Been writing the below blog from time to time, but not many folks interested in freedom in the general population. "All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable…" What a frustrating aspect of human nature.
http://keepusfree.blogspot.com/
At first glance, it seems I'd be a perfect fit in this community, but I haven't looked too deeply. My basic premise is "Anyone can do whatever they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights". Want to paint your house pink? Go for it. Want to run a dog kennel in your house? I don't care, just don't make the neighbors listen to the dogs barking all the time. Want to drive 120 mph on an empty restricted access highway? Go for it, as long as your passengers don't mind. Want to smoke your crack? Fine, just don't do it anywhere near me, and don't let it anywhere near kids hands. Want to murder your unborn baby? Sorry, that kid has rights too.
I could go on, but you get the idea…
Do you qualify to be on the forums? Of course. Anyone does. But you especially look like you've got the right ideas 
If you're asking about being a blogger, I don't know where you live, but you'd have to be in Keene with us. If you are here, or happen to visit, make sure you make it out to an event to meet some of us.
Welcome, barwick. I'd say you "belong" here, in the sense that there's a lot of like-minded people and you may find camaraderie and good conversations (like about that unborn baby having rights ).
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg9937#msg9937 date=1244171309]
Been writing the below blog from time to time, but not many folks interested in freedom in the general population. "All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable…" What a frustrating aspect of human nature.
http://keepusfree.blogspot.com/
At first glance, it seems I'd be a perfect fit in this community, but I haven't looked too deeply. My basic premise is "Anyone can do whatever they please, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights". Want to paint your house pink? Go for it. Want to run a dog kennel in your house? I don't care, just don't make the neighbors listen to the dogs barking all the time. Want to drive 120 mph on an empty restricted access highway? Go for it, as long as your passengers don't mind. Want to smoke your crack? Fine, just don't do it anywhere near me, and don't let it anywhere near kids hands. Want to murder your unborn baby? Sorry, that kid has rights too.
I could go on, but you get the idea…
[/quote]
Welcome!
Thanks, I think this is going to be a good place. I don't know that we agree 100% on everything (I'm big on defense utilizing a militia and an organized military, and especially supportive of pre-emptive war if it's necessary, on the basis that if England had listened to Churchill in the first place, perhaps they would have started a pre-emptive war against Germany in the early 1930's and spared 55 million lives, at the cost of perhaps 10,000 lives).
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg9989#msg9989 date=1244219774]
Thanks, I think this is going to be a good place. I don't know that we agree 100% on everything (I'm big on defense utilizing a militia and an organized military, and especially supportive of pre-emptive war if it's necessary, on the basis that if England had listened to Churchill in the first place, perhaps they would have started a pre-emptive war against Germany in the early 1930's and spared 55 million lives, at the cost of perhaps 10,000 lives).
[/quote]
My first question is, will you and people who agree with you organize and fund such efforts yourselves, or will you pay for it by extorting money from those who do not agree with you, and who may consider preemptive war immoral?
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg9993#msg9993 date=1244222612]
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg9989#msg9989 date=1244219774]
Thanks, I think this is going to be a good place. I don't know that we agree 100% on everything (I'm big on defense utilizing a militia and an organized military, and especially supportive of pre-emptive war if it's necessary, on the basis that if England had listened to Churchill in the first place, perhaps they would have started a pre-emptive war against Germany in the early 1930's and spared 55 million lives, at the cost of perhaps 10,000 lives).
[/quote]
My first question is, will you and people who agree with you organize and fund such efforts yourselves, or will you pay for it by extorting money from those who do not agree with you, and who may consider preemptive war immoral?
[/quote]
Were I to fund it with 3/4 of the rest of the population, if you were in the 1/4 of the population that did not support it, would you be upset if we allowed the enemy (let's say the Nazi's in the 1940's) to travel across our land, with their military equipment, and fly through our airspace, in order to attack your land? Would you be upset if we allowed them to fly from our airports to bomb your houses and cities that opposed the funding of the military and volunteered no soldiers to the nation's military? Would you be upset if we did nothing to stop them, even though it is wholly within our power?
On the same note, if I paid for a sheriff, and you refused to, then if a gang of thieves walked onto your property and demanded you leave your house immediately and surrender all your property, all the while our sheriff sat there in his armored vehicle, fully capable of stopping them, but refusing to. Would you be upset then, or wish you had paid for that sheriff?
Ultimately, government is force, and nothing else. I would absolutely support an extremely limited central government that uses force (yes, force) to organize its most basic functions, like common defense, enforcing laws that secure our inalienable rights, and settling disputes. Anything less is anarchy.
When someone chooses to remain living in a nation, within their borders, they are agreeing to live by the documents and principles that founded that nation. In essence, by remaining there, they are living under that as a contract. They are free to move where ever else they so choose if they do not like the terms of that contract.
In order to live in that society, people give up a very small portion of their "rights" so that everyone's rights can be better defended. I give up my "right" to drive 125 miles per hour through a crowded residential neighborhood with kids playing, simply because there is no possible way I can ensure that I won't hit someone. Similarly, I give up my "right" to a small portion of my property, in order to pay for a small portion of a highly effective defense force that keeps other nations (who are typically Socialist and would love nothing more than to get their hands on our property without earning it) away from us. I also give up my "right" to purposely burn down my house in a crowded suburb because my neighbors' right to clean air while it's burning would be taken from them. If, however my neighbors downwind said "aww heck, go for it", then I'd be fine.
What I am trying to say is, in any society (especially the most basic, limited government set forth in the founding of this nation), people voluntarily give up a small portion of their rights to ensure that all of their rights are defended.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10016#msg10016 date=1244233236]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg9993#msg9993 date=1244222612]
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg9989#msg9989 date=1244219774]
Thanks, I think this is going to be a good place. I don't know that we agree 100% on everything (I'm big on defense utilizing a militia and an organized military, and especially supportive of pre-emptive war if it's necessary, on the basis that if England had listened to Churchill in the first place, perhaps they would have started a pre-emptive war against Germany in the early 1930's and spared 55 million lives, at the cost of perhaps 10,000 lives).
[/quote]
My first question is, will you and people who agree with you organize and fund such efforts yourselves, or will you pay for it by extorting money from those who do not agree with you, and who may consider preemptive war immoral?
[/quote]
Were I to fund it with 3/4 of the rest of the population, if you were in the 1/4 of the population that did not support it, would you be upset if we allowed the enemy (let's say the Nazi's in the 1940's) to travel across our land, with their military equipment, and fly through our airspace, in order to attack your land? Would you be upset if we allowed them to fly from our airports to bomb your houses and cities that opposed the funding of the military and volunteered no soldiers to the nation's military? Would you be upset if we did nothing to stop them, even though it is wholly within our power?
On the same note, if I paid for a sheriff, and you refused to, then if a gang of thieves walked onto your property and demanded you leave your house immediately and surrender all your property, all the while our sheriff sat there in his armored vehicle, fully capable of stopping them, but refusing to. Would you be upset then, or wish you had paid for that sheriff?
[/quote]
I certainly would not be upset. I did not pay for those services, so I would have no reason to expect them. In reality, if the sheriff is a good guy, who only stops thieves and such, I'd probably be happy to choose to subscribe. If I don't subscribe, it's up to me to defend myself, or hire someone else who will.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10016#msg10016 date=1244233236]
Ultimately, government is force, and nothing else. I would absolutely support an extremely limited central government that uses force (yes, force) to organize its most basic functions, like common defense, enforcing laws that secure our inalienable rights, and settling disputes. Anything less is anarchy.
When someone chooses to remain living in a nation, within their borders, they are agreeing to live by the documents and principles that founded that nation. In essence, by remaining there, they are living under that as a contract. They are free to move where ever else they so choose if they do not like the terms of that contract.
[/quote]
Sorry, that's just wrong. The same argument could apply to any gang, as in "if the people living in MS-13's territory don't like it, they can move, if they stay, they consent to be terrorized". "If the traveler doesn't like what the highwaymen are doing on his road, he can take another, but if he continues on that path he consents to be robbed". The government people do not own my land, and so have no right to extort money from me by threatening to kick me off it.
I am interested in your response to this thought experiment: Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. My first neighbor and I hold a "constitutional convention", and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It's now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.
Is this scenario any different, or more moral, than common theft?
Now, the government can enforce laws against murder, theft, etc, just as I may use force to defend an innocent man against these things. The government, however, is not magically exempt from the moral laws which apply to the rest of us. They cannot use the threat of force extort money from peaceful people, who have not harmed others.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10016#msg10016 date=1244233236]
In order to live in that society, people give up a very small portion of their "rights" so that everyone's rights can be better defended. I give up my "right" to drive 125 miles per hour through a crowded residential neighborhood with kids playing, simply because there is no possible way I can ensure that I won't hit someone.[/quote]
Well, the roads should not be funded through forced taxation, but should be owned privately. In that context, you must obey whatever rules the owner of the road sets for its use. I do think he or she is likely to prohibit 125 mph driving. And, of course, if you actually hit a kid, then you will be held responsible, no matter what the road rules are.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10016#msg10016 date=1244233236]
Similarly, I give up my "right" to a small portion of my property, in order to pay for a small portion of a highly effective defense force that keeps other nations (who are typically Socialist and would love nothing more than to get their hands on our property without earning it) away from us.
[/quote]
No one has a right to forcibly take another's property. However, if you support such programs, you are welcome to willingly give up that portion of your property to fund it.
Myself, I think if we had a proper respect for the 2nd amendment, the country would be unconquerable.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10016#msg10016 date=1244233236]
I also give up my "right" to purposely burn down my house in a crowded suburb because my neighbors' right to clean air while it's burning would be taken from them. If, however my neighbors downwind said "aww heck, go for it", then I'd be fine.
[/quote]
To do this would be to damage the property of others. So I agree with you that this should be prohibited, although I don't think you ever had the right to do this. You're exactly right that if all of the effected parties did give you permission, it'd be ok.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10016#msg10016 date=1244233236]
What I am trying to say is, in any society (especially the most basic, limited government set forth in the founding of this nation), people voluntarily give up a small portion of their rights to ensure that all of their rights are defended.
[/quote]
You are welcome to voluntarily submit to any taxes or rules you choose to, but you have no right to aggressively force it on others, if those others have not harmed you.
Perhaps some looking into your government's history would help some prospective.
At the time of the vote of on the Constitution by the people, some 12,000 people were eligible to vote to accept the Constitution of some 3,000,000 that were within the 'country' at the time. Of those 12,000 people only about 9,000 of them actually voted. Of those who actually voted only some 5,000 of them actually agreed to accept the Constitution.
Now, let me ask you, can 5,000 people agree to enslave 3,000,000? Let us go forward through time where people who living in unincorporated areas(outside the 'country') and who decided to vote against joining the United States, because they are in the minority and lack the ability to fend of the US Army should they be enslaved, since they owned the land they were on before the United States Annexed them? Lets move forward some more.
It is present. Should I be enslaved because I was born here? Should someone born in China be refused to live here because they were born in China? Should I have a gun pointed at my head and told, 'give me 50 percent of everything you make, or we will throw you in the cage'.
If a contract can be agreed to without willful intent, such as your example that because I choose to live on this piece of land and some group of thugs who call themselves 'government' say they own the land and that I have to give them money because they have the guns, is it moral or lawful for me and twelve of my voluntarist friends to create a contract and claim ownership to an area of land that you because you exist on and we demand you give us 75 percent of your income can it be said that because you exist in an area we claim ownership to that you have consented to our contract? To leave our area of contract you have to pay us 25 percent of your income for the next 7 years, just so we are sure you actually left.
Does anything of this make any sense to you? No, it shouldn't. In fact you ask anyone knowledgeable in the area of law what is required for a contract, they will tell you that you need, terms of an agreement, with at least two parties, where something is exchanged between two parties, where such an exchange is actually completed, and where both parties indicate they understands the terms of the agreement as shown by some manner of willful intent, such as a handshake or a signature.
Measure your US Constitution to these same standards. There are terms of an agreement(the entire Constitution itself), there are two parties specified(the government and 'we the people'), rights what are exchanged between the two parties, and it would appear at one time or another that these rights were actually exchanged, however there is a missing part of the contract. Those who signed represented 'we the people' signed, however there is no signature from the representative of the 'United States Government'. Without this signature it isn't a contract.
Lysander Spooner points out several more problems with this idea of the Constitution as a contract in his work 'No Treason', perhaps you ought to read that too to understand why the Constitution is no contract.
Oh, so long as you agree not to aggress against me, either directly or indirectly, especially through proxies, we'll get along fine and welcome.
Hey Matt, are you in NH?
I think I can sum it up in a "few" words, and a few questions:
1) How do you stop an ICBM? Assume it was launched by someone who is not interested in your property, but simply interested in revenge for your unwillingness to pay a tribute to their nation. You give me a reasonable answer (not "prevent its launch in the first place", because there's some crazy bastards out there who will launch it just because they can), and I'll likely retract my next statement:
There are some (very very few) necessary portions of a society that cannot successfully be privately financed by willing individuals. This is because everyone will naturally come to the conclusion that they don't have to invest their portion, because everyone else's portion will be sufficient. The idea is kinda like socialism, it's a great idea in theory, but human nature screws it up. In both instances, people think "someone else will pick up the tab, so I don't have to do my share".
What falls in this category? Not roads, not education, not health care, not communication. Off the top of my head, only things that affect us all. Settling disputes is one of them, prosecuting for crimes (including the aforementioned purposely burning your house down and making the neighbors breathe in the nasty crap), the military, and also things like licensing of the radio spectrum (nobody can rightfully "claim" a portion or all of the frequency spectrum, then lease it to others, but this one is weird, it'd take a lot of thinking on how to do this with the absolute least interference, but it needs to be done, lest Billy Bob just puts up huge towers and broadcasts his favorite songs on every single frequency he can think of, and nobody has the "right" to overpower him since he was there first, but why can one person lay claim to the whole spectrum (something nobody can own) simply because he was there first?)
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10050#msg10050 date=1244244515]
Perhaps some looking into your government's history would help some prospective.
At the time of the vote of on the Constitution by the people, some 12,000 people were eligible to vote to accept the Constitution of some 3,000,000 that were within the 'country' at the time. Of those 12,000 people only about 9,000 of them actually voted. Of those who actually voted only some 5,000 of them actually agreed to accept the Constitution.
Now, let me ask you, can 5,000 people agree to enslave 3,000,000? Let us go forward through time where people who living in unincorporated areas(outside the 'country') and who decided to vote against joining the United States, because they are in the minority and lack the ability to fend of the US Army should they be enslaved, since they owned the land they were on before the United States Annexed them? Lets move forward some more.
It is present. Should I be enslaved because I was born here? Should someone born in China be refused to live here because they were born in China? Should I have a gun pointed at my head and told, 'give me 50 percent of everything you make, or we will throw you in the cage'.
If a contract can be agreed to without willful intent, such as your example that because I choose to live on this piece of land and some group of thugs who call themselves 'government' say they own the land and that I have to give them money because they have the guns, is it moral or lawful for me and twelve of my voluntarist friends to create a contract and claim ownership to an area of land that you because you exist on and we demand you give us 75 percent of your income can it be said that because you exist in an area we claim ownership to that you have consented to our contract? To leave our area of contract you have to pay us 25 percent of your income for the next 7 years, just so we are sure you actually left.
Does anything of this make any sense to you? No, it shouldn't. In fact you ask anyone knowledgeable in the area of law what is required for a contract, they will tell you that you need, terms of an agreement, with at least two parties, where something is exchanged between two parties, where such an exchange is actually completed, and where both parties indicate they understands the terms of the agreement as shown by some manner of willful intent, such as a handshake or a signature.
Measure your US Constitution to these same standards. There are terms of an agreement(the entire Constitution itself), there are two parties specified(the government and 'we the people'), rights what are exchanged between the two parties, and it would appear at one time or another that these rights were actually exchanged, however there is a missing part of the contract. Those who signed represented 'we the people' signed, however there is no signature from the representative of the 'United States Government'. Without this signature it isn't a contract.
Lysander Spooner points out several more problems with this idea of the Constitution as a contract in his work 'No Treason', perhaps you ought to read that too to understand why the Constitution is no contract.
Oh, so long as you agree not to aggress against me, either directly or indirectly, especially through proxies, we'll get along fine and welcome.
[/quote]
Nicely said!
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10128#msg10128 date=1244344275]
I think I can sum it up in a "few" words, and a few questions:
1) How do you stop an ICBM? Assume it was launched by someone who is not interested in your property, but simply interested in revenge for your unwillingness to pay a tribute to their nation. You give me a reasonable answer (not "prevent its launch in the first place", because there's some crazy bastards out there who will launch it just because they can), and I'll likely retract my next statement:
I do think that we could do a great deal to eliminate the big bullseye on our chests by not trying to run the world – we've got troops in over 130 countries. For example, Bin Laden got started fighting with the US funded Mujahideen against the USSR, and much of his recruitment ability was based on our military presesnce in Saudi Arabia, and continues to be based on our nation building activity in the mideast. It's really nationalism that motivates these people, more than religious extremism.
[/quote]
I do think that we could do a great deal to eliminate the big bullseye on our chests by not trying to run the world – we've got 700 bases in over 130 countries. For example, Bin Laden got started fighting with the US funded and equipped Mujahideen against the USSR, and much of his recruitment ability was based on our military presesnce in Saudi Arabia, and continues to be based on our nation building activity in the mideast. Studies have shown, it's really nationalism that motivates these people, although they couch it in the language of religious extremism. What they really resent is not that we're not muslim, but that we're perceived as meddling in the affairs of their countries – as well as preventing them from achieving their own political goals. How many people want to blow up Switzerland?
That said, I do agree that there will probably always be a few crazies out there who would want to blow us up anyway. If I suspected that such a group were obtaining the resources and/or weapons to carry out such an attack, I would certainly help fund a larger scale defensive effort, and perhaps even a preemptive strike, if the evidence of an eminent attack became truly incontrovertible.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10128#msg10128 date=1244344275]
There are some (very very few) necessary portions of a society that cannot successfully be privately financed by willing individuals. This is because everyone will naturally come to the conclusion that they don't have to invest their portion, because everyone else's portion will be sufficient. The idea is kinda like socialism, it's a great idea in theory, but human nature screws it up. In both instances, people think "someone else will pick up the tab, so I don't have to do my share".
[/quote]
One thing that could help is the same approach the FSP is doing. Instead of going around with a collection plate, where everyone's going to be worried they'll be the only one giving, divide up the cost to a reasonable amount per person, and take sign ups. Then, once the list is filled, the payments are taken. Also, I am sure there would be plenty of already well armed volunteers for an operation against a truly viable threat. If just NY city residents chipped in a buck each on average, they could pay for 300 stingers themselves, or AKs for 20,000. Two bucks each for a loaded F16, although I think it has been seen, there are cheaper ways to do things than advanced weaponry. If people were really concerned about a legitimate threat, plenty of money and volunteers would flood in.
Also, how about just putting a big price on the heads of whoever is trying to attack us? I mean, we've spent hundreds of billions in Iraq, wheras a measly 1B on osama's head would be enough to motivate every bounty hunter on the planet. Again, though, I would be careful before using any of these approaches, and certainly would not in any "could potentially gain the capability to harm" situation. It would have to be an imminent threat.
Again, though, I think most threats would die off if we minded our own business, and extremists are a lot more able to raise hell in their own back yards, than all the way over here. 9/11 was a pretty crazy aberration – and again, one which I think would not have happened with a proper respect for the second amendment.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10128#msg10128 date=1244344275]
What falls in this category? Not roads, not education, not health care, not communication. Off the top of my head, only things that affect us all. Settling disputes is one of them, prosecuting for crimes (including the aforementioned purposely burning your house down and making the neighbors breathe in the nasty crap),
[/quote]
This book has some pretty good ideas regarding free market justice, although I recommend starting at at least chapter 3, to avoid what I consider to be the phisosophical pseudoreligious mumbo jumbo, at the beginning.
To really cut to the chase of what I believe your question is, start at chapter 7.
http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10128#msg10128 date=1244344275]
the military
[/quote]
Of course, we've talked on this topic, but I'd like to add – you do know the founders opposed a standing army, because of the potential motivation for foreign adventurism?
I do support militias.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10128#msg10128 date=1244344275]
, and also things like licensing of the radio spectrum (nobody can rightfully "claim" a portion or all of the frequency spectrum, then lease it to others, but this one is weird, it'd take a lot of thinking on how to do this with the absolute least interference, but it needs to be done, lest Billy Bob just puts up huge towers and broadcasts his favorite songs on every single frequency he can think of, and nobody has the "right" to overpower him since he was there first, but why can one person lay claim to the whole spectrum (something nobody can own) simply because he was there first?)
[/quote]
Well, the question is, is the radio spectrum property, or not? If it's not, whoever can broadcast whatever they like, and in that context, I suggest that Billy Bob will not have the money to compete power-wise with business which provide a service everyone wants.
If it is property, I suggest we just transfer ownership of each spectral band to whoever the current licensee is, and they can sell or trade it if they wish.
I think the best solution may be to transfer ownership of the small number of frequencies the government currently licenses, and then leave the rest as a free for all. Licensed AM is 520 kHz–1,610 kHz, licensed FM is 87.5 - 108.0 MHz, whereas the whole range of usable radio frequencies is 10KHz to 100 GHz. Thus, you can see we're using a tiny, tiny fraction of the useful band. There would be a lot less conflict if it weren't for regulations narrowing this band so greatly.
Here's the history according to the totally unbiased (;)) Jeff Pearson & Mary Jones, of Pirate Radio USA, "During WWI restrictions were tight but loosened up afterwards for a few years, enabling the clever, creative, and curious to experiment with this exciting new tool for communication. But then by early 1922 all amateur stations were explicitly prohibited by the government. All of the early stations of this type then had to either change to fit the requirements of the government’s Department of Commerce or went off the air and most of these amateur broadcasters were told that this was a temporary measure until new regulations could be drawn up. Yet it was looking like this new "radio" stuff could be profitable, so licensing for low power, local, amateur stations was not introduced for a very long time and by long time we mean until 1998!"
But as we all know, government would never put extra restrictions on something, or add burdensome regulations, to keep out competition for their buddies ;D
ttie pretty much beat me to the punch on my response to your questions.
Most of your questions of course create impossible scenarios that would never actually happen in the real world. Case in point, Bill Bob and his entire ownership of the spectrum. First and for most, without government intervention you wouldn't have scarce radio frequencies. It was really the federal government of the world who said, 'this is where we will allow FM, and this is where we will allow AM' stations. Radios before this were broad spectrum radio devices akin to shortwave radios. Without government then radio stations would come together, perhaps(perhaps not), they would design radios or pay someone to design them.
Regardless Billy Bob would have to purchase a whole lot of equipment, spend a whole lot of money on land, on electricity, on staff to maintain his radios, to the point he would bankrupt himself. Lets assume for the moment he can do the impossible. If others object to him doing so, then they can ostracize always ostracize him. What would Billy Bob do if no one will sell him food he needs? Electronics? He could go off and take that which he wants however he will quickly find himself harmed in doing so. Perhaps you think that he could hire a bunch of goons to assist him to do so. If this actually occurred his costs would sky rocket because after a few of his soldiers die, they would ask for more money, there by costing more. Eventually he would end up dead, most likely from his own soldiers.
Everything that you think that government has to provide can actually be provided by the free market. Perhaps the reason why you don't think it can't be done privately is because you have never seen it because currently it is illegal to provide these services.
I can theorize a business model for just about any situation that you think that government is the only one can do it. If I can do it, someone else can do it, and someone else will help them fund it.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
How many people want to blow up Switzerland?
[/quote]
I don't know, how many people want to murder journalists for "insulting" Mohammad with a cartoon? If a freaking cartoon can piss people off enough to make them put a death sentence on someone's head… What happens if someone in a free nation "insults" Mohammad again, or does something else, and some crazed state like Iran says "you will hand him over to us, or we will launch a nuclear missile into your nation"?
Now there's plenty of other nutjobs out there besides just Fundamentalist Muslims who want to see us all dead or in submission to Islam, but let's just focus on this one for now.
The fact is, these fundamentalist Muslims, yeah, they want a country, but there are two places in their mind, dar-al-Islam, and dar-al-harb. In dar-al-Islam, you have nations that have submitted to Islam, and live under Sharia Law (try living under that for a while, makes Soviet Russia seem like a vacation). In dar-al-harb, you have nations that are in rebellion against Islam. They fight Jihad against these nations, and they have been fighting this war for over a thousand years. We are not going to "outlast" them, we will either defeat them or be defeated, simple as that. It may not be us, it may not even be our great great grandkids, but this idea of Fundamentalist Islam forcing the entire planet into submission to Islam is not going to go away. It might slow down for a little bit, maybe for centuries even, but it will never go away.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
That said, I do agree that there will probably always be a few crazies out there who would want to blow us up anyway. If I suspected that such a group were obtaining the resources and/or weapons to carry out such an attack, I would certainly help fund a larger scale defensive effort, and perhaps even a preemptive strike, if the evidence of an eminent attack became truly incontrovertible.
[/quote]
My point though is this: We all know that socialism does not work because everyone thinks "If I work all day for $100, but have to give $50 to the guy next door who does nothing, why should I work? I'll just sit at home and get $50 like my neighbor".
In absolutely exactly the same way, people will think "if someone else is going to pitch in to pay for the military, I'm going to keep my money and buy some movies instead".
It all boils down to this: Human beings are imperfect. They have been since the fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. Nobody has to teach my little kids how to be selfish, greedy, and nasty little kids (my 2 1/2 year old is a perfect example, he's a great kid, but if his 15 month old brother grabs "his" water cup, or heaven forbid "his" milk cup, watch out…) The anarchist premise that "if we need a military, people will freely purchase it" fails because it relies on a false perception of human nature. It fails for the same reason Socialism fails.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
One thing that could help is the same approach the FSP is doing. Instead of going around with a collection plate, where everyone's going to be worried they'll be the only one giving, divide up the cost to a reasonable amount per person, and take sign ups. Then, once the list is filled, the payments are taken. Also, I am sure there would be plenty of already well armed volunteers for an operation against a truly viable threat. If just NY city residents chipped in a buck each on average, they could pay for 300 stingers themselves, or AKs for 20,000. Two bucks each for a loaded F16, although I think it has been seen, there are cheaper ways to do things than advanced weaponry. If people were really concerned about a legitimate threat, plenty of money and volunteers would flood in.
[/quote]
That still dies on the hill of "human beings are imperfect", the same hill Socialism dies on, human nature. It's just one more method to get "everybody pitching in", it's still grown from the same root.
Plus, this still doesn't stop the ICBM launched from the pissed off state of Iran because we refused to hand over someone who insulted them.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
Also, how about just putting a big price on the heads of whoever is trying to attack us? I mean, we've spent hundreds of billions in Iraq, wheras a measly 1B on osama's head would be enough to motivate every bounty hunter on the planet. Again, though, I would be careful before using any of these approaches, and certainly would not in any "could potentially gain the capability to harm" situation. It would have to be an imminent threat.
Again, though, I think most threats would die off if we minded our own business, and extremists are a lot more able to raise hell in their own back yards, than all the way over here. 9/11 was a pretty crazy aberration – and again, one which I think would not have happened with a proper respect for the second amendment.
[/quote]
Bounties are one way, but how do you put a bounty on a rogue nation that is just plain pissed off at us because we're free, and we don't play by their rules? This could be one way to stop that ICBM, put a bounty out for anyone else to blow it up before it launches, but there's no guarantee there. But stopping that ICBM would be a pre-emptive strike against a nation you don't trust.
And still, raising the funds again dies on the problem of human nature.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
This book has some pretty good ideas regarding free market justice, although I recommend starting at at least chapter 3, to avoid what I consider to be the phisosophical pseudoreligious mumbo jumbo, at the beginning.
To really cut to the chase of what I believe your question is, start at chapter 7.
http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf
[/quote]
I'm on about page 850 of Atlas Shrugged right now, and bogged down trying to find more time to read as is. I'm going to burn the audio of the Market for Liberty book to CD and listen to it in the car, I do that a lot with business CD's I listen to.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
Of course, we've talked on this topic, but I'd like to add – you do know the founders opposed a standing army, because of the potential motivation for foreign adventurism?
I do support militias.
[/quote]
Yes I do know it was a hotly debated topic. But you also know where "The Shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Hymn came from, and who ordered it? Pre-emptive strikes have been around since this nation was founded. And the founders wanted to avoid foreign entanglements "for 30 years" because if we maintained that isolation for 30 years, we'd "be able to have our say anywhere in the world if need be".
But, we don't need to be in 130 countries, paying our military for their defense.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
Well, the question is, is the radio spectrum property, or not? If it's not, whoever can broadcast whatever they like, and in that context, I suggest that Billy Bob will not have the money to compete power-wise with business which provide a service everyone wants.
[/quote]
Ah, but if Billy Bob was using it first, then by definition they have no right to overpower his broadcast. If they did, they are committing a crime by interfering with his rights.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
If it is property, I suggest we just transfer ownership of each spectral band to whoever the current licensee is, and they can sell or trade it if they wish.
I think the best solution may be to transfer ownership of the small number of frequencies the government currently licenses, and then leave the rest as a free for all. Licensed AM is 520 kHz–1,610 kHz, licensed FM is 87.5 - 108.0 MHz, whereas the whole range of usable radio frequencies is 10KHz to 100 GHz. Thus, you can see we're using a tiny, tiny fraction of the useful band. There would be a lot less conflict if it weren't for regulations narrowing this band so greatly.
Here's the history according to the totally unbiased (;)) Jeff Pearson & Mary Jones, of Pirate Radio USA, "During WWI restrictions were tight but loosened up afterwards for a few years, enabling the clever, creative, and curious to experiment with this exciting new tool for communication. But then by early 1922 all amateur stations were explicitly prohibited by the government. All of the early stations of this type then had to either change to fit the requirements of the government’s Department of Commerce or went off the air and most of these amateur broadcasters were told that this was a temporary measure until new regulations could be drawn up. Yet it was looking like this new "radio" stuff could be profitable, so licensing for low power, local, amateur stations was not introduced for a very long time and by long time we mean until 1998!"
But as we all know, government would never put extra restrictions on something, or add burdensome regulations, to keep out competition for their buddies ;D
[/quote]
Still not sure how to handle this one, have licensed bands, and have free bands probably, I don't know. Kinda like roads, there's roads set aside for travel specifically, and there's open plains where you can travel all you want, but it's going to be chaos if too many people try to do it.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10175#msg10175 date=1244432126]
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692]
How many people want to blow up Switzerland?
[/quote]
I don't know, how many people want to murder journalists for "insulting" Mohammad with a cartoon? If a freaking cartoon can piss people off enough to make them put a death sentence on someones head… What happens if someone in a free nation "insults" Mohammad again, or does something else, and some crazed state like Iran says "you will hand him over to us, or we will launch a nuclear missile into your nation"?
[/quote]
Oooh nice change of subject there.
[quote]
Now there's plenty of other nutjobs out there besides just Fundamentalist Muslims who want to see us all dead or in submission to Islam, but let's just focus on this one for now.
The fact is, these fundamentalist Muslims, yeah, they want a country, but there are two places in their mind, dar-al-Islam, and dar-al-harb. In dar-al-Islam, you have nations that have submitted to Islam, and live under Sharia Law (try living under that for a while, makes Soviet Russia seem like a vacation). In dar-al-harb, you have nations that are in rebellion against Islam. They fight Jihad against these nations, and they have been fighting this war for over a thousand years. We are not going to "outlast" them, we will either defeat them or be defeated, simple as that. It may not be us, it may not even be our great great grandkids, but this idea of Fundamentalist Islam forcing the entire planet into submission to Islam is not going to go away. It might slow down for a little bit, maybe for centuries even, but it will never go away.
[/quote]
Interestingly enough Christianity had the same thing happen in its history, perhaps you have heard of the Inquisition? It happened, its was regional, never made it to the ends of the known Earth at the time. Today, Christianity is even more divisive then it has ever been. The reason of course is that some people will disagree with the idea of this form of Islam or that form of Islam and form a new version of Islam. I suspect, this is the reason why the Muslims I speak to about the subject label the 'militant Islam' as Islam perverted and how Allah will deal with them. Oddly enough(here's that damn Nazi card again), Hitler tried the same thing, to crush the 'dirty and filthy' Jews under his foot. I disagree with your assertion that Fundamentalist Islam forcing the planet into submission won't go away. We have seen in history that things like this fade away.
Really the thing that sets off these Fundamentalists is the fact the view some piece of ground as holy and that only they are allowed on it. So long as others who are not allowed on it, they will buzz and sting till the people back off.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692][quote]
That said, I do agree that there will probably always be a few crazies out there who would want to blow us up anyway. If I suspected that such a group were obtaining the resources and/or weapons to carry out such an attack, I would certainly help fund a larger scale defensive effort, and perhaps even a preemptive strike, if the evidence of an eminent attack became truly incontrovertible.
[/quote]
My point though is this: We all know that socialism does not work because everyone thinks "If I work all day for $100, but have to give $50 to the guy next door who does nothing, why should I work? I'll just sit at home and get $50 like my neighbor".
In absolutely exactly the same way, people will think "if someone else is going to pitch in to pay for the military, I'm going to keep my money and buy some movies instead".
It all boils down to this: Human beings are imperfect. They have been since the fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. Nobody has to teach my little kids how to be selfish, greedy, and nasty little kids (my 2 1/2 year old is a perfect example, he's a great kid, but if his 15 month old brother grabs "his" water cup, or heaven forbid "his" milk cup, watch out…) The anarchist premise that "if we need a military, people will freely purchase it" fails because it relies on a false perception of human nature. It fails for the same reason Socialism fails.
[/quote]
I think you don't have a good sense of 'human nature'. Perhaps, and I know you are reading Atlas Shrugged and all, but perhaps Mises' Man, State, and the Economy might have to look at humanity in a different light. In times past armies were raised rather quickly when something actually threatened the people. To say that it couldn't happen now because humanity has changed, since this would have to be one's premise since it has happened in history, is again a false conception. When a man's house is threatened, he will raise arms if allowed to. You need to only look to militias to see this is fact, not fiction.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692][quote]
One thing that could help is the same approach the FSP is doing. Instead of going around with a collection plate, where everyone's going to be worried they'll be the only one giving, divide up the cost to a reasonable amount per person, and take sign ups. Then, once the list is filled, the payments are taken. Also, I am sure there would be plenty of already well armed volunteers for an operation against a truly viable threat. If just NY city residents chipped in a buck each on average, they could pay for 300 stingers themselves, or AKs for 20,000. Two bucks each for a loaded F16, although I think it has been seen, there are cheaper ways to do things than advanced weaponry. If people were really concerned about a legitimate threat, plenty of money and volunteers would flood in.
[/quote]
That still dies on the hill of "human beings are imperfect", the same hill Socialism dies on, human nature. It's just one more method to get "everybody pitching in", it's still grown from the same root.
Plus, this still doesn't stop the ICBM launched from the pissed off state of Iran because we refused to hand over someone who insulted them.
[/quote]
I will not deny that human beings are imperfect, but they are reliably predictable. Imagine for a moment the State of Iran launches a missile at another State. What do you think the response of the other States with ICBMs would be? Would they simply say, 'ooops, there goes Iran hurting people. Well we won't do anything because it wasn't us after all'. The moment any State launches a ICBM at another State, that State who launched first will find themselves quickly turned to glass. In a small area like Iran, it's not going to take a whole lot to turn that area to glass. The problem with ICBMs is the finality of it all. Something both the Soviet State and the American State learned after 60 years of hostilities. It is a no-win proposition. Perhaps you can take out a large chuck of the other State but you can be rest assured that they will respond in kind and if part of your State is rendered uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years, you aren't getting out of the thicket so quickly.
A crazy mad man might get his hands on a ICBM and use it. The only defense to that is to have an equally big stick to smack him with. Of course there is the long abandon 'Star Wars' plan and the current 'Global Defense Intuitive' as well. Both haven't given much in defense yet, but under private hands it could very well reap results that would turn the idea of the use of ICBMs null-void.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692][quote]
Also, how about just putting a big price on the heads of whoever is trying to attack us? I mean, we've spent hundreds of billions in Iraq, wheras a measly 1B on osama's head would be enough to motivate every bounty hunter on the planet. Again, though, I would be careful before using any of these approaches, and certainly would not in any "could potentially gain the capability to harm" situation. It would have to be an imminent threat.
Again, though, I think most threats would die off if we minded our own business, and extremists are a lot more able to raise hell in their own back yards, than all the way over here. 9/11 was a pretty crazy aberration – and again, one which I think would not have happened with a proper respect for the second amendment.
[/quote]
Bounties are one way, but how do you put a bounty on a rogue nation that is just plain pissed off at us because we're free, and we don't play by their rules? This could be one way to stop that ICBM, put a bounty out for anyone else to blow it up before it launches, but there's no guarantee there. But stopping that ICBM would be a pre-emptive strike against a nation you don't trust.
And still, raising the funds again dies on the problem of human nature.
[/quote]
You don't put a bounty on a nation, it isn't a nation that is attacking and killing anyone, it is small groups of men and women who are doing the attacking. If Islam were so powerful they would have the entire area, as it is prior to invasion no more then several thousands died annually. So you put a price on the head of a state leader, or a religious leader. If it gets big enough, you might actually catch them. I don't think that would stop an ICBM, but my above arguments would.
This 'country' does a pretty damn good job of raising funds to support an over arching military force. I think your continued use of the 'human nature' as an argument is what you are left with when you can't come back with any argument. It's like the 'God' argument I hear from time to time. People who are very religious getting all bent out of shape when someone they love dies, when its not their loved one 'it's God's will' but the moment it's their loved one, its a really big deal.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692][quote]
Of course, we've talked on this topic, but I'd like to add – you do know the founders opposed a standing army, because of the potential motivation for foreign adventurism?
I do support militias.
[/quote]
Yes I do know it was a hotly debated topic. But you also know where "The Shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Hymn came from, and who ordered it? Pre-emptive strikes have been around since this nation was founded. And the founders wanted to avoid foreign entanglements "for 30 years" because if we maintained that isolation for 30 years, we'd "be able to have our say anywhere in the world if need be".
But, we don't need to be in 130 countries, paying our military for their defense.
[/quote]
Pre-emptive strikes are immoral and unlawful. Anyone willing to use them is also immoral and unlawful.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692][quote]
Well, the question is, is the radio spectrum property, or not? If it's not, whoever can broadcast whatever they like, and in that context, I suggest that Billy Bob will not have the money to compete power-wise with business which provide a service everyone wants.
[/quote]
Ah, but if Billy Bob was using it first, then by definition they have no right to overpower his broadcast. If they did, they are committing a crime by interfering with his rights.
[/quote]
Not everything can be property and are subject to property rights. Property rights exist to protect scarcity. As I said before there is this big huge radio spectrum, radio waves are limited by both wave form and technology used, so that being true they are not scarce in the same way land is, for example. My using a FM frequency in California does not in anyway stop you from using in New Hampshire, so it isn't subject to property rights, and the first use principle used to establish ownership.
Radio waves are not scarce in and of themselves, since I can sit here with power and my voice and transmit till the day I die. So if you and I decided to transmit on the same frequency, let us say you started first, I'm not violating your property rights because I'm not damaging the radio waves you are projecting, only interfering with them, interference isn't a crime. If it were, then you would have grounds to sue any one or anything created that effect what you want to do, such as people who use microwave ovens, big screen TV's, and cellular phones.
Now, let us say I try to over power your frequency and you ask me to stop and I say, I'm a jerk so no, you have the option to over power me or move to another frequency. Of course either one of us could also enlist the help and support of our neighbors in ostracizing each other for the other being a jerk thereby causing one of us to be so negatively effected that that one has to stop or risk pain. Which goes back to the nature of human beings, in that they seek pleasure and wish to avoid pain.
[quote author=ttie link=topic=1044.msg10138#msg10138 date=1244352692][quote]
If it is property, I suggest we just transfer ownership of each spectral band to whoever the current licensee is, and they can sell or trade it if they wish.
I think the best solution may be to transfer ownership of the small number of frequencies the government currently licenses, and then leave the rest as a free for all. Licensed AM is 520 kHz–1,610 kHz, licensed FM is 87.5 - 108.0 MHz, whereas the whole range of usable radio frequencies is 10KHz to 100 GHz. Thus, you can see we're using a tiny, tiny fraction of the useful band. There would be a lot less conflict if it weren't for regulations narrowing this band so greatly.
Here's the history according to the totally unbiased (;)) Jeff Pearson & Mary Jones, of Pirate Radio USA, "During WWI restrictions were tight but loosened up afterwards for a few years, enabling the clever, creative, and curious to experiment with this exciting new tool for communication. But then by early 1922 all amateur stations were explicitly prohibited by the government. All of the early stations of this type then had to either change to fit the requirements of the government’s Department of Commerce or went off the air and most of these amateur broadcasters were told that this was a temporary measure until new regulations could be drawn up. Yet it was looking like this new "radio" stuff could be profitable, so licensing for low power, local, amateur stations was not introduced for a very long time and by long time we mean until 1998!"
But as we all know, government would never put extra restrictions on something, or add burdensome regulations, to keep out competition for their buddies ;D
[/quote]
Still not sure how to handle this one, have licensed bands, and have free bands probably, I don't know. Kinda like roads, there's roads set aside for travel specifically, and there's open plains where you can travel all you want, but it's going to be chaos if too many people try to do it.
[/quote]
It will never be chaos. Scientist have already proven that chaos creates order, and it is forced order that creates chaos. Natural order forms from natural chaos. As far as bands and stuff go, are we not all enriched by the Internet(me, I like the variety of porno and feel enriched by that), in the same way we are enriched from chaos that is the internet, we would be equally enriched by the chaos that would be the radio waves or tv waves. Imagine millions of channel to listen to or watch. As far as roads go, people who wish to get from point A to point B will find a away to do so as it has been, so it shall always be.
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10175#msg10175 date=1244432126]It all boils down to this: Human beings are imperfect.[/quote]
The fallacy in this argument is that you've presented a problem but no one has ever made a convincing argument that handing over supreme authority to an arbitrarily selected group of imperfect human beings is the solution to that problem. If someone was dying of a horrible disease, it's akin to saying we MUST use this particular voodoo ritual or the person will die. You're clearly correct in pointing out a serious problem. You're not clearly convincing that your proposed solution, a particular voodoo ritual, will solve the problem. It's perfectly reasonable for me to point out the absurdity of the proposed solution even when I have no perfect solution myself. There are diseases that we still have very little treatment, much less cures for, but that doesn't mean I should support voodoo in the meantime. It's at best a distraction from an ongoing quest for better solutions, and at worst, the fantasy solution may be harmful as it is with statism.
We live in a very violent world filled with tyrannical governments that exploit innocent people. The proposed solution, a monopoly on violence given to an arbitrarily selected few people who are no better than anyone else, is in fact counter-intuitive. So I don't understand why people would even be surprised that the proposed solution has repeatedly failed throughout history. Monopolistic authoritarian governments also have a horrible track record of even addressing problems they were meant to solve.
We still have incredibly violent wars and loss of lives of Americans despite an ultra-powerful military. We still have significant crime and traffic accidents despite a police state. We still have expensive and poorly maintained roads despite public roads. While there is no assurance that free market, non-monopolistic alternatives will perform better, the one key difference is that they would be FAR more accountable. That's the whole point of opposing monopolies, because they are unaccountable to their customers. Why would we want to make an exception for the things that we consider some of the most important goals of a civilized society, i.e. protecting us and our rights?
And this is why minarchists seem borderline insane. They realize governments suck at everything and yet they insist that it handle the most crucial of responsibilities. At least statists have a consistent belief system because they start with that deluded foundation of a faith in governments and a fear of freedom and, once there, the conclusion that government should handle crucial responsibilities seems reasonable. The minarchist has no such explanation for their absurd conclusions.
Dale… +1, my friend. I wish I was as smart as you sound sometimes.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
Interestingly enough Christianity had the same thing happen in its history, perhaps you have heard of the Inquisition? It happened, its was regional, never made it to the ends of the known Earth at the time. Today, Christianity is even more divisive then it has ever been. The reason of course is that some people will disagree with the idea of this form of Islam or that form of Islam and form a new version of Islam. I suspect, this is the reason why the Muslims I speak to about the subject label the 'militant Islam' as Islam perverted and how Allah will deal with them. Oddly enough(here's that damn Nazi card again), Hitler tried the same thing, to crush the 'dirty and filthy' Jews under his foot.
[/quote]
The difference is, a fundamentalist Christian cannot go to the Bible and say "Look, God says to burn people at the stake for not being Christians". A Fundamentalist Muslim CAN go to the Koran and see ongoing commands from Allah to "slay the infidel, unless he converts, or is subject to you as a Dhimmi". The instances of these abuses in Christianity have no Biblical basis. Now, these sorts of things did happen (slaughtering entire towns) in the Old Testament, but they are one-time commands to the Jewish people (aka "go and utterly destroy this town, destroy every single thing in it, and leave nothing alive"). Nowhere will you find "Go into any town and slay everyone unless they convert".
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
I disagree with your assertion that Fundamentalist Islam forcing the planet into submission won't go away. We have seen in history that things like this fade away.
[/quote]
As I've said before, they've been fighting this war for over a millenium. They show no signs of ever stopping, and their holy book commands them to continue this war.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
Really the thing that sets off these Fundamentalists is the fact the view some piece of ground as holy and that only they are allowed on it. So long as others who are not allowed on it, they will buzz and sting till the people back off.
[/quote]
It's got nothing to do with the holy land. This war has been happening for (see above)… Back when the Muslims controlled the holy land, they still fought the war, and spread Islam. The only way it has EVER spread in history to become a dominant force in a nation has been through the sword.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
I think you don't have a good sense of 'human nature'. Perhaps, and I know you are reading Atlas Shrugged and all, but perhaps Mises' Man, State, and the Economy might have to look at humanity in a different light.
[/quote]
I'm not sure where you stand religiously, but from a Christian perspective, it is plain as day that human beings are imperfect and utterly incapable of perfection (or anywhere close to it). Christians go so far as to say that human beings in our fallen state (post the Garden of Eden) are naturally evil at the heart. That doesn't mean they're incapable of good tendencies and good things, but those things are not part of their nature in their fallen state. Heck, my 2 1/2 year old is a perfect example. He's the cutest friggin' kid, but he's got a mean streak a mile wide. His 5 year old sister used to be that way (I remember it well), but now has learned a few things and is "less" that way.
But even outside a Christian perspective, it is plain as day that humans are naturally inclined towards selfishness, greed, laziness, lust, unrighteous anger, lying, bitterness, envy, etc. Just watch any kids that haven't been taught otherwise. Adults are the same way, they're just better at hiding it.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
In times past armies were raised rather quickly when something actually threatened the people. To say that it couldn't happen now because humanity has changed, since this would have to be one's premise since it has happened in history, is again a false conception. When a man's house is threatened, he will raise arms if allowed to. You need to only look to militias to see this is fact, not fiction.
[/quote]
I'm not saying human nature has changed, I'm saying technology has changed. Centuries ago, if an army threatened a population, there was time to: Spread the word, raise funding, recruit soldiers, acquire equipment, train soldiers, develop a leadership hierarchy, march to battle, win.
With today's technology, you can instantly spread the word, but can't raise funding, can't acquire equipment (beyond basic arms in the hands of individuals, basically you can't acquire advanced equipment necessary to win a modern all-out war, and rifles don't stop nukes), etc…
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
I will not deny that human beings are imperfect, but they are reliably predictable. Imagine for a moment the State of Iran launches a missile at another State. What do you think the response of the other States with ICBMs would be? Would they simply say, 'ooops, there goes Iran hurting people. Well we won't do anything because it wasn't us after all'. The moment any State launches a ICBM at another State, that State who launched first will find themselves quickly turned to glass. In a small area like Iran, it's not going to take a whole lot to turn that area to glass. The problem with ICBMs is the finality of it all. Something both the Soviet State and the American State learned after 60 years of hostilities. It is a no-win proposition. Perhaps you can take out a large chuck of the other State but you can be rest assured that they will respond in kind and if part of your State is rendered uninhabitable for the next 10,000 years, you aren't getting out of the thicket so quickly.
A crazy mad man might get his hands on a ICBM and use it. The only defense to that is to have an equally big stick to smack him with. Of course there is the long abandon 'Star Wars' plan and the current 'Global Defense Intuitive' as well. Both haven't given much in defense yet, but under private hands it could very well reap results that would turn the idea of the use of ICBMs null-void.
[/quote]
I won't disagree on the Missile Defense Systems proposed, in private hands (if allowed to be made or a profit, heck, put a bounty on it, and agree to pay the private company $1B per year for the first 10 years of operation if they successfully produce the system, and $100M per year to keep the system operational after that. (These are all arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air by the way).
But with the "other states" idea, you're relying on other states' possession of ICBM's for your security. That is not under your control, and shouldn't weigh in on your long term position. Short term yeah, we're pretty sure Britain, France, India, and (though they'll never admit it) Israel would come to our defense if someone launched at us, and we had nothing to shoot back with. But long term, who knows. Iran used to be our staunch friend and ally till we let the Ayatollah Khomeini oust the Shah of Iran, then all hell broke loose in short order.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
Pre-emptive strikes are immoral and unlawful. Anyone willing to use them is also immoral and unlawful.
[/quote]
Don't let this come across the wrong way, but I feel sorry for your family, that you would not use pre-emptive force to defend them if someone threatened them. You can go right ahead and condemn me, because if someone says "I am going to kill you and your family" and I know they mean it, I am going to pre-emptively use force to stop them as soon as possible. I will first call in the local sheriff, if that fails, then I will personally use force (deadly if necessary) to stop them myself.
In the same way, if the leader of Iran is saying "We are going to wipe Israel off the face of the planet", means every word of it, and is actively working to acquire a nuclear bomb, I have no problem with Israel doing whatever they can, using force, to stop them. Obviously they shouldn't just pop off a nuke in the center of Iran, but if that was the ONLY way, and it was them getting nuked, or nuking Iran themselves, I would not condemn Israel for stopping them first.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
Not everything can be property and are subject to property rights. Property rights exist to protect scarcity. As I said before there is this big huge radio spectrum, radio waves are limited by both wave form and technology used, so that being true they are not scarce in the same way land is, for example. My using a FM frequency in California does not in anyway stop you from using in New Hampshire, so it isn't subject to property rights, and the first use principle used to establish ownership.
Radio waves are not scarce in and of themselves, since I can sit here with power and my voice and transmit till the day I die. So if you and I decided to transmit on the same frequency, let us say you started first, I'm not violating your property rights because I'm not damaging the radio waves you are projecting, only interfering with them, interference isn't a crime. If it were, then you would have grounds to sue any one or anything created that effect what you want to do, such as people who use microwave ovens, big screen TV's, and cellular phones.
[/quote]
Ah, but it's harming someone else's rights. If someone's on a pacemaker let's say, and any reasonable microwave transmission wouldn't interfere with it, but Fred down the street wants to set a world record for the most powerful microwave generation by an amateur, and cooks the dude's pacemaker, and he dies. Fred is obviously guilty of causing harm to that individual, since his actions were outside the scope of what could reasonably be expected to be transmitted on that frequency under any normal circumstances.
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=1044.msg10189#msg10189 date=1244462469]
Now, let us say I try to over power your frequency and you ask me to stop and I say, I'm a jerk so no, you have the option to over power me or move to another frequency. Of course either one of us could also enlist the help and support of our neighbors in ostracizing each other for the other being a jerk thereby causing one of us to be so negatively effected that that one has to stop or risk pain. Which goes back to the nature of human beings, in that they seek pleasure and wish to avoid pain.
It will never be chaos. Scientist have already proven that chaos creates order, and it is forced order that creates chaos. Natural order forms from natural chaos. As far as bands and stuff go, are we not all enriched by the Internet(me, I like the variety of porno and feel enriched by that), in the same way we are enriched from chaos that is the internet, we would be equally enriched by the chaos that would be the radio waves or tv waves. Imagine millions of channel to listen to or watch. As far as roads go, people who wish to get from point A to point B will find a away to do so as it has been, so it shall always be.
[/quote]
The thing is, on the internet, everyone by definition stays out of everyone else's way. Private, physically bounded lines are used to transmit data, and bandwidth across them is paid for on a use basis. If there becomes more demand, we can create more lines. With radio transmission, we can't just create more bands, there is an upper limit on the amount of data that can be transmitted in any given frequency range (known as Shannon's Law). At some point, in any given region of space, the absolute maximum limit could be reached, and no more data could be transmitted at that particular time. In this case, potentially the best method for handling the frequency spectrum is not to license it, but for private individuals to own a portion of it in a particular region, with the ability to sell it, break it up into smaller regions, merge it into larger regions, etc…
[quote author=Dalebert link=topic=1044.msg10197#msg10197 date=1244473301]
[quote author=barwick11 link=topic=1044.msg10175#msg10175 date=1244432126]It all boils down to this: Human beings are imperfect.[/quote]
The fallacy in this argument is that you've presented a problem but no one has ever made a convincing argument that handing over supreme authority to an arbitrarily selected group of imperfect human beings is the solution to that problem. If someone was dying of a horrible disease, it's akin to saying we MUST use this particular voodoo ritual or the person will die. You're clearly correct in pointing out a serious problem. You're not clearly convincing that your proposed solution, a particular voodoo ritual, will solve the problem. It's perfectly reasonable for me to point out the absurdity of the proposed solution even when I have no perfect solution myself. There are diseases that we still have very little treatment, much less cures for, but that doesn't mean I should support voodoo in the meantime. It's at best a distraction from an ongoing quest for better solutions, and at worst, the fantasy solution may be harmful as it is with statism.
We live in a very violent world filled with tyrannical governments that exploit innocent people. The proposed solution, a monopoly on violence given to an arbitrarily selected few people who are no better than anyone else, is in fact counter-intuitive. So I don't understand why people would even be surprised that the proposed solution has repeatedly failed throughout history. Monopolistic authoritarian governments also have a horrible track record of even addressing problems they were meant to solve.
We still have incredibly violent wars and loss of lives of Americans despite an ultra-powerful military. We still have significant crime and traffic accidents despite a police state. We still have expensive and poorly maintained roads despite public roads. While there is no assurance that free market, non-monopolistic alternatives will perform better, the one key difference is that they would be FAR more accountable. That's the whole point of opposing monopolies, because they are unaccountable to their customers. Why would we want to make an exception for the things that we consider some of the most important goals of a civilized society, i.e. protecting us and our rights?
And this is why minarchists seem borderline insane. They realize governments suck at everything and yet they insist that it handle the most crucial of responsibilities. At least statists have a consistent belief system because they start with that deluded foundation of a faith in governments and a fear of freedom and, once there, the conclusion that government should handle crucial responsibilities seems reasonable. The minarchist has no such explanation for their absurd conclusions.
[/quote]
I'll flat out admit that it boils down to force. Yes, we would force to make everyone pay a portion for defense. It is a known solution, though since it involves government, it is an inherently imperfect solution. But lacking any reasonable solution (that solves the human nature problem that socialism also fails on) for how you stop advanced weapons that cannot be stopped except by other advanced weapons, which cannot be purchased by an individual or small group. Lacking this solution that relies solely on the free market, a government-run military is still the best solution.
The minarchist thing is funny, but misleading. They don't insist on giving government power over the most crucial of responsibilities, they insist on giving government power over only those things a private individual cannot reasonably fund or handle themselves. This includes setting disputes, military, etc. Make those institutions as accountable as possible, but there is no reasonable way for you and I, or the whole city of Keene, to stop an ICBM by ourselves.