[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50550#msg50550 date=1299188596]
You still don't get it.
What are YOU going to do?
Are YOU gonna be the guy playing the stereo too loud?
Are YOU going to be the neighbor or the stereo too loud guy.
That's the ONLY question.
[/quote]
Argumentative and inflammatory with no reasonable contribution to this conversation. Try again.
Joesph-
AGAIN you respond with a hypocritical, non-liberty, non-freedom post. You get your rocks off by telling me how I'm a bad enforcer of rules, and you counter with telling me that YOU can enforce rules that YOU see fit. And get this- you even ADVOCATE violence as a means to the end, all this because your can declare war based upon a 'contract.' Very impressive thought process…
Ok there, thug cop. I'll be sure to keep my radio down or feel the wrath of your hitmen.
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50547#msg50547 date=1299183365]
I am a government licensed busy-body. It's my job to get up in your shit.
If you don't answer my questions, I'll have a government licensed fit.
[/quote]
You got some competition, Richard.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50554#msg50554 date=1299193576]
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50549#msg50549 date=1299187684]
If there is a contract in place, the loud music person will restitute the others at what ever the agreed restitution was or find that others will not "do business" with him.
Of course before it gets to that point, it's possible that a good neighbor relationship would have been cultivated and you could simply ask the neighbor politely if they'd mind turning the music down.
Violent solutions are not always needed. Speaking of which, how do you feel about arresting peaceful people for consuming a plant ? Do you believe that is an acceptable action? if you see yourself as a protector when one party is aggressing against another how do you explain when a person bothering nobody is aggressed against by police?
[/quote]
You might not do business with the guy, so instead he goes into town where he gets what he needs and bypasses you. You now lose TWICE- you lose business and you get the loud music treatment.
[/quote]
I might not do business with him, but in a peaceful society I feel his reputation will be important to him and others might not do business with him either and he will be aware of that and given time to reflect on his bad behavior may apologize or modify his behavior. I'm willing to give him that chance.
Or I might smoke a joint with him or drink a beer or both and gain his friendship and help him understand it's in our mutual best interests to be reasonable…so do you come in and arrest us ? Why?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50556#msg50556 date=1299194083]AGAIN you respond with a hypocritical, non-liberty, non-freedom post.[/quote]
I happen to consider that libel, unless you can back it up…
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50556#msg50556 date=1299194083]You get your rocks off by telling me how I'm a bad enforcer of rules, and you counter with telling me that YOU can enforce rules that YOU see fit. And get this- you even ADVOCATE violence as a means to the end, all this because your can declare war based upon a 'contract.' Very impressive thought process…[/quote]
I can enforce only the same rules that any other human being can enforce. I don't get to make them up as I go along. I don't get to say, "well, orders are orders." I can only do exactly what any other person can do, and anyone I hire can only do the same.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50556#msg50556 date=1299194083]Ok there, thug cop. I'll be sure to keep my radio down or feel the wrath of your hitmen.[/quote]
Only hitman posting here is yourself.
Joe
[color=red]"If we have a contract, then his violation of said contract is an initiation of force, and I might even respond forcefully, if peaceful means do not work. I might do so, myself, or I might hire someone else to act on my behalf."[/color]
Let's break down this statement, since these two sentences say a lot about your illogical ideal.
Let's first discuss this 'contract.' With whom is it made? How long is it in effect? Does this contract stipulate penalties for violations of it? Is it made in good faith or under duress? Is it a legally binding contract in which both parties receive equal, adequate, or acceptable compensation form each other?
Now let's talk about exactly how a violation of a contract is an initiation of force. Please provide an example of how a civil contract becomes a means for you to use force on a person. Keep in mind the liberty/freedom movement and the principle that you are a sovereign individual responsible for yourself.
Suppose a part of my contract is that I pay you a dollar a week to come weed my garden. I decide to not pay you because you did a shitty job. You feel that you spent an hour of your day doing the job to the best of your ability, and deserve to be paid. How do you handle this contract? Are you able to use force on me to take my dollar? Assume that you can't just forget about this dollar, because you are just one dollar short of making your rent payment and you NEED this money. How does your contract resolve such an issue if the other party refuses to compensate you at all (ie no money/no trades) for your labor?
At what point do you 'gain' the right to harm another person?
When is it acceptable to hire a hitman?
I've already noticed you make a habit of dodging and not answering questions, and instead spout nonsense about thug cops, jack boots, and freedom issues. Try to answer these without being a hypocrite.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50555#msg50555 date=1299193675]
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50550#msg50550 date=1299188596]
You still don't get it.
What are YOU going to do?
Are YOU gonna be the guy playing the stereo too loud?
Are YOU going to be the neighbor or the stereo too loud guy.
That's the ONLY question.
[/quote]
Argumentative and inflammatory with no reasonable contribution to this conversation. Try again.
[/quote]
I apologize to everybody for dominating the topic.
First off, this is not a conversation.
You are the tick on my neck that justifies it's blood lust.
You are not in charge here. You do not decide what is to be tried again.
If you are unable to look into yourself and answer these questions honestly;
then what you're looking for isn't here.
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50561#msg50561 date=1299196032]
I apologize to everybody for dominating the topic.
First off, this is not a conversation.
You are the tick on my neck that justifies it's blood lust.
You are not in charge here. You do not decide what is to be tried again.
If you are unable to look into yourself and answer these questions honestly;
then what you're looking for isn't here.
[/quote]
Argumentative…again. No points are made, just baseless attacks and juvenile remarks.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50560#msg50560 date=1299195907]Let's first discuss this 'contract.' With whom is it made? How long is it in effect? Does this contract stipulate penalties for violations of it? Is it made in good faith or under duress? Is it a legally binding contract in which both parties receive equal, adequate, or acceptable compensation form each other?[/quote]
If it's made under duress or the like, then it isn't actually a contract.
A contract is a meeting of the minds. I agree to do X, and you agree to do Y. Any such agreement is a contract. Often, folks will write contracts down, as it is easier to make sure that everyone actually did have a meeting of the minds.
In the specific example, presumably it's something along the lines of "neither of us will emit sounds above X dB, between the hours of Y and Z."
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50560#msg50560 date=1299195907]Now let's talk about exactly how a violation of a contract is an initiation of force. Please provide an example of how a civil contract becomes a means for you to use force on a person. Keep in mind the liberty/freedom movement and the principle that you are a sovereign individual responsible for yourself.[/quote]
There is no difference between stealing $100 from me, if it takes me an hour to earn $100, or enslaving me for an hour. Only Statists try to make a distinction, so they can pretend that they are not slavers at heart.
Any violation of my consent is an act of force against me, whether it be direct violence, theft, or whatever. You can't drug a woman and then claim it wasn't rape, because she never actually said, "no," and you used no direct violence. You violated her self-ownership the moment you gave her a drug without her consent.
I'd suggest reading this article, so you at least have the basic background needed to understand what's being discussed: http://mises.org/daily/4698
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50560#msg50560 date=1299195907]Suppose a part of my contract is that I pay you a dollar a week to come weed my garden. I decide to not pay you because you did a shitty job. You feel that you spent an hour of your day doing the job to the best of your ability, and deserve to be paid. How do you handle this contract? Are you able to use force on me to take my dollar? Assume that you can't just forget about this dollar, because you are just one dollar short of making your rent payment and you NEED this money. How does your contract resolve such an issue if the other party refuses to compensate you at all (ie no money/no trades) for your labor?[/quote]
How do I, personally, handle it? Most likely, in a free society, I would carry an insurance policy to protect against fraud, and my insurance company would reimburse me, then they would seek damages against you for the actual amount they paid out to me, plus the costs they incurred in the process of doing so. It's called "restitution."
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50560#msg50560 date=1299195907]At what point do you 'gain' the right to harm another person?[/quote]
At the moment he violates your self-ownership.
And never else.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50560#msg50560 date=1299195907]When is it acceptable to hire a hitman?[/quote]
You may use force necessary to defend yourself, or to obtain restitution from someone who refuses to provide it. Hiring a hitman to murder him is not an attempt to obtain restitution.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50560#msg50560 date=1299195907]I've already noticed you make a habit of dodging and not answering questions, and instead spout nonsense about thug cops, jack boots, and freedom issues. Try to answer these without being a hypocrite.[/quote]
That's ludicrous and libelous. Provide a list of questions I have not answered.
Because you know that I can provide a long list of questions you have failed to answer.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50562#msg50562 date=1299196176]
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50561#msg50561 date=1299196032]
I apologize to everybody for dominating the topic.
First off, this is not a conversation.
You are the tick on my neck that justifies it's blood lust.
You are not in charge here. You do not decide what is to be tried again.
If you are unable to look into yourself and answer these questions honestly;
then what you're looking for isn't here.
[/quote]
Argumentative…again. No points are made, just baseless attacks and juvenile remarks.
[/quote]
Points? What points? Who tries to make points? Someone that is negotiating!
I am not arguing, I am telling you that you are a crook.
You are an armed strong man for a power that most people believe is legitimate.
What we are telling you is that there is NO legitimate power.
And that most people are WRONG. This is IMMUTABLE.
It is the one fact of our existence. This is reality.
Until you can wrap your head around that, your words are more than meaningless.
You can promise us anarchy and killing in the streets if we don't follow your illusion,
and hey, if the people don't supply the riots, anyone that wants to be in charge will happily rustle one up.
It's all been done, Crappy. It's not necessary, it's just expedient.
And, its a shame. 
Just so I have it straight- it is your contention that a civil contract justifies a means to use force? How interesting. Now you are using the idea that a contract, which is only 'legal' because a man in a robe and who calls himself a judge, believes the concept of contracts, somehow grants YOU the power to put someone into a cage or gives YOU the 'right' to physically harm someone over a dollar. This is quite a development in the freedom movement, especially since non-violence is your answer to everything.
So now you have the right to be a jackbooted thug cop in two scenarios, where does it end? And where exactly does your right to be a jackbooted thug cop come from again? Does it come from the 'legitimacy' of the contract that was violated? Or do you just gain some kind of natural ability to be an enforcer thug when you believe you have been wronged?
I'm a little confused about your liberty movement. I thought there was no violence unless someone raped you or something. You seem to love the idea of rape, since you've used it as an example a few times now. So let's use rape as my next example.
X 'accuses' Y of rape. Since you do not believe in the concept of the court system, nor laws, nor enforcers of the law (unless it suits you), how do you go about
punishing X in the freedom movement? What happens if X is from a society where 'rape' is accepted and he enters your society only because his car broke down and he is stuck there. He did not CHOOSE to pick your society, nor did he CHOOSE to stay, but for the moment he is stuck there. He is a sovereign citizen of Rapeville and only listens to the laws of that land.
Now let's assume A allegedly rapes B. A lives in your land, but he is the son of the man that signed a contract to live there. 'A' has no contract with your land, and is a sovereign citizen. Is "A" even able to be held since he hasn't signed your land's contract nor agreed to abide by the rules?
One last rape scenario: 1 allegedly rapes 2. 1 is a citizen of your freedomland. WHO presides or judges over 1 and who is responsible for the investigation? Since jackboot thug enforcers are not available to you, now what?
I just want to know exactly how far you can enforce all your arbitrary rules and who is bound by them?
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50566#msg50566 date=1299199205]
Points? What points? Who tries to make points? Someone that is negotiating!
I am not arguing, I am telling you that you are a crook.
You are an armed strong man for a power that most people believe is legitimate.
What we are telling you is that there is NO legitimate power.
And that most people are WRONG. This is IMMUTABLE.
It is the one fact of our existence. This is reality.
Until you can wrap your head around that, your words are more th
You can promise us anarchy and killing in the streets if we don't follow your illusion,
and hey, if the people don't supply the riots, anyone that wants to be in charge will happily rustle one up.
It's all been done, Crappy. It's not necessary, it's just expedient.
And, its a shame. :'(
[/quote]
Dude. There is no reason for you to be so angry. Will you just chill the hell out and get with the program here? We have a dialogue going here, and whether or not you care to accept it is your choice. But I'm sure the people participating in it would rather you add to this dialogue instead of cloud it with your anger and ill-conceived notions. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't threatened anyone with anything. There's simply no need to.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50568#msg50568 date=1299200112]
[quote author=Whammo link=topic=4846.msg50566#msg50566 date=1299199205]
Points? What points? Who tries to make points? Someone that is negotiating!
I am not arguing, I am telling you that you are a crook.
You are an armed strong man for a power that most people believe is legitimate.
What we are telling you is that there is NO legitimate power.
And that most people are WRONG. This is IMMUTABLE.
It is the one fact of our existence. This is reality.
Until you can wrap your head around that, your words are more th
You can promise us anarchy and killing in the streets if we don't follow your illusion,
and hey, if the people don't supply the riots, anyone that wants to be in charge will happily rustle one up.
It's all been done, Crappy. It's not necessary, it's just expedient.
And, its a shame. :'(
[/quote]
Dude. There is no reason for you to be so angry. Will you just chill the hell out and get with the program here? We have a dialogue going here, and whether or not you care to accept it is your choice. But I'm sure the people participating in it would rather you add to this dialogue instead of cloud it with your anger and ill-conceived notions. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't threatened anyone with anything. There's simply no need to.
[/quote]
Really? No need to be angry? Get with the program? Ill conceived notions?
You really are lost aren't you?
Mr. Empathy,
In case you didn't notice, I am actually ashamed for you.
That would explain the "its a shame' comment and the widdle crying frown-y face.
You think you're doing some kind of fucking outreach?
You're a huckster peddling poison or some kind of preacher is what you are.
The worst part… Okay, it pains me to say it.
Up until now…
It's not your fault.
Listen man, if you get your jollies by internet badmouthing a cop, then more power to ya. But everyone reading this knows who needs to be ashamed. Least I can keep it somewhat civil.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]Just so I have it straight- it is your contention that a civil contract justifies a means to use force? How interesting.[/quote]
Yup. We agree on that one.
Only I won't lock someone a cage for the rest of his life for refusing to obey some court order.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]Now you are using the idea that a contract, which is only 'legal' because a man in a robe and who calls himself a judge, believes the concept of contracts, somehow grants YOU the power to put someone into a cage or gives YOU the 'right' to physically harm someone over a dollar.[/quote]
What are you rambling about? A contract exists because two or more people made an agreement, not because of your silly men in dresses.
And nothing gives me, or anyone else, the right to put someone in a cage. If necessary, I will defend myself with force, up to and including lethal force. But only an inhuman monster would lock someone in a cage. That's degrading and depraved.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]This is quite a development in the freedom movement, especially since non-violence is your answer to everything.[/quote]
Uh, no. As previously noted, I'm willing to use force to defend myself, and have even done so. Non-violence is just my first resort. It's not the only option, unlike you folks, who think that violence is the first, last, and only response to any situation.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]So now you have the right to be a jackbooted thug cop in two scenarios, where does it end? And where exactly does your right to be a jackbooted thug cop come from again? Does it come from the 'legitimacy' of the contract that was violated? Or do you just gain some kind of natural ability to be an enforcer thug when you believe you have been wronged?[/quote]
No one has the right to be a jackbooted cop. All any person has is the right to self-ownership, and the resulting right to self-defense.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]I'm a little confused about your liberty movement. I thought there was no violence unless someone raped you or something. You seem to love the idea of rape, since you've used it as an example a few times now. So let's use rape as my next example.[/quote]
No, that would be a pacifist movement, not a liberty movement.
But if you want to say that anyone "loves the idea of rape," feel free to say it again, and I'll provide you some examples of your brothers in blue, who really do seem to love rape. Especially raping children and the disabled.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]X 'accuses' Y of rape. Since you do not believe in the concept of the court system, nor laws, nor enforcers of the law (unless it suits you), how do you go about punishing X in the freedom movement?[/quote]
We don't. Punishment is the pruview of children with sick revenge fantasies. If you harm someone unjustly, you owe that individual restitution - something good in equal magnitude to the evil that you did. If you walk up to me and punch me in the face, maybe I decide that a nice dinner with my wife at our favorite restaurant is equal in magnitude to the harm you caused, so I demand $250 in restitution, to make that happen.
Rape often causes little physical harm, but can cause very large amounts of emotional harm. A rape victim might need counseling for years, and a lot of other things, in addition to compensation for the emotional damage. You could end up writing your victim a check each week, for many, many years.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]What happens if X is from a society where 'rape' is accepted and he enters your society only because his car broke down and he is stuck there. He did not CHOOSE to pick your society, nor did he CHOOSE to stay, but for the moment he is stuck there. He is a sovereign citizen of Rapeville and only listens to the laws of that land.[/quote]
The non-aggression principle is a universal moral principle. There's nowhere that it's okay to commit rape.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]Now let's assume A allegedly rapes B. A lives in your land, but he is the son of the man that signed a contract to live there. 'A' has no contract with your land, and is a sovereign citizen. Is "A" even able to be held since he hasn't signed your land's contract nor agreed to abide by the rules?[/quote]
No one can be held. It's in the interest of the accused to submit to some sort of mediation or arbitration. If it takes me ten years to track you down and obtain justice, my costs only increase what you owe in restitution. As soon as you are accused, you should be seeking to clear your name.
Of course, you might also offer to show up, in exchange for a set limit on the maximum amount of the restitution claim. If I may demand a million ounces of gold as restitution, you have no reason to even show up, since you cannot possibly pay that. If I say that I will not seek to obtain more than a hundred ounces, you may show up in exchange for knowing that there's a set maximum amount, because I voluntarily bound myself by contract not to seek more. Having you show up promptly, rather than having to try and track you down and pressure you to show up by convincing others not to do business with you (or whatnot) makes my life easier, so it's in my own best interest to make such an offer.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]One last rape scenario: 1 allegedly rapes 2. 1 is a citizen of your freedomland. WHO presides or judges over 1 and who is responsible for the investigation? Since jackboot thug enforcers are not available to you, now what?[/quote]
We don't have "citizens," but anyway… presumably, 2 has insurance coverage for investigations. If not, there are likely many who will volunteer to donate money to the cause of investigating whether a rape occurred, or else they may be at risk of becoming victims. Plus, if a rape did occur, they can seek restitution from the rapist, as well.
Likely, they would hire a private investigator to do the actual legwork. Being subject to the market, rather than having a monopoly, private police would have to actually maintain professional standards of honor and integrity in order to get business, and would be subject to claims if they act in violation of anyone's rights, rather than being shielded by the "thin blue line."
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50567#msg50567 date=1299199697]I just want to know exactly how far you can enforce all your arbitrary rules and who is bound by them?[/quote]
We only have one rule. And it's less arbitrary than gravitation.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50571#msg50571 date=1299202837]
Listen man, if you get your jollies by internet badmouthing a cop, then more power to ya. But everyone reading this knows who needs to be ashamed. Least I can keep it somewhat civil.
[/quote]
Oh yes, lets do be wonderfully civil.
I think everyone is happy I'm getting my jollies this way, rather than by taking down fellow free men.
I should be ashamed to speak freely and passionately in the face of 'the master'?
You think I am a peer-pressure pansy?
Your appeal to civility is just another pathetic excuse to control the ideas and means of expression here.
Possibly if you go back, and answer the questions posed to you honestly, you might experience an emotional response akin to civility.
You are the one that broke the social contract. First for aggression upon peaceful people,
Fraud, by coming in here baldfaced lying that "there seems to be a lot of misguided and misdirected anger toward the rank and file cops and legal system in general."
The fact is, that this anger is perfectly guided AND precisely directed toward the individuals that pretend to be the rank and file cops and legal system in general.
You are the ones that are misguided and whose anger is misdirected towards peaceful people.
This is what in government psych jargon means "Projection".
If you're going to expect others to be what you consider 'civil', then maybe you should behave in a manner they consider civil,
instead of deciding for them what it means to BE civil.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50540#msg50540 date=1299151754]
In your utopia of the free state project, how do you deal with someone that plays his music too loud and too late into the night when you need to work the next morning? Assume the person playing the music is using his individual freedom to do so, and outright refuses your request to turn it down. What now?
[/quote]
I find it terribly amusing that you've chosen this as an example of some value being provided by police departments. I had this very, VERY, let me tell you this exact problem. I had just signed a year's lease next to a house full of neighbors from hell. I mean, drinking, swearing, fighting loud music at all hours on all days.
You know what the cops did for me? They came by once, told him to turn it down, left, and disregarded my further phone calls. Of course, this emboldened the neighbors who were even worse after that.
Finally, what worked, I talked not to the government, but to their landlord. I also walked by their house a couple times with some friends while we were all open carrying, smiled, said hi real friendly. Nothing threatening, just neighborly. They got right quiet after that. Problem solved. Help from cops: less than zero.
If solving problems with unruly neighbors is the best you can come up with to prove that police agencies do something useful that people can't do themselves, then thank you very much, because you've just strengthened my already firm belief that police agencies do more harm than good.
Earlier in the discussion, the reference to "society" was made.
I like Rothbard's take on "society":
[quote]Society and the Individual
We have talked at length of individual rights; but what, it may be asked, of the "rights of society"? Don't they supersede the rights of the mere individual? The libertarian, however, is an individualist; he believes that one of the prime errors in social theory is to treat "society" as if it were an actually existing entity. "Society" is sometimes treated as a superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding "rights" of its own; at other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, choose, and act; and that "society" is not a living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure the real forces at work. If, in a small community, ten people band together to rob and expropriate three others, then this is clearly and evidently a case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, the rationale would be laughed out of court; even the [p. 38] ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of obfuscation becomes rife and succeeds in duping the public.
The fallacious use of a collective noun like "nation," similar in this respect to "society," has been trenchantly pointed out by the historian Parker T. Moon:
[quote]When one uses the simple monosyllable "France" one thinks of France as a unit, an entity. When . . . we say "France sent her troops to conquer Tunis" — we impute not only unit but personality to the country. The very words conceal the facts and make international relations a glamorous drama in which personalized nations are the actors, and all too easily we forget the flesh-and-blood men and women who are the true actors . . . if we had no such word as "France". . . then we should more accurately describe the Tunis expedition in some such way as this: "A few of these thirty-eight million persons sent thirty thousand others to conquer Tunis." This way of putting the fact immediately suggests a question, or rather a series of questions. Who were the "few"? Why did they send the thirty thousand to Tunis? And why did these obey? Empire-building is done not by "nations," but by men. The problem before us is to discover the men, the active, interested minorities in each nation, who are directly interested in imperialism and then to analyze the reasons why the majorities pay the expense and fight the war necessitated by imperialist expansion.[/quote]
The individualist view of "society" has been summed up in the phrase: "Society" is everyone but yourself. Put thus bluntly, this analysis can be used to consider those cases where "society" is treated, not only as a superhero with superrights, but as a supervillain on whose shoulders massive blame is placed. Consider the typical view that not the individual criminal, but "society," is responsible for his crime. Take, for example, the case where Smith robs or murders Jones. The "old-fashioned" view is that Smith is responsible for his act. The modern liberal counters that "society" is responsible. This sounds both sophisticated and humanitarian, until we apply the individualist perspective. Then we see that what liberals are really saying is that everyone but Smith, including of course the victim Jones, is responsible for the crime. Put this baldly, almost everyone would recognize the absurdity of this position. But conjuring up the fictive entity "society" obfuscates this process. As the sociologist Arnold W. Green puts it: "It would follow, then, that if society is responsible for crime, and criminals are not responsible for crime, only those members of society who do not commit crime can [p. 39] be held responsible for crime. Nonsense this obvious can be circumvented only by conjuring up society as devil, as evil being apart from people and what they do."
The great American libertarian writer Frank Chodorov stressed this view of society when he wrote that "Society Are People."
[quote]Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people. So, too, is family or crowd or gang, or any other name we give to an agglomeration of persons. Society . . . is not an extra "person"; if the census totals a hundred million, that's all there are, not one more, for there cannot be any accretion to Society except by procreation. The concept of Society as a metaphysical person falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse; as in the case of a "ghost town" or of a civilization we learn about by the artifacts they left behind. When the individuals disappear so does the whole. The whole has no separate existence. Using the collective noun with a singular verb leads us into a trap of the imagination; we are prone to personalize the collectivity and to think of it as having a body and a psyche of its own.[/quote][/quote]
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
Its interesting that the cop focuses on the proper use of violence.
I believe that only sociopaths and people with violent tenacities use justification for the initiations of violence. I'm going to spin this conversation in a different direction since I don't believe in things like 'rights' and what not, like some of my neighbors do.
So my neighbor plays his music too loud. I ask him to turn it down. He refuses. I have the ability to shoot him dead and end the problem right then and there. Problem solved, no more music. I'm responsible for my actions and my actions have consequences. If I behaved this way I think I would quickly find myself at the barrel of gun. Cops face this situation often since the public perception is that police are more likely to use violence to solve a situation then try to talk someone down. If they have done something wrong or face going to jail, it may be justified in their mind to kill a cop in order to avoid being put into a cage. But back to me shooting my neighbor for the loud music. Most likely I wouldn't be caught shooting my neighbor without some 'authorities' in place to investigate the crime, catalog the evidence, and put it in to a database for the future, it really doesn't matter because eventually someone would be ready down the line to put me in my place(those who live by the sword, die by the sword). So assume I am caught. People will treat me differently, in fact they may walk around me with their hand on their firearm and even a slight twitch to my firearm would quickly use it without another thought. All of this leads to me deciding not to kill my neighbor, because I like my life and don't want to lose it unnecessarily. This is the only justification, I need not to resort to violence without really, really good justification, such as my life actually being in danger.
Okay, so what do I do? How do I solve this problem without resorting to violence? 'Cop' has identified the only real non-violent recourse that I have, ostrazation. Someone who uses violence as a answer to solve problems can't fathom the various uses of ostrazation in modifying people's behavior. I think looking to the past at religious osterzation will lead to the answer. There will exist in a collection of human beings bound to a specified area for others to lay charges or complaints against others. It is difficult to say how this will manifest itself exactly. However, I can theorize that with technology being what it is a 'community bulletin board' would be established for me to post my neighbor's behavior as it happens, a public record if you will. Also, my neighbor will be able to respond to my complaint in a similar manner. Those in the locality would read the board daily, motivated by the desire to maintain their standing, such as people currently do with credit report ratings, within the group. Punishments need not be cages, or guns, or other barbaric methods. Again, those who wish to maintain their standing, like with credit reports, pay their 'debts' even for slight 'infractions'. Those who complain without cause, such as 'he touched my driveway' would find people not wanting to deal with them and they will de facto become outcasts.
What about violent offenders? Well, in the same manner that I thought about using my firearm to kill my neighbor, I would be subject to the same quick draws against me. So those who choose violence as a first resort will quickly find themselves killed by their actions. They may kill one or two people, maybe three or four, but they may find themselves dead, which solves the problem of violent offenders.
In summary, in the absence of rulers, and even in the absence of rules, my actions are dictated by my desire to continue to live and to maintain my own property. So I won't do things that I wouldn't want happen to me. Generally speaking, this is human nature. Most people, as has been pointed out, live their lives this way. In fact, of some 300 million people, according to the Pew Research Center, only some 1.4 million people are in prison. Now, granted not everyone one of these persons is guilty of committing a crime(that is where someone's rights have been violated and damages have arisen from that rights violation), but assuming the numbers are accurate, this would at the very least seem indicate that less then 1 percent of the human population in the US is 'violent'. This is very, very simplistic, however it seem to indicate that the 'rule' is people aren't violent toward each other. I'm sure, 'Cop', that you will claim that this is due in part to your co-workers, and I can't counter that your use of violence against people doesn't stop some people from being violent. However, you have to agree that based on the number of 'violations' you and your co-workers issue that people are less likely to follow 'rules'.
Hello NJ Police Officer…?
It's probably a little hard for you to respond to everybody so maybe my question got lost in the flurry of posts since then. However I asked you twice and now I'll try again.
How do you justify arresting somebody that isn't harming another person ? Are you okay with that?