|
|
#51
08-01-2007, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Keep in mind, DROs and Arbitration will be profit based, not justice based. If profits happen to align with justice, fine, but the moment they don't, what do you suppose companies will follow. [/ QUOTE ] Under market conditions profits closely follow consumer demand. If justice isn't demanded by consumers then obviously there won't be a heck of a lot of it going around, we fully understand that the market is dependent on the individuals the comprise it. The reason that the market is a better solution is (as usual) the monopolistic actions of the state. What protection is there against an overzealous prosecutor? Best case you can get rid of him and put another in his place under the same structure. What happens when the structure it self is at fault, allowing to much power to certain individuals? As always under a state there are limited (or no) meaningful comparisons. All systems have some level of corruption, how do you figure out if the amount in your area can be feasible reduced, and in what ways? [/ QUOTE ] Right, just as in an AC world, if there is no consumer demand for justice then the world will be an unjust place, in a statist world, all it takes is a SINGLE person or small group of people to not want justice, and there will be no justice. I'm not sure why this is a negative for AC? If most people in the world don't want justice, there will not be justice in ANY system. Luckily, most of them do, so a large percentage (but not all) of statist societies are reasonably just. The fact that it isn't 100% of statist societies is almost a coup de grace for AC. 
|
|
#52
08-01-2007, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What is more prone to undue influence, Money unfettered by law and enforcement, or Money that is subject to law and enforcement? [/ QUOTE ] You have started your argument by claiming that 1. there are no laws under the market <font color="red"> nice strawman, but I never said any such thing. to the extent the market sets laws they are subject to the influence of wealth unless kept in check by laws that are based on ethics.</font> 2. law and order itself is not influenced by money under a state. <font color="red"> again, I didnt say any such thing. I said that for market law to be equally prone to corruption, then ethics based law would have to be 100% buyable, not that ethics law is 100% un-buyable. </font> Point one is totally rebutted by the existence of common law which was simply the codification of customs used to arbitrate between groups in the absence of a centralized state. <font color="red">irrelevant since point one was never made </font> Point two has been rebutted by numerous studies, several of which have been linked in this forum over the past year, where it was discovered that conviction rates, fines, jail time, probation and other forms of punishment were had a much closer correlation to the socioeconomic or racial status of the defendant than to the circumstances of their criminal activity. Which perfectly matches your definition of corruption. <font color="red"> and those studies show 100% corruption? see above </font> [ QUOTE ] My definition is inequitable results in any interaction as a result of the undue influence of the more powerful [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Now try responding to what I actually said.
|
|
#53
08-01-2007, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
1. there are no laws under the market nice strawman [/ QUOTE ] Ok, how am I supposed to interpret this? [ QUOTE ] Money unfettered by law and enforcement [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] again, I didnt say any such thing. I said that for market law to be equally prone to corruption, then ethics based law would have to be 100% buyable, not that ethics law is 100% un-buyable. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Point one is totally rebutted by the existence of common law which was simply the codification of customs used to arbitrate between groups in the absence of a centralized state. irrelevant since point one was never made [/ QUOTE ] You have made the point twice, and claimed not to make an equal number of times. [ QUOTE ] and those studies show 100% corruption? see above [/ QUOTE ] Now you've claimed it three times.
|
|
#54
08-01-2007, 04:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. there are no laws under the market nice strawman [/ QUOTE ] Ok, how am I supposed to interpret this? [ QUOTE ] Money unfettered by law and enforcement [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] again, I didnt say any such thing. I said that for market law to be equally prone to corruption, then ethics based law would have to be 100% buyable, not that ethics law is 100% un-buyable. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Point one is totally rebutted by the existence of common law which was simply the codification of customs used to arbitrate between groups in the absence of a centralized state. irrelevant since point one was never made [/ QUOTE ] You have made the point twice, and claimed not to make an equal number of times. [ QUOTE ] and those studies show 100% corruption? see above [/ QUOTE ] Now you've claimed it three times. [/ QUOTE ] Please write with complete thoughts and references to what I said, I don't have a clue what you are trying to say, but you're last sentence makes it clear you don't understand what I said.
|
|
#55
08-01-2007, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
There are 4 primary influences in human interactions: Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). [/ QUOTE ] Highlighting that you separated [ QUOTE ] Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) [/ QUOTE ] From [ QUOTE ] Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). [/ QUOTE ] You then ask the question, [ QUOTE ] What is more prone to undue influence, Money unfettered by law and enforcement, or Money that is subject to law and enforcement? [/ QUOTE ] When the conversation is comparing free market law to state law one can only presume that you are implying that one of these situations is analogous to the state, and the other the market. Other quotes of yours make it clear to the reader that you imply the market for the "Money unfettered by law and enforcement" part and the state for "or Money that is subject to law and enforcement?" The only reasonable understanding of your position from this point on that I can come up with is that your list of 4 primary influences [ QUOTE ] Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance) [/ QUOTE ] would become three under a market [ QUOTE ] Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance) [/ QUOTE ] Since money would be unfettered by L & O it is only logical that it can no longer be a prime mover since there money is now considered dominant to L & O. You then go on to insinuate that this is your position (money > l & o) again here [ QUOTE ] I said that for market law to be equally prone to corruption, then ethics based law would have to be 100% buyable [/ QUOTE ] and reiterated here [ QUOTE ] and those studies show 100% corruption? see above [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#56
08-01-2007, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There are 4 primary influences in human interactions: Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). [/ QUOTE ] Highlighting that you separated [ QUOTE ] Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) [/ QUOTE ] From [ QUOTE ] Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance). [/ QUOTE ] You then ask the question, [ QUOTE ] What is more prone to undue influence, Money unfettered by law and enforcement, or Money that is subject to law and enforcement? [/ QUOTE ] When the conversation is comparing free market law to state law one can only presume that you are implying that one of these situations is analogous to the state, and the other the market. Other quotes of yours make it clear to the reader that you imply the market for the "Money unfettered by law and enforcement" part and the state for "or Money that is subject to law and enforcement?" The only reasonable understanding of your position from this point on that I can come up with is that your list of 4 primary influences [ QUOTE ] Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Laws (power granted by the community, usually based on ethics) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance) [/ QUOTE ] would become three under a market [ QUOTE ] Ethics (or call it morals, conscience, whatever) Physical dominance (might makes right) Money (you can buy anything at the right price, including laws and physical dominance) [/ QUOTE ] Since money would be unfettered by L & O it is only logical that it can no longer be a prime mover since there money is now considered dominant to L & O. You then go on to insinuate that this is your position (money > l & o) again here [ QUOTE ] I said that for market law to be equally prone to corruption, then ethics based law would have to be 100% buyable [/ QUOTE ] and reiterated here [ QUOTE ] and those studies show 100% corruption? see above [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Close but not quite. The point I was making is that market "law", to the extent that it is free from ethical constraints, will be dominated by wealth. Even with those constraints equitable treatment is difficult to achieve, and take them away (whether by an ACland fiat or by making them 100% buyable), then wealth must have an easier time dominating than it would without any ethical law constraints at all. That is a tautology, if it weren't then "constraints" would be inapplicable. The only argument against that result is that wealth doesn't naturally dominate, but history is clear that it does. Its a game of rock (money), paper (law), scissors where paper can never get out from under the weight of rock.
|
|
#57
08-01-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
Close but not quite. The point I was making is that market "law", to the extent that it is free from ethical constraints , will be dominated by wealth. Even with those constraints equitable treatment is difficult to achieve, and take them away (whether by an ACland fiat or by making them 100% buyable), then wealth must have an easier time dominating than it would without any ethical law constraints at all. That is a tautology, if it weren't then "constraints" would be inapplicable. [/ QUOTE ] The market is a description of the sum total of individuals acting on their preferences. The market is only unconstrained by ethical standards to the extent that the individuals within the market are unrestrained. If, as you claimed, that ethics are a primary force within human nature it makes no sense to claim that ethical considerations would be massively diminished under market conditions. In fact, since the market more accurately reflects the wishes of its constituents, it would be logical to conclude that ethical considerations will increase under market situations.
|
|
#58
08-01-2007, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Close but not quite. The point I was making is that market "law", to the extent that it is free from ethical constraints , will be dominated by wealth. Even with those constraints equitable treatment is difficult to achieve, and take them away (whether by an ACland fiat or by making them 100% buyable), then wealth must have an easier time dominating than it would without any ethical law constraints at all. That is a tautology, if it weren't then "constraints" would be inapplicable. [/ QUOTE ] The market is a description of the sum total of individuals acting on their preferences. The market is only unconstrained by ethical standards to the extent that the individuals within the market are unrestrained. If, as you claimed, that ethics are a primary force within human nature it makes no sense to claim that ethical considerations would be massively diminished under market conditions. In fact, since the market more accurately reflects the wishes of its constituents, it would be logical to conclude that ethical considerations will increase under market situations. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say ethics were a "primary force", I said they a "primary influence". There is a huge gap between the two. Again, history has proven that, when given the chance, the unethical will stop at nothing to accumulate wealth, and that wealth attracts more wealth. That history has been in an environment of ethical laws and enforcement, commanding significant resources to combat on a community basis. I can't believe you even arguing that money won't have even an iota of a larger edge in a pure market based society than in one with laws derived from ethical constructs that the majority (but not unanimously subscribe to). If you believe it then you have zero understanding of human nature.
|
|
#59
08-01-2007, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe you even arguing that money won't have even an iota of a larger edge in a pure market based society than in one with laws derived from ethical constructs that the majority [/ QUOTE ] Which is which again? A democratic republic does not base its laws on the ethical concerns of the majority, but elects representatives who are given power over short periods of time to write those laws. [ QUOTE ] Again, history has proven that, when given the chance, the unethical will stop at nothing to accumulate wealth, and that wealth attracts more wealth. That history has been in an environment of ethical laws and enforcement, commanding significant resources to combat on a community basis. [/ QUOTE ] History has shown again and again that the close a society to a free market the more accumulated wealth reflects satisfaction of consumers demands (Rockefeller, Bill Gates) and the stronger the state is in a market the more wealth is reflective of uses of force (Saudi Princes being a prime example).
|
|
#60
08-01-2007, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A question (mostly) for AC\'ers, about the rule of law.
I can't believe you even arguing that money won't have even an iota of a larger edge in a pure market based society than in one with laws derived from ethical constructs that the majority [/ QUOTE ] Which is which again? A democratic republic does not base its laws on the ethical concerns of the majority, but elects representatives who are given power over short periods of time to write those laws. <font color="red"> And you don't think that the majority of those laws are based on the beliefs of the constituency? If not there is nothing to talk about, you are in denial of reality to support a theoretical construct.</font> [ QUOTE ] Again, history has proven that, when given the chance, the unethical will stop at nothing to accumulate wealth, and that wealth attracts more wealth. That history has been in an environment of ethical laws and enforcement, commanding significant resources to combat on a community basis. [/ QUOTE ] History has shown again and again that the close a society to a free market the more accumulated wealth reflects satisfaction of consumers demands (Rockefeller, Bill Gates) and the stronger the state is in a market the more wealth is reflective of uses of force (Saudi Princes being a prime example). [/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> You haven't demonstrated anything other than that a largely free market with in a statist society is more free than a monarchy/dictatorship. Wow, big leap. What you need to demonstrate is a society where the market left to itself has suppressed the unethical to a greater extent than within a state. </font>
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
