Just How Stupid Are We?

[Kshartle]

Now if we are trying to say that the state has a monopoly on "illegitimate" force, then I'd say again that they're wrong because illegitimate force happens all around us via crime or pollution.

Ah, but if we are saying that gubmint has a monopoly on widely accepted illegitimate force, then maybe we're onto something... But we've probably hyper-defined things at this point... And if an entity is engaging in widely accepted illegitimate force, our concern shouldn't be that it's a monopoly, but that it's activity is wrong in the first place.

I think you've just about nailed it, with the exception that we have a slighty different meaning when we use the word force. What you would refer to as legitimate force I would not call force. But other than that.......agreed.

I don't really care about the government, just the use of force by some humans AGAINST others....

The state is a symptom not the cause.

So.... how would you propose that we reverse such commonplace behaviors?

From prior post - The only way to persuade others and teach the kids is to accept it yourself first. Since you can't "force" it on anyone, everyone has to choose it. The only person you can control or have a right to control is yourself. So it starts with you. It starts with you saying, "The initiation of force doesn't solve any of my problems. It doesn't solve anyone else's either. It's a choice for me, so it must be a choice for everyone else to. I'm going to choose the non-aggression principle to live by. I'm going to talk to others about it, and teach it to my kids. I can't force it on anyone, and I'm not worried if everyone doesn't agree, because I can't control that. I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems."

This is the only solution to these problems as far as I can tell. More laws and different ones will not do it.

[Pointedstick]

So.... how would you propose that we reverse such commonplace behaviors?

From prior post - The only way to persuade others and teach the kids is to accept it yourself first. Since you can't "force" it on anyone, everyone has to choose it. The only person you can control or have a right to control is yourself. So it starts with you. It starts with you saying, "The initiation of force doesn't solve any of my problems. It doesn't solve anyone else's either. It's a choice for me, so it must be a choice for everyone else to. I'm going to choose the non-aggression principle to live by. I'm going to talk to others about it, and teach it to my kids. I can't force it on anyone, and I'm not worried if everyone doesn't agree, because I can't control that. I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems."

This is the only solution to these problems as far as I can tell. More laws and different will not do it.

I agree with this. It's gonna be a parenting thing. Without getting too much into nature/nurture, I think there's a lot that nurture can accomplish. And I think great progress has already been made on this front. Try asking your grandparents what their parents were like growing up. Odds are you'll hear stories of brutality, abuse, neglect, alcoholism, abandonment... the works. Heck, my great-great grandfather was literally thrown out of his house one day when his mother said, "We have too many kids and we can't afford to feed all of you. We think you're the most likely to survive on your own, so get!" He was 8.

[Gumby]

I'm going to choose the non-aggression principle to live by.

I'm with you there. Most people are.

I'm going to talk to others about it, and teach it to my kids.

I'll teach it to my kids, but sorry I'm not going to pull people aside and tell them how to live their lives.

I can't force it on anyone, and I'm not worried if everyone doesn't agree, because I can't control that.

Sounds good.

I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems.

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[align=center][/align]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

[Pointedstick]

I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems.

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[ugly image of third-world shithole]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

That's funny; where I live, I pay a private company $14 a month to do the very same thing. I wasn't aware that trash collection required a tax-supported municipal service, perhaps because in my neighborhood… it doesn't!

[Gumby]

I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems.

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[ugly image of third-world shithole]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

That's funny; where I live, I pay a private company $14 a month to do the very same thing. I wasn't aware that trash collection required a tax-supported municipal service, perhaps because in my neighborhood… it doesn't!

Ah... But it's not required. You have the option of buying town trash bags and the town will pick up any trash that is placed in those town trash bags. In other words, you only pay for the bags you use. The more trash bags you use, the more you pay. It's very fair. Just about everyone buys those trash bags except for a few apartment buildings and businesses that choose to have a dumpster from a private trash service.

However, if someone chooses to leave trash around their house, and create a sanitation issue, the government will come knocking on their door and fine them. Nobody's head gets bashed in. No threat of "violence". If you don't pay your fine, you'll probably get gently tossed into a prison cell for a few days and given a few meals. And all the neighbors will be happier than living in a shithole.

Nobody wants to live in a shithole. Most people don't mind having a set of rules that are enforced in the neighborhood.

[moda0306]

I like to think that I personally live by the non-aggression principal... does voting for a non-anarchist count as aggression?

However, I pollute the environment and occupy land that I'm willing to defend if push comes to shove.  These are quasi-aggressive.

I also eat meat, and not always the properly raised kind, so I contribute to the torturing of animals.

But is the non-aggression principal REALLY the only moral code to live by?  Does simply not causing a problem for someone else mean that I'm done and there should be no guide to positive behavior towards others? 

Included in my moral code is something that tells me to hold the door open for someone walking in with a bunch of stuff.  Is that just fluff?

[Kshartle]

I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems.

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[ugly image of third-world shithole]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

That's funny; where I live, I pay a private company $14 a month to do the very same thing. I wasn't aware that trash collection required a tax-supported municipal service, perhaps because in my neighborhood… it doesn't!

Yes,

No one in the neighborhood needs to organize anything. No one in my neighborhood organizes the electricity, or the cable, or food distribution.

If humans want their trash picked up, the invisible hand of the market will create busineses that will come pick it up for a lower price than the violent monopoly ever could.

Arguing against it is like saying if we don't have slaves how will the cotton get picked?

[moda0306]

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[ugly image of third-world shithole]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

That's funny; where I live, I pay a private company $14 a month to do the very same thing. I wasn't aware that trash collection required a tax-supported municipal service, perhaps because in my neighborhood… it doesn't!

Yes,

No one in the neighborhood needs to organize anything. No one in my neighborhood organizes the electricity, or the cable, or food distribution.

If humans want their trash picked up, the invisible hand of the market will create busineses that will come pick it up for a lower price than the violent monopoly ever could.

Arguing against it is like saying if we don't have slaves how will the cotton get picked?

So if 5 different electricity companies want to run power to my neighborhood and have to pay for all the overhead, are you sure this is not what economists call a "natural monopoly," where the overhead costs involved with doing business are so high, and steady service is so important to the economy, that one company does it better even without competition?

[moda0306]

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[ugly image of third-world shithole]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

That's funny; where I live, I pay a private company $14 a month to do the very same thing. I wasn't aware that trash collection required a tax-supported municipal service, perhaps because in my neighborhood… it doesn't!

I still don't see what this has to do with non-aggression and eliminating violence between people.

It's once again a discussion of the role of government, and that every government act is backed by the threat of force.  In this case, I HAVE to pay taxes and possibly accept my city as the only garbage collector, or possibly the city will fine me (which I wouldn't pay but-for threat of force).

[Libertarian666]

Well... this is where you lose me. I have a "problem" in that everyone in my neighborhood, including myself, wants their trash removed from their property each week, but nobody wants to organize it. The local government actually does "solve that problem" for us better than my neighbors can do. In fact, I've visited neighborhoods that don't have much government support for trash removal and sanitation ordinances, and they look like this...

[ugly image of third-world shithole]

Hate to say it, but I'd rather have the government trash removal. But that's just me.

That's funny; where I live, I pay a private company $14 a month to do the very same thing. I wasn't aware that trash collection required a tax-supported municipal service, perhaps because in my neighborhood… it doesn't!

I still don't see what this has to do with non-aggression and eliminating violence between people.

Oh, that's easy: all government "solutions" require aggression, whereas private solutions don't.

But I'm sure you knew that. 

[Pointedstick]

Ah... But it's not required. You have the option of buying town trash bags and the town will pick up any trash that is placed in those town trash bags. In other words, you only pay for the bags you use. The more trash bags you use, the more you pay. It's very fair. Just about everyone buys those trash bags except for a few apartment buildings and businesses that choose to have a dumpster from a private trash service.

However, if someone chooses to leave trash around their house, and create a sanitation issue, the government will come knocking on their door and fine them. Nobody's head gets bashed in. No threat of "violence". If you don't pay your fine, you'll probably get gently tossed into a prison cell for a few days and given a few meals. And all the neighbors will be happier than living in a shithole.

Nobody wants to live in a shithole. Most people don't mind having a set of rules that are enforced in the neighborhood.

Obviously the government can collect trash. I'm just saying that there's no Iron Law Of The Universe dictating that government is the only entity capable of collecting trash. In both of our cases, what I think we are agreeing on is that we live in places where people prefer trash to be removed and not strewn across the lawns and streets. But that's simply another way of saying that we live in civilized areas where people have standards. If the government tried to implement a trash collection program in the third-world shithole depicted in the image you posted, it would probably be a failure because people there clearly don't care that they live in filth.

[Gumby]

If humans want their trash picked up, the invisible hand of the market will create busineses that will come pick it up for a lower price than the violent monopoly ever could.

Just curious, but why do you suppose a slum has such poor sanitation standards? Do you think the people in those slums like having trash everywhere?

Arguing against it is like saying if we don't have slaves how will the cotton get picked?

I'm simply saying that it's a huge waste of time to spend your life convincing others to give up government when most people are happy with the sanitation, sewer, roads, bridges, canals, that are already in place from the government. I just don't understand how you can devote so much time to something that most people aren't willing to change.

[Gumby]

Oh, that's easy: all government "solutions" require aggression, whereas private solutions don't.

But I'm sure you knew that. 

Not exactly. If I live in a neighborhood where we want the streets to be clean, and people respect each other's space. So, my neighbors might to set up a private ordinance (set of rules) that everyone on the block will have to follow. If someone doesn't follow those rules, we'll probably do something about it (i.e. rule enforcement).

[Pointedstick]

If humans want their trash picked up, the invisible hand of the market will create busineses that will come pick it up for a lower price than the violent monopoly ever could.

Just curious, but why do you suppose a slum has such poor sanitation standards? Do you think the people in those slums like having trash everywhere?

Yes. It's about standards. I lived in a primitive African village where there was no trash because people had pride in their community and respect for the land they lived on. 50 miles away, you could find a crime-ridden slum with garbage strewn about everywhere. The character of the people in these two communities was a night-and-day difference.

[Gumby]

But that's simply another way of saying that we live in civilized areas where people have standards.

That's my point. If my street agrees to enforce a standard through an ordinance that we all agree on (to keep our street clean), and someone doesn't follow that agreed-upon rule, we are no different than a government when we go to enforce that rule.

People want other people to follow rules that effect their own lives.

[moda0306]

"Private" solutions can require aggression if there is an illegitimate/arbitrary claim on property that is not theirs.  Then you either have a "government of one," or just another dictatorship that started out looking more like a Partnership.

So, there you have government again.  It just looks different and some would call it "private."

Oh, that's easy: all government "solutions" require aggression, whereas private solutions don't.

But I'm sure you knew that. 

Not exactly. If I live in a neighborhood where we want the streets to be clean, and people respect each other's space. So, my neighbors might to set up a private ordinance (set of rules) that everyone on the block will have to follow. If someone doesn't follow those rules, we'll probably do something about it (i.e. rule enforcement).

Gumby, you miss the point, in this perfect world, the roads aren't run by government either, but a mix of private companies that will just "cooperate" to run them in an organized fashion.  These companies will sue people one by one for the trash that ends up on their roads, and the private arbitration company will rule that the people who have polluted the streets owe the street company money, and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

LIBERTY!

[Gumby]

Oh, that's easy: all government "solutions" require aggression, whereas private solutions don't.

But I'm sure you knew that. 

Not exactly. If I live in a neighborhood where we want the streets to be clean, and people respect each other's space. So, my neighbors might to set up a private ordinance (set of rules) that everyone on the block will have to follow. If someone doesn't follow those rules, we'll probably do something about it (i.e. rule enforcement).

Gumby, you miss the point, in this perfect world, the roads aren't run by government either, but a mix of private companies that will just "cooperate" to run them in an organized fashion.  These companies will sue people one by one for the trash that ends up on their roads, and the private arbitration company will rule that the people who have polluted the streets owe the street company money, and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

LIBERTY!

[Pointedstick]

But that's simply another way of saying that we live in civilized areas where people have standards.

That's my point. If my street agrees to enforce a standard through an ordinance that we all agree on (to keep our street clean), and someone doesn't follow that agreed-upon rule, we are no different than a government when we go to enforce that rule.

True. But if the ordnances are universally agreed-to because your neighbors are all civilized human beings, are they even necessary?

If the people on your street think, "Hey, I gotta get this trash outta here or else my front lawn will look like a craphole!" and they hire private trash removal companies to take away their trash (as they do in my neighborhood), then they have solved their problem without needing to involve government or make rules with consequences attached to them. Does that make sense?

[Pointedstick]

[...] and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

How about this: then it will be noted on their Reputation Report (kind of like a credit report, but for bad behavior) and other people for whom these reports are important will stop dealing with them, creating severe social consequences. They will find themselves denied access to nice restaurants, have to pay more for insurance, and find themselves facing other such consequences. This system would essentially mimic the widely-accepted-as-moral social consequences seen when people lived in bands of 200 people that become impossible with the anonymity of a vast society.

[Gumby]

But that's simply another way of saying that we live in civilized areas where people have standards.

That's my point. If my street agrees to enforce a standard through an ordinance that we all agree on (to keep our street clean), and someone doesn't follow that agreed-upon rule, we are no different than a government when we go to enforce that rule.

True. But if the ordnances are universally agreed-to because your neighbors are all civilized human beings, are they even necessary?

If the people on your street think, "Hey, I gotta get this trash outta here or else my front lawn will look like a craphole!" and they hire private trash removal companies to take away their trash (as they do in my neighborhood), then they have solved their problem without needing to involve government or make rules with consequences attached to them. Does that make sense?

No.. It doesn't make sense, because there is always some asshole who doesn't give a shit. I'll see if I can dig it up, but I remember hearing about someone in a neighborhood who didn't ever mow their lawn. So, after a few weeks, the grass in their yard grew to 4-5 feet tall and there were ticks in the grass. The kids who lived nearby were starting to get sick from tick bites and the town code enforcement officer was called into fine the homeowner (since it became a health issue). They refused to pay the fine or mow their lawn and I don't remember the story but I assume that some threat of violence was issued and I'm sure that made everyone in the neighborhood happy.

[Gumby]

[...] and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

How about this: then it will be noted on their Reputation Report (kind of like a credit report, but for bad behavior) and other people for whom these reports are important will stop dealing with them, creating severe social consequences. They will find themselves denied access to nice restaurants, have to pay more for insurance, and find themselves facing other such consequences. This system would essentially mimic the widely-accepted-as-moral social consequences seen when people lived in bands of 200 people that become impossible with the anonymity of a vast society.

It's a nice idea. It really is. But that wouldn't "solve" the problem of the health hazard in the neighborhood where someone was being an asshole and growing their lawn too long and the ticks were getting out of control. In that situation, whether a private or government ordinance was declared, some threat of violence would be necessary to make the street safe again and the neighbors happy.

[moda0306]

[...] and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

How about this: then it will be noted on their Reputation Report (kind of like a credit report, but for bad behavior) and other people for whom these reports are important will stop dealing with them, creating severe social consequences. They will find themselves denied access to nice restaurants, have to pay more for insurance, and find themselves facing other such consequences. This system would essentially mimic the widely-accepted-as-moral social consequences seen when people lived in bands of 200 people that become impossible with the anonymity of a vast society.

That actually doesn't sound too bad... now I just have to figure out how people in my neighborhood attempt to bargain in good faith with the guy who owns the street in front of our house...

I mean, they're not letting me onto the street without paying the toll.

I suppose they could go onto that list as well and then I'm still left in a position where my transportation has essentially been monopolized by this company/guy who thinks he "owns" the street in front of my house... having a "credit report" that tells me he's an @sshole doesn't help much, because I already know that, but have no choice but to work with him.

[...] and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

How about this: then it will be noted on their Reputation Report (kind of like a credit report, but for bad behavior) and other people for whom these reports are important will stop dealing with them, creating severe social consequences. They will find themselves denied access to nice restaurants, have to pay more for insurance, and find themselves facing other such consequences. This system would essentially mimic the widely-accepted-as-moral social consequences seen when people lived in bands of 200 people that become impossible with the anonymity of a vast society.

It's a nice idea. It really is. But that wouldn't "solve" the problem of the health hazard in the neighborhood where someone was being an asshole and growing their lawn too long and the ticks were getting out of control. In that situation, whether a private or government ordinance was declared, some threat of violence would be necessary to make the street safe again and the neighbors happy.

I think we're supposed to take him to a private arbitrator...

[Libertarian666]

[...] and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

How about this: then it will be noted on their Reputation Report (kind of like a credit report, but for bad behavior) and other people for whom these reports are important will stop dealing with them, creating severe social consequences. They will find themselves denied access to nice restaurants, have to pay more for insurance, and find themselves facing other such consequences. This system would essentially mimic the widely-accepted-as-moral social consequences seen when people lived in bands of 200 people that become impossible with the anonymity of a vast society.

What a terrible idea! Obviously nothing like that could ever work without special people using guns to enforce it! Otherwise there would already be organizations that would rate goods or services without needing guns to enforce the ratings... sort of like Angie's List or Consumer Reports. 

[Pointedstick]

I really do understand the point you're making, Gumby. I think we're all in agreement that a world with perfect people will never come to pass. And I agree with you that for the inevitable assholes who will be present in any society, there need to be consequences for bad behavior. Every society has had them and every society always needs them for the few who don't play nice. I think I just disagree that the consequences have to come from government. They can even be violent consequences! For example: the asshole with the tick-harboring grass forest is sued by his neighbors and rapidly loses in the arbitration proceedings as his lawn is determined to be causing uncompensated externalities (a form of trespass). He is ordered to cut his lawn or pay damages. As he is an asshole, he refuses. The arbitrator hires a landscaping company to forcibly cut his lawn and hires armed men to guard the lawn-mowers, charging him for these costs. If he interferes, they will threaten him with their big scary black guns until he stops. If at this point he is revealed to be a completely irrational lunatic and attacks them, they will kill him. And nobody will shed a tear, because everyone will see that he was an irrational asshole lunatic. If his family members sue, they will lose.

Even if he doesn't interfere, all of this will be noted in his Reputation Report, he will find himself increasingly isolated socially. If he tried to break into an establishment where he has been denied entry, violence will be used to subdue him. As he becomes more and more of a shady character, the reputation firms will require him to carry expensive "asshole insurance" that will pay any judgements issues against him should they exceed his ability to pay (highly likely since the kind of asshole who doesn't even mow his lawn is likely to be poor). Should he refuse, another black mark will be put on his report and he will find himself even more isolated. At this point, unless he is a madman or virtually braindead, presumably he will relent and begin to act more appropriately if only to salvage his ability to participate in the parts of society that he enjoys (Cable TV, driving a truck, cell phones, beer, Pizza Hut, etc). There will be plenty of consequences. They just don't have to come from a government, I don't believe.

[Gumby]

[...] and if those people refuse to pay.... errr... well...

How about this: then it will be noted on their Reputation Report (kind of like a credit report, but for bad behavior) and other people for whom these reports are important will stop dealing with them, creating severe social consequences. They will find themselves denied access to nice restaurants, have to pay more for insurance, and find themselves facing other such consequences. This system would essentially mimic the widely-accepted-as-moral social consequences seen when people lived in bands of 200 people that become impossible with the anonymity of a vast society.

What a terrible idea! Obviously nothing like that could ever work without special people using guns to enforce it! Otherwise there would already be organizations that would rate goods or services without needing guns to enforce the ratings... sort of like Angie's List or Consumer Reports. 

Yeah. I'm sure that serial killer or thief in the neighborhood is really worried about their "reputation report".