Guns

Spinoff from the abortion thread. I posted in there but decided it would be best just to new thread it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Yeah I noticed you say old guys were the typical protester. I'm assuming you're USA right? Respect for not being armed. I agree it wouldn't be a great idea, but at the same time you have to balance the risk that one of those protesters has a gun, certainly if you're States. It's less of a concern here in the UK of course, but even then I think I'd feel vulnerable without some form of defence. But then again I'm not a big guy and do not have an intimidating presence.

Why do you do this? Serious question. I find it odd that you'd do a risky job for nothing. Is this because it will look good on your CV or resume or whatever you guys calls it? Or because you want to help protect vulnerable women from nasty pasties like these old men with nothing better to do?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

@bold, I just now caught this. I think it's hilarious the perception that some people have of guns in the United States.

---

The US would be a much safer place if the police force was disbanded. Why? Because we have guns. Guess who never gets their shit broken into? People in Montana with rifles. Guess who gets their shit broken into all the time? People in New York where the only law is cops that are an hour away from any potential crime scene


This is something I may or may not believe. I'm inclined to believe it, but not positive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Spinoff from the abortion thread. I posted in there but decided it would be best just to new thread it





The US would be a much safer place if the police force was disbanded. Why? Because we have guns. Guess who never gets their shit broken into? People in Montana with rifles. Guess who gets their shit broken into all the time? People in New York where the only law is cops that are an hour away from any potential crime scene


This is something I may or may not believe. I'm inclined to believe it, but not positive

---

like this: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xyc...burg_lifestyle

?

I absolutely believe that American society would be much better off if there was no state police.

If any region is an example of states law enforcement causing problems, is it not Johannesburg?

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”

“Afraid?”

“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.

I lol'd. But whoever made that doesn't know thing one about capitalism

Nobody polices the internet, yet somehow it works. Imagine that. Wait, actually sometimes government does police the internet, and in doing so, createss disasters. It's not a coincidence that if you're looking for things that work well, you find things the government hasn't figured out how to police, and if you're looking for something that works like utter shit, it's always something that is unique in exclusively one way: government policing

[troll voice]

Yeah the government does such a HORRIBLE JOB with everything. Shit I hate having all of these paved roads to drive on and fucking sidewalks to walk on and goddamn clean air to breathe. Why don't you privitize deez fucking nuts?

[/troll voice]

Take away the troll voice and it's accurate.

You're in a city, what roads suck? The gov't ones. Between each shitty gov't road is a shaped up lot operated by a business. How about we expand that and let business do what it normally does with everything else, and let the roads be awesome as well? A lack of awesome roads would put a major brunt on profits and favor entrepreneurs who please the customer. Voila, unpredictable innovations make transportation swift and easy, exactly has happened in every other industry where government doesn't intervene much.

Just like business is what turned a hyper-expensive and hyper-difficult to get chicken sandwich into a dollar product down the corner, transportation would be revolutionized if we fully endorsed the profit incentive. Take capitalism out of the equation, and we're all living in mud and by candlelight. How about we let capitalism do the incredible stuff with everything instead of just for those things we don't force regulatory suppression upon

Total capitalism and no law would be awesome. The price to get someone to kill wuf would be tiny and then we wouldn't have to listen to the same debate every other day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImSavy

Total capitalism and no law would be awesome. The price to get someone to kill wuf would be tiny and then we wouldn't have to listen to the same debate every other day.

---

http://i.minus.com/ipM97yBbzgn7n.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Take away the troll voice and it's accurate.

You're in a city, what roads suck? The gov't ones. Between each shitty gov't road is a shaped up lot operated by a business. How about we expand that and let business do what it normally does with everything else, and let the roads be awesome as well? A lack of awesome roads would put a major brunt on profits and favor entrepreneurs who please the customer. Voila, unpredictable innovations make transportation swift and easy, exactly has happened in every other industry where government doesn't intervene much.

Just like business is what turned a hyper-expensive and hyper-difficult to get chicken sandwich into a dollar product down the corner, transportation would be revolutionized if we fully endorsed the profit incentive. Take capitalism out of the equation, and we're all living in mud and by candlelight. How about we let capitalism do the incredible stuff with everything instead of just for those things we don't force regulatory suppression upon

---

Did you figure out my usage of the troll voice tag? Inception trolling in progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Nobody polices the internet, yet somehow it works. Imagine that.

---

Have you heard of ICANN, IANA, RIPE, IETF, the various national CERTs all over the world, telecommunications regulations in all western countries seen over by national NSAs etc? A lot of people police the internet, public, private and non-profits. Yes, they're invisible to most, but without them it wouldn't work.

I don't think this is something you can generalize. You retire Montana's police force, what could happen? Trees don't have a mob mentality. You disband the police in Detroid or Philadelphia, and it is hard to imagine any other scenario than organized crime taking over.

It looks to me as if the numbers for correlation between citizen armament and violent crime is greatly exaggerated by people on both sides of the argument, so I don't think that an armed or unarmed population would be the big swing factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I lol'd. But whoever made that doesn't know thing one about capitalism

Nobody polices the internet, yet somehow it works. Imagine that. Wait, actually sometimes government does police the internet, and in doing so, createss disasters. It's not a coincidence that if you're looking for things that work well, you find things the government hasn't figured out how to police, and if you're looking for something that works like utter shit, it's always something that is unique in exclusively one way: government policing

---

Are you spoon itt?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

Have you heard of ICANN, IANA, RIPE, IETF, the various national CERTs all over the world, telecommunications regulations in all western countries seen over by national NSAs etc? A lot of people police the internet, public, private and non-profits. Yes, they're invisible to most, but without them it wouldn't work.

---

I used the wrong word. I meant no governments by law police the internet. They all try but amount to little other than stealing millions from poker players and the like. Organizations organizing in a way that result in policing is different than doing so by law. Paypal doesn't get its security from the government. It gets it from what Paypal pays for

The subculture of online poker should be enough to convince any of us that these things work better without government and their only real problems are when government intervenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Are you spoon itt?

---

I don't troll. I believe everything I say but sometimes with asterisks in that I push a viewpoint to further refine it or discard it if need be

Yeah, I mean, you and renton, I got love for you guys, but I think you've both gone full retard.

I don't even think its a radical position to have. I'm not even talking about a libertarianism vs statism argument anymore. I'm saying even from the point of view of a liberal who's, generally speaking, in favor of a strong government, american society would be closer to those ideals if the entire police state were abolished, or at least, severely diminished. How is it even arguable that cops do harm and good at like a 3:1 ratio or more?

Yeah yeah I know you're in favor of reform. I wish I could reform my dick to make it 9 inches long [edit: in b4 you retort that I shouldn't cut my dick off]. In the mean time can we just agree that the reality is that state police are a blight on American society?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I don't think this is something you can generalize. You retire Montana's police force, what could happen? Trees don't have a mob mentality. You disband the police in Detroid or Philadelphia, and it is hard to imagine any other scenario than organized crime taking over.

It looks to me as if the numbers for correlation between citizen armament and violent crime is greatly exaggerated by people on both sides of the argument, so I don't think that an armed or unarmed population would be the big swing factor.

---

Good point. I let the problem with using rural, homogenous Montana as an example slide in the OP

As for organized crime taking over Philly, the FBI takes care of that. The police were never the people that stopped the mob. Even so, the mob was only created due to moral hazards of other government laws (prohibition). So if we were to extract the police from these regions as well as all the moral hazard creating laws, then I think we'd be okay

As for the FBI, I think the private industry could probably handle what they do, but I can't yet explain how, so I still say a high-tech, broad-based investigative unit with judicial backing is something government is good for

It could be that the main problem with the police is legality of extreme force. As far as I can tell, the way half of Europe does it is have cops on the beat, so to speak, who don't have guns and can't get away with using much force. When force is needed, the special forces are then called in. This works way better than the US. However, I do think that arming citizens could be a part of what would make that sort of thing work in the US. A significant chunk of people in the US do not need the police for anything, largely because they're armed and they live in places were the peace is kept in a cultural fashion. Then a different chunk of the population doesn't need the police because they're usually the victims (don't ever call the police while being black).

The real power of the police is the investigative work for violent crimes. Not the traffic work, not "keeping the peace". Go to a huge market and there are just about no cops anywhere yet the peace is kept. I don't think the police are responsible for any drop in crime whatsoever. I do think the real reasons are growing economies and cultures of property ownership and personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, I mean, you and renton, I got love for you guys, but I think you've both gone full retard.

---

About 90% of what I say is standard Milton Friedman. Dude was the most important economist of the 20th Century. He was only vocal about specific issues that were prominent in his day, but as far as I can tell, the things I say are by logical extension of his ideas, which are the same ideas that I see shared by most economists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I don't even think its a radical position to have. I'm not even talking about a libertarianism vs statism argument anymore. I'm saying even from the point of view of a liberal who's, generally speaking, in favor of a strong government, american society would be closer to those ideals if the entire police state were abolished, or at least, severely diminished. How is it even arguable that cops do harm and good at like a 3:1 ratio or more?

Yeah yeah I know you're in favor of reform. I wish I could reform my dick to make it 9 inches long [edit: in b4 you retort that I shouldn't cut my dick off]. In the mean time can we just agree that the reality is that state police are a blight on American society?

---

Yeah, I mean, I just think you're absolutely wrong about the source of the problem. Local police should not be para-military entities policing the community from above. They should be integrated into the community and police from within. Federal dollars being allocated for the militarization of local police is directly to blame. It created the police culture we have now. It was the wrong response to the problem as well as a response to an essentially non-existent problem (terrorism).

So, yeah, I'm for a reform of the police culture. I'm of the impression that the guy driving the cruiser in my neighborhood should spend X hours a week going door to door introducing himself to residents and checking in on those who he already knows. Shit like that drops crime, not more patrols, stop and frisk, and the ominous shadow of big brother.

Never gonna happen. The problems with state police are fundamental. Root, stem, branch and leaf, its all rotten. And Americans couldn't be happier about the way things are. Practically every show and movie is a cop jerkoff fest and viewers can't wait to get jizzed on then beg for more.

It's an unavoidable consequence of bureaucracy. We see problems with government institutions all the time but none of it is in as stark black and white as with the cops, because they actually directly destroy lives and face no consequences whatsoever for it. Sure the shooter may get fired, or the cop who has beaten the shit out of his twelfth black guy, or the racist judge that's been practicing for 40 years and FINALLY caught too much heat over it. But do the sergeants/lieutenants/majors/mayors get fired or incarcerated? Hell no and they never will. Nor will the precinct get its funding cut. In fact, assuming crime rises due to their incompetence, they'll probably get a funding bump. It's just completely warped incentives at every segment of the chain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, I mean, I just think you're absolutely wrong about the source of the problem. Local police should not be para-military entities policing the community from above. They should be integrated into the community and police from within. Federal dollars being allocated for the militarization of local police is directly to blame. It created the police culture we have now. It was the wrong response to the problem as well as a response to an essentially non-existent problem (terrorism).

So, yeah, I'm for a reform of the police culture. I'm of the impression that the guy driving the cruiser in my neighborhood should spend X hours a week going door to door introducing himself to residents and checking in on those who he already knows. Shit like that drops crime, not more patrols, stop and frisk, and the ominous shadow of big brother.

---

FWIW I think this is cart before the horse. Is it the cops in the community that makes things safe or is it a safe community that allows cops in it?

What does the police do that normal people don't or can't? Things like neighborhood watch are far more effective and cheaper and non-abusive. I suspect the culture of police security is one of the main reasons why we have really weird things like the bystander effect. I know a lot of people who would never be a bystander when something bad was going down. What they all have in common is they live in areas where most people don't like the state intervening in things, they're usually carrying, none of them are criminals. Contrast them to people in places where the state is thought to need to intervene in most areas, and that's where you get the bystander effect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

FWIW I think this is cart before the horse. Is it the cops in the community that makes things safe or is it a safe community that allows cops in it?

What does the police do that normal people don't or can't? Things like neighborhood watch are far more effective and cheaper and non-abusive. I suspect the culture of police security is one of the main reasons why we have really weird things like the bystander effect. I know a lot of people who would never be a bystander when something bad was going down. What they all have in common is they live in areas where most people don't like the state intervening in things, they're usually carrying, none of them are criminals. Contrast them to people in places where the state is thought to need to intervene in most areas, and that's where you get the bystander effect

---

Derp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Never gonna happen. The problems with state police are fundamental. Root, stem, branch and leaf, its all rotten. And Americans couldn't be happier about the way things are. Practically every show and movie is a cop jerkoff fest and viewers can't wait to get jizzed on then beg for more.

It's an unavoidable consequence of bureaucracy. We see problems with government institutions all the time but none of it is in as stark black and white as with the cops, because they actually directly destroy lives and face no consequences whatsoever for it. Sure the shooter may get fired, or the cop who has beaten the shit out of his twelfth black guy, or the racist judge that's been practicing for 40 years and FINALLY caught too much heat over it. But do the sergeants/lieutenants/majors/mayors get fired or incarcerated? Hell no and they never will. Nor will the precinct get its funding cut. In fact, assuming crime rises due to their incompetence, they'll probably get a funding bump. It's just completely warped incentives at every segment of the chain.

---

Welp, I guess we've gotta cut our dick off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Derp

---

I don't think it's a coincidence that the first time I started hating the media and thinking that popular opinion is way off track was the Zimmerman/Martin stuff.

Yeah, on general principle I am going to disagree with anyone who offers the same solution to every problem. I may agree the solution is correct for one problem, but there is a fundamental lack of appreciation for nuance and understanding of complex systems when the answer to all of societies problems is "less government!"

I dunno who else I'm supposed to blame for the fact that 1% of the adult population of the country are in cages being raped in the ass for ingesting an evil substance. Oh but I'm sure congress will pass a bill and get right on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I dunno who else I'm supposed to blame for the fact that 1% of the adult population of the country are in cages being raped in the ass for ingesting an evil substance. Oh but I'm sure congress will pass a bill and get right on that.

---

The government is not some monolithic entity. Some parts of the government, such as legislators and agencies who are preoccupied with prohibition, are out of hand. But what makes you think "Less government!" is the answer? Something is wrong with this system is not synonymous with this system is wrong.

I mean, again, recognize that your answer to every problem in society is essentially "Less government!" Doesn't that worry you that you can't think of an instance where "more government" or even reform would be beneficial? If it sits well with you, then that's fine, but for me that would be a red flag that my thought process has likely been compromised somewhere. I mean, you sound exactly like a Marxist would have sounded in the early 20th century, but you're utterly convinced that you're different, you've figured it out for real this time.

The government is exactly some monolithic entity. That's kind of the issue here. Individuals and groups are accountable for their actions in a free society. States are not. The government's objective is to expand and waste resources, to displace people from productive roles in the work force to destructive roles. And that's all it does well. Really can you think of a single thing the government does a good job of doing other than impoverishing, murdering, jailing, and otherwise hassling people?

In the context of police, since that's the topic, what is a single thing that the police does well in America? Arrest and conviction rates for violent crimes like rape and murder are unbelievably low. They are terrible at disaster relief. They are terrible at crowd control. Even the misguided things they focus on, like reducing drug use or improving traffic safety, they are failing at. The drug use is higher than ever and people still are dying by the tens of thousands every year in automobile accidents.

3 guys share a flat with one kitchen. They need to take turns to clean it up. They assign a day for each of them to clean it up.

That's a form of government. Please explain how the 3 are better off all doing wtf they please and not abiding by the centrally set regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

3 guys share a flat with one kitchen. They need to take turns to clean it up. They assign a day for each of them to clean it up.

That's a form of government. Please explain how the 3 are better off all doing wtf they please and not abiding by the centrally set regulations.

---

That's not even remotely related to government. Cooperation for mutual gain is one of the cornerstones of basic economics and something I'm obviously greatly in favor of. In that example each of those three guys is CONSENTING to that agreement. If any of them believes its not a fair deal he's free to opt out and live in a different apartment or live alone. The whole point of government is that its coercion-based.

I don't understand why there's the perception that because someone is critical of government, he must automatically be against any form of collective. There are tons of systems in the economy that do a lot of good things for society and operate mostly or entirely outside of the purview of the state.

For example, the credit system has improved the standard of living of billions and requires very little input from states. Lenders and retailers cooperating for mutual gain. If you have a history of welshing on your loans, you pay a higher interest rate or are denied altogether. You demonstrate that you're a responsible payer of your debts and you pay lower rates and get bigger loans. Probably best of all, you don't HAVE to participate in the system if you don't want. Just pay cash for everything.

I'm not against a system. I'm against a force-based system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

That's not even remotely related to government. Cooperation for mutual gain is one of the cornerstones of basic economics and something I'm obviously greatly in favor of. In that example each of those three guys is CONSENTING to that agreement. If any of them believes its not a fair deal he's free to opt out and live in a different apartment or live alone. The whole point of government is that its coercion-based.

I don't understand why there's the perception that because someone is critical of government, he must automatically be against any form of collective. There are tons of systems in the economy that do a lot of good things for society and operate mostly or entirely outside of the purview of the state.

For example, the credit system has improved the standard of living of billions and requires very little input from states. Lenders and retailers cooperating for mutual gain. If you have a history of welshing on your loans, you pay a higher interest rate or are denied altogether. You demonstrate that you're a responsible payer of your debts and you pay lower rates and get bigger loans. Probably best of all, you don't HAVE to participate in the system if you don't want. Just pay cash for everything.

I'm not against a system. I'm against a force-based system.

---

It is exactly a government. Further, it's a government who's cogs are greased by the threat of force. Should Tim both refuse to do his share of cleaning and refuse to vacate, then what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

That's not even remotely related to government. Cooperation for mutual gain is one of the cornerstones of basic economics and something I'm obviously greatly in favor of. In that example each of those three guys is CONSENTING to that agreement. If any of them believes its not a fair deal he's free to opt out and live in a different apartment or live alone. The whole point of government is that its coercion-based.

---

I don't see any conflict there. If any member of the apartment/nation wants to opt out from the set of rules set by the majority, he can indeed go live in a different apartment/nation. Coercion comes around whenever participants of the system start breaking the rules, no matter what the scale of the community. A government is inherently just a larger flat share ground rule set, not a sentient machine of evil and destruction. I do understand your cynicism and skepticism though, having had only the US system to use as a benchmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

It is exactly a government. Further, it's a government who's cogs are greased by the threat of force. Should Tim both refuse to do his share of cleaning and refuse to vacate, then what?

---

Tim has a right to live in that apartment because its a contractual obligation. Klaus and Wilhelm have no right to force their majority-decided rules onto Tim. If Tim is contributing to the disarray of the place and not cleaning up after himself, that is an act of aggression against the others and they THEN have the right to respond with force. Tim can either A) agree to the shared cleaning obligation, or B) clean up after himself only. As long as Tim's doing one of those two things, he's in no way aggressing the others and they have no recourse but to allow it until the end of the lease contract, after which Wilhelm and Klaus can move on to living arrangements more suitable to their authoritarian regime. And maybe next time they'll agree to such cleaning obligations with the new third roommate, who will have to consent to such obligations before signing the lease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Tim has a right to live in that apartment because its a contractual obligation. Klaus and Wilhelm have no right to force their majority-decided rules onto Tim. If Tim is contributing to the disarray of the place and not cleaning up after himself, that is an act of aggression against the others and they THEN have the right to respond with force. Tim can either A) agree to the shared cleaning obligation, or B) clean up after himself only. As long as Tim's doing one of those two things, he's in no way aggressing the others and they have no recourse but to allow it until the end of the lease contract, after which Wilhelm and Klaus can move on to living arrangements more suitable to their authoritarian regime. And maybe next time they'll agree to such cleaning obligations with the new third roommate, who will have to consent to such obligations before signing the lease.

---

Lots of hand waving here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

I don't see any conflict there. If any member of the apartment/nation wants to opt out from the set of rules set by the majority, he can indeed go live in a different apartment/nation. Coercion comes around whenever participants of the system start breaking the rules, no matter what the scale of the community. A government is inherently just a larger flat share ground rule set, not a sentient machine of evil and destruction. I do understand your cynicism and skepticism though, having had only the US system to use as a benchmark.

---

No, there is no opting out analog with states. You have to get a state-issued passport to leave, you usually have to pay income taxes even while working abroad, in some cases paying double taxes. Your apartment example only illuminates the massive gulf between voluntary and involuntary collective.

How would you solve the simple economic principle of making people pay back their debts if you don't have a state police? We live almost implicitly with the knowledge that our debts are final and we need to pay them back or the state reposses our stuff. How to enforce this? Go back to colonial times and let corporations recruit their own militia to ensure they get paid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Reasoned, unsarcastic, argument that assumes the reader isn't a petulant 9 year old.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Five word pejorative remark.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackvance

How would you solve the simple economic principle of making people pay back their debts if you don't have a state police? We live almost implicitly with the knowledge that our debts are final and we need to pay them back or the state reposses our stuff. How to enforce this? Go back to colonial times and let corporations recruit their own militia to ensure they get paid?

---

States do very little in enforcing debt collection. What little they do, they don't really need to do. When creditors give loans they either ask for collateral from the debtor or charge an interest rate, usually a combination of the two. Of course they have the right to take the collateral when the the debtor defaults on the debt, and there's no need for a state to enforce this. The collateral belongs to the creditor and is its property.

Credit would still exist even in a context of zero force, because there is still the system of credit ratings and interest rates based on that credit rating. Even if I could default on my loan with zero punitive consequences, I still have incentive not to do that because I don't want a low credit rating, and creditors have the option of denying loans to people with a history of not honoring debts. But that's an absolute worst case scenario. In a stateless society there would still be property rights and dispute resolution, suing, restitution etc. That can all exist in a voluntary society.

You're quick with the butthurt.


You are essentially claiming that the complete restructuring of society is the most reasonable solution. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and libertarian theoretical talking points are not that. You are rightfully frustrated with the flaws of our current system, but this frustration has rendered you blind to all the drawbacks and potential cobra effects of the solutions proposed by the ideology you've adopted.

Further and again, I will ask whether less government is always the solution, or if there are circumstances where it would be detrimental? Supposing Libertopia is the winning ticket, is it really to be assumed that the transition to Libertopia will see a progressively better world the further we get along? For example, let's retire all police forces tomorrow. We have less government, but are we better off? How do we taper down until it's gone? Is there not a legitimate concern that the transition is insurmountable?

My point is, the complexity of the undertaking is immense and daunting, so instead of figuring that out you just rail against the evils of government and claim if we dismantle government the invisible hand will guide us to salvation. This is unsubstantive rhetoric, and if you weren't raging so hard you might see that it doesn't deserve much more than a five word pejorative remark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

You're quick with the butthurt.

---

I'm not quick with the butthurt. It's been your debate strategy time and again to insult the intelligence of the other without providing an according retort of his point, and it's become tiresome. You keep acting like I'm the one with the brittle and unbending belief system when your's is cast iron.

Quote:

---

You are essentially claiming that the complete restructuring of society is the most reasonable solution. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence, and libertarian theoretical talking points are not that. You are rightfully frustrated with the flaws of our current system, but this frustration has rendered you blind to all the drawbacks and potential cobra effects of the solutions proposed by the ideology you've adopted.

Further and again, I will ask whether less government is always the solution, or if there are circumstances where it would be detrimental? Supposing Libertopia is the winning ticket, is it really to be assumed that the transition to Libertopia will see a progressively better world the further we get along? For example, let's retire all police forces tomorrow. We have less government, but are we better off? How do we taper down until it's gone?

My point is, the complexity of the undertaking is immense and daunting, so instead of figuring that out you just rail against the evils of government and claim if we dismantle government the invisible hand will guide us to salvation. This is unsubstantive rhetoric, and if you weren't raging so hard you might see that it doesn't deserve much more than a five word pejorative remark.

---

I've always argued the anti-government side while being in favor of incremental change, not a complete restructuring. You may note that at the start of this I said that American society would be "much better off" without the cops. That doesn't mean I'm not in favor of a police force, it just means the current situation is so abysmal that the alternative of no cops at all would be merely less abysmal, a net positive but still a bad situation. Am I in favor of reform? Of course. Any improvement would be better. To me the easiest improvement in every case is a contraction of the duties/responsibilities/powers of the state. It's curious that you invoked the cobra effect, nearly every government endeavor does harm to the very issue it means to remedy.

As far as providing evidence to support my unsubstantive/fantastic/Libertopian claims, I've done nothing but to do that. I've provided examples on top of examples in this thread and others of how nearly everything the state does is harmful. It is you who has countered each of my reasoned critiques time and again with flippant dismissal and very little actual retort. The other statists like coccobill who have responded to my points have at least done so with according courtesy and that's the reason I even bother with these threads. I enjoy puzzling out the strengths and weaknesses of the other side and, believe it or not, I question the libertarian argument constantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

I'm not quick with the butthurt. It's been your debate strategy time and again to insult the intelligence of the other without providing an according retort of his point, and it's become tiresome. You keep acting like I'm the one with the brittle and unbending belief system when your's is cast iron.

---

Do you believe hand waving is a phrase which represents a tactic used in discussion? If so, can you understand why I took your post as hand waving? If so, why would you expect me to respond with more than I did? I don't see any semblance of an insult in calling out an intentionally or unintentionally dishonest tactic. If you think I'm wrong, sure, say so, but here you are, elevating your post to scholarly work, reducing my brief by honest critique to an insult, and topping it off by calling me a petulant 9 year old.

Anyways, I really didn't intend any insult, and I am aware that I tend to come across in not the best light in these discussions. Maybe part of it is that my history of posts tend to color the tone of my current ones, and that tends to lead the discussion down this path. I'm not sure-- I really don't think I brought that to this thread, but clearly it is something I need to be hyper aware of if I'm going to continue posting in these threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

and topping it off by calling me a petulant 9 year old.

---

I'll apologize right away for this one. I intended it to come across that I'd like what I have to say to be taken seriously, not peevishly mocked.

You came in this thread right away with the insults, calling me and wufwugy retards, then dismissing everything I had to say out of hand. I don't know why my explanation of the apartment scenario was handwaving, but I'm sure you'll be sure not to explain to me why.

I'll try to keep this as short and simple as I can. (I know right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

Yeah, on general principle I am going to disagree with anyone who offers the same solution to every problem. I may agree the solution is correct for one problem, but there is a fundamental lack of appreciation for nuance and understanding of complex systems when the answer to all of societies problems is "less government!"

---

This can be done with anything. Say we have some new illnesses and need some new drugs to treat them. One person says "chemistry!". Other people say "we need a nuanced approach that understands the complex system. We should use alchemy, astrology, method-acting, Mongolian throat singing, and chemistry." The other person says "none of that will work except chemistry" and he gets ridiculed for always having the same answer

I do not believe all of society's problems are solved by less government. But I do think that, domestically, government is the creator of our biggest problems. It is not irrational or inconsistent to blame the perceived culprit. Furthermore, I have put tens of thousands of words into explaining some of the nuances and complexities about why government intervention creates many of our problems. I have a feeling people tend to not read my posts. For a while I've wanted to type up a giant post explaining many of the nuances and complexities about how government intervention in education is creating a host of serious problems, many of which are not usually considered. But I haven't because I don't think anybody will read it, and if they do, I'm not sure if they will consider it. I don't want to deal with people just waving things off and saying I'm ideologically anti-government and that's that


My anti-government sentiments have come the same way that most contemporaries have: learning economics. Take the most liberal economists you can find, and they are all substantially to the libertarian side of things. Even the most pro-government ones are about as far from the general public as Adam Smith was from Marx. Economists aren't that good of communicators though, and I think that's one reason why the populace thinks they're all over the place.


It isn't accurate to say I'm anti-government anyways. It's a misnomer. This is an example of how I think government can make things better than just the free markets can. There are a handful of other examples of good that government can do, but our government doesn't do any of them. Some policies are better than others, but they're pretty much all worse than free markets

http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/4...e-market-based


As for the topic of correctly defining government that you guys are arguing over, organizations that are not set up by legal mandate and tax collection are not "government". The entire libertarian/anti-government stance of most economists and some enthusiasts is based in how that kind of government systematically creates and perpetuates moral hazards that hurt people. The foundation of why we live in such a wonderful society is freedom of choice. Laws and tax allocations deter that. It isn't so much that they just lessen it, but they eliminate it in many ways. Poker is the best example for us here. Because of government operating on law and taxes, the poker market is mostly non-existent and many lives have been very negatively affected. This happens in virtually every area that government makes laws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I'll try to keep this as short and simple as I can. (I know right?)



This can be done with anything. Say we have some new illnesses and need some new drugs to treat them. One person says "chemistry!". Other people say "we need a nuanced approach that understands the complex system. We should use alchemy, astrology, method-acting, Mongolian throat singing, and chemistry." The other person says "none of that will work except chemistry" and he gets ridiculed for always having the same answer

---

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation. In your allegory, less government is chemistry, and all alternatives are quackery. On top of that my critique has to do with the application of one solution to every problem. Some ailments are cured by drugs developed by some discipline of chemist, but others truly do just require better diet and exercise, or are all together psychosomatic. Going with your example, "Less government!" is more accurately "just swallow this pill!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

This is a complete and utter misrepresentation. In your allegory, less government is chemistry, and all alternatives are quackery. On top of that my critique has to do with the application of one solution to every problem. Some ailments are cured by drugs developed by some discipline of chemist, but others truly do just require better diet and exercise, or are all together psychosomatic. Going with your example, "Less government!" is more accurately "just swallow this pill!"

---

This shows how the logical fallacy works for anything

You're doing yourself a disservice if you think Renton or I are not trying to diagnose the problems and understand the nuances and complexities. Let's say there's a kid who gets bad grades, is a bully, and cries a lot. Those problems all seem like they could be unrelated unless you find out that his father also beats him. If you say the problem is the abuse, I don't get to come along and say you're ignoring nuance and applying just one solution.

We do not believe the problem is government because we're against government. We believe the problem is government because of all the details of the causality of the problem pointing to government. Don't forget that I used to be a staunch advocate of intrusive government. That only changed the more I read economics.

If you want to beat somebody's argument, beat it on the details. Don't apply a heuristic

Yeah, I guess I have to bow out, because you guys certainly have me beat on hours invested in this. I do think that we agree more than this discussion would appear to show. I think there are smarter ways to govern, and smarter means more efficient which likely means "smaller." Where I think we differ in opinion is that I would want a smaller police department that is demilitarized and less intrusive, and instead more integrated and involved in the community. You guys want to abolish local police and arm the citizens. You guys think the institution is inherently bad, while I think it simply taken a series of wrong turns.

But yeah, I'll try to be a bit more of an observer. I somehow always let myself get drawn into the action, and I don't really have the time or will to be that active of a participant.

I don't want you to bow out. My aim is to persuade, not antagonize. I'm well aware of how facile libertarian arguments must seem to outsiders, as I used to be on the other side disagreeing along with you. I am a total skeptic when it comes to everything. Most of the time I spend looking at economic issues is playing devil's advocate with the Austrian school classical liberal stuff, trying to discover market failures and similar. I just want others to approach issues with the same skepticism that I do. I think you think I have blind faith and that's just not the case. I think you have blind faith in your statist perspective but that may not be the case either.

Yeah, I think I come across that way because you guys rep the libertarian view so hard, and this being a poker forum, I kinda feel like it would end up being an echo chamber for the most part. I'm a statist in so much as I think the state is both necessary and best at handling greater than zero aspects of society. There is government creep in places it needn't be, and there are areas where it should do well but is poorly implemented-- and this, I think is where we disagree, because I believe you often conflate the two scenarios and call for the application of the solution appropriate only for the former.

But again, I'm not backing out as some sort of guilt trip stalemate, I just find that I spend way more time than I'd like to going back and forth, and I more often or not will get cheeky at some point, and people are insulted, and I feel like an ass. Then I feel like I'm detracting and not contributing, and I'd have to dedicate more time to properly contribute, and so... Yeah, I just think it's best if I'm not in the center of the ring.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...fter-toddler-/

I don't know if its just that shit like this happens in a country of 400 million people, but its like every fucking day there's one of these stories. I don't remember hearing about shit like this as often even 10 years ago, but I guess there wasn't twitter back then.

Renton, do you listen to Dan Carlin's podcast? I think it's his most recent that deals with the militarization of the police. It's really good, I think you'd dig it.

http://i.imgur.com/G5K8v37.jpg

How did I miss this thread? Can't be arsed to read it.

Anyway, no police and just letting everyone have guns, that's a one way ticket to anarchy isn't it? No police effectively means no laws, no laws means no control, and no control means the state is redundant.

Bring it the fuck on.

I watched that vice documentary on IS(IS) today. They seem to have pretty lax gun control over there in that there caliphate of thurs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How did I miss this thread? Can't be arsed to read it.

Anyway, no police and just letting everyone have guns, that's a one way ticket to anarchy isn't it? No police effectively means no laws, no laws means no control, and no control means the state is redundant.

Bring it the fuck on.

---

Police prevent very little crime

Safe and flourishing societies have never come from police forces; instead, they have always come from property rights and self-defense rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d0zer

I watched that vice documentary on IS(IS) today. They seem to have pretty lax gun control over there in that there caliphate of thurs..

---

One policy dynamic does not a society make. It's not like they haven't been at perpetual war for decades

This is also one of the situations I've mentioned in the past where unstable societies need a strong state to stabilize. But after the stability is created, the state becomes counterproductive. This truth isn't hard and fast, but it is the model that most societies have gone through

I feel like murdering someone today. Wait, if i did, I'd risk getting arrested and spending the rest of my life in jail. But if there were no police...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

I feel like murdering someone today. Wait, if i did, I'd risk getting arrested and spending the rest of my life in jail. But if there were no police...

---

You'd run the risk of getting yourself dispatched

If people were responsible for their own security, not only would it be harder to commit crimes, but the private security, investigation, and deterrence industry would be much stronger and without a doubt more effective than the pretty shitty system we have now

If I understand that right, you're suggesting we exchange governmental police with a police industry?

It seems you are assuming that such a business would operate as efficiently as possible and would therefore be better. But would it really?

Privatized Prisons, for instance. https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

If I understand that right, you're suggesting we exchange governmental police with a police industry?

It seems you are assuming that such a business would operate as efficiently as possible and would therefore be better. But would it really?

---

I do. Start here

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...41#post2209441

Quote:

---

Privatized Prisons, for instance. https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/private-prisons .

---

We've discussed this a bit in the past on this board. The short of private prisons is that they're not free market, and instead are examples of regulatory capture and rent seeking. The US for-profit prison model depends entirely upon government contracts. Without taxation and government monopolies over law, justice, and corrections, the profit incentive to imprison mostly vanishes

In a free market, imprisonment is a cost to the enterprises. In our current system, imprisonment is profitable because the cost is funneled through taxation. I'm not worried about a markets driving imprisonment for profit just like I'm not worried about how food markets haven't driven sickness for profit. Those sorts of distortions tend to only arise through the moral hazards of monopolistic government policies

I just watched the 'Law without Government' series. It seems like one possible way a society could exist without government. However, It doesnt seem to provide any argument for switching to such a system, and the system proffered is simplistic and assumes quite a bit about how things would actually work.

I agree that there are a billion flaws in our current society. I dont see how this would fix them.

----

Back to the prison thing, fair enough. Ill relate to a different industry that gets paid similarly to how the 'Laws without Government" series suggests. Take Health Insurance. Its highly competitive, and, before government regulation, could do awful things like refuse to insure due to a pre-existing medical condition. It seems obvious that such a business industry was absolutely terrible on their own.

If health insurance providers could drop people like this to save money, why couldnt a police industry? The video suggests reputation might urge these firms to act morally and ethically, but I dont see the evidence that suggests this to be the case.

What are the reputations of the possible home security options you have available to you right now? What about the reputations and skill of the possible doctors in your area? If you're injured in an accident, who is the best lawyer/firm in your area to take the case? These arent questions most people have the answer to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

I just watched the 'Law without Government' series. It seems like one possible way a society could exist without government. However, It doesnt seem to provide any argument for switching to such a system, and the system proffered is simplistic and assumes quite a bit about how things would actually work.

---

That stuff is addressed in others. If you wanna watch videos, my recommendations are stuff from LearnLiberty or Milton Friedman, but there are many others. For the most part, this is standard economics. Economists, by and large, are a hefty sum less pro-government than the populace.

Quote:

---

I agree that there are a billion flaws in our current society. I dont see how this would fix them.

---

It fixes a lot of them by letting people choose freely, by letting people vote with their dollar and with their behavior. It lets the price system engage. In virtually every area where we have this already, we have flourishing prosperity. Competition between market actors makes industry that innovates for better services and products.

----

Quote:

---

Back to the prison thing, fair enough. Ill relate to a different industry that gets paid similarly to how the 'Laws without Government" series suggests. Take Health Insurance. Its highly competitive, and, before government regulation, could do awful things like refuse to insure due to a pre-existing medical condition. It seems obvious that such a business industry was absolutely terrible on their own.

---

I tend to agree. I think a free market system works better than what we currently have, but I think there are a handful of areas where a smart enough government can create policy that improves the free market. To me, that's debatable though, because the free market has proven to only be underrated and incredibly resilient. My go-to example for how government can do healthcare well is Singapore. But keep in mind that the Singapore system works because it sticks to smart economic incentives (which usually means "making it easier for people to engage in free markets"). It's far better than any of the "good" Euro systems that don't do that so well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuXrrEZsAg

Quote:

---

If health insurance providers could drop people like this to save money, why couldnt a police industry? The video suggests reputation might urge these firms to act morally and ethically, but I dont see the evidence that suggests this to be the case.

---

I don't know, maybe. But I think the founders of the country were right when they believed the onus of security falls upon the individual, not the state. I think that video series answers some important questions, but not all of them. I may or may not try to answer those questions at a later date.

Quote:

---

What are the reputations of the possible home security options you have available to you right now? What about the reputations and skill of the possible doctors in your area? If you're injured in an accident, who is the best lawyer/firm in your area to take the case? These arent questions most people have the answer to.

---

All options are currently shitty because that's what happens when industry "competes" with monopolies. It's important to keep in mind that parts of society that currently have government intervention look very different than they would if they were to grow without that intervention.