|
|
#21
09-12-2006, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to hear this backed up because I've never heard of such a concept in any of my poli sci classes. [/ QUOTE ] It's self-evident. First: judical/court cases. Without a "highest court of the land/supreme court", the losing party can appeal endlessly and never have to abide by the ruling(s). Furthermore, the losing party will be different from judge to judge, making the whole exercise pointless. Second, for making laws/legislature. Say we had ten non-cooperative legislatures. Which one's laws do we follow? All of them? None of them? What happens when one requires you to pay taxes but the other oulaws taxes? If #1 says a law is repealed, but the other nine don't, is it repealed? If #3 orders a road built and #6 orders it destroyed? And, when you have more than one enforcer of laws/executives, you have civil war, of course. In a large society, when there is no monopoly on the use of force, force does not cease to exist. It goes on a chaotic rampage. 
|
|
#22
09-12-2006, 09:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
First: judical/court cases. Without a "highest court of the land/supreme court", the losing party can appeal endlessly and never have to abide by the ruling(s). [/ QUOTE ] So you assume here that 1) there are literally an endless # of dispute resolution courts 2) that the damaged party in the dispute, or the insuring agent representing the damaged party, will willingly accept arbitration from absolutely any one of these endless entities. Can you explain the logic behind both of your underlying assumptions?
|
|
#23
09-12-2006, 09:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
In a large society, when there is no monopoly on the use of force, force does not cease to exist. It goes on a chaotic rampage. [/ QUOTE ] There is no "monopoly" on force in North America. Why are Mexico, USA, and Canada not engaged in a chaotic rampage of violence?
|
|
#24
09-12-2006, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
All this "the state is negative by definition" nonsense was refuted decisively over a half century ago, several times [/ QUOTE ] this avid reader kindly requests links plz.
|
|
#25
09-12-2006, 09:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
First: judical/court cases. Without a "highest court of the land/supreme court", the losing party can appeal endlessly and never have to abide by the ruling(s). Furthermore, the losing party will be different from judge to judge, making the whole exercise pointless. [/ QUOTE ] One possible way it might work: "But suppose Brown insists on another appeals judge, and yet another? Couldn't he escape judgment by appealing ad infinitum? Obviously, in any society legal proceedings cannot continue indefinitely; there must be some cutoff point. In the present statist society, where government monopolizes the judicial function, the Supreme Court is arbitrarily desig*nated as the cutoff point. In the libertarian society, there would also have to be an agreed-upon cutoff point, and since there are only two parties to any crime or dispute—the plaintiff and the defendant—it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding. This will cover the situation when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's courts come to the same decision, as well as the situation when an appeals court decides on a disagreement between the two original courts." Rothbard [ QUOTE ] Second, for making laws/legislature. Say we had ten non-cooperative legislatures. [/ QUOTE ] Why would we need legislatures in an AC society?
|
|
#26
09-12-2006, 09:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
No. The majority can, and does, choose not to "tyrannize" the minority in this way. DUH. You can go and buy pepsi or coke right now. [/ QUOTE ] But the government at one point wouldn't let me buy alcohol, and currently doesn't let me smoke weed. It's trying to stop me from risking my own money in gambling online. In my state I can only play poker on a river, because apparently it's only immoral if it's done on land. Oh, but there's an exception, if I gamble in a way that the government directly profits from it, there is a special immorality exemption clause. Hell now they won't let me buy bunkbeds with vertical ladders. These are all personal choices that the "majority" chooses to limit my freedom. By the way, in most cases it is not a majority decision. For instance out of 280 million Americans, 62 million of them voted for George W. Bush. In local elections that are not in the same year as a Presidential race it is not uncommon to see <20% voter turn out. Regardless I have yet to see an arguement as to why even a majority would have the right to control any victimless action I make.
|
|
#27
09-12-2006, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
No. The majority can, and does, choose not to "tyrannize" the minority in this way. [/ QUOTE ] Are you sure?
|
|
#28
09-12-2006, 10:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
No. The majority can, and does, choose not to "tyrannize" the minority in this way. DUH. You can go and buy pepsi or coke right now. [/ QUOTE ] So they reserve the "right" to tyrannize in this way, and I'm supposed to feel better that the majority isn't (for now)?
|
|
#29
09-12-2006, 10:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
[ QUOTE ]
Second, for making laws/legislature. Say we had ten non-cooperative legislatures. Which one's laws do we follow? All of them? None of them? What happens when one requires you to pay taxes but the other oulaws taxes? If #1 says a law is repealed, but the other nine don't, is it repealed? If #3 orders a road built and #6 orders it destroyed? [/ QUOTE ] My neighbor allows smoking in his house. I don't allow it in mine. Amazingly, neither of us is confused about where smoking is and is not allowed. [ QUOTE ] And, when you have more than one enforcer of laws/executives, you have civil war, of course. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah. I went over and punched him in the nose for allowing smoking in his house. [ QUOTE ] In a large society, when there is no monopoly on the use of force, force does not cease to exist. It goes on a chaotic rampage. [/ QUOTE ] In which sceario is there more likely to be opposing force? To quote you, "duh".
|
|
#30
09-13-2006, 02:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s the U.S. Government performed over the last 200 years?
There are only three of them...and there have been exponetially more deaths from inter-state conflict throughout history than there have from intra-state conflict...because IR is more anarchichal.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
