Daily Anarchist Forum
August 20, 2019, 09:36:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: CATO discovers anarcho-capitalism  (Read 14906 times)
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2012, 11:05:53 PM »

It’s a very flawed definition of government in 3 ways because (1) it doesn’t apply to the rule of states or empires over populations where there’s less than majority support (which covers a great deal of the world), (2) because “most people” don’t all believe the same on what they consider “the rights of individuals with respect to other individuals”, and (3) those “rights” don’t have to be property rights.
You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 26, 2012, 06:51:17 PM »


Quote
Without the threat of penalty for non payment of taxes and the means to back up that threat, the state wouldn’t be able to collect taxes, no matter what it “says it is”. No different than a civilian with a gun robbing you.

What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it.

It’s not “wrong” to those who believe it’s “right” when the man with badge does it.

Quote
The difference between the two is solely that one is an agent of the state, and the other is not. It is wrong for a thief because the thief is not an agent of the state. The tax collector is not a thief because he is an agent of the state.

The state is the institution with the territorial monopoly on legitimate coercion.

You’ve ignored the difference I first pointed out between coercion per se, and aggression, that Friedman didn’t recognize in his definitions. There are many conditions where it’s perfectly legal and/or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” for civilians to use coercion against others – and not a violation of individual rights either. Using the dictionary definition of coercion, Friedman’s definition of ‘government’ means all civilians who use coercion are states, which is nonsense.

If one believes property rights are fundamental, in the NAP sense, the state can be defined simply as “the agency that commits institutionalized aggression”, as Stephan Kinsella does in his article linked below. But Friedman, being a consequentialist, can't 'define' it that way.

http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/05/03/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/
« Last Edit: October 28, 2012, 08:26:42 AM by Tom J » Logged
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 27, 2012, 03:23:46 AM »


Quote
You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.

I didn’t suggest it couldn’t clearly be defined. Which target audience "understands exactly what he wants to say"?
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2012, 11:19:31 PM »

If you believe might equals right you are a bandit, a murderer, a thief. It doesn't matter what uniform you wear.

If you don't believe might equals right you have begun to travel the path of freedom.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2012, 07:53:35 AM »

What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it.

It’s not “wrong” to those who believe it’s “right” when the man with badge does it.

Tom, you'll have to explain to me why you said that, because that is exactly what I had just said and yet you seem to be trying to disagree with me.

Something that is wrong for everyone else is magically transformed into a legitimate act by the badge.

Quote
There are many conditions where it’s perfectly legal and/or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” for civilians to use coercion against others – and not a violation of individual rights either.

Maybe it would be easier if you could just give some examples, because I am unable to discern any principle by which you are making this judgement.

The problem is not that I "am ignoring", it's that I am just "not seeing".
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2012, 09:00:46 AM »

Tom, you'll have to explain to me why you said that, because that is exactly what I had just said and yet you seem to be trying to disagree with me.

Something that is wrong for everyone else is magically transformed into a legitimate act by the badge.

He is saying most people disagree with the NAP.  This is the whole "George ought to help" problem.  A lot of people think George ought to help.  They don't care if they have to threaten to kill George to do it.  They disagree with the moral concept.  Because it is on a societal level they can more or less ignore your morality, especially because their view allows them to violate you.


An example of coercion that comes to mind that is not aggression would be a trade negotiation.  For example, when Intel went to customers and told them not to offer AMD products, or the price for Intel products would go up for them, to the point that their business would be uncompetitive.   
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:12:24 AM by Syock » Logged

BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2012, 09:54:47 AM »

An example of coercion that comes to mind that is not aggression would be a trade negotiation.

I would have said that trade negotiation is not coercion because it's not force.

A Boycott, by that measure is "coercion" as well, something I cannot agree with.

I guess "coercion" is going the way of "anarchy", where several words are going to have to be used instead of what was one well defined word.

There is no justification of violent self defense against a Boycott, or a trade negotiation. There is when someone comes to my house to take my stuff, and the fact that they have a badge makes no difference to the act of armed robbery.
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2012, 11:34:00 AM »

It would also depend on which definition of force you are using.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic
4.power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power:

I don't believe these are new uses for the words at all.  They just seem to be assumed in a specific meaning of the batch due to context, which is not always clear.  That is just how language is. 
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 11:38:44 AM by Syock » Logged

Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2012, 08:11:50 PM »

What you seem to be missing is that it is "wrong" when a man with a gun does it, but "right" when a man with a gun and a badge does it.

It’s not “wrong” to those who believe it’s “right” when the man with badge does it.

Tom, you'll have to explain to me why you said that, because that is exactly what I had just said and yet you seem to be trying to disagree with me.

Something that is wrong for everyone else is magically transformed into a legitimate act by the badge.

Syock was correct. Most people don’t identify with the NAP, and don’t see the tax collector as a thief and doing "wrong". Friedman’s “coercion” requires that not to be the case, to just begin to make sense.

Quote
There are many conditions where it’s perfectly legal and/or “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards” for civilians to use coercion against others – and not a violation of individual rights either.
Quote


Maybe it would be easier if you could just give some examples, because I am unable to discern any principle by which you are making this judgement.

The problem is not that I "am ignoring", it's that I am just "not seeing".

It’s largely “legitimate” almost everywhere to defend oneself and others from a violent attack (and the threat of) against one's person and property, using force, when the attack is from civilians. That’s also the case in a great many places in the world, when the violent attack is an illegal one from the police, even if in those circumstances, justice is harder, if not impossible to come by. Also, legal sports usually involve coercion to one degree or another - with some having it central to the sport, like boxing and football.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 07:13:57 AM by Tom J » Logged
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2012, 07:43:01 AM »

I find it astounding that there is any confusion between the mutually agreed upon violence of boxing and the armed robbery that is taxation.

Oh well.
Logged
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2012, 09:47:22 AM »

I find it astounding that there is any confusion between the mutually agreed upon violence of boxing and the armed robbery that is taxation.

Oh well.

I too find this paradox astounding.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2012, 03:13:37 PM »

You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.

I didn’t suggest it couldn’t clearly be defined.
I did.

Quote
Which target audience "understands exactly what he wants to say"?
The West.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2012, 07:48:47 AM »

The West.

Indeed.

The "East" is so thoroughly convinced that government is "like the family, with the parents telling the children what to do" that it's impossible to find common ground.
Logged
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2012, 07:16:26 AM »

You're right on all accounts. Nevertheless, the idea makes sense to me as I read it. Maybe government can't be so clearly defined. If I tried, I would come up with a similar definition. I'd say it's a protection racket that people have been deluded into believing is helpful. So what if the definition isn't as general as it could be. The target audience understands exactly what he wants to say.

I didn’t suggest it couldn’t clearly be defined.
I did.

Quote
Which target audience "understands exactly what he wants to say"?
The West.

Fuzzy expressions are so magical.
Logged
Tom J
Full Member
***
Posts: 106


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2012, 08:33:43 AM »

I read his book years ago, and another quote that stood out to me then, and still does, involves the subject of private money. He argues favorably of a private money and banking system when addressing the subject. However near the end of his remarks, he writes:

 “My own opinion is that, even if there were no legal barriers to the use of private money, the existing fiat system would remain in use unless it became very much worse than it now is”.

AISI, no government fiat money system would be able to compete with a fully free private money and banking system, and that's part of the reason it’s not permitted. I also don't see how taxes would be collected if a fully free private money and banking system were allowed.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!