[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not sure where I said anything about the necessity of a state. I'm saying that using the philosophical underpinning of a purely voluntary transactions is specious.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting really close to being a semantical nitpicker here. It doesn't matter what you think of the philosophical underpinnings, if you are in favor of involuntary actions to address certain issues, you're arguing for a state.

[ QUOTE ]
And, as I said, there ARE people who believe that cars are a serious enough problem to do something. They go and blow up Hummers and get called ecoterrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, these people exist. There are also people who think aliens are kidnapping them. They exist. And there are people who hear voices that tell them to kill people. They exist.

What's your point?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, since they are being affected by the "involuntary transactions" that others are making, what recourse do they have? Does not the fact that no courts exist which would serve their desires and preferences mean anything? Is this not the definition of the tyrnanny of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no.

First recognize that these people aren't *entitled* to have their desires catered to by other people.

Then realize that the market they want to participate in (arbitration services) is incredibly distorted by government intervention.

In fact, the pollution they despise and are damaged by is explicitly permitted by government. Government *immunizes* the aggressors in this case.

So we have a situation where involuntary transactions create this situation. And you think this is some indictment of what would happen in a world where involuntary transactions were not accepted as the norm?

[ QUOTE ]
I read that living in NY city and just breathing the air is as bad for you as smoking X cigarrets a day (I'd have to look up the specific number and study, but it was >1). Do people living in NY city have the right to sue? Are their courts that will hear their case? Or is this also tyranny of the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you have a situation that is created directly by involuntary transactions. What this says about a voluntary society is not clear to me. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more to make your point here.

[ QUOTE ]
My point is not that we need a state or that we need anything, my point is that "tyranny of the majority" is a fact of life that is overcomable only by the use of FORCE by a minority willing and powerful enough to do so. This force may be physical violence, it may be emotional pleading, it may be something else, but it is force and power nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this has what to do with my posts that you responded to?