- Joined
- Aug 6, 2019
- Messages
- 15,086
- Reaction score
- 6,810
- Location
- Bridgeport, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Really? What is stopping gangs of criminals from murdering you in your sleep and taking all your shit?
Imo it is a mistake to place putin and Xi (lower case for putin he's done too little for me to respect him, upper case for Xi, he's the president of a sovereign nation that plays an important part in global affairs and while he doesn't merit praise in many areas, I don't see him as a madman.These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.
I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."
If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.
But what are we willing to give?
Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?
Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.
To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.
I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.
Definitely. The market already provides nearly every "service" the state does, without all the waste, fraud, and corruption. For example, in the US there are more people working in private security than there are police officers. Dispute resolution is another area where the market is superior, hence the boom in private arbitration. Government-run courts are glacially slow, extremely expensive, and commonly yield unjust decisions.
But it can be difficult (but not impossible) for markets to provide public goods, like national defense.
Let the governments there fund themselves voluntarily and the people by their actions will provide the answer.
Please show where a country has run successfully without a government anywhere.
How would law and order be maintained
and how would roads between cities get built?
Have you made that decision? Have you sold everything and are there now texting from the battle field?These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.
I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."
If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.
But what are we willing to give?
Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?
Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.
To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.
I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.
I'm not sure how your question is relevant to my claim that bands of politicians are raving lunatics.
Note you asked how "law and order" would be provided, instead of how individual rights would be protected. The latter is what people actually want and are willing to pay for.
Government isn't the only source of law, nor is it even a good source of law. Private law has very long history.
Governments are predicated on force and violence, and those are things which should never be legitimized.
Can the market provide justice?Definitely. The market already provides nearly every "service" the state does, without all the waste, fraud, and corruption. For example, in the US there are more people working in private security than there are police officers. Dispute resolution is another area where the market is superior, hence the boom in private arbitration. Government-run courts are glacially slow, extremely expensive, and commonly yield unjust decisions.
But it can be difficult (but not impossible) for markets to provide public goods, like national defense.
Let the governments there fund themselves voluntarily and the people by their actions will provide the answer.
What are some examples of 'private law'?
Noting that you mentioned private security: How would 'private law' be enforced?
This is a huge topic. If you are really interested, I suggest this book to start:
I can't read. Just give me a couple of examples of and answer how 'private law' would be enforced.
No, I'm not wasting my time writing you a very long post explaining how justice works without the state. You're an adult who presumably can use a search engine and guess the appropriate key words.
He will say yes....even though no such country existsHonest question here.
Do you really think a country can exist and thrive without a government?
Let's take the UK as an example as it's quite small and is isolated as an island. Do you think the people of the UK would be better off without a government?
......require rules, laws, organization to operate.The market....
......require rules, laws, organization to operate.
I didn't ask you to "explain how justice works without the state." You should be able to answer my questions without writing a long reply.
I didn't say they did. You avoided the point, intentionally.Yes, but they don't have to come from government.
Here's a historical example for both of you. The lex mercatoria was a body of private law with disputes adjudicated in private courts. The courts were fast, cheap, and just, because those that weren't were avoided by the traders. The arbitrators were highly respected men with reputations for fairness and impartiality. It lasted for some 400 years before various states took it over.
Private law is everywhere. A modern example of private law are the rules of this forum we are debating on. The rules here were created by the market, not by the state. Note that the creators of the rules have a very strong incentive to make the rules as fair and as reasonable as possible, unlike when the state passes laws. The moderators here also have an incentive to be impartial, even if they don't want to be, unlike a judge employed by the state.
There aren't any, but that doesn't mean much. In an argument about politics 250 years ago, a person might have asked, "Please show where a country has run successfully with the entire population voting for representatives. It's absurd on its face."
Government isn't the only source of law, nor is it even a good source of law. Private law has very long history.
Note you asked how "law and order" would be provided, instead of how individual rights would be protected. The latter is what people actually want and are willing to pay for.
In developed countries, roads are built by the private sector via government contracts. People can buy anything the government can buy.
Governments are predicated on force and violence, and those are things which should never be legitimized. Given that the state as an institution is so contemptible, your questions are of the same nature as that of a slaver in America during the 1850s asking, "If we free black people from slavery, who's going to pick the cotton?"
What are you willing to give?
These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.
I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."
If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.
But what are we willing to give?
Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?
Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.
To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.
I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?