"Free Market" Politics? [Shafer Commission split]

[Doug]

It's Been an 'All Out War' on Pot Smokers for 35 Years

What is the complaining about? It's a free market in politics as well as in economics. The people want the war on marijuana, and they got it.

I thought you liked the free market.

Edited by Savonarola 20070325 2335: split maintenance

[Hogeye]

I guess Doug's making a joke. Obviously, politics is the antithesis of a free market. In a free market, one may choose what goods or services you buy. In politics, one is forced to take what the rulers choose - rulers ranging from single tyrants to the tyranny of the majority.

Applied to prohibition laws, and legal systems in general, a free market would allow each of us to choose which court system we wanted, based on our own needs, level of service, and concept of justice. Pot smokers would generally patronize courts which protected cognitive freedom; puritans would likely patronize courts punishing pleasure. Jurisdictions would be the property of each firm's customers.

Here's Murray Rothbard's chapter on private law from his 1973 book "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto."

12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts

Also, David Friedman and Hans-Hermann Hoppe have written extensively on the subject.

[Doug]

I guess Doug's making a joke. Obviously, politics is the antithesis of a free market. In a free market, one may choose what goods or services you buy. In politics, one is forced to take what the rulers choose - rulers ranging from single tyrants to the tyranny of the majority.

In politics, we choose what "rulers" we have. So how is this not a free market?

[Hogeye]

Fallacy of composition. "We," distributively, do not choose rulers - the people that don't vote, or vote for a losing candidate do not choose the ruler. You are using "we" in some collective sense, incorrectly trying to imply that "everyone" consents.

In a market, people choose individually. In politics, the product is chosen for me by others, whether I like the product or not. In a market system, I may buy Hemp Plus Granola, even if the vast majority buy Sugar Frosted Cheerios. In the winner-take-all political system, everyone is forced to the lowest common denominator - I would be eating Sugar Frosted Cheerios because that is what the majority wants, or the rulers think is good for me, or whatever.

[Doug]

Fallacy of composition. "We," distributively, do not choose rulers - the people that don't vote, or vote for a losing candidate do not choose the ruler. You are using "we" in some collective sense, incorrectly trying to imply that "everyone" consents.

DOUG
Even is what you say is true, I don't see how that would be the fallacy of composition, which is simply the fallacy of assuming that what is true of the parts (even all of the parts) is true of the whole.

1. We don't have rulers. Politicians are accountable, even presidents. The U.S. does not have a monarchy, not on the national level or on the local level.
2. If you don't participate, don't spend so much time complaining about the results.
3. People ARE the government. Much of the electorate in the U.S. were stupid enough to vote for Bush--twice. In that sense, we got what we as a people wanted. We all agreed to abide by the results of the majority. There was no minority on that. That is the democratic way. You seem not to believe in democracy.

In a market, people choose individually. In politics, the product is chosen for me by others, whether I like the product or not.

DOUG
So in your ideal state, there would be NO leaders? That is awfully inconvenient, especially when you get attacked by a foreign nation. If no one has the authority to decide to go to war, you are pretty much screwed.

[Dardedar]

...especially when you get attacked by a foreign nation.

DAR
Foreign nation? Try the local corrupt miltia (that gets taken over by a national or international gang and you can't stop it because there is no FBI). Or the next state invades. Wars, battles, skirmishes would be as common as football games (which the populace now uses as make-believe war over land).
After the bloodbath we could, and would, all get organized again and start over with some kind of representative leaders. This is because no one likes the insecurity, chaos and cruelty of the other option. It's all really to silly for words.

[Hogeye]

I don't see how that would be the fallacy of composition, which is simply the fallacy of assuming that what is true of the parts (even all of the parts) is true of the whole.

I interpreted the argument to be saying that if a majority of "parts" consented to a ruler, then the whole society consented to the ruler. Perhaps I was reading too much into (or misinterpreting) your statement, "In politics, we choose what "rulers" we have. So how is this not a free market?"

1. We don't have rulers. Politicians are accountable, even presidents.

The definition of "ruler" has nothing to do with accountability; it has to do with authority.

2. If you don't participate, don't spend so much time complaining about the results.

I have every right to, and good reason to complain about things imposed on me without my consent. If anyone should not complain, it's those who chose to play the statist game by voting. But even those who played have reason to complain, as voting can be construed as self-defense against predation (per Spooner).

3. People ARE the government.

This is total nonsense - an irrational article of statist faith. The State ("government") is an organization, a set of relationships of people, imposed on people, but not a group of people. Most people (other than the ruling elite) have little effect on government policy. The State is the major predator of people (society). Perhaps what you really meant to say is: Some (few) elites control the government, at the expense of the vast majority of people. Or as Frederic Bastiat wrote, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

So in your ideal state, there would be NO leaders?

There would be leaders, but there would be no rulers. Temporary leaders, voluntarily (and individually) chosen by all followers for some task, are perfectly fine. Teachers and students, organizers of a project, and so on are compatable with anarchism.

That is awfully inconvenient, especially when you get attacked by a foreign nation. If no one has the authority to decide to go to war, you are pretty much screwed.

But if your country (community) is attacked, there is no need for a declaration of war - most people voluntarily defend their families and neighbors and property. It is only with imperialist wars and wars of aggression that war need be declared, and people forced to give their lives and fortunes over to the ambitious rulers who foment such wars. From the American War of Independence to the current Iraqi resistance to invading foreign soldiers, no formal declaration of war was necessary.

(Darrel's comment is puzzling. Does he really think that, sans rulers in Rome-by-the-Potomic, Oklahoma would attack Ozarkia? Unless he gives some rationale for people suddenly going homicidally insane, I'll have to write such ranting off to extreme irrational paranoia.)

Here's the last section from the Rothbard chapter I linked above:

National Defense

We come now to what is usually the final argument against the libertar ian position. Every libertarian has heard a sympathetic but critical lis tener say: "All right, I see how this system could be applied successfully to local police and courts. But how could a libertarian society defend us against the Russians?"

There are, of course, several dubious assumptions implied in such a question. There is the assumption that the Russians are bent upon mili tary invasion of the United States, a doubtful assumption at best. There is the assumption that any such desire would still remain after the United States had become a purely libertarian society. This notion overlooks the lesson of history that wars result from conflicts between nation-states, each armed to the teeth, each direly suspicious of attack by the other. But a libertarian America would clearly not be a threat to anyone, not because it had no arms but because it would be dedicated to no aggression against anyone, or against any country. Being no longer a nation-state, which is inherently threatening, there would be little chance of any country attacking us. One of the great evils of the nation-state is that each State is able to identify all of its subjects with itself; hence in any inter-State war, the innocent civilians, the subjects of each country, are subject to aggression from the enemy State. But in a libertar ian society there would be no such identification, and hence very little chance of such a devastating war. Suppose, for example, that our outlaw Metropolitan Police Force has initiated aggression not only against Americans but also against Mexicans. If Mexico had a government, then clearly the Mexican government would know full well that Americans in general were not implicated in the Metropolitan's crimes, and had no symbiotic relationship with it. If the Mexican police engaged in a punitive expedition to punish the Metropolitan force, they would not be at war with Americans in general—as they would be now. In fact, it is highly likely that other American forces would join the Mexicans in putting down the aggressor. Hence, the idea of inter-State war against a libertarian country or geographical area would most likely disappear.

There is, furthermore, a grave philosophical error in the very posing of this sort of question about the Russians. When we contemplate any sort of new system, whatever it may be, we must first decide whether we want to see it brought about. In order to decide whether we want libertarianism or communism, or left-wing anarchism, or theocracy, or any other system, we must first assume that it has been established, and then consider whether the system could work, whether it could remain in existence, and just how efficient such a system would be. We have shown, I believe, that a libertarian system, once instituted, could work, be viable, and be at once far more efficient, prosperous, moral, and free than any other social system. But we have said nothing about how to get from the present system to the ideal; for these are two totally separate questions: the question of what is our ideal goal, and of the strategy and tactics of how to get from the present system to that goal. The Russian question mixes these two levels of discourse. It assumes, not that libertarianism has been established everywhere throughout the globe, but that for some reason it has been established only in America and nowhere else. But why assume this? Why not first assume that it has been established everywhere and see whether we like it? After all, the libertarian philosophy is an eternal one, not bound to time or place. We advocate liberty for everyone, everywhere, not just in the United States. If someone agrees that a world libertarian society, once established, is the best that he can conceive, that it would be work able, efficient, and moral, then let him become a libertarian, let him join us in accepting liberty as our ideal goal, and then join us further in the separate—and obviously difficult—task of figuring out how to bring this ideal about.

If we do move on to strategy, it is obvious that the larger an area in which liberty is first established the better its chances for survival, and the better its chance to resist any violent overthrow that may be attempted. If liberty is established instantaneously throughout the world, then there will of course be no problem of "national defense." All problems will be local police problems. If, however, only Deep Falls, Wyoming, becomes libertarian while the rest of America and the world remain statist, its chances for survival will be very slim. If Deep Falls, Wyoming, declares its secession from the United States government and establishes a free society, the chances are great that the United States—given its historical ferocity toward secessionists—would quickly invade and crush the new free society, and there is little that any Deep Falls police force could do about it. Between these two polar cases, there is an infinite continuum of degrees, and obviously, the larger the area of freedom, the better it could withstand any outside threat. The "Russian question" is therefore a matter of strategy rather than a matter of deciding on basic principles and on the goal toward which we wish to direct our efforts.

But after all this is said and done, let us take up the Russian question anyway. Let us assume that the Soviet Union would really be hell-bent on attacking a libertarian population within the present boundaries of the United States (clearly, there would no longer be a United States government to form a single nation-state). In the first place, the form and quantity of defense expenditures would be decided upon by the American consumers themselves. Those Americans who favor Polaris submarines, and fear a Soviet threat, would subscribe toward the financ ing of such vessels. Those who prefer an ABM system would invest in such defensive missiles. Those who laugh at such a threat or those who are committed pacifists would not contribute to any "national" defense service at all. Different defense theories would be applied in proportion to those who agree with, and support, the various theories being offered. Given the enormous waste in all wars and defense prepara tions in all countries throughout history, it is certainly not beyond the bounds of reason to propose that private, voluntary defense efforts would be far more efficient than government boondoggles. Certainly these ef forts would be infinitely more moral.

But let us assume the worst. Let us assume that the Soviet Union at last invades and conquers the territory of America. What then? We have to realize that the Soviet Union's difficulties will have only just begun. The main reason a conquering country can rule a defeated coun try is that the latter has an existing State apparatus to transmit and enforce the victor's orders onto a subject population. Britain, though far smaller in area and population, was able to rule India for centuries because it could transmit British orders to the ruling Indian princes, who in turn could enforce them on the subject population. But in those cases in history where the conquered had no government, the conquerors found rule over the conquered extremely difficult. When the British conquered West Africa, for example, they found it extremely difficult to govern the Ibo tribe (later to form Biafra) because that tribe was essentially libertarian, and had no ruling government of tribal chiefs to transmit orders to the natives. And perhaps the major reason it took the English centuries to conquer ancient Ireland is that the Irish had no State, and that there was therefore no ruling governmental structure to keep treaties, transmit orders, etc. It is for this reason that the English kept denouncing the "wild" and "uncivilized" Irish as "faithless," be­cause they would not keep treaties with the English conquerors. The English could never understand that, lacking any sort of State, the Irish warriors who concluded treaties with the English could only speak for themselves; they could never commit any other group of the Irish population.14

Furthermore, the occupying Russians' lives would be made even more difficult by the inevitable eruption of guerrilla warfare by the American population. It is surely a lesson of the twentieth century—a lesson first driven home by the successful American revolutionaries against the mighty British Empire—that no occupying force can long keep down a native population determined to resist. If the giant United States, armed with far greater productivity and firepower, could not succeed against a tiny and relatively unarmed Vietnamese population, how in the world could the Soviet Union succeed in keeping down the American people? No Russian occupation soldier's life would be safe from the wrath of a resisting American populace. Guerrilla warfare has proved to be an irresistible force precisely because it stems, not from a dictatorial central government, but from the people themselves, fighting for their liberty and independence against a foreign State. And surely the anticipa tion of this sea of troubles, of the enormous costs and losses that would inevitably follow, would stop well in advance even a hypothetical Soviet government bent on military conquest.

[Doug]

I don't see how that would be the fallacy of composition, which is simply the fallacy of assuming that what is true of the parts (even all of the parts) is true of the whole.

I interpreted the argument to be saying that if a majority of "parts" consented to a ruler, then the whole society consented to the ruler. Perhaps I was reading too much into (or misinterpreting) your statement, "In politics, we choose what "rulers" we have. So how is this not a free market?"

Everyone DID consent to accepting the outcome of the election.

1. We don't have rulers. Politicians are accountable, even presidents.

[The definition of "ruler" has nothing to do with accountability; it has to do with authority.

OK, then we don't have rulers. That was easy. Rulers make laws as an individual. And they embody authority without separation of powers. The U.S. doesn't have that.

2. If you don't participate, don't spend so much time complaining about the results.

I have every right to, and good reason to complain about things imposed on me without my consent. If anyone should not complain, it's those who chose to play the statist game by voting. But even those who played have reason to complain, as voting can be construed as self-defense against predation (per Spooner).

If you don't try to get any better government than we have, don't complain about what we have.

3. People ARE the government.

This is total nonsense - an irrational article of statist faith. The State ("government") is an organization, a set of relationships of people, imposed on people, but not a group of people.

No, the government here in the U.S. is a group of people given power by the voters. Test it this way: if the people in government left, there would be no government left. So the government is people. A group of people.

So in your ideal state, there would be NO leaders?

There would be leaders, but there would be no rulers. Temporary leaders, voluntarily (and individually) chosen by all followers for some task, are perfectly fine. Teachers and students, organizers of a project, and so on are compatable with anarchism.

By all followers? What if some dissented? You think you could always get a unanimous vote on every leader? And don't WE have temporary leaders voluntarily chosen for specific tasks? Except for your supposed unanimous vote, you are describing the system we already have.

[snip]
(Darrel's comment is puzzling. Does he really think that, sans rulers in Rome-by-the-Potomic, Oklahoma would attack Ozarkia? Unless he gives some rationale for people suddenly going homicidally insane, I'll have to write such ranting off to extreme irrational paranoia.)[/quote]

If you don't think that people attack others without provocation, both as individuals and in groups, you are just not paying attention.

Here's the last section from the Rothbard chapter I linked above...

Well, who's not going to read all that..?

[Dardedar]

By all followers? What if some dissented?

DAR
Doug, the anarchy would need to be strictly enforced so people don't organize a sensible representative government to be accountable to their interests.

DOUG
And don't WE have temporary leaders voluntarily chosen for specific tasks?

DAR
It's pretty much most of them. I think everyone is temporary except the Supreme Court. I predict Gonzales is going to find out how temporary his position is real soon.

Except for your supposed unanimous vote, you are describing the system we already have.

DAR
Very good point. Except this one exists. This hypothetical one is being experimented with in Somalia.

HOGEYE
Oklahoma would attack Ozarkia?

DAR
Probably not immediately. People would still have a sense of the tribe of "America" for a while. Without that tribal glue would clumps/states attack their neighbors over some land/water/mineral/drug/oil dispute? Of course. How many states have attacked other states. It's been a while. And with the populations involved that's a good thing. Has the "American" tribe attacked neighbors? The list is long. Maybe if we had the UN join us all together in one world government we could finally have some peace.

DOUG
Well, who's not going to read all that..?

DAR
[Holds up hand]

[Hogeye]

Everyone DID consent to accepting the outcome of the election.

??? You couldn't be talking about the US, since there is an easy counter-example : I didn't consent. Nor could you be talking about any real-world State. Are you talking hypothetically, about some society where everyone unanimously votes for the same guy? Or are you assuming that you convinced me with your weak simply by existing on the mafia's turf you consent argument?

Rulers make laws as an individual.

Wrong again. ruler - a person who rules or commands. In modern States, rulers give the sheeple "forced choices", manipulate public opinion, buy off the intellectual elite, nationalize airwaves, control money and credit, indoctrinate via govt schools, provide bread and circuses, give some of the loot to underlings to buy support, and so on. They do not necessarily have to rule in the manner of old-fashioned kings.

Test it [people are the govt] this way: if the people in government left, there would be no government left.

You're getting closer to the truth. Some people, the ruling elite, control the government. If those elites left, others elites would replace them - this sometimes happens after elections when Tweedledee is replaced by Tweedledum. And it happens after most revolutions (as opposed to secessions) such as the French and Russian revolutions - new ruling assholes take over. Statism will only stop when people refuse to acquiesce to being ruled (La Boetie's insight.) Luckily, various subgroups can refuse. Thus, when Darrel says, "anarchy would need to be strictly enforced so people don't organize a sensible representative government to be accountable to their interests," he shows that he doesn't understand anarchism. Anarchism doesn't try to force people to become free; statists may keep their yoke if they so choose. Some call this "foreign policy" of anarchism by the name "panarchy."

Hogeye> There would be leaders, but there would be no rulers. Temporary leaders, voluntarily (and individually) chosen by all followers for some task, are perfectly fine.

Doug> By all followers?

Of course not - only those who voluntarily follow. As I wrote: "voluntarily (and individually) chosen."

What if some dissented?

Then obviously they don't follow that leader. Unlike the statist system, people aren't forced to follow; if they choose to follow a leader they do it by their own individual choice. This seems quite clearly explained - I don't understand why you have so much trouble with this concept.

You think you could always get a unanimous vote on every leader?

Unanimous among those who voluntarily choose to follow, yes. But not among society in general, of course. This is different than the current statist system when people are forced by rulers (and theoretically/mythically majorities) to follow, pay tribute, etc.

If you don't think that people attack others without provocation, both as individuals and in groups, you are just not paying attention.

Of course some do. But Darrel was claiming that people would do it a lot more without rulers in Washington overseeing them. That's ridiculous. In a free society, one would expect about the same amount of private crime - or even somewhat less, since competing PDAs are likely to be more efficient than monopoly statist police. Like any other good or service, monopolies are notoriously inefficient. And most PDAs would not waste resources on prohibition - the end of prohibition alone would reduce crime tremendously.

Darrel, FYI Somalia is statist again. The US took it over in late December, using Ethiopian proxy troops. Somalia is still occupied, with US "rendering" people escaping to Kenya over to Ethiopia for torture. You got your wish - Somalians are being raped by statism again. Cf: Getting Away With It: Rendition and Regime Change in Somalia

Without that tribal glue would clumps/states attack their neighbors over some land/water/mineral/drug/oil dispute?

Generally, no. We already have examples of entities in an "anarchist" relationship - States. Does the US go to war with Canada whenever citizens get in a dispute? No, things are worked out by arrangements called treaties, extradition agreements, arbitration, etc. The same techniques would apply to smaller entities, of course. And in the worst case, battles would be small-scale and local - no WMDs like States use, no taxation to fund wars, no conscripted cannon fodder, little or no villanization of "the enemy" as States are wont to do, and so on. The "tribal glue" between Okies and Arkies is a lot stronger than the "tribal glue" between USAmericans and, say, Muslims ("Islamo-fascists" "ragheads".) For virtually every criteria related to armed conflict, anarchism comes off better than statism, small local entities better than large States.

My talk on anarchism covers a lot of these things. I think once you guys learn some basic definitions and anarchist theses, you'll have a much better grasp of these things. I'm somewhat puzzled about Doug's seeming failure to "get" the difference between individual consent and imposed conformity.

[Dardedar]

But Darrel was claiming that people would do it a lot more without rulers in Washington overseeing them. That's ridiculous.

DAR
No, Darrel was claiming that states don't attack each very often because of the collective glue of tribalistic "America." Change one country to 50 different countries and that glue is gone.

HOG
Darrel, FYI Somalia is statist again.

DAR
Regardless of when you arbitrarily decide to assert Somalia has slipped in or out of anarchy, it is still the same hellhole it was when you claimed it was a shining example of anarchy.

[Doug]

Everyone DID consent to accepting the outcome of the election.

??? You couldn't be talking about the US, since there is an easy counter-example : I didn't consent.

DOUG
Let's see if you agree with the results of an election:

"George Bush is the President of the United States."

True or false?

Rulers make laws as an individual.

Wrong again. ruler - a person who rules or commands. In modern States, rulers give the sheeple "forced choices", manipulate public opinion, buy off the intellectual elite, nationalize airwaves, control money and credit, indoctrinate via govt schools, provide bread and circuses, give some of the loot to underlings to buy support, and so on. They do not necessarily have to rule in the manner of old-fashioned kings.

DOUG
Quick fallacy check: You just committed the fallacy of begging the question ("arguing in a circle," "circular reasoning," etc). You are assuming that modern politicians are rulers and then using them as counterexamples to my claim. But my claim is that modern politicians are not rulers. So you are assuming that which you are trying to prove, begging the question.

Test it [people are the govt] this way: if the people in government left, there would be no government left.

You're getting closer to the truth. Some people, the ruling elite, control the government.

The what? The government? You mean they control other people? The government is people, I have asserted. Now it seems that you are carefully skirting around the issue by using the vague word "government." You said PEOPLE control government, but that is not quite right. The people who control government are also the government. The president is part of the government. He governs as a person entrusted with power by other people. I don't see any evidence from you that this is not the case.

There would be leaders, but there would be no rulers. Temporary leaders, voluntarily (and individually) chosen by all followers for some task, are perfectly fine.

By all followers?

Of course not - only those who voluntarily follow. As I wrote: "voluntarily (and individually) chosen."

OK, so what do you do when some people in your community disagree with the election of a particular person who is in your community? Do you then ostracize or eject that person from your midst?

How can a community function when people unhappy with an election can just decide all of a sudden that they don't want to go along with the rest of the group?

And what if someone agree to go along with the group on the highway project and the water system, but not on the sheriff election, fire chief, or the river ferry? How can you have people in the same community constantly picking and choosing and opting out of services? Does this lead to horrid inefficiency in the duplication of duties, such as creating the same job in a way that part of the group who rejected one person as sheriff asks for another one to be hired for those who didn't like the first one?

What if some dissented?

Then obviously they don't follow that leader. Unlike the statist system, people aren't forced to follow; if they choose to follow a leader they do it by their own individual choice. This seems quite clearly explained - I don't understand why you have so much trouble with this concept.

See above. A community would not be able to function effectively.

If you don't think that people attack others without provocation, both as individuals and in groups, you are just not paying attention.

Of course some do. But Darrel was claiming that people would do it a lot more without rulers in Washington overseeing them. That's ridiculous. In a free society, one would expect about the same amount of private crime - or even somewhat less, since competing PDAs are likely to be more efficient than monopoly statist police. Like any other good or service, monopolies are notoriously inefficient. And most PDAs would not waste resources on prohibition - the end of prohibition alone would reduce crime tremendously.

OK, so my point about needing an army is still unrebutted. YOU argue that private families can do OK defending themselves against invading armies.

That's just ridiculous.


Ready for when the tanks come.

[Hogeye]

Doug, the outcome of the election is that the US is ruled by the Bush junto. I didn't agree to be ruled by the Bush junto. Did you agree to be ruled by the Bush junto? (The fact that some minority of the population living on US-claimed "turf" elected Bush under statist rules is irrelevant to consent to the outcome.)

No, Darrel was claiming that states don't attack each very often because of the collective glue of tribalistic "America."

I disagree that primitive tribalism is the reason people don't attack or murder each other. I think it has more to do with convention, ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) of non-aggression, the moral faculty that most people have, fear of getting busted, and so on. Primitive tribalism is an insignificant factor. If your nation-state tribalism theory were correct, wouldn't we see US people attacking Canadians, and vice versa?

BTW, I never claimed Somalia was "a shining example of anarchy" - that was your claim. I said it was the result of government failure, the expected aftermath of a brutal statist dictatorship.

You are assuming that modern politicians are rulers and then using them as counterexamples to my claim.

No, I am applying the definition of "ruler." It is true that it follows directly from the definition that politicians who run the US State are rulers. What we have here is your basic verbal argument. For some reason, you refuse to call a spade a spade. You'd rather sugar-coat the relationship of US rulers to their subjects by calling them "leaders" or "representatives." I refuse to use the Orwellian jargon of the statist paradigm.

Hogeye> Some people, the ruling elite, control the government.

Doug> The what? The government? You mean they control other people?

They control the apparatus for control, the machinery of power. This machinery of power is the State. With this machinery of power, the people are controlled, regulated, plundered, etc. Doug, can you see the difference between an institution/organization, and the people who occupy roles in an organization? The State is the organization - not the people in the roles of rulership, not the people in the roles of subjects.

The president is part of the government.

Yes, he fulfills that role.

He governs as a person entrusted with power by other people.

Yes, the "other people" being certain political elites, and certain duped subjects. Obviously, this does not imply that any given individual has consented to being ruled.

OK, so what do you do when some people in your community disagree with the election of a particular person who is in your community? Do you then ostracize or eject that person from your midst?

No, no more than we ostracize people from Fayetteville, or even the library, if they don't come to FayFreethinker's meetings. No more than I ostracize people from Fayetteville if they don't come to chess club, or patronize Ozark Natural Foods or Wal-Mart. Normally, if someone doesn't want to join your group, you pretty much ignore them in the context of the group task. If someone doesn't like the election of Mr. Smith as president of FayFreethinkers or the chess club, they are free to opt out of the club. No problem.

And what if someone agree to go along with the group on the highway project and the water system, but not on the sheriff election, fire chief, or the river ferry?

To understand a free society, you need to learn to think outside the winner-take-all statist paradigm. Unlike a statist system, these different tasks and services would not be artificially tied together in a free society. If you don't want to pay for a road, no one forces you to. (They may not let you use the road, though.) If you don't want to pay for a water project, you don't. You dig your own well, or transport water, or patronize a competing water company, or whatever. It's called freedom.

How can you have people in the same community constantly picking and choosing and opting out of services?

It happens all the time with lawn mowing service, home insurance, grocery shopping, sex, and most services. It's called freedom of association in a free market. The market handles it just fine. It would work the same with those services currently captured by governments and funded by coercion, when the government gets the hell out of the way.

Does this lead to horrid inefficiency in the duplication of duties...

Yes, there is a horrid duplication of grocery stores, and gas stations, and coffee houses, and hardware stores. It's terrible! /sarcasm. Obviously, this "duplication" is wonderful for consumers. It not only gives them choices and allows for different and varied tastes, but keeps the providers efficient and friendly. The inefficent and customer-unfriendly firms tend to go out of business; quite the opposite of govt providers, whose inefficiency and incompetence is so often rewarded with more plundered loot ("funding".)

OK, so my point about needing an army is still unrebutted. YOU argue that private families can do OK defending themselves against invading armies.

Wrong on both counts. I didn't say an army is unnecessary; I said that an army can be raised voluntarily, without conscription or monopoly. And I didn't say that private families alone could ward off invading armies; I mentioned militias, guerrilla warfare, and so on. Of course, a well-armed family can't hurt. Recall, to deter aggression one doesn't have to be able to defeat the aggressor; just make it costly enough that not attacking is in their interest.

[Doug]

Doug, the outcome of the election is that the US is ruled by the Bush junto. I didn't agree to be ruled by the Bush junto. Did you agree to be ruled by the Bush junto?

I didn't agree to be ruled by the Bush junto. And I am not ruled by the Bush junto. No one is. You are just begging the question again. That is not a rebuttal. It's a fallacy.

[Dardedar]

BTW, I never claimed Somalia was "a shining example of anarchy"...

DAR
What you posted, March 30, '06:

"Here's what's really happining:
"Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It"

Which was of course shown to be rubbish.

D.

[Hogeye]

Darrel, do you really think that citing the title of an article by someone living in Somalia ("Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It") is the same as me claiming that Somalia is "a shining example of anarchy"? Weak.

I didn't agree to be ruled by the Bush junto.

Good! I'm glad you've come around finally to agreeing that you did not consent to the State, i.e. to be ruled.

And I am not ruled by the Bush junto.

Excellent. Then no doubt you'll quit filing and paying tribute ("taxes".) I'm glad. I wish more would do the same.

No one is.

You need to get out more. I find most people submitting to taxation, obeying unjust laws, and sometimes even claiming that one should obey statist law simply because the state so decreed!

You are just begging the question again.

No, I'm simply using "ruler" in the standard dictionary manner. You are the one that evades the meaning of the word, and insists States don't rule. I'm the one who pointed out that arguing about the meaning of "ruler" is merely a semantic argument (and hence unworthy of further discussion.) If you are bound and determined to avoid the term "ruler" - at least parochially for your masters of your State - then what can I say? I certainly will not stop using the more accurate terminology when I write or talk.

[Doug]

No one is.

You need to get out more. I find most people submitting to taxation, obeying unjust laws, and sometimes even claiming that one should obey statist law simply because the state so decreed!

You are begging the question AGAIN.

You need to learn more about the word "ruler."

[Hogeye]

From Merriam-Webster online
ruler: one that rules;
rule: the exercise of authority or control

By definition, the political elites (president, senators, appointed cabinet and judges, the handlers in the back room, etc.) are rulers. QED

Doug, you seem to want to evade this by appealing to an anachronism. You seem to want to limit the concept of rule to ancient kings, and ignore the various modern tools for maintaining authority. You won't admit that manipulation of public opinion, buying off the intellectual elite, govt ownership of airwaves, control of money and credit, indoctrination via govt schools, tweedledee-tweedledum elections, and so on have replaced big rich guys with warhorses and armor as tools for ruling. That's kind of like saying that aggression doesn't exist anymore, because modern people use guns rather than swords, that it's not "true" aggression unless it's done with a sword or fist.

What can be more absurd in nature and contrary to all common sense than to call him Thief and kill him that comes alone with a few to rob me; and call him Lord Protector and obey him that robs me with regiments and troops? As if to rob with 2 or 3 ships were to be a Pirate, but with 50 an Admiral? But if it be the number of adherents only, not the cause, that makes the difference between a Robber and a Protector: I will that number were defined, that the Prince begins. And be able to distinguish between a Robbery and a Tax.

[Doug]

From Merriam-Webster online
ruler: one that rules;
rule: the exercise of authority or control

By definition, the political elites (president, senators, appointed cabinet and judges, the handlers in the back room, etc.) are rulers. QED

Doug, you seem to want to evade this by appealing to an anachronism. You seem to want to limit the concept of rule to ancient kings, and ignore the various modern tools for maintaining authority.

DOUG
No, language is more subtle than that. "Ruler" has connotations that exclude present day politicians, such as the ability to make laws as an individual.

[Savonarola]

This "ruler" exchange had better go somewhere fast, rather than just be the same arguments ad nauseam. Let's have something new -- be it a new line of argumentation or an agreement to disagree -- or I'm closing this thread.

--Savonarola, Politics moderator