Firearm Confiscation in Action

[Pointedstick]

The "goverment" environment of violence making I would argue is really the "human" environment of violence making.

If that's true, what explains why government is more violent than Home Depot, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, or Starbucks?

[moda0306]

PS,

Those are just other entities run by humans to offer goods/services to the private sector.  Just because humans can be inherently violent doesn't mean that it manifests itself in all our institutions. In fact, the very fact that there is a government makes our private institutions inherently less violent, IMO.

[rocketdog]

I agree with PS that gov't can wage violence on a scale unlike anything else, but gov't can also quell violence as well.  And no, I have no idea what the ratio is of "lives saved" to "lives lost" at the hands of gov't.  But it's probably not a favorable one.

[MachineGhost]

Let me play devil's advocate.  You know I dilike the federal gov't and am very live and let live, but not an anarchist.  Couldn't e.g. a small town gov't be well at least much nearer to that than the federal abomination?  I.e. giving as little power as possible to the central  gov't and putting as much as possible at the local level.  WOuldn't that solve at least some of the problems?

Haven't watched Deadwood much, have you?

The problem with the government hallucinotion is not the size, it is the basis for its [il]legitimacy.  We could easily have a voluntary society if we all grew up and stopped acting like naked apes more focused on breeding and sports-team mentality.  All it would take is a simple majority and the will.

[moda0306]

MG,

Could you please explain what part of "growing up" would solve these dilemmas?

- What is done with all the criminals in prison?
- what do we do with all the veterans, children, special needs folks and Medicaid and social security recipients who have no means to support themselves?  Hope charity jumps in before thy die?
- who handles roads, freeways and other infrastructure?  How is it coordinated with each other if there are different private interests controlling intersecting infrastructure?
- how are all federal, state, and city land and mineral interests divided?
- how is all real or mineral "private property" divided?
- who is the new authority we use for contract enforcement?
- what legitimate force can said arbiter use to enforce contracts?
- would existing contracts be enforced?  How would an entirely new arbitration system absorb the massive amount of old contracts in dispute, and why should we obey anyone we haven't specifically chose to do business with?

With all do respect, MG, I probably would have to suggest that if anyone needs to "grow up," it's anyone who undermines these huge dilemmas as afterthoughts.

[doodle]

Let me play devil's advocate.  You know I dilike the federal gov't and am very live and let live, but not an anarchist.  Couldn't e.g. a small town gov't be well at least much nearer to that than the federal abomination?  I.e. giving as little power as possible to the central  gov't and putting as much as possible at the local level.  WOuldn't that solve at least some of the problems?

Haven't watched Deadwood much, have you?

The problem with the government hallucinotion is not the size, it is the basis for its [il]legitimacy.  We could easily have a voluntary society if we all grew up and stopped acting like naked apes more focused on breeding and sports-team mentality.  All it would take is a simple majority and the will.

That is one big "if"!!. If i were only 6'8 and could dunk and shoot like Kobe Bryant I wouldnt have a boring office job making a pittance of a wage.

[doodle]

If Deadwood the show is anything like the real Deadwood I think it would be a pretty good example of why lawless anarchy sucks pretty hard.

[MachineGhost]

With all do respect, MG, I probably would have to suggest that if anyone needs to "grow up," it's anyone who undermines these huge dilemmas as afterthoughts.

You're too pessimistic.  What is so unique about those challenges that they cannot be resolved by the stupendous ingenuity of the human brain?  I can think of a few right off the top of my head.  It seems to me the real problem is people are so conditioned by the government-controlled human zoo, they can't think outside of its perimeter.  All the better to dismantle the zoo and free up the imagination.

[moda0306]

Ingenuity is best realized in a society with some level of orgganization, coordination, and economic certainty.  Squabbling over who controls what, especially when there's no final arbiter to make certain judgement, doesn't give us much to work with.

I'm not a pessimist... I'm a realist about what happens when you put a bunch of people on an island with limited resources.  A power struggle for use of resources that are necessary for survival and prosperity, but aren't really anyones to legitimately claim as their own.

This is a problem. It can't be waved away by "we're smart though. We'll figure it out."

Yeah, we're smart, but we're about twice as greedy as we are smart. And when uncertainty and economic loss bears it's ugly head we become animals.

[Pointedstick]

What we have here is a classic debate between the concepts of "ordered liberty" and "natural liberty." One says that freedom and prosperity are best realized under conditions of order with predictable rules. The other says that they're best realized with an absence of constraints on human actions. These debates are always fascinating to me because they reveal a great deal about the participants, but there will never be any agreement. Some people simply prefer order to freedom, while others chafe under even reasonable rules.

[AgAuMoney]

there will never be any agreement. Some people simply prefer order to freedom, while others chafe under even reasonable rules.

Exactly.

It's really too bad that we can't naturally separate and group ourselves with others like us.

But the ones that like government would force their young into an army and take over the anarchist part of the world.

[MachineGhost]

This is a problem. It can't be waved away by "we're smart though. We'll figure it out."

Of course negative human behavior is a problem, but greater thinkers than you and I have already proposed non-coercive alternative solutions that would do a better and fairer job than the status quo.  I even recommended several books to you in the past on exactly this topic.  So, quit pulling a doodle and hit the books!

I'm convinced the ideal solution is non-coercive "ordered liberty" that preserves as much "natural liberty" as possible.  There can be no other way.  Heck, even in Star Trek NG's post-adolescent universe, they still had guns!

[doodle]

This is a problem. It can't be waved away by "we're smart though. We'll figure it out."

Of course negative human behavior is a problem, but greater thinkers than you and I have already proposed non-coercive alternative solutions that would do a better and fairer job than the status quo.  I even recommended several books to you in the past on exactly this topic.  So, quit pulling a doodle and hit the books!

I'm convinced the ideal solution is non-coercive "ordered liberty" that preserves as much "natural liberty" as possible.  There can be no other way.  Heck, even in Star Trek NG's post-adolescent universe, they still had guns!

"pulling a doodle" is a licensed trademark of the Doodle corporation and you are expressly forbidden from using it without written authorization and the payment of a sizable royalty fee. 

[doodle]

By the way, after just emerging from a totally dysfunctional condo board meeting this evening I must say I have a newfound respect for certain advantages of totalitarian dictatorships. I truly wonder if people are capable of governing themselves in a democratic fashion...

I can say that my place functioned best when we had a take no prisioners president doling out justice and taking charge. Sure he rubbed some the wrong way, but that sure beats total anarchy and chaos.

[Pointedstick]

there will never be any agreement. Some people simply prefer order to freedom, while others chafe under even reasonable rules.

Exactly.

It's really too bad that we can't naturally separate and group ourselves with others like us.

But the ones that like government would force their young into an army and take over the anarchist part of the world.

This is why I think the anarchist society would probably have to have nuclear submarines or death rays or poison-delivering drones the size of ants. Something to really scare the governments. HHH writes about this in The Private Production of Defense.

By the way, after just emerging from a totally dysfunctional condo board meeting this evening I must say I have a newfound respect for certain advantages of totalitarian dictatorships. I truly wonder if people are capable of governing themselves in a democratic fashion...

I can say that my place functioned best when we had a take no prisioners president doling out justice and taking charge. Sure he rubbed some the wrong way, but that sure beats total anarchy and chaos.

Like I said, some prefer order to freedom Although I'll agree with you that dictatorship is indeed more efficient than democracy. That's one reason why the market tends to work better than the government: it's a whole bunch of small dictatorships, each competing with each other in their respective fields, free to innovate and grow with a "take-no-prisoners" approach, but only within their own small spheres of influence.

[rocketdog]

there will never be any agreement. Some people simply prefer order to freedom, while others chafe under even reasonable rules.

Exactly.

It's really too bad that we can't naturally separate and group ourselves with others like us.

I've often fantasized about dividing the country into quadrants, with each one being taken either by the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or Statists.  Citizens would move into the quadrant whose political views they agreed with, and then we'd sit back and watch the fun begin. 

My bet would be that within a few generations the Libertarians will have significantly outperformed the rest and then have to face the problem of what to do with all the immigrants from the other quadrants who want to seek political asylum.

[Pointedstick]

I doubt it. Each would appeal in its own way. The libertarians would gasp in horror at the high taxes and onerous regulations in the liberal quadrant, but the liberals living there would love it. Meanwhile, they would not be able to even imagine why anyone would want to live in a place where just anybody could buy a gun, drive 90mph, build a house, burn trash, you name it. Those things have to be controlled! And both the libertarians and liberals would be horrified by the restrictions on marriage and sex that would be enacted in the conservative quadrant, as well as its large and highly organized military force.

Probably the statist quadrant would become empty very quickly though. Nobody really wants to live under total government restriction. Except for maybe doodle! 

[doodle]

PS,

Have you ever read any of the utilitarian philosophers...David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, James Mill, John Stuart Mill. I would be curious what you thought about their line of argument.  It's good to get your head out of Harry Browne every once in a while.

My prediction is that just like the euphoria that surrounds the latest stages of an asset bubble in the market, your libertarian inclinations couldn't reach any higher in which case they are due to plummet back to a more reasonable stance on the role of government in society. 

[RuralEngineer]

I doubt it. Each would appeal in its own way. The libertarians would gasp in horror at the high taxes and onerous regulations in the liberal quadrant, but the liberals living there would love it. Meanwhile, they would not be able to even imagine why anyone would want to live in a place where just anybody could buy a gun, drive 90mph, build a house, burn trash, you name it. Those things have to be controlled! And both the libertarians and liberals would be horrified by the restrictions on marriage and sex that would be enacted in the conservative quadrant, as well as its large and highly organized military force.

Probably the statist quadrant would become empty very quickly though. Nobody really wants to live under total government restriction. Except for maybe doodle! 

Case in point, California. Liberal policies damage the business climate prompting migration to a more promising location, like Texas or Colorado. However, they take their liberal ideology with them and start to poison the new host state.

Ideology would always take a back seat to economics. The people would flock to the most prosperous quadrant and try to convert it to fit their ideology (likely hampering the prosperity in the process).

[doodle]

This isn't a substitute to getting it from the horses mouth (the guys mentioned above)....but maybe this debate is a good starting point:

https://www.debate.org/debates/Libertar ... rianism/1/

[moda0306]

I'm not that opposed to the "quadrant" approach, but the question remains 1) how many do we need, and 2) who decides who goes where and which quadrant is which?  Any attempt to say it will "naturally" figure itself out sounds like some people withholding vital resources (land, food, mineral resources, etc) for someone else's labor, which is just another form of theft... it just looks a little bit better.

Right now we have some 200 countries in the world, with a bunch of uninhabited islands that probably represent opportunity for new libertarian dream-states.  Isn't 200 "districts" plus a smattering of unsettled areas enough?  If it's not enough, I struggle to still believe it's a sound strategy within the United States by giving each state ultimate sovereignty.

But if 200 countries isn't enough, and we need to split our one country into 50 sovereign sectors (or even a few), who's to say I can't "secede" from my sector?  I shouldn't have to move to be free.  This is "my" land and ultimately sovereignty lies at the individual level, not some pre-decided state size level, so I should be able to found Modaville.  aka, my yard.

So to me, since there are 200 options plus a bunch of uninhabited islands out there, this little experiment appears to already be happening in our world, and to the distain of the liberals who like to say what an intolerant, plutocratic sh!t-hole the U.S. is, and the libertarians that like to say what a confiscatory/coercive nightmare the U.S. is, people really seem to like it here.  Especially in areas like NYC and the California coast, where property values are extremely expensive, and people who are extremely productive and would seemingly benefit most from a "free society" are paying out their asses to live in some of the most "socialist" areas the most "socialist" states, of what is supposedly a nation of slaves.

I'm actually starting to think that this will to found some sort of "free society" within the U.S., and that it would be received extremely well, is stemming from some sort of will to control others.  Instead of moving to an island somewhere, which they have every ability to do, they call people here names (statists, socialists, leaches, etc) and claim they'll go Galt, but never do.

Because libertarians have so many options that if their first instinct is to try to move heaven and earth to create another in our their country, maybe they simply aren't willing to pay the price of pure freedom... tolerance of the fact that not many other people agree with it, and your island is likely going to be a lot more boring, less productive, and possibly even more violent than you think, and you might not mind paying FICA and not being able to buy beer on Sundays for the privilege of living around other people that like liberty but only about as much as they like financial security.

I also think it's stemmed from not wanting to give up the wealth of natural resources at our disposal as compared to a tropical island.  And with that, I'll just end this by stating that I'm amazed that people can see withholding vital resources for someone else's labor as "liberty," and not something that's probably more akin to "coercion" or "confiscation."

[Pointedstick]

Because libertarians have so many options that if their first instinct is to try to move heaven and earth to create another in our their country, maybe they simply aren't willing to pay the price of pure freedom... tolerance of the fact that not many other people agree with it, and your island is likely going to be a lot more boring, less productive, and possibly even more violent than you think, and you might not mind paying FICA and not being able to buy beer on Sundays for the privilege of living around other people that like liberty but only about as much as they like financial security.

I also think it's stemmed from not wanting to give up the wealth of natural resources at our disposal as compared to a tropical island.

I think you are probably right about all of that. It's the classic liberty/security dichotomy. Government decreases risk while removing freedom. And I think it turns out that most people appreciate to a certain extent having risk removed from their lives without them having to do anything. To that effect, maybe we can say that government offers a "free lunch" to risk-averse people, or at least those who are more risk-averse than they are freedom-seeking.

But of course, our level of risk-averseness changes over time. I became more risk-averse since becoming a husband, and then again after becoming a father. Were I alone, finding a remote patch of ground or an island or living in a truck camper or something actually has a lot of draw. But the family choices I decided to make reduced the appeal of those options compared to settling down and getting a 9-5 job rather than hewing firewood, hunting, and fishing.

I mean, I'm a freakin' libertarian living in California. I could leave at any time... but apparently I appreciate the security of my job more than I yearn for the freedoms I could have in even an adjacent state. I'm like everyone: I want something for nothing. In my case, I want more freedom than my choices would indicate.

My view is that it's quite possible at some point in the future that we'll have a society that's freer than our current one with the equivalent or a lower level of risk. But it will be a slow incremental process fraught with give-and-take, setbacks, successes... just like our current society's evolution.

Meanwhile, I'll keep advocating politically for government to return some of the freedom it's taken rather than preparing to secede.

[doodle]

Because libertarians have so many options that if their first instinct is to try to move heaven and earth to create another in our their country, maybe they simply aren't willing to pay the price of pure freedom... tolerance of the fact that not many other people agree with it, and your island is likely going to be a lot more boring, less productive, and possibly even more violent than you think, and you might not mind paying FICA and not being able to buy beer on Sundays for the privilege of living around other people that like liberty but only about as much as they like financial security.

I also think it's stemmed from not wanting to give up the wealth of natural resources at our disposal as compared to a tropical island.

I think you are probably right about all of that. It's the classic liberty/security dichotomy. Government decreases risk while removing freedom. And I think it turns out that most people appreciate to a certain extent having risk removed from their lives without them having to do anything. To that effect, maybe we can say that government offers a "free lunch" to risk-averse people, or at least those who are more risk-averse than they are freedom-seeking.

But of course, our level of risk-averseness changes over time. I became more risk-averse since becoming a husband, and then again after becoming a father. Were I alone, finding a remote patch of ground or an island or living in a truck camper or something actually has a lot of draw. But the family choices I decided to make reduced the appeal of those options compared to settling down and getting a 9-5 job rather than hewing firewood, hunting, and fishing.

I mean, I'm a freakin' libertarian living in California. I could leave at any time... but apparently I appreciate the security of my job more than I yearn for the freedoms I could have in even an adjacent state. I'm like everyone: I want something for nothing. In my case, I want more freedom than my choices would indicate.

My view is that it's quite possible at some point in the future that we'll have a society that's freer than our current one with the equivalent or a lower level of risk. But it will be a slow incremental process fraught with give-and-take, setbacks, successes... just like our current society's evolution.

Meanwhile, I'll keep advocating politically for government to return some of the freedom it's taken rather than preparing to secede.

Just Some of the freedom? I can understand that, where my panties get ruffled is when people start spouting all this nonsense that the government should be abolished in its entirety. Question, would you stay in California if tomorrow all government functions ceased to exist? What do you think would happen as soon as people realized that the law of the jungle was suddenly in effect?

[Pointedstick]

Just Some of the freedom?

"All" or even "most" would be good, but baby steps. Rome was dismantled built one brick at a time. I'm patient.

I can understand that, where my panties get ruffled is when people start spouting all this nonsense that the government should be abolished in its entirety. Question, would you stay in California if tomorrow all government functions ceased to exist? What do you think would happen as soon as people realized that the law of the jungle was suddenly in effect?

Well, I think the most likely thing that would happen is the people who noticed would immediately set about rebuilding government. But in the interim period, I seriously doubt that everyone would start murdering each other, and probably many wouldn't even notice. In my apartment complex for example, everything is pretty self-contained. We have private security and a good community. The water, electricity, garbage, and sewage services are privately-provided so those wouldn't shut off either. We buy food from a variety of private shops and stores. We all get along without having government police officers near by to threaten us with violence unless we abstain from robbery and assault.

The roads might start to need repair after a few months, but private companies already do that work under government; it's just a matter of getting it organized and paid for. It's possible that people would drive a lot less in an environment of diminished willingness to collectively pay for wide vehicle roads.

[doodle]

Just Some of the freedom?

"All" or even "most" would be good, but baby steps. Rome was dismantled built one brick at a time. I'm patient.

I can understand that, where my panties get ruffled is when people start spouting all this nonsense that the government should be abolished in its entirety. Question, would you stay in California if tomorrow all government functions ceased to exist? What do you think would happen as soon as people realized that the law of the jungle was suddenly in effect?

Well, I think the most likely thing that would happen is the people who noticed would immediately set about rebuilding government. But in the interim period, I seriously doubt that everyone would start murdering each other, and probably many wouldn't even notice. In my apartment complex for example, everything is pretty self-contained. We have private security and a good community. The water, electricity, garbage, and sewage services are privately-provided so those wouldn't shut off either. We buy food from a variety of private shops and stores. We all get along without having government police officers near by to threaten us with violence unless we abstain from robbery and assault.

The roads might start to need repair after a few months, but private companies already do that work under government; it's just a matter of getting it organized and paid for. It's possible that people would drive a lot less in an environment of diminished willingness to collectively pay for wide vehicle roads.

Maybe your water company woukd jack up your rates because of their newly unencumbered monopoly position? How would your private community security stand up  to an onslaught of millions of prisoners being let out of the jails? If they are hungry and walk into a store and just start eating off the shelves, who is going to stop them? How are you going to raise the money to pay those companies to fix the roads....door to door donations? Who decides when and how to fix them? Which ones take priority?