Do You Support the Initiation of Force?

[ironhead]

Who said I was talking about contracts.

Obtaining protection services (and I think it's fair to say people would want them), would require compliance with whatever law the specific DRO was using. Violating the law would be violating one's contract.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Well, if you are a dispute resolution organization (DRO), would you want to do business with someone who violates their contracts? Moreover, other DRO's would most likely communicate with one another as they would often interact in contract disputes, and if all DRO's refused someone protection services because they violate their contracts, then someone would be defenseless. The incentive would be immense. Governance does not require government.

And if the DRO that violated their contracts are financially backed by illegal activities or underground money, what recourse would anyone have?

Also, your system would provide excellent protective services for the elite, with dwindling quality as it went down the economic scale.

The final, and worst part about your system is that there is no system of checks and balances and no way for private citizens to argue with the DROs and powerful elite you have created. And when riots start, would you try and call them to the negotiation table and hope that they agreed? Or would you tell everyone to hide in their homes until it was over, knowing the elite would be in fortresses while the rest were in vulnerable suburbia?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

You've got it backwards. Corporations exist in their current form because of state protection and limited liability law. In a free market, corporate charters would likely be far different. Moreover, there would be no state protection. As for drug cartels - don't be ridiculous. They wouldn't exist at all if weren't for the illegality of drugs. If drugs were legalized, peaceful businesses would sell drugs at much lower prices, with much greater safety. Without the state, the cartels would have no money and no power.

And anyone who spoke out against the corporations would find themselves suddenly without any protect at all?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Obtaining protection services (and I think it's fair to say people would want them), would require compliance with whatever law the specific DRO was using. Violating the law would be violating one's contract.

Sounds like a protection racket to me.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And anyone who spoke out against the corporations would find themselves suddenly without any protect at all?

Sounds like the beginning of the time of the beast.
Those without the "mark" would be unable to work, or buy anything; because they would be outcasts.

 

[ironhead]

Sounds like a protection racket to me.

A "racket" is not subject to market discipline via competition and voluntary contracts; DRO's would most certainly be. Rackets can only exist with government protection.

 

[ironhead]

And anyone who spoke out against the corporations would find themselves suddenly without any protect at all?

And would customers want to purchase services from a corporation which behaved as such? Competitors would make a killing by taking their customers and offering better services/treatment.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

A "racket" is not subject to market discipline via competition and voluntary contracts; DRO's would most certainly be. Rackets can only exist with government protection.

And what is there to guarantee compliance with those contracts? The fear that someone will tell everyone that they violated a contract?

 

[ironhead]

Sounds like the beginning of the time of the beast.
Those without the "mark" would be unable to work, or buy anything; because they would be outcasts.

There's nothing biblical about social ostracism. I think that it would happen, though far, far less than people are jailed as they are now. Quite preferable.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

And would customers want to purchase services from a corporation which behaved as such? Competitors would make a killing by taking their customers and offering better services/treatment.

So, as a customer, my favorable comments would win me favor, and any disparaging comments would earn me a threat on my life? Why not kill those who would speak out against the corporation? The only law enforcement is the loss of customers. By silencing me they would prevent the loss of customers. Who would investigate this crime? The competition? Wouldn't it be ar more advantageous for the corporations to agree not to investigate such things?

Backroom deals would replace courts for deciding the fate of the 99%.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=ironhead;1007319]I know why rape is immoral, you are the one who seems to be fuzzy about why it is wrong. But, based on what you are saying now,rape is wrong due to the initiation of force (as a violation of one's body; one's property rights).

no, property rights and personal rights are not the same thing. if you want to narrow this down to the cosmic particles of atoms and say that your body is the only "property" you own....you are truly missing out on morality. but of course, that assumes a belief in a higher being who created us. if you don't believe that, then i can see why you would believe your body is "property". do you then not believe that you own anything beyond your breathe? your eyesight, your arm length, your leg......? what?

That is precisely what I am arguing as well. However, I am applying this principle universally, as it is not morality if it doesn't apply to everyone. What good would morality be if it only applied to some people, or some aspects of certain people, during certain times? For example, why is it moral for the state to rob someone without their consent (taxation), but immoral for me to a thug on the street to rob you at gunpoint?

what i said is not remotely close to your argument. if so....please explain.

i'm not sure how to respond to you, but i will try. if morality is universal, who chooses that universal morality?

 

[ironhead]

no, property rights and personal rights are not the same thing. if you want to narrow this down to the cosmic particles of atoms and say that your body is the only "property" you own....you are truly missing out on morality. but of course, that assumes a belief in a higher being who created us. if you don't believe that, then i can see why you would believe your body is "property". do you then not believe that you own anything beyond your breathe? your eyesight, your arm length, your leg......? what?

You are a self-contained organism. If you deny that you own yourself, then you are saying that another person has a higher claim to your body than you. That is why rape, murder, assault, theft, and similar behavior is immoral. This isn't a new idea, it goes back to John Locke, at least.

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." - John Locke

i'm not sure how to respond to you, but i will try. if morality is universal, who chooses that universal morality?

We can arrive at objective morality through logical demonstration. A rule governing behavior that can be equally applied to all could be considered universal morality. The non-aggression principle is not that different from the Golden Rule - and it can be applied equally to all.

 

[ironhead]

So, as a customer, my favorable comments would win me favor, and any disparaging comments would earn me a threat on my life? Why not kill those who would speak out against the corporation? The only law enforcement is the loss of customers. By silencing me they would prevent the loss of customers. Who would investigate this crime? The competition? Wouldn't it be ar more advantageous for the corporations to agree not to investigate such things?

Backroom deals would replace courts for deciding the fate of the 99%.

That is absolutely nonsensical. First of all, if someone makes a negative comment about a business and then suddenly disappears - you don't think friends/family might just suspect who did it? Moreover, if said person has insurance through another DRO (assuming they switched), then the DRO would be bound to investigate. The DRO that murdered the person in your scenario would be risking its entire reputation in order to silence just one customer. What are they going to do - just kill everyone who disapproves of their services? They would be quickly found out and all customers would immediately flee. They would ruin themselves financially - and would bear the responsibility of full restitution - i.e. there would be enormous consequences.

What you describe actually is far more befitting of governments. They can do what they will, often with no repercussions. Governments were responsible for over 170 million murders in the 20th century because they did not have voluntary customers - the essential difference.

 

[ironhead]

Despite all of these sidebars which I have answered, I don't think anyone has actually answered the question:

Do you support the initiation of the use of force? Will you answer this question? I'm not Bill O'Reilly - it can be more than just "yes" or "no."

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Despite all of these sidebars which I have answered, I don't think anyone has actually answered the question:

Do you support the initiation of the use of force? Will you answer this question? I'm not Bill O'Reilly - it can be more than just "yes" or "no."

I think there are situations in which the initiation of force is acceptable. The example I gave earlier, of law enforcement having to arrest someone, cannot depend on that person's willingness to cooperate.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I think there are situations in which the initiation of force is acceptable. The example I gave earlier, of law enforcement having to arrest someone, cannot depend on that person's willingness to cooperate.

if an act has no victim and is not violent or disruptive, is it a crime? would it then be an acceptable initiation of force?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

if an act has no victim and is not violent or disruptive, is it a crime? would it then be an acceptable initiation of force?

In our country you are innocent until proven guilty. But there must be a trial to determine that innocence or guilt. If there is legitimate reasons to suspect someone, then they should be arrested.

Some criminal arrests are preemptive to a violent crime. Driving while drunk would be one of those. The drunk has not initiated violent acts. But should the police allow him to continue to drive simply because he decides he doesn't want to go with them?

 

[Damocles]

Ultimately, yes, though no private citizens would stand any chance of defeating the state, such as it is. To answer your initial question, under a stateless condition, there would be an incredible incentive to have insurance, which would be connected to dispute resolution services. These agencies would ultimately begin to work with one another, using polycentric law production, and there would be compliance with law due to the immense economic consequences of violating property rights.

So, no revolution has ever worked? Do you actually understand history?

 

[ironhead]

So, no revolution has ever worked? Do you actually understand history?

That's a bizarre question. Let me qualify my statement. No individual can resist taxation without fear of being kidnapped and jailed. That is the resistance I am speaking of - truly withdrawing one's consent. Any government that might replace the current one would still be based on forced taxation, and thus, be fundamentally no different than the last.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

That's a bizarre question. Let me qualify my statement. No individual can resist taxation without fear of being kidnapped and jailed. That is the resistance I am speaking of - truly withdrawing one's consent. Any government that might replace the current one would still be based on forced taxation, and thus, be fundamentally no different than the last.

So are you advocating no taxation or a strictly voluntary taxation?