, but rarely is it spurred by smart ideas. Change comes when there is pain and the system is made unstable. Hopefully we all learn from our mistakes when it recongeals. But that will be after my days on this rock most likely.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

HarbouringTheSoul View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199

Posted: January 25 2013 at 11:13

manofmystery wrote:

I believe it was Dean that was engaged in the boycott. Regardless, the aim doesn't change my response. Standards are higher in a competitive market than in one that has fallen victim to regulatory capture. Regulations (including copyright and patent law) limit the amount of businesses that are fiscally able to compete with a company such as Nestle, for example. This means that a company like Nestle only has to worry about meeting regulatory standards that they, through size and influence, often have helped write. Regulations are always reactions to the last event so they are always behind the times in an ever changing market. The only thing government action accomplishes is a corruption of the market that insulates large companies from the need to adapt to ever changing competition and demands of said market (the market being all of us). This is just the practical argument against government intervention. There is also the idea that consumers should be free to make their own transactions because it is their natural right to.

Yes, it was indeed Dean. My mistake. Anyway, if there had been no government regulations, chances are Nestle would have never changed their product at all because most people are indifferent to or unaware of the problem with it (case in point, I still don't know what the problem with Nestle's products was that launched the boycott). I assume that most people, if informed about the problem, would agree that Nestle should change their product, but that doesn't necessarily mean they would stop buying it, not to mention that most consumers of the product at hand will probably never hear of the boycott. Thus, without government regulation, it is unlikely that the problem would have ever been fixed at all. In an unregulated market, the apathy of the majority always wins over the initiative of the minority.

I will respond to the other posts soon, but I don't have time right now.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: January 25 2013 at 11:25

All quite fair. I'll just leave it at agree to disagree. I think history and modern society bear out the positive results of trade and openess and peace. Though to answer you about why we need a military...yes defend our borders.

I don't see that as an issue. You seem to equate having a large military with unpeaceful but that doesn't seem so. Again, I'm exluding the US because we have imperial interests and that "America f**k yeah! We own the world" mentality. Granted, I'm not sayign a true free trade world (we're not there yet) is utopia but better than war, nationialism and all that fun stuff.

The Doctor wrote:

^Private law enforcement is a scary idea as far as I'm concerned. Then those with enough money (large corporations) to have their own private police force will be able to impose their will on the masses. Here's something the libertarians love to push, freedom to buy or not to buy. Knock, knock, knock. "You're under arrest sir for not buying at least $500 worth of goods from Walmart this month, you have the right to, oh wait, you have no rights."

Well again...this thread is quite skewed in the VERY limited government if not full out anarchist direction.

Even the most libertarian minded people I've known see the need for taxes to fund police and law and what not. It's the most minimal state needed for most. Actually Pat and Llama are the first two I've personallu encppuntered wanting to go farther

Soo don't just equate libertarian ideaology into why an anarchist state is bad. I may be dumb but I wont let you stealthily rope us all in like that

ANYWHO...I am inclined to agree, and really want to hear llama's take. At the least...I see it getting messy, like someone mentioned earlier, a hodge podge of different laws and courts and how that could be quite a crazy place. At worst, I could see something sinister like you propose arising. I mean, if we're self interested, and will use whatever legal means we can to better ourselves against others (and we all will) I do danger with private law and courts and police.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: January 25 2013 at 11:32

Negoba wrote:

I see no way there is not going to be a crash (a big one) sometime in my children's lifetime. We're seeing small early warnings now. The (now world) monetary system is designed to fail. Not enough money exists to pay the interest debt owed.

mmhmm. More I read about money and financing and just how the system works...I really can't see any other outcome. Maybe it's not this year, or in 5 or 10 or 20 but I have to agree...it seems inevitable "the" crash is coming at this rate. Hell, maybe Marx was right all the long and we're living through capitalism's death throws. Maybe the next major crash will be the one that ends the system as we know it!

Or maybe just America's? Is this our painful transition to no longer being the "hegemon" of the world?

Who knows, just hope I can navigate the storm...

Edited by JJLehto - January 25 2013 at 11:33

Negoba

Prog Reviewer

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208

Posted: January 25 2013 at 11:53

The monetary paradigm starting with the Bank of England now pretty much spans the globe.

Many are talking about diversified, non-interest bearing currencies being a way out. Maybe. But that won't come without pain. Government enforced legal tender and its intimate relation to taxation - it ain't goin' nowhere easily.

You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 25 2013 at 12:03

That wasn't quite what I was implying Brian. I realize the private police thing is more of an anarcho-capitalist idea than a libertarian one. But libertarians (at least the ones here) do place a very high value on the freedom of the market, the ability to freely buy or not buy, and the ability to freely sell or not sell. But the anarcho-capitalist view of a private police force seems to undermine the value that libertarians place on that freedom. That was the point I was trying to make.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

Ambient Hurricanes View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549

Posted: January 25 2013 at 12:21

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

Equality 7-2521 wrote:

dtguitarfan wrote:

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..."

You realize how you're taking that completely out of context?

So you're saying Jesus DOESN'T want me to pay my taxes?

I'm saying that I don't think Jesus was talking about paying taxes at all.

Responded in The Christian Thread

I love dogs, I've always loved dogs

The T

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493

Posted: January 25 2013 at 12:23

I want a state. Not the gigantic troglodite we have nowadays but I don't agree with the disappearance of the state. As Brian says, that totally anarcho-capitalist view is hold here only by Pat and Logan (newly convert Tongue

) so don't think everybody wants that type of world you're expressing fear about.

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: January 25 2013 at 12:28

Negoba wrote:

The monetary paradigm starting with the Bank of England now pretty much spans the globe.

Its a topic I know a bit about, but its so deep and massive I just...don't know

That's actually what that crazy blog was talking about with "freegold" used that word "paradigm". His belief was money being a store of wealth is the problem since it causes you to hoarde money, which is doubly bad when its fiat money thats technically valueless and lives on this smoke and mirror syetm we have.

Man IDK details, or how would be a good way to move on, just like you said..when the time comes hope I will survive it. No doubt it wont come without pain.

Ah I see Doc. In that case yes, I agree 100%. I do believe law is supposed to be equal for all. It isn't really, but surely I see issues with law and enforcement being sold, and bought and competing...and does seem ripe for abuse.

Which is why I do think anarchy fails as a theory. As Pat said, we all can have our interpretion of freedom, but I dont see how a law isnt technically negating freedom. Thus either we accept SOME negation of liberty, or we need true blue anarchy, a state of nature. Which in a way could be exciting, you can break into CEOs and landlords houses Doc and redistribute their wealth to you, long as you win

The Doctor View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543

Posted: January 25 2013 at 12:54

As I've said before, I'm comfortable with my middle class lifestyle. The selfishness here (I will admit there is some) is that I want to preserve that lifestyle for myself. The altruistic part of me wants everyone to have a comfortable middle class lifestyle. I don't want or need excessive riches to be happy.

I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?

JJLehto

Prog Reviewer

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550

Posted: January 25 2013 at 13:30

And there's nothing wrong with it, we are self interested. How else do we survive? Maybe a handful of people ever were truly altruistic and not selfish, and my guess is we'd not really hear about them.

Some people claim Jesus was one but that's a road that, f**k I dont even go near

I dont think of it as selfish until a line is crossed.

Believe it or not...me too. I don't need much at all. And I've never had much: mp3 player, TV, video game systems...all I ever really needed in terms of material joy. I don't have much stuff. I'm actually quite stubborn about "getting with the times" in terms of computers and cell phones to boot.

Though my family, on the line of upper middle class by US standards, is straight middle class where we live...and have been struggling for years before the recession even hit. Thanks to inflation, high taxes and everything being expensive as sh*t in NJ. :(

It would be great to have a ton of $$ but I'd not spend it on the good life. I don't want a huge house or nice cars...seems dumb. I'd like to:

1. Pay back my parents for the unholy amount of money they spent on college (also my selfishness for going to an expensive out of state one)

2. Give some $ out to true friends and close ones.

3. Donate it to charity, donate to victims of natural disasters and what not

What's left would just chill in a bank, to be used for emergency and I can't lie...I'd love to travel. See all the US, Europe, so many places. Still, wouldn't be able to spend tens of millions on that.

No idea if I'll be married/have kids...if so I'd leave some (not millions) for them but whatever is left as I'm gunna die, give it all away.

That being said, I dont think altruism should be forced. Would it be great for everyone to have a middle class life? Naturally, but man how did you get there? How did we all get there? While I get the feeling, I just can't condone taking from others enough to make everyone middle class. I think many share both our sentiments. No one took from the rich and gave it to us to be middle class. Worked god damn hard to get there. Would you like it to ALL be from the rich? By your own words, should we in the middle class also give a good amount to help others reach our level? And by give I mean be redistributed.

Flip side, some people want money. They will be very aggressive to get it. You are not like this, great, but really why impose your will? I know the greed and immoral tactics and all, but honestly at the core..its imposing your will I think. I dont need a lot of $ and material things, so you are lesser for wanting those things.

Edited by JJLehto - January 25 2013 at 13:52