John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[AvalonXQ]

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.

Why do you think that situation would occur signficantly differently under an-cap than it would today? Most local judges are beholden to local donors; what stops them from ignoring the law and allowing just this sort of injustice to occur today?
If your answer has anything to do with public opinion, or the judge preserving his own position, why do you think these things no longer matter under an-cap?
How long do you think a murderer's company would stay in business? Do you really believe it's the State that stops these things from being workable business practices today?

 

[michaelsuede]

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.

The police are among the most immoral among us.

 

[Twiler]

The police are among the most immoral among us.

And what is the nature of your employment?

 

[PGH]

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.

There is a world of difference between what you listed, which are the unfortunate negative affects of a capitalist society which can sometimes happen, and your plan, which freely condones and even embraces all the above actions.

Yes some cops are crooked. Yes some judges can be bought. How does it improve things if we establish a system where ALL cops and judges are owned by the highest bidder and no other rule applies?

You don't minimize any of these injustices. You institutionalize them. Instead of becoming the rare and negative exception they become the norm.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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

How about we give this a try now, and I wait and give others the ability to coerce me from my property when they meet your "impeccable morals" standard?
Heck, just give me a police force alone staffed with people with "impeccable morals" and I'll be pretty happy. You seem to want to hold an-cap to a much higher standard than our current system can meet.

 

[brodski]

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

only because they are legally obliged to give that treatment, why would you want to initiate violence against hospital owners in such a way?

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

who would for the police to provide services to those that do not fund the police?

Prior to the days of State managed care, people were not turned away due to an inability to pay.

yes they were and what care they could receive was pretty crappy

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

and when the charity runs out? And who decides who can afford it or not?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes some cops are crooked. Yes some judges can be bought. How does it improve things if we establish a system where ALL cops and judges are owned by the highest bidder and no other rule applies?

The difference is that, today, these crooked cops and judges act under color of law. In an an-cap system, their behavior would fall under the same scrutiny as anyone else's. It's possible this would "institutionalize" dishonesty, if the culture ends up lending these folks the same legitimacy of an "institution" that they enjoy today. But, again, if people generally understand that no one is immune from scrutiny or the basic principles of morality, it seems far more likely that these crooked people will be seen and overcome.

 

[michaelsuede]

There is a world of difference between what you listed, which are the unfortunate negative affects of a capitalist society which can sometimes happen, and your plan, which freely condones and even embraces all the above actions.

Yes some cops are crooked. Yes some judges can be bought. How does it improve things if we establish a system where ALL cops and judges are owned by the highest bidder and no other rule applies?

You don't minimize any of these injustices. You institutionalize them. Instead of becoming the rare and negative exception they become the norm.

Under an anarcho-capitalist system of justice, people would pay a market rate for service, just like anything else.

You buy insurance, you get protection.

There is no "service only to the highest bidder" - there is market service to everyone and everyone has equal access to it.

Thus the billionaire would get the same services as joe blow if they both had the same insurance coverage.

 

[PGH]

Why do you think that situation would occur signficantly differently under an-cap than it would today? Most local judges are beholden to local donors; what stops them from ignoring the law and allowing just this sort of injustice to occur today?

Wrong. All local judges are beholden to the laws of the district they've sworn to uphold.

If your answer has anything to do with public opinion, or the judge preserving his own position, why do you think these things no longer matter under an-cap?
How long do you think a murderer's company would stay in business? Do you really believe it's the State that stops these things from being workable business practices today?

They don't matter under an-cap because public opinion no longer carries any weight, except in the circumstance of open revolt. A murderer's company would stay in business just so long as he's making enough money to buy the best security and judges. And I do believe it's the state who stops murderers. Who do you think is doing it? Well informed public opinion?

 

[Twiler]

The difference is that, today, these crooked cops and judges act under color of law. In an an-cap system, their behavior would fall under the same scrutiny as anyone else's. It's possible this would "institutionalize" dishonesty, if the culture ends up lending these folks the same legitimacy of an "institution" that they enjoy today. But, again, if people generally understand that no one is immune from scrutiny or the basic principles of morality, it seems far more likely that these crooked people will be seen and overcome.

This is a strawman. No-one thinks this about government employees.

 

[ideogram]

Is it really necessary for you to keep starting new threads just to repeat yourself? I'd say over half of your posts consist of little more than "an-cap will work because I say it will."

 

[kittynh]

Lawyers live for the day Libertarians take over. Gonna clean up big time.

 

[Twiler]

Under an anarcho-capitalist system of justice, people would pay a market rate for service, just like anything else.

You buy insurance, you get protection.

There is no "service only to the highest bidder" - there is market service to everyone and everyone has equal access to it.

Thus the billionaire would get the same services as joe blow if they both had the same insurance coverage.

So you're restricting the sellers from giving a better service? How is that a free market?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

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.

The problem is, the moral ones could be isolated, and packs of immoral ones could prey on them.


What if the moral people could organize themselves, set down basic rules of human behaviour, and make a system to maintain civility, and govern things... Hmmm...

 

[michaelsuede]

Wrong. All local judges are beholden to the laws of the district they've sworn to uphold.

No they are not.

Judges routinely violate the Constitution on an almost daily basis. The courts have the authority to dictate what the Constitution means, therefore they are not beholden to any law. They can interpret it as they deem fit, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so short of an insurrection.

They don't matter under an-cap because public opinion no longer carries any weight, except in the circumstance of open revolt. A murderer's company would stay in business just so long as he's making enough money to buy the best security and judges. And I do believe it's the state who stops murderers. Who do you think is doing it? Well informed public opinion?

Our current system encourages open revolt far more than anarcho-capitalism.

 

[Wowbagger]

I only hate Stossel because of his assertions. I don't know the man personally. He might be a nice guy if one doesn't talk about this Libertarian fantasy with him.

I can testify that John Stossel is, in fact, a nice guy. I met him once and... he was a very nice guy!!

No, I don't always agree with him. But, at least he seems like a nice person.

 

[AvalonXQ]

This is a strawman. No-one thinks this about government employees.

Yes, people really do. The vast majority of citizens give police and the courts the benefit of the doubt, and don't think twice about the actual guilt of someone convicted or the prudence of initiating an arrest. The color of law gives our "justice system" all sorts of automatic credulity in our society.
And, yes, actions do get questioned -- when there's a particularly eggregious failure of the system. But why give them the presumption of validity at all? Why act like they have the privilege to do things that no one else can do?
That's the basic assumption that an-cap questions.

 

[brodski]

Honestly, I think when people say "brainwashing" what they really mean is "educating and encouraging others to adopt an ideology I disagree with".

that was certainly how it as used in the OP hence my joke

I believe that people have a moral right to property, I believe that initiating violence is immoral,

how do you square these to statements how does someone initially acquire property (lets take land as the obvious example) without initiating violence or at least threatening to.

The moment you put up a fence you are making a statement that other people no longer have a right to use that land and you claim the moral right to use violence against them if they try.
Which is th more important principle, the right to own land or the right to be free from threat of unjust violence?

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.

fair enough, I would love to live in a world were we didn't need government or laws too but I'm pretty certain that no matter how long we wait people will never become that good by themselves. In the real world laws help, which is why every civilization has had them.

 

[michaelsuede]

So you're restricting the sellers from giving a better service? How is that a free market?

Sellers can give better service to certain buyers if they chose, but that's not going to stop market forces from providing coverage to everyone.

An insurance company that has 10,000 subscribers and a police force of 100 men is just as potent as a billionaire who hires 100 men to be his personal police force.

Thus, if the billionaire somehow manages to pay his men enough money to launch an attack against one of those 10,000 subscribers, they will be facing off against a police force of equal power.

Of course, I highly doubt such a scenario would ever happen.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Judges routinely violate the Constitution on an almost daily basis. The courts have the authority to dictate what the Constitution means, therefore they are not beholden to any law. They can interpret it as they deem fit, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so short of an insurrection.

Okay, last time I checked, SCOTUS and only SCOTUS has the right to interpret the meaning of the constitution with regard to established laws. What prevents any Justice from going haywire in SCOTUS is, presumably, the other judges.