i own a private police force in post falls, Idaho I was security when I started out but then became a private police agency. I did this to so I could show that private police could do the same job as public police and I have been given the ok to do this but the power of traffic enforcement i have not been given. I still work off contract and work like a security agency in that way. visit us online: spartansecurity.webs.com
@mellisamm : I will, I appreciate the application, it's reality.... I also hope you do it the right way and for the right reason, I think some private-public police cooperation is ok, even a good idea (if super-ethical private organizations make themeselves evident). I stand by the problem of cyclic authority, and say one needs a final authority, like a supreme court, and a standard shared judicial system. cheers.
I would disagree, as it seems many citizens/customers in a private market would prefer to hire a private police contractor that would contain their patrol to a geographic area. It's not like the police would be able to identify a paying customer on site... Surely brutal enforcement gangs would be hired by the super rich, but that goes on today. Here at home, we invade countries, torture war detainees... I mean, is this really better than the "good ole boys" keeping the town safe?
@soldierboy425 btw, why would it be better... I don't care if people get convinced by my presentation or not... if the idea is sound, yo're welcome, rare on the internet.
Police do not protect they police. That is it. People want protection only because they feel fear. Fear of other people. Fear that in most cases is unwarranted. Why fear Joe down the street, because the government wants you to fear Joe down the street. So that there Gestapo (in the guise of a holy protector) Can be in place when they blow the whistle and then cart us all off to the camps. The truth is they do not prevent crime or serve the public.
WITH police activly patroling my neiborhood, only taking a short walk to the stoor EVERYTHING of value in my house was taken. Now, not to say that ALL police forces are this incompotent. but this is rediculous. Even without joining in illegal activities and paying my taxes I lost easily $8000. and the culprates were never caught.
that sucks and is not acceptable... but the questio here is will getting rid of government make the problem better or worse... I suggest you would probably not even own that property in a market anarchy. I suspect that powerful corporations would instead lease us all our property since retaining property right equals power in a market anarchy even more so than in semi-feudal democracy.
I don't argue that. I was just complaining about the inefficiency of my local Police force. Hoping to show the point that while police can help, I've had very little experience with them other than hassling or harrasing individuals following the law. They should be more akin to Fireman than watch dogs. Come when called if your patroling doesnt stop crime in the first place. your waisting gas and money.
yawa, not sure where you stand on MA, best if labels don't apply anyway... but I'll say I do support private "police", aka security, to augment our actual security... public infrastructure is a fall back.. cheers.
nice neighborhoods surrounded by dangerous neighborhoods often don't have to lock their doors. And the police pick up the drunk teenagers and drop them off at home. The decaying culture is making even that harder and harder, but the fact is a certain kind of police protection works. The police show up and assert your rights with a process server or anything at all.
It's not primarilly sufficient force alone, enough cops, but their attitude toward their public. They assume in a rich neighborhood a certain amount of responsibility, although certain violations do tick them off... specifically, annoying the other rich neighbors.
Police are enforcers of the law. People want law because they prefer having universally recognizable and universally enforceable rights rather than having rights which are only recognized by whoever wants to recognize them and enforced by whatever means are available.
anything else is attempting to add logical thought to something that is not logical to begin with. You can't have a social equality or social "freedom", without having a social and greed free mind (plural or not).
Your heart wouldn't even beat without the internal selfish desire to continue existence.
You are a 'wanting' creature, or you are dead. There is no psychological 'greed' function separate from wanting. Someone wanting massive amounts of power is no different from someone wanting freedom - it's the same function, the one we use to find food and etc.
There are differences. But the point I was trying to make is that if you wanted to remove the part of the brain the shifted Bush's wants into greed, the part of the brain we would remove is in yours - the part that makes moral judgments.
A computer can be programmed to perform many tasks, some you may find good, others you may find bad. I am saying you can't remove the part of the processor that does what you find bad without destroying it's ability to do what you find good.
The desire for positional power is a hold over from our primate silver-back/alpha male breeding practices. It works great in small tribal unites (there is a leader) but on a global scale (or even much smaller) it is an impersonal enslavement of a 'lower class'.
Essentially it is narcissism ("I am above you"), and a form of sociopathology. The lack of empathy allows for some brutal treatment and mass executions of, from the view of the ivory tower, what looks like 'vermin.'
True enough. Where I differ on opinion however, Is that I see your proposed governmental method as being "same shit, different pile".
All I see different is the changing of hands in relation to power. But the hiarchy will still exist. The will always be privileged people. Society, and human nature see's to this.
There was a group of antelope the died off because the male racks got so big they were unmaintainable. This happened because the females bread with the males with the biggest racks and things got out of control.
This is what I think is happening to humans to an extent. It's sociopaths who are spawning the next generation of even more sociopathic 'rulers' in a doomsday time bomb for the species.
I would say that yes our offspring is sending us down, but The offspring I talk of, exists in the ideological spectrum, not the biological.
Ill use the matrix because everyone has seen it. Machines, which are our creation, turn on the creator (us). The idea of free "guilt free" slavery, back fires and the servents (the machines) destroy us.
Human nature (and nature in general) dictates that the have's, will ensure that they remain the have's.
Any government or organization(psudo or not) with a power ladder, will have the higher ups, enforcing their will on the lower downs.
the police serve who pays them. They enforce the laws of the law writers. Want non-currupt cops? want to elimanate greed from puplic service? make it manditory and pay free. You want to be a citizen? prove it.
Yesterday someone shot a bunch of people at a church in my community. The PRIVATE POLICE the church hired, took the shooter down and saved countless lives of people who don't pay them directly. Half an hour later, your crap-ola public defenders come around to place bodies in bags and do paperwork.
Fuck you people who don't want us to have that kind of service everywhere!
"the purpose of their action was to protect what they were PAID to protect."
And like other shootings, the police department protected nobody... because there is no difference between the two just because one is funded privately. Both did their job, protected the interest of who pays them. Now LET ME PAY SOMEONE TO PROTECT MY INTERESTS. That is all I ask.
excuse me... you ARE allowed to pay someone to do that.
You are just factually wrong to say there is no difference... the police have to protect everyone, the security is only contracted to their employer. You ignore lots of differences.
So if I privately someone to protect everyone, they won't... but police are under the magic public spell that makes them morally pure? RIght.
And police are not directed to protect everyone. Sometime they are told to attack people. They do attack people. And in most cities, they better get lots and lots of extra perks or you club gets shut down. What we not have the a mafia, which people view under some warped lens.
did we talk about "privately paying someone to protect everyone"... is that even possible. Why do you think that will happen? Do you think it will happen. What if it doesn't? do you care?
police and private security can both be corrupt... but one is more accountable than the other. If a cop refuses to help a victim, there is recourse... if a security officer does... no recourse. yeah?
Okay. No. I don't think it will happen. I don't even think market anarchy can't persist for the same reasons phuq1deology spoke about: it's an ideology, and ideologies don't enforce themselves.
Corruption problems are the same. And I think taxes are just they way the elite steal the money they use to pay their police force to keep in line... as in I fail to see how what we have not is not a private police force. I just want to break up the monopoly.
btw, that story: one, it does not say it took long for the cops to get there... the security guard deserves praise but clearly the reason she could act is because she is there all day long protecting just that spot... the people that pay her. If the killer attacks the place next door, they are on their own. That's my point. Protecting everyone.
ok, good point, the "militia movement" asside, just the general idea, taken in its healthiest form... there is no problem with public militia, private militia (though more dangerous), nor private security (reasonably safe b/c of regulation in the security "marketplace", something that could apply to private militia as well).
Nothing wrong with that, if underpinned with a public safety infrastructure.
the irony is... social block states took "militia" as the name of their "from the top, state backed" police force. just to be different and appear as if it was really self-formed and self-supported by the people & for the people, if i may use the USish democratic slogan ;)
"If you can't compete, it simply must be because it's not possible for you to do it better so no-one will choose you". One of the MAs on youtube said that. The word "better" is something that MAs should examine.
In this context 'better' means creating something someone would prefer. And thus, it is a self evident statement. It means "If you can't create something someone would choose over something else, people will choose something else." Duh!
That's a re-hashing of the statement I made, it still does not define "better". Better has many aspects of which this ideology is ignorant of, other than its' end value to the individual consumer.
As I said... Ignorant of any other definition of it... but after looking at some of your other comments on this video I'm guessing there's much work ahead for you. Or pie, pie is good.
taboo: in other words... there are MANY different criteria for "better"... there is no absolute "better" to be chosen by the market, and, indeed, there is no reason to think the market chooses even based on the widest acceptable criteria... not with a definition that loose.
I'm not sure what you are arguing against, because that is exactly the point. There is no single 'better'. It's totally individual. So... I can offer something nobody will think is better, or I can offer something millions will think is better. Absent forceful coercion, its obvious which offering will be 'more successful.'
And no, our 'markets' don't exhibit that - because they are driven sometimes predominantly by force rather than freedom of selection.
AGAIN, you are looking at the end value to the consumer. Can't you think beyond that? Is better maybe also something safe, reliable, affordable? To be affordable one might have to cut back on safety and reliability, labour costs, resource costs, etc etc. It's astounding that you do not consider those aspects, and a sure sign that such a society, without legislation, will ignore coercive acts in those industries.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. But if you are suggesting something like, Mr. Consumer prefers car A to car B, but car A creates increased risk to other drivers, environmental damage, causes workers to loose work etc...
Then yes, that microscopic view doesn't include that. However, I will use the exact same definition of 'better' when gauging what other drivers, people in the environment and the workers think - before making a decision about what is better for the aggregate whole.
and also, I don't place total responsibility for increasing the betterment of the world on any single thing. It's a system of millions of two sided transactions (for the better of each side) that produces the net effect.
And, given that my ideas are founded predominantly on the idea of eliminating all coercion, it's a little silly to think such an endeavor would yield ignoring coercive acts. That's like saying learning causes ignorance.
It's a bit silly to think "we shall eliminate coercion" and not changing the organisational structure of the society to make coercion impossible, rather than just hoping you can play on the conscience of the community.
I don't know why you invent my position being that - other than to dismiss it. I'm planning to reduce coercion by actively fighting back, defending myself and others.
your assumptions are rash... absent forceful coercion? what about absent advertising? which one wins then? What if only the better thing goes unadvertised? How does forceful coercion play a role then?
What if the better government program doesn't get rammed down peoples' throat? And if forcing people to pay taxes to pay for police is so much better - why do you have to forcefully impose taxes? Is it that hard to get someone to benefit themselves? The answer is, IT ISN'T BETTER FOR THEM... it's just better for creating what YOU want.
it's not rammed as by a king, it is a compromise, reached democratically, which is meant to be engineered to allow the most personal freedom. Like... being able to drive free on the roads is "rammed down your throat"... no, it's infrastructure you can share.
well... thanks if you mean that, and perhaps it's because you see that I really do agree with many of the principles involved but have drawn some different conclusions about what is possible and how.
Personality, I dont want police protection. People who can't pay police is irelavent.They can use a gun and defend themselves. See you keep using strawman. People could afford more with family of 10 children before the State try to control everything. People can't afford justice right now even the middle class. I want the poor to shoot a private police if they abuse him. It is only possible if we stop believing in freedom by control.
What about people that are not physically fit to defend themselves? What about people that cannot afford guns? What about people that can afford bazookas, nuclear weapons. This utopic private orgy-land you have in mind has too many flaws.
What your point? Make your own little society that will put money in a bag and make it happen. If you think you need to force poeple by taxing them. Go ahead. But don't say you don't steal money from me.
why do you guys on this "anarchic" side always ask stuff like that... "what's your point?" His point is obvious... so obvious you have to pretend to be all cool like it's no thang, the disabled can handle it... there is nothing to stop them from defending themselves probably if someone will do it for them...
each year I feel less bad making you live in a society with wheelchair ramps.
No I don;t think you are right. Mises prove it imposible to have a centrilize ressources distribution system. Only free-market can adapt to the need of each indivisual.
"I want the poor to shoot a private police if they abuse him."
Neu, people shoot at police officers all the time. What's the difference between shooting at DROs and being killed and shooting at police officers and being killed?
excuse me, even if you think ultimately the argument can be defeated, it's nonsense to call the NEED FOR POLICE WORK "a straw man" as people report crimes to the police daily and all evidence is the work is needed... your theory that it's all the states fault (or whatever) may even be interesting, but it requires demonstration, not the need for police work.
I meant stop talking and think before. It wasn't an argument it was an emotion desire. You can have socialist system in a free-market. You can do everything you want except forcing to pay you.
The only thing you can say is that people will stop taking care of the poor only if they create a violent monopoly over others. Just say it, stop making up catastrophic scenario and just say so. This is argument by effect, it worthless. People made up escuse to not liberate slaves. All I see is fallacy over fallacy by using words like "the poor" and corporate without even explaining where thiose problem come from.
Strong men attract a following by promising protection. People crave security in an insecure world. They will choose to pay him to provide it. Then he will pay ruthless individuals to make you pay, and make you stay. Then he will force you to enforce his laws, and attack his enemies. If you refuse you are an outlaw and your family is fucked. Thus a state is created... a horrible horrible square one state.
neutrinoide: the problem comes from the fact that in private economy one is motivated only by profit, without a principle of basic HUMAN right, you have only the rights in proportion to your money, i.e. your ability to consume... without that ability, you lose material freedom.
Oh great I can choose to follow a tyrant! Great. Then that tyrant can choose to disregard the non agression principle, and choose to attack a wealthy neighbouring settlement and choose to enslave them or kill them. Then he can choose to torture and kill me because I dont like what he is doing! Great! We all have choice!
i own a private police force in post falls, Idaho I was security when I started out but then became a private police agency. I did this to so I could show that private police could do the same job as public police and I have been given the ok to do this but the power of traffic enforcement i have not been given. I still work off contract and work like a security agency in that way. visit us online: spartansecurity.webs.com
mellisamm 7 months ago
@mellisamm : I will, I appreciate the application, it's reality.... I also hope you do it the right way and for the right reason, I think some private-public police cooperation is ok, even a good idea (if super-ethical private organizations make themeselves evident). I stand by the problem of cyclic authority, and say one needs a final authority, like a supreme court, and a standard shared judicial system. cheers.
pyrrho314 7 months ago
I would disagree, as it seems many citizens/customers in a private market would prefer to hire a private police contractor that would contain their patrol to a geographic area. It's not like the police would be able to identify a paying customer on site... Surely brutal enforcement gangs would be hired by the super rich, but that goes on today. Here at home, we invade countries, torture war detainees... I mean, is this really better than the "good ole boys" keeping the town safe?
MrDbailo 1 year ago
yaaa mann. thats what i was thinking. lol tip for the future though your argument is sound it would be better if you weren't high as a kite
soldierboy425 1 year ago
@soldierboy425 you can think you know, but you don't know when I'm high.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
@soldierboy425 btw, why would it be better... I don't care if people get convinced by my presentation or not... if the idea is sound, yo're welcome, rare on the internet.
pyrrho314 1 year ago
Well done, very sound arguments.
SocialistPhalanx 3 years ago
youre michael moore.
faszika 3 years ago
Police do not protect they police. That is it. People want protection only because they feel fear. Fear of other people. Fear that in most cases is unwarranted. Why fear Joe down the street, because the government wants you to fear Joe down the street. So that there Gestapo (in the guise of a holy protector) Can be in place when they blow the whistle and then cart us all off to the camps. The truth is they do not prevent crime or serve the public.
homersparents 4 years ago
sometimes they do
pyrrho314 4 years ago
WITH police activly patroling my neiborhood, only taking a short walk to the stoor EVERYTHING of value in my house was taken. Now, not to say that ALL police forces are this incompotent. but this is rediculous. Even without joining in illegal activities and paying my taxes I lost easily $8000. and the culprates were never caught.
YawadrahWred 4 years ago
that sucks and is not acceptable... but the questio here is will getting rid of government make the problem better or worse... I suggest you would probably not even own that property in a market anarchy. I suspect that powerful corporations would instead lease us all our property since retaining property right equals power in a market anarchy even more so than in semi-feudal democracy.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I don't argue that. I was just complaining about the inefficiency of my local Police force. Hoping to show the point that while police can help, I've had very little experience with them other than hassling or harrasing individuals following the law. They should be more akin to Fireman than watch dogs. Come when called if your patroling doesnt stop crime in the first place. your waisting gas and money.
YawadrahWred 4 years ago
yawa, not sure where you stand on MA, best if labels don't apply anyway... but I'll say I do support private "police", aka security, to augment our actual security... public infrastructure is a fall back.. cheers.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
that doesn't happen in nice neighborhoods.
nice neighborhoods surrounded by dangerous neighborhoods often don't have to lock their doors. And the police pick up the drunk teenagers and drop them off at home. The decaying culture is making even that harder and harder, but the fact is a certain kind of police protection works. The police show up and assert your rights with a process server or anything at all.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
It's not primarilly sufficient force alone, enough cops, but their attitude toward their public. They assume in a rich neighborhood a certain amount of responsibility, although certain violations do tick them off... specifically, annoying the other rich neighbors.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Police are enforcers of the law. People want law because they prefer having universally recognizable and universally enforceable rights rather than having rights which are only recognized by whoever wants to recognize them and enforced by whatever means are available.
dateofbirthdateof 4 years ago
anything else is attempting to add logical thought to something that is not logical to begin with. You can't have a social equality or social "freedom", without having a social and greed free mind (plural or not).
phuq1deology 4 years ago
Your heart wouldn't even beat without the internal selfish desire to continue existence.
You are a 'wanting' creature, or you are dead. There is no psychological 'greed' function separate from wanting. Someone wanting massive amounts of power is no different from someone wanting freedom - it's the same function, the one we use to find food and etc.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
taboo: does that go for drinking? wanting to have a drink after dinner is the same as wanting to get shitfaced drunk and black out?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
There are differences. But the point I was trying to make is that if you wanted to remove the part of the brain the shifted Bush's wants into greed, the part of the brain we would remove is in yours - the part that makes moral judgments.
A computer can be programmed to perform many tasks, some you may find good, others you may find bad. I am saying you can't remove the part of the processor that does what you find bad without destroying it's ability to do what you find good.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
ah, good point, but you can regulate such functions.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
The desire for positional power is a hold over from our primate silver-back/alpha male breeding practices. It works great in small tribal unites (there is a leader) but on a global scale (or even much smaller) it is an impersonal enslavement of a 'lower class'.
Essentially it is narcissism ("I am above you"), and a form of sociopathology. The lack of empathy allows for some brutal treatment and mass executions of, from the view of the ivory tower, what looks like 'vermin.'
TabooRealities 4 years ago
True enough. Where I differ on opinion however, Is that I see your proposed governmental method as being "same shit, different pile".
All I see different is the changing of hands in relation to power. But the hiarchy will still exist. The will always be privileged people. Society, and human nature see's to this.
phuq1deology 4 years ago
There was a group of antelope the died off because the male racks got so big they were unmaintainable. This happened because the females bread with the males with the biggest racks and things got out of control.
This is what I think is happening to humans to an extent. It's sociopaths who are spawning the next generation of even more sociopathic 'rulers' in a doomsday time bomb for the species.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
I would say that yes our offspring is sending us down, but The offspring I talk of, exists in the ideological spectrum, not the biological.
Ill use the matrix because everyone has seen it. Machines, which are our creation, turn on the creator (us). The idea of free "guilt free" slavery, back fires and the servents (the machines) destroy us.
CIVILIZATION (imo) is this machine.
phuq1deology 4 years ago
Human nature (and nature in general) dictates that the have's, will ensure that they remain the have's.
Any government or organization(psudo or not) with a power ladder, will have the higher ups, enforcing their will on the lower downs.
the police serve who pays them. They enforce the laws of the law writers. Want non-currupt cops? want to elimanate greed from puplic service? make it manditory and pay free. You want to be a citizen? prove it.
phuq1deology 4 years ago
Yesterday someone shot a bunch of people at a church in my community. The PRIVATE POLICE the church hired, took the shooter down and saved countless lives of people who don't pay them directly. Half an hour later, your crap-ola public defenders come around to place bodies in bags and do paperwork.
Fuck you people who don't want us to have that kind of service everywhere!
TabooRealities 4 years ago
two things...
one: LINK TO STORY.
two: that's private security, not private police, but still... PROVIDE THE LINK.
extra: the purpose of their action was to protect what they were PAID to protect.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
9news com/news/article aspx? storyid=82532
"the purpose of their action was to protect what they were PAID to protect."
And like other shootings, the police department protected nobody... because there is no difference between the two just because one is funded privately. Both did their job, protected the interest of who pays them. Now LET ME PAY SOMEONE TO PROTECT MY INTERESTS. That is all I ask.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
excuse me... you ARE allowed to pay someone to do that.
You are just factually wrong to say there is no difference... the police have to protect everyone, the security is only contracted to their employer. You ignore lots of differences.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
So if I privately someone to protect everyone, they won't... but police are under the magic public spell that makes them morally pure? RIght.
And police are not directed to protect everyone. Sometime they are told to attack people. They do attack people. And in most cities, they better get lots and lots of extra perks or you club gets shut down. What we not have the a mafia, which people view under some warped lens.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
that was a nice little jump.
did we talk about "privately paying someone to protect everyone"... is that even possible. Why do you think that will happen? Do you think it will happen. What if it doesn't? do you care?
police and private security can both be corrupt... but one is more accountable than the other. If a cop refuses to help a victim, there is recourse... if a security officer does... no recourse. yeah?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Okay. No. I don't think it will happen. I don't even think market anarchy can't persist for the same reasons phuq1deology spoke about: it's an ideology, and ideologies don't enforce themselves.
Corruption problems are the same. And I think taxes are just they way the elite steal the money they use to pay their police force to keep in line... as in I fail to see how what we have not is not a private police force. I just want to break up the monopoly.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
btw, that story: one, it does not say it took long for the cops to get there... the security guard deserves praise but clearly the reason she could act is because she is there all day long protecting just that spot... the people that pay her. If the killer attacks the place next door, they are on their own. That's my point. Protecting everyone.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
how about private militia... heh, heh... that sounds less oxymoronnic ;)
jogayot 4 years ago
ok, good point, the "militia movement" asside, just the general idea, taken in its healthiest form... there is no problem with public militia, private militia (though more dangerous), nor private security (reasonably safe b/c of regulation in the security "marketplace", something that could apply to private militia as well).
Nothing wrong with that, if underpinned with a public safety infrastructure.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
the irony is... social block states took "militia" as the name of their "from the top, state backed" police force. just to be different and appear as if it was really self-formed and self-supported by the people & for the people, if i may use the USish democratic slogan ;)
jogayot 4 years ago
Tell it like it is Pyrrho...Good Job!
creole60 4 years ago
"If you can't compete, it simply must be because it's not possible for you to do it better so no-one will choose you". One of the MAs on youtube said that. The word "better" is something that MAs should examine.
gratex 4 years ago
good advice
pyrrho314 4 years ago
In this context 'better' means creating something someone would prefer. And thus, it is a self evident statement. It means "If you can't create something someone would choose over something else, people will choose something else." Duh!
TabooRealities 4 years ago
That's a re-hashing of the statement I made, it still does not define "better". Better has many aspects of which this ideology is ignorant of, other than its' end value to the individual consumer.
gratex 4 years ago
Better: A more desired state.
Defined.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
As I said... Ignorant of any other definition of it... but after looking at some of your other comments on this video I'm guessing there's much work ahead for you. Or pie, pie is good.
gratex 4 years ago
"someone"? there are a million someone's... which one?!?!
pyrrho314 4 years ago
taboo: in other words... there are MANY different criteria for "better"... there is no absolute "better" to be chosen by the market, and, indeed, there is no reason to think the market chooses even based on the widest acceptable criteria... not with a definition that loose.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I'm not sure what you are arguing against, because that is exactly the point. There is no single 'better'. It's totally individual. So... I can offer something nobody will think is better, or I can offer something millions will think is better. Absent forceful coercion, its obvious which offering will be 'more successful.'
And no, our 'markets' don't exhibit that - because they are driven sometimes predominantly by force rather than freedom of selection.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
AGAIN, you are looking at the end value to the consumer. Can't you think beyond that? Is better maybe also something safe, reliable, affordable? To be affordable one might have to cut back on safety and reliability, labour costs, resource costs, etc etc. It's astounding that you do not consider those aspects, and a sure sign that such a society, without legislation, will ignore coercive acts in those industries.
gratex 4 years ago
I'm not sure what you are suggesting. But if you are suggesting something like, Mr. Consumer prefers car A to car B, but car A creates increased risk to other drivers, environmental damage, causes workers to loose work etc...
Then yes, that microscopic view doesn't include that. However, I will use the exact same definition of 'better' when gauging what other drivers, people in the environment and the workers think - before making a decision about what is better for the aggregate whole.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
and also, I don't place total responsibility for increasing the betterment of the world on any single thing. It's a system of millions of two sided transactions (for the better of each side) that produces the net effect.
And, given that my ideas are founded predominantly on the idea of eliminating all coercion, it's a little silly to think such an endeavor would yield ignoring coercive acts. That's like saying learning causes ignorance.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
It's a bit silly to think "we shall eliminate coercion" and not changing the organisational structure of the society to make coercion impossible, rather than just hoping you can play on the conscience of the community.
gratex 4 years ago
I don't know why you invent my position being that - other than to dismiss it. I'm planning to reduce coercion by actively fighting back, defending myself and others.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
Do you need a theme tune?
gratex 4 years ago
I didn't even think of that... I nice little marketing jingle might be nice,
TabooRealities 4 years ago
oh god no, not musak, I'm talking some powerful soulfunk like starsky and hutch.
gratex 4 years ago
No, the lone Ranger.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
but you are also planning to remove some of the checks we have on coercion right now.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
your assumptions are rash... absent forceful coercion? what about absent advertising? which one wins then? What if only the better thing goes unadvertised? How does forceful coercion play a role then?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
What if the better government program doesn't get rammed down peoples' throat? And if forcing people to pay taxes to pay for police is so much better - why do you have to forcefully impose taxes? Is it that hard to get someone to benefit themselves? The answer is, IT ISN'T BETTER FOR THEM... it's just better for creating what YOU want.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
it's not rammed as by a king, it is a compromise, reached democratically, which is meant to be engineered to allow the most personal freedom. Like... being able to drive free on the roads is "rammed down your throat"... no, it's infrastructure you can share.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
my fellow market anarchists can't argue...I am a market anarchist and I like ur vids
PatBuchanan2008 4 years ago
well... thanks if you mean that, and perhaps it's because you see that I really do agree with many of the principles involved but have drawn some different conclusions about what is possible and how.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Personality, I dont want police protection. People who can't pay police is irelavent.They can use a gun and defend themselves. See you keep using strawman. People could afford more with family of 10 children before the State try to control everything. People can't afford justice right now even the middle class. I want the poor to shoot a private police if they abuse him. It is only possible if we stop believing in freedom by control.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
What about people that are not physically fit to defend themselves? What about people that cannot afford guns? What about people that can afford bazookas, nuclear weapons. This utopic private orgy-land you have in mind has too many flaws.
Jihunn 4 years ago
What your point? Make your own little society that will put money in a bag and make it happen. If you think you need to force poeple by taxing them. Go ahead. But don't say you don't steal money from me.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
why do you guys on this "anarchic" side always ask stuff like that... "what's your point?" His point is obvious... so obvious you have to pretend to be all cool like it's no thang, the disabled can handle it... there is nothing to stop them from defending themselves probably if someone will do it for them...
each year I feel less bad making you live in a society with wheelchair ramps.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
No I don;t think you are right. Mises prove it imposible to have a centrilize ressources distribution system. Only free-market can adapt to the need of each indivisual.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
"I want the poor to shoot a private police if they abuse him."
Neu, people shoot at police officers all the time. What's the difference between shooting at DROs and being killed and shooting at police officers and being killed?
TruthDevours 4 years ago
None
neutrinoide 4 years ago
excuse me, even if you think ultimately the argument can be defeated, it's nonsense to call the NEED FOR POLICE WORK "a straw man" as people report crimes to the police daily and all evidence is the work is needed... your theory that it's all the states fault (or whatever) may even be interesting, but it requires demonstration, not the need for police work.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I meant stop talking and think before. It wasn't an argument it was an emotion desire. You can have socialist system in a free-market. You can do everything you want except forcing to pay you.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
The only thing you can say is that people will stop taking care of the poor only if they create a violent monopoly over others. Just say it, stop making up catastrophic scenario and just say so. This is argument by effect, it worthless. People made up escuse to not liberate slaves. All I see is fallacy over fallacy by using words like "the poor" and corporate without even explaining where thiose problem come from.
neutrinoide 4 years ago
Strong men attract a following by promising protection. People crave security in an insecure world. They will choose to pay him to provide it. Then he will pay ruthless individuals to make you pay, and make you stay. Then he will force you to enforce his laws, and attack his enemies. If you refuse you are an outlaw and your family is fucked. Thus a state is created... a horrible horrible square one state.
vegrin 4 years ago 2
neutrinoide: the problem comes from the fact that in private economy one is motivated only by profit, without a principle of basic HUMAN right, you have only the rights in proportion to your money, i.e. your ability to consume... without that ability, you lose material freedom.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Oh great I can choose to follow a tyrant! Great. Then that tyrant can choose to disregard the non agression principle, and choose to attack a wealthy neighbouring settlement and choose to enslave them or kill them. Then he can choose to torture and kill me because I dont like what he is doing! Great! We all have choice!
vegrin 4 years ago 2