John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[Garrette]

Not true.

Since I own the product of my labor, I have a right to trade that which I produce voluntarily.

You have assumed the consequent.

In order for me to legitimately acquire resources from someone else, all that is necessary is for me to conduct a trade with them that they also agree to.

Precisely, which means that before you use something they own in order to produce something you own you must reach an agreement. In your very simplified scenario, that means you do not solely own the product of your labor.

 

[AvalonXQ]

any group which is powerful enough to enforce the principle of non-initiation of violence will also be powerful enough to initiate violence on their own to their advantage.

Yep. This is the main problem. You have to have a group both powerful enough to initiate violence and moral enough not to.
Hence the importance of ideology and education -- teaching people that initiation of violence is wrong, even when something called "the Government" does it -- so that the next time we have a powerful group actually interested in doing the morally right thing, they will have an understanding of what that thing might look like.
I'm not holding my breath.

 

[ideogram]

So you're saying ... ?

Why don't you read what he is saying again, since you clearly didn't understand it.

 

[michaelsuede]

You have assumed the consequent.


Precisely, which means that before you use something they own in order to produce something you own you must reach an agreement. In your very simplified scenario, that means you do not solely own the product of your labor.

It does mean I own the product of my labor.

If I didn't, I wouldn't have a right to trade it.

 

[PGH]

and what if those stronger than you do not believe in non-initiation of violence?

Or what if they're just a better shot than you?


That's what these an-caps (love the shorthand) never understand. Not all citizens are equally prepared or able to defend themselves to the death. Nor are they interested in doing so just to have the freedom to not pay an extra 12 cents for a can of soda.

 

[respect]

Again, these are some of the most basic questions which are asked of anarcho-capitalism, since people find it hard to accept the idea of not giving any abstract entity the absolute moral right to just harm you, steal from you, or kill you.
From the principle of non-aggression follows that when someone is violent against you, you are justified to use force in response -- to protect yourself and your property.

I haven't threatened violence...yet. But if he comes after me and my hog farms I will attach laser beams to my hog's (or land sharks as I call them) heads and they will destroy his mercenaries before I turn them on each other so they are reduced to piles of delicious bacon and ribs.

Finally a chance to fulfill my dreams and become a super villain/hog rancher.

 

[PGH]

Yep. This is the main problem. You have to have a group both powerful enough to initiate violence and moral enough not to.
Hence the importance of ideology and education -- teaching people that initiation of violence is wrong, even when something called "the Government" does it -- so that the next time we have a powerful group actually interested in doing the morally right thing, they will have an understanding of what that thing might look like.
I'm not holding my breath.

OH you're going to tell them violence is wrong! I've been so silly. That should solve everything. Great thinking!

 

[AvalonXQ]

and what if those stronger than you do not believe in non-initiation of violence?

If the immoral are altogether stronger than the moral, then immorality will win out -- regardless of what system the moral wish to put into place.

 

[brodski]

So you're saying that if the police and courts were funded through voluntary insurance payments instead of taxes, society would devolve into chaos?

yes, as there would be little to no incentive for any individual to make those payments. The problem of free riders is basic economic theory.

If you wish to sue me and I have to paid to fund your court system what happens? Either I will be compelled to pay the "voluntary" fee or I will get the benefit of a court system without paying for it, so why should I pay?

If the police are effective at preventing crime, why should I pay the insurance fee? If all the murderers rapists and thieves are locked up because of the wonderful efficiency of private sector justice, what is my incentive, as an individual, to pat for the police. So long as everyone else pays I get the benefit for free.

We've had thousands of years of civilization in hundreds of different societies, why have none of them ever been able to make an-cap work?

 

[michaelsuede]

Or what if they're just a better shot than you?


That's what these an-caps (love the shorthand) never understand. Not all citizens are equally prepared or able to defend themselves to the death. Nor are they interested in doing so just to have the freedom to not pay an extra 12 cents for a can of soda.

You can pay people to defend your property for you.

Which is the entire premise of anarcho-capitalist policing services.

Rather than having a police force which gets its money by stealing from people, the police would get their money like any other legitimate business. They would have to get it by providing a service the public is willing to pay for.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Finally a chance to fulfill my dreams and become a super villain/hog rancher.

See? An-cap makes your dreams come true!

 

[respect]

Here's an entire lecture on the subject by an economics professor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzglDS88u50

It is far to involved for me to spell it all out in a forum post.

But the basic jist of it is that insurance companies would fund the operation of security services and the courts.

So you do want coercion and the threat of violence.

 

[Jorghnassen]

When I saw the thread title, I imagined for a second that Mr. Stossel had abandoned his libertarian ways. So much for hoping.

 

[brodski]

Yep. This is the main problem. You have to have a group both powerful enough to initiate violence and moral enough not to.
Hence the importance of ideology and education -- teaching people that initiation of violence is wrong, even when something called "the Government" does it -- so that the next time we have a powerful group actually interested in doing the morally right thing, they will have an understanding of what that thing might look like.
I'm not holding my breath.

ah, so you're in favour of brainwashing then? Just so long as it's the right kind of course

 

[AvalonXQ]

OH you're going to tell them violence is wrong! I've been so silly. That should solve everything. Great thinking!

Solve everything, no. Lay the framework for eventually having a moral society, hopefully yes.
A change in government or society based around Principle X isn't very likely to come along until people can understand and accept Principle X. Understanding that what the government is doing is immoral, is an important step to convincing people not to let the government do it.

 

[michaelsuede]

yes, as there would be little to no incentive for any individual to make those payments. The problem of free riders is basic economic theory.

If you wish to sue me and I have to paid to fund your court system what happens? Either I will be compelled to pay the "voluntary" fee or I will get the benefit of a court system without paying for it, so why should I pay?

If the police are effective at preventing crime, why should I pay the insurance fee? If all the murderers rapists and thieves are locked up because of the wonderful efficiency of private sector justice, what is my incentive, as an individual, to pat for the police. So long as everyone else pays I get the benefit for free.

We've had thousands of years of civilization in hundreds of different societies, why have none of them ever been able to make an-cap work?

People can get medical treatment at any hospital in the US without insurance.

Explain to me why the police could not operate in a similar manner.

Prior to the days of State managed care, people were not turned away due to an inability to pay. There is no reason why the police couldn't operate on exactly the same model.

Charity for those who are too poor, and insurance for those who can afford it.

 

[PGH]

You can pay people to defend your property for you.

Which is the entire premise of anarcho-capitalist policing services.

Rather than having a police force which gets its money by stealing from people, the police would get their money like any other legitimate business. They would have to get it by providing a service the public is willing to pay for.

Which is why the richest among us will have the strongest security force. And their only motivation is to keep being paid by their largest customers.

So when the local owner of a log factory decides he wants the land you're on his security force comes and takes it. If you have a problem with that you might be lucky enough to sue him in the court where he is the largest donor. How do you think they'll rule?

I'm just kidding! His security force is just going to shoot you and no one's going to be able to do a thing about it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

ah, so you're in favour of brainwashing then? Just so long as it's the right kind of course

Honestly, I think when people say "brainwashing" what they really mean is "educating and encouraging others to adopt an ideology I disagree with". I believe that people have a moral right to property, I believe that initiating violence is immoral, and I believe that slapping the word "Government" on some people doesn't change that. And so I believe we should teach people these things.
I will continue to obey my government and uphold my Constitution, even though I hope that one day (probably long after I'm dead) we can get away from needing either of them.

 

[michaelsuede]

Which is why the richest among us will have the strongest security force. And their only motivation is to keep being paid by their largest customers.

So when the local owner of a log factory decides he wants the land you're on his security force comes and takes it. If you have a problem with that you might be lucky enough to sue him in the court where he is the largest donor. How do you think they'll rule?

I'm just kidding! His security force is just going to shoot you and no one's going to be able to do a thing about it.

The richest among us already get out of crime by:

1. having the laws changed to suit their whims.
2. buying off judges
3. buying off police
4. buying off politicians
5. hiring super-star lawyers
6. using the law as a weapon unto itself
7. legalizing white collar crime such as fractional reserve banking (which would be a form of fraud under normal circumstances).

So tell me why our system is somehow immune to these problems now?

The goal is to minimize such injustices, which occurs under a voluntarily funded police and court system.

The police will not risk losing market share by acting in a corrupt manner over one guy's case.

 

[PGH]

Solve everything, no. Lay the framework for eventually having a moral society, hopefully yes.
A change in government or society based around Principle X isn't very likely to come along until people can understand and accept Principle X. Understanding that what the government is doing is immoral, is an important step to convincing people not to let the government do it.

Ok I agree with you. Once everyone in society is a person of impeccable morals we can give all this a try.

Until then let's stick with the cops and firefighters.