Dominoes - Pay a little more

[doodab]

And what is to stop them from turning on you, as they surely do and will if necessary?

To give an example, if they decide they cannot finance the obligations of the state to those to whom (they consider) it is due (or not), and decide to write them off or pay them in heavily inflated money, how have you benefited? They don't respect any limitations.

We're currently living in pretty good times, where they don't have to resort to these measures, largely due to central banks which are very obliging handmaidens to the government. What happens when things turn sour, their handmaidens become impotent and they don't want to let go of the luxurious lives they've become accustomed to?

Violence is 'legitimate' and so is defending from it. If it were limited to defending you from violence, I'd have less of an issue with it, but of course it isn't.

Nothing. That's life.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Domino's pizzas are still overpriced tulipe

Which reminds me... does some admin here have a gig at Dominos? Because since engaging in this thread I've been getting multiple dominos promo spam emails a day

[Zero Liability]

The land was there (in a commonly owned state, I would say, and I think you would say in an unowned state) for ordinary people to supply food for themselves. Parliament decides that they will grant an individual the right to use force to seize it and deny people access to the land. I am asking whether this is a just acquisition of property or whether it should have remained in its previous state?

I don't think it's just in the typical sense of the word, no, because it should be left open to be appropriated, rather than simply bequeathed to a given individual. This flows from the fact that it is unowned.

Even if I were to assume it is owned in common (which I concede may be true in some cases, e.g. public enterprises where those taxed to finance them are hopelessly indeterminate or gone), we would then be reflecting upon whether Parliament can truthfully be said to be endowed with the power to act on the will of the 'people'. If it is so endowed unconditionally, surely from the perspective of those whom it represents, the action is just? It's a classic principal-agent problem.

[SpontaneousOrder]

In a truely free society violence is as legitimate as anything else. It's only by paying our taxes and joining the biggest bullies gang we get to avoid dealing with it directly. Some places don't have that option, and I'm glad I don't live there.

This is the point. We don't need to have some big bullies to protect us - the only reason people think this is because they've been brainwashed since childhood to think that the government has magical powers that other men do not.

In a free society many of the same kinds of institutions would likely exist as government provides now - they'd just most likely be of a better quality, and cheaper, and could function without violating peoples rights. Government is an unnatural monopoly, built on violence, which has all of the same attributes we associate with other kinds of unnatural monopolies. What's worse is that it is a magnet for sociopaths and psychopaths. We here all the time that supposedly men are fallible, or even inherently bad - so why grant absolute power to a small few of them?

[Zero Liability]

Nothing. That's life.

The way I see it, I pay them they leave me alone and stay out of my way and, where they don't, I try keep within the confines of their own rules. It doesn't mean I have to like them, ignore their hypocrisy or recognise their legitimacy.

Surely in our capacity as contractors who have to deal with IR35 and other tax contrivances, we are all too familiar with this?

[SpontaneousOrder]

The land was there (in a commonly owned state, I would say, and I think you would say in an unowned state) for ordinary people to supply food for themselves. Parliament decides that they will grant an individual the right to use force to seize it and deny people access to the land. I am asking whether this is a just acquisition of property or whether it should have remained in its previous state?

To add to what Zero said, I would personally suggest that there was already an implicit ownership of that common land. That is to say that if I am making use of that land then i already implicitly own it (at least as long as my cabbages are growing in it). If myself and others jointly make use of that land, then 'we' own it, or at least the patches we're using at the time. If i were to say one day "ok, from now on this cabbage patch i'm currently cultivating will be forever for my own exclusive use" then none could reasonably argue against it unless they had already collectively claimed the land as property of the collective - perhaps after I claim my own they will hastily claim the rest as a collective (and allow strangers to make use of it if they like).

To ask whether parliament can grant it to someone or not is irrelevant unless you believe that might makes right, and the mob can legitimately take from the minority.

[Zero Liability]

I don't even think Parliament is representative of a "majority". It is a replacement for the Monarchy that is more palatable to our Enlightenment-influenced tastes. Very few Western countries have representative democracies. Not that these hold a superlative sense of legitimacy in my eyes, but it's best to be clear on what the UK and US and similar governments really are.

[SpontaneousOrder]

When you get home after exploiting healthcare paid for by taxation stolen under threat of violence from Spontaneous Order and Zero Liability?

It wouldn't be quite so bad if it was paid for by taxation. The reality of it is that it was bought on Her Majesty's credit card, and will be paid for by your children and grandchildren who will most likely not even see the benefits of what their labour is paying off (let alone what their labour could provide in a free healthcare market).

It's easy to boast of a 'jewel in the crown' NHS when you just maxxed out the credit card to get it, just like it;s easy to look flash in a new sportscar bought on unaffordable credit. But when Billy big potatoes gets his car repossessed he just ends up looking like a ****.

[doodab]

This is the point. We don't need to have some big bullies to protect us - the only reason people think this is because they've been brainwashed since childhood to think that the government has magical powers that other men do not.

In a free society many of the same kinds of institutions would likely exist as government provides now - they'd just most likely be of a better quality, and cheaper, and could function without violating peoples rights. Government is an unnatural monopoly, built on violence, which has all of the same attributes we associate with other kinds of unnatural monopolies. What's worse is that it is a magnet for sociopaths and psychopaths. We here all the time that supposedly men are fallible, or even inherently bad - so why grant absolute power to a small few of them?

What you suggest is inherently unstable. That is why it hasn't spontaneously occured and when it has come close its been usurped by those who use violence.

[SpontaneousOrder]

What you suggest is inherently unstable. That is why it hasn't spontaneously occured and when it has come close its been usurped by those who use violence.

The reason it hasn't occurred is because people aren't enlightened enough to understand that government is obsolete. Especially in our modern technological age. It wasn't very long ago that we were burning witches.

There is a lot of information available supporting the idea that a society without government would be more stable, and I've found that all arguments to the contrary tend to be self-contradictory and littered with logical fallacies.

If you've studied the topic and disagree then fine (although i'd still say that you're wrong), but 99% of the people posting on this thread have clearly never spent more than a few hours studying it, if that.

If you don't agree there is still the question of the proper scope of government, and a (very - it's not particularly complicated, despite what the talking heads on tv would have you believe) basic understanding of economics would cause most to at least hold the position that government should exist only to protect our rights, such as police, judiciary, military, border control (if you go in for that sort of thing). Then you'd be a minarchist as I used to be.

There's a joke: "What's the difference between a minarchist & an anarchist? about 6 months".