ContraryGuy on September 18, 2011, 11:21:38 pm
Quote
What happens when the miners suffer a catastrophic explosion and are forced to go back to work the very next day, or have the owners enforcers shoot them down?

Do governments prevent this?
What happens when the government backs up the owners' enforcers with their own, in the interest of 'national security' and the country's need for the ore?  After all, the owners contributed a lot more to the (re)election campaigns than all the miners together.


In the modern day, yes.  In the days of trusts, no.  Long, long ago (and not too long ago) the govt did use the Taft-Hartley strike-busting "go back to work or we shoot you" Act.  But usually that was during wartime.  Yes, yes, I believe it was used once during Clinton and once during Bush, but I'm not sure of that.
You see, in the modern day, it looks bad when the Marshals Service guns down workers.
So, in  a way, the govt does prevent privately hired goons from gunning down striking workers.

You really are stretching your point when you have to reach for the Taft-Hartley Act.
Cant you come up with something better, or at least more recent than that?

Quote
After all, Ken Lay of Enron and Bernie Madoff were private citizens, not politicians.

Did the government prevent them?[/quote]

No, because they were "smart" criminals.

Quote
I could cite crooks of that scale that the government not only doesn't punish but actively aids and abets, but you'll probably toss the "conspiracy theory" blanket over it so that it won't count.

Yes, you could. I could.  All you have to do is link to the Huffington Post and there it is.
As far as conspiracy theories go, you should know by now the only person here that is worthy of that is sam.  :-)

Quote
The nature of the US laws actually prohibits the income tax in its current incarnation -- e.g. the Fifth Amendment protects ("protects" -- oh, yeah, lookit all the protection) me from being forced to supply information to incriminate myself, but if I don't file my 1040 every year, which is full of potentially-incriminating information (it can be twisted seven ways from Sunday; the same data may imply I owe a few grand or that I am owed a few grand), the gov't goons come to get me:  I am required to waive my Miranda rights . . . which means they're not "rights" at all, and so your cute little

That statement is so wrong it hurts my head trying to think of all the points i would have to rebut.  And I'm sick today, so I aint gonna.

Quote
Quote
When there are no laws, there are no rules.

is tres disingenuous.  The 1040 alone proves there are no laws even when there are "laws"! :D

Quote
In an AnCap society, how do pre-AnCap structures get replaced?

Excellent question.  When people like you realize that public crooks are just as bad, and as common, as private ones; that "government" and all its "structures" are just the same old same old, just with different labels -- then I'd bet the "structures" will simply evaporate, dry up and blow away as no one bothers to use them any more.

By structures I meant building, roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc.

And I think you know it...  :p

quadibloc on September 19, 2011, 12:11:24 pm
In an AnCap society, there would be more risk, rather than less.  When people are given absolute freedom, their common sense flies away with their restrictions.

People who are now restricted from from building in areas known for routine destruction "for their own good" would thence build there.  Maybe only once, but at least once.
Any insurance they take out would have their risk spread out among all of the policy holders.

So, at least once, you would have to pay for others bad judgement. 
Of course the same applies to any insurance you take out; someone, somewhere will have a bout of bad judgement and BANG! there goes your money.
Let's take the Katrina flooding in New Orleans as an example.

I hold the conventional view of this, or what I take the conventional view to be:

The people who lived in New Orleans didn't really have much choice about where they lived. They were born there, moving to another city and finding a job there costs a lot of money. Plus, as it happens, New Orleans was perhaps the only major city in the United States where black people weren't subjected to various forms of petty harassment from local law enforcement or whatever.

It wouldn't have cost much money to reinforce the levees around the city properly - they just failed by a small margin. That cost would have been much less than the immense losses resulting from the flood.

Therefore, since repairing those levees was, under the current system, a Federal responsibility, the Federal government failed in its duties by not repairing them, and should be considered fully culpable. There was really no time to consider more involved alternatives like changing the nation's system of government to something else.

However, I also think it's not reasonable to say that under AnCap, people would be foolish enough to live in unsafe places, and others would be paying for their misjudgment.

Exactly which government is supposed to be regulating the insurance providers, so that they're forced to insure people at an unreasonably low cost?

If you want insurance you can afford against flooding, for example, you had better not live where flooding happens a lot. Same with earthquakes or hurricanes or whatever.

It's government that told health insurers that, sorry, you can't discriminate against someone wanting to purchase medical insurance just because he's HIV+ - which, surprise, surprise, led to there not being any private health insurance outside of large employee plans.

Under AnCap, libertarianism, or even governments before our current politically-correct age, insurance was strictly a user-pay industry. The insurance company figured out how much it wanted to charge you for insurance based on the risk you were, and so its own judgment determined its success.

sam on September 19, 2011, 05:43:46 pm
It wouldn't have cost much money to reinforce the levees around the city properly - they just failed by a small margin. That cost would have been much less than the immense losses resulting from the flood.

Therefore, since repairing those levees was, under the current system, a Federal responsibility, the Federal government failed in its duties by not repairing them, and should be considered fully culpable.

But, obviously it should not be a federal responsibility.  Locals should carry the cost of living in dangerous places and expensive places, so as to discourage people from living in dangerous and expensive places.

Further, if something is a federal responsibility, those responsible are far away from the actual situation, do not know what is actually happening, so the money tends to get embezzled, applied for vote buying rather than its nominal purpose, or just plain stolen - which is what happened in New Orleans.  Arguably the feds supplied considerably more than enough money, but the money was locally misappropriated for local politics.

Due to diseconomies of scale, anything that is supplied federally is going to be supplied badly, incompetently, and corruptly.  No amount of good intentions can remedy this problem.  Private businesses know well that the larger the business, the more difficult it is to run it effectively.

Further, evacuation was a local responsibility - and nearly all New Orleans buses remained in their depots and wound up under water.  The only ones that got out were stolen or borrowed without permission.

mellyrn on September 19, 2011, 06:11:36 pm
Quote
By structures I meant building, roads, bridges, infrastructure, etc.

And I think you know it...  :p

Actually, no, physical structures never crossed my mind, despite the title of the thread.

If we switch from being ruled to ruling ourselves . . . well, let's see, there's a bridge I cross twice a day, workdays.  An enterprising person could appropriate it by keeping it in repair and charging for its use; I'd put money in his bucket for that.  I'd have money, that was no longer going to, say, bailing out banks that had made bad gambles.

Quote
You see, in the modern day, it looks bad when the Marshals Service guns down workers.

In an AnCap society, it looks bad when the owner's hired thugs gun down workers.  Hey, if "it looks bad" keeps your gov't thugs in line, it will just as easily keep my for-hire thugs in line.  Only with magical thinking does being in government service make a person more sensitive to looking good/bad than being in private service.

Quote
You really are stretching your point when you have to reach for the Taft-Hartley Act.
Cant you come up with something better, or at least more recent than that?

Why?  You think, because it hasn't happened lately, that it is impossible for a government ever to do something like that again? 

For the purposes of my argument, the fact that government can be used unjustly is all I need.  Government as a means of protection is, I say, an illusion.  Sure, it can protect.  And like any other weapon, it can also be turned against whoso would wield it.  It is not, and cannot be, always and only used for Good and not Bad.  It can't even be used mostly for Good -- for the simple reason that it's being used by humans, all of us ornery cusses whether we hold an office or not.

Quote
That statement is so wrong it hurts my head trying to think of all the points i would have to rebut.  And I'm sick today, so I aint gonna.

<snort> As you wish.  Meantime, my argument, unrebutted, remains available for lurkers to read and consider.  Plus:

The very fact that you disagree with me (on the interpretation of the 5th Amendment protections vs the 1040 forms) points up the fact that even when there are "laws" there are no laws.  A law, no matter how carefully, how intricately phrased and buttressed, can and will be interpreted differently by different people:  someone, sooner or later will say, "No, it doesn't mean that!"

What do we do then?  Why, we take it to arbitration!  Er, 'scuse me, I guess you'd say, "take it to court".  Either way, the result is a resolution of a dispute.

Only, under government, a judge can and sometimes does hand down an interpretation that no one in his right mind thinks is just or fair -- like the young man branded for life as a child molester, for the crime of being slightly over 18 when he had sex with his almost-18 girlfriend (honestly, there were barely a few months' difference in their ages, but he gets treated just as if he'd had sex with a two-year-old).  At least, in an anarchy, the arbiter is going for a judgment that all parties find acceptable (and thus, self-enforcing).

The range and number of crimes possible in an anarchy are just as possible under a government -- and often, the gov't's subjects have less power to defend themselves against it.  Plus, the government structure itself provides the enterprising criminal with still more material with which to be criminal, to say nothing of providing the stupid with still more ways to blunder against their fellow man whether they mean to be harmful or not.

It might not be a net loss; after all, governed or not, we're all just humans here.  But only magical thinking can make government a net gain.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2011, 06:13:34 pm by mellyrn »

 

anything