Is "Big Government" an adequate description?

[Geilinor]

50 years ago? 1964?

-Social Security
-Cold War Expenditures
-Around the time of the War on Poverty (LBJ had just gotten into office)
-A six years or so before the EPA

You know what I mean. Today the regulatory state grows larger and larger, civil liberties are further eroded and the destructive legacies of Roosevelt and Johnson are further expanded.

The number of regulations doesn't correlate to the difficulty of compliance. Your goal should be government that works instead of treating it as a pure matter of size.

[Oppressorion]

I'd rather live on my own property and voluntarily interact with fellow human beings rather than live in the wild, thanks. But that doesn't mean I have to submit myself to a criminal organisation.

It amuses me how Libertarians seem to just slap on as many negative adjectives and loaded words as they can when referring to the government. The dictionary definition of "crime" is:

An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

So in order to be a criminal, you have to do something illegal, that is, break the law. A law which is, of course, maintained and enforced by the government.

[Mavorpen]

That's unnecessarily rude and dodging the argument. No society is 'stable' in a permanent state of aggression.

No it isn't. You've consistently refused to demonstrate that your arbitrary and lazy "AGGRESSION=NOT STABLE!" argument should be taken seriously.

Why would voluntarism not work?

You have no system with which to actually enforce it.

No, I'm not. You're conflating correlation with causation. You asserted that a civilised society cannot exist without the state.This is wrong. Governments exist because of civilised societies.

Yeah, no. Pick up a basic textbook on government theory. Governments exist to solve collective action problems, problems that by definition exist in societies that AREN'T stable and functional.

[Geilinor]

Yes. Most people refuse to sacrifice a stable society for edginess.

Stable? Being subject to ever-growing government power and erosion of rights - or perhaps the expansion, in some cases - doesn't sound very stable to me.

The absence of constant violence is stability.

[Luziyca]

I don't see big government as an insult, I think the state should play a large role in managing the country as far as the welfare state, public services etc. We have one of the smallest governments (as a % of gdp) in the developed world so it's a pointless statement.

I agree with the first bit of your statement. The second is non-applicable since I live in Canada.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

You know what I mean. Today the regulatory state grows larger and larger, civil liberties are further eroded and the destructive legacies of Roosevelt and Johnson are further expanded.

The number of regulations doesn't correlate to the difficulty of compliance.

Both are nevertheless increasing. Under the Bush Administration, economically significant regulations which cost over $100 million a year increased by 70%. Thousands of pages are added to the Federal Register each year. Obama's new coal regulations are going to cost billions. Federal regulations have actually made America 72% poorer than it would be without them. The regulatory state has grown to a ridiculous size, and needs to be eliminated for the sake of business, workers and consumers.

Your goal should be government that works instead of treating it as a pure matter of size.

It's a noble goal, but the problem with it is that once a government program has begun it's very difficult to eliminate it. Reagan and Clinton's welfare reforms, for example, got millions back into the workforce, but were quickly overturned by the Bush and Obama Presidencies.

There's no real way to make regulations work. They were created as a political tool to reward some groups and punish others, and will always be that way. They are harmful to everyone involved except the benefiting corporation/union/lobby group.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Campaigning to expand your rights requires majority support. Sure, you can say "I want more freedom!", but it doesn't mean you'll get it without a lot of work and time, if you'll get it at all. Essentially you need the majority's approval to exercise your rights, because that's how democracies work.

However, courts sometimes do adequate jobs of protecting rights.

If you want to try to influence people's opinions, it takes time and effort. If you are that passionate about making the government 'smaller', then spend the time and effort convincing people to consider your opinions and views.

And yes, it'd be unfair to impose something upon everyone when only a minority of people agree with it. That is why democracy works, because it represents the majority of people, and people who are in the minority are perfectly welcome to try to influence the majority.

So choosing to use my right to self-defense, or trying to marry someone of the same sex is 'forcing' something on everyone else?

You know, there's a reason that it took so long for slavery to be abolished and women's rights to be protected.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I'd rather live on my own property and voluntarily interact with fellow human beings rather than live in the wild, thanks. But that doesn't mean I have to submit myself to a criminal organisation.

It amuses me how Libertarians seem to just slap on as many negative adjectives and loaded words as they can when referring to the government. The dictionary definition of "crime" is:

An action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.

So in order to be a criminal, you have to do something illegal, that is, break the law. A law which is, of course, maintained and enforced by the government.

Government is criminal according to natural law.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

That's unnecessarily rude and dodging the argument. No society is 'stable' in a permanent state of aggression.

No it isn't. You've consistently refused to demonstrate that your arbitrary and lazy "AGGRESSION=NOT STABLE!" argument should be taken seriously.

Well, okay then, I'll concede that nations with established governments are more stable than war-torn countries, if fixed tyranny is your piece of cake. But it does not change the fact that aggression is continually occurring, so there can never be a 'peaceful' state.

Why would voluntarism not work?

You have no system with which to actually enforce it.

There is indeed a system of enforcing it, but it would be decentralised. Real criminals would be punished by private arbitration firms, individuals reacting in self-defense and the market. Anarchy is not a guarantee of perfection and non-rights violation. It's not a guarantee of fairness or safety. However, government is a guarantee of these things, of theft and violence, and on a massive scale.

No, I'm not. You're conflating correlation with causation. You asserted that a civilised society cannot exist without the state.This is wrong. Governments exist because of civilised societies.

Yeah, no. Pick up a basic textbook on government theory. Governments exist to solve collective action problems, problems that by definition exist in societies that AREN'T stable and functional.

Name some of these 'collective action' problems and why they need to be addressed by the use of force.

[Sociobiology]

You have no system with which to actually enforce it.

There is indeed a system of enforcing it, but it would be decentralised. Real criminals would be punished by private arbitration firms, individuals reacting in self-defense and the market. Anarchy is not a guarantee of perfection and non-rights violation. It's not a guarantee of fairness or safety. However, government is a guarantee of these things, of theft and violence, and on a massive scale.

none of those things actually reduce crime, in many cases they encourage it. so you prefer to live in Somalia than a modern first world nation.
private arbitration only works when both sides believe they should compromise and both sides are being rational.
the market encourages crime.
people acting and reacting in perceived self defence is one of the leading sources of violence.
States and thus governments on the other hand reduce violence better than any other form of society ever tried.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OXFunFA_sIU/Tsm0rqVpuBI/AAAAAAAAADI/2R7MlScwuIc/s1600/PinkerGraph.png

Yeah, no. Pick up a basic textbook on government theory. Governments exist to solve collective action problems, problems that by definition exist in societies that AREN'T stable and functional.

Name some of these 'collective action' problems and why they need to be addressed by the use of force.

interrupting cycles of revenge.
creation and enforcement of rights.
ect.

[Greater-London]

I don't see big government as an insult, I think the state should play a large role in managing the country as far as the welfare state, public services etc. We have one of the smallest governments (as a % of gdp) in the developed world so it's a pointless statement.

Except measuring the size of government in terms of expenditure isn't actually a fool proof way of measuring whether or not a country has a "big government". For instance the French state is notably bigger than the UK but as a % of GDP the UK sate is "bigger".

The best way to measure the size of the state of if you have "big government" is by looking at the areas in which the state can (and does) intervene. Regardless the term needn't be an insult.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

There is indeed a system of enforcing it, but it would be decentralised. Real criminals would be punished by private arbitration firms, individuals reacting in self-defense and the market. Anarchy is not a guarantee of perfection and non-rights violation. It's not a guarantee of fairness or safety. However, government is a guarantee of these things, of theft and violence, and on a massive scale.

none of those things actually reduce crime, in many cases they encourage it.

Creating crime on a mass scale to eliminate crime on individual scales is extremely paradoxical.

so you prefer to live in Somalia than a modern first world nation.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Fun fact: Somalia devolved from a totalitarian socialist state to a group of small feudalist states upon the outbreak of civil war. Property rights protections are weak to non-existent, mutual exchange is restricted, there is constant violence and hardly any tolerance for minorities. It's an un-libertarian shithole, and not anarcho-capitalist in any way. But it's still better off now than it was under socialism.

private arbitration only works when both sides believe they should compromise and both sides are being rational.

When I said private arbitration, I meant private judicial firms.

the market encourages crime.

Is that a fucking joke? Companies don't like doing business with criminals. In a voluntary society, criminals would be punished by the market, which would refuse doing business with them. For example, unpunished serial killers would likely be refused access to private roads and other essential services, so would be forced into paying some form of compensation, be it either prison time or capital, for their crimes in order to be re-accepted into society.

people acting and reacting in perceived self defence is one of the leading sources of violence.

Well that's complete bullshit. And even if it were true, self-defense is completely justified. What do you suggest victims of assault do? Stand there and take it?

States and thus governments on the other hand reduce violence better than any other form of society ever tried.

Except that they create far more violence than they prevent or stop. There were 17 times more murders by government in the 20th Century than murders by individuals.

(Image)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OXFunFA_sIU/Tsm0rqVpuBI/AAAAAAAAADI/2R7MlScwuIc/s1600/PinkerGraph.png

Those are some very nice cherry-picked statistics right there, but you're relying on the Somalia Fallacy to push your point. They by no means form a case against a voluntary society, because I'm willing to bet that none of these 'non-states' were libertarian in any way.

interrupting cycles of revenge.
creation and enforcement of rights.
ect.

Cycles of revenge is a non-issue, and rights exist with or without government. Just like science, or physics.

[Republic of Coldwater]

As a Libertarian, I don't use the term Big Government as a "derogatory term" against a government that has an excessive public sector. I define a "Big Government" as a government that has a big public sector, excessive government services, numerous nationalized sectors and extensive reach into the private lives of individuals. A good example of a Big Government would be Nazi Germany, FDR's America (to some extent) and the USSR. A "big government policy" would be a policy that greatly expands the size and scope of the government. A good example would be the PATRIOT Act or a Nationalization of HealthCare.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

none of those things actually reduce crime, in many cases they encourage it.

Creating crime on a mass scale to eliminate crime on individual scales is extremely paradoxical.

so you prefer to live in Somalia than a modern first world nation.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Fun fact: Somalia devolved from a totalitarian socialist state to a group of small feudalist states upon the outbreak of civil war. Property rights protections are weak to non-existent, mutual exchange is restricted, there is constant violence and hardly any tolerance for minorities. It's an un-libertarian shithole, and not anarcho-capitalist in any way. But it's still better off now than it was under socialism.

private arbitration only works when both sides believe they should compromise and both sides are being rational.

When I said private arbitration, I meant private judicial firms.

the market encourages crime.

Is that a fucking joke? Companies don't like doing business with criminals. In a voluntary society, criminals would be punished by the market, which would refuse doing business with them. For example, unpunished serial killers would likely be refused access to private roads and other essential services, so would be forced into paying some form of compensation, be it either prison time or capital, for their crimes in order to be re-accepted into society.

people acting and reacting in perceived self defence is one of the leading sources of violence.

Well that's complete bullshit. And even if it were true, self-defense is completely justified. What do you suggest victims of assault do? Stand there and take it?

States and thus governments on the other hand reduce violence better than any other form of society ever tried.

Except that they create far more violence than they prevent or stop. There were 17 times more murders by government in the 20th Century than murders by individuals.

(Image)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OXFunFA_sIU/Tsm0rqVpuBI/AAAAAAAAADI/2R7MlScwuIc/s1600/PinkerGraph.png

Those are some very nice cherry-picked statistics right there, but you're relying on the Somalia Fallacy to push your point. They by no means form a case against a voluntary society, because I'm willing to bet that none of these 'non-states' were libertarian in any way.

interrupting cycles of revenge.
creation and enforcement of rights.
ect.

Cycles of revenge is a non-issue, and rights exist with or without government. Just like science, or physics.

You can't argue with these people man.

All they want is more government, and to force you to be a part of it.

They don't understand that aome people just want to be left alone to live their lives in peace.

[SD_Film Artists]

I just find it funny when people confuse physically large governments with politically large governments, as seen in world government threads. XD

[The TransPecos]

Not so much a matter of size, but of central concentration. The consequential result is loss of contact, both personal and local, with those making decisions of consequence. Those decisions are usually slow and so broad and general that they often give unintended consequences. (My opinion. No sources will be given. It's worth what it cost you.)

[Mavorpen]

Well, okay then, I'll concede that nations with established governments are more stable than war-torn countries, if fixed tyranny is your piece of cake. But it does not change the fact that aggression is continually occurring, so there can never be a 'peaceful' state.

Who said anything about peaceful?

If you SERIOUSLY believe that "yeah, but there isn't world peace!" Is a legitimate argument, you might as well give up now.

There is indeed a system of enforcing it, but it would be decentralised. Real criminals would be punished by private arbitration firms, individuals reacting in self-defense and the market. Anarchy is not a guarantee of perfection and non-rights violation. It's not a guarantee of fairness or safety. However, government is a guarantee of these things, of theft and violence, and on a massive scale.

In other words, you don't have a system of enforcing it, UNLESS you're wealthy and can afford it. I'd take your fantasy theft and violence over actual theft and violence because you refuse to give an actual functioning system of enforcing it.

I realize you hate the poor, but you could at least TRY to pretend that you don't.

Name some of these 'collective action' problems and why they need to be addressed by the use of force.

[/quote]
No. Go pick up a book and read.

In general though, coercion is required because people tend to be selfish in the sense that if they could benefit from a public good without paying for it, they would choose to do so. That is the pinnacle of unfairness and injustice, so we have organizations large enough to ensure that these people contribute.

[Pandeeria]

Big Government is good. Tyrannical government is bad.

I don't know why so many politicians don't understand this, neither does a large portion of the citizenry.

[Mavorpen]

Creating crime on a mass scale to eliminate crime on individual scales is extremely paradoxical.

No, it isn't.

private arbitration only works when both sides believe they should compromise and both sides are being rational.

When I said private arbitration, I meant private judicial firms.

In other words, if you're poor, well, fuck you. You don't deserve to challenge someone in court if you can't afford it. Also, why even fucking bother if the judge can simply be paid off?

Is that a fucking joke? Companies don't like doing business with criminals. In a voluntary society, criminals would be punished by the market, which would refuse doing business with them.

Oh please, you're not even trying anymore. A YouTube video?

Is that a fucking joke? Companies don't like doing business with criminals.

Correction: they don't like doing business with BAD criminals (i.e. criminals who get caught). If you can make a business a lot of money and not get caught (which will assuredly happen under your system since you've failed to give anything resembling a functioning justice system), business don't give a shit if you're doing "criminal" things.

In a voluntary society, criminals would be punished by the market, which would refuse doing business with them.

Why would they? Businesses are about profits, and we ALREADY know that they'll do anything in their power to make more of it. And if they can simply pay off the justice system, what incentive do they have NOT to do business with criminals?

For example, unpunished serial killers would likely be refused access to private roads and other essential services, so would be forced into paying some form of compensation, be it either prison time or capital, for their crimes in order to be re-accepted into society.

Holy shit, you therefore ADMIT that rich people gain everything and the poor lose everything.

"Kill dozens of people? Don't worry, we'll still let you use our stuff if you pay us some money!"

Well that's complete bullshit. And even if it were true, self-defense is completely justified. What do you suggest victims of assault do? Stand there and take it?

Which is why he said PERCEIVED self defense. He has no issue with actual self defense. Reading is your friend.

Except that they create far more violence than they prevent or stop. There were 17 times more murders by government in the 20th Century than murders by individuals.

That's a nice statistic that works well when you're intellectually dishonest and quote it out of context. See, spouting that statistic means nothing. You actually need to COMPARE it to something. Compare the 20th century, which, according to you, demonstrates that the bigger our governments are becoming, the more violence we are getting.

Except, this isn't true. We are, in fact, living in the most peaceful period in human history. Compared to previous periods in human history, including that of statelessness, we're living in a utopia.

Those are some very nice cherry-picked statistics right there, but you're relying on the Somalia Fallacy to push your point. They by no means form a case against a voluntary society, because I'm willing to bet that none of these 'non-states' were libertarian in any way.

It's too bad that this "Somolia Fallacy" shit doesn't exist. You know what does? NoTrue Scotsman Fallacy. Come on, you can at least TRY to demonstrate that those non-states were not libertarian.

But, let's assume they weren't libertarian... what would that do to support your argument? Absolutely jack shit. Why? Because you'd then be admitting that there has never been a single example where a period of statelessness then lead to your fantasy libertarian/voluntaryist society while also thriving. If anything, you pointing that out HURTS your argument.

Cycles of revenge is a non-issue,

No it isn't. There is nothing stopping me from getting rid of people or competing businesses I don't like through sabotage. Absolutely nothing. I can anonymously purchase bounty hunters. I can pay off judges. The only thing preventing this would be if I were poor. And again, A system that's stacked against the poor significantly more than the one right now is downright fucking stupid.

and rights exist with or without government.

Uh, no. The CONCEPT exists. Without an actual organization that is responsible for the entire population, this statement is bullshit. I am under no incentive whatsoever to recognize your rights without a government. As long as you're poorer than me, I can do whatever the fuck I want with respect to denying you rights.

Just like science, or physics.

[/quote]
In other words, it doesn't exist without government. Because, you know, science and physics doesn't actually "exist" as tangible objects. The CONCEPTS would still exist, but without a group or organization solidifying the "existence" they're meaningless.

[Murkwood]

Yes, I would say it is an accurate description of many left-wing politicians.

[Sociobiology]

none of those things actually reduce crime, in many cases they encourage it.

Creating crime on a mass scale to eliminate crime on individual scales is extremely paradoxical.

government is not a crime.
stop begging the question.

so you prefer to live in Somalia than a modern first world nation.

Are you fucking kidding me?

Fun fact: Somalia devolved from a totalitarian socialist state to a group of small feudalist states upon the outbreak of civil war. Property rights protections are weak to non-existent, mutual exchange is restricted, there is constant violence and hardly any tolerance for minorities.

which is exactly what you get without a state.

It's an un-libertarian shithole, and not anarcho-capitalist in any way. But it's still better off now than it was under socialism.

unless you read the papers sources and realize it uses numbers defined as highly unreliable by their own sources, and not an improvement of the expected change with technological improvements.

private arbitration only works when both sides believe they should compromise and both sides are being rational.

When I said private arbitration, I meant private judicial firms.

and you think that changes the above how?
Unless the decisions are binding by fource and non-voluntary, in which case whats the difference between this system and a state?

the market encourages crime.

Is that a fucking joke?

1. youtube not a source.
2. maximum profit, minimal cost, pretty much defines theft.

Companies don't like doing business with criminals.

sure they do, as long as the criminals are not committing the crimes against them.

In a voluntary society, criminals would be punished by the market, which would refuse doing business with them.

why? they make more money dealing with criminals, especially if said criminals limit themselves to committing crimes in other communities, which is pretty normal in non-state societies.

people acting and reacting in perceived self defence is one of the leading sources of violence.

Well that's complete bullshit.

redress of slights and perceived aggression are the leading cause of violent crime.
Its built into human instincts.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/92155/InsultAggressionAndTheSouthernCulture.pdf

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep03381391.pdf

http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=99704

And even if it were true, self-defense is completely justified.

"perceived self-defense" apply your reading skills please.
people are pretty shitty at separating real and imagined threats in the heat of the moment.

States and thus governments on the other hand reduce violence better than any other form of society ever tried.

Except that they create far more violence than they prevent or stop. There were 17 times more murders by government in the 20th Century than murders by individuals.

first source, because I suspect you are including war deaths.
but without a state there are ten to hundred TIMES more murders than both of those combined. It is not coincidence that intertribal warfare is the leading cause of death in tribal and band societies.

It is also worth noting that homicide rates are insignificant compared to war deaths in ALL kinds of socities, if included homicide rates would not even be visible on these graphs.

(Image)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OXFunFA_sIU/Tsm0rqVpuBI/AAAAAAAAADI/2R7MlScwuIc/s1600/PinkerGraph.png

Those are some very nice cherry-picked statistics right there,

based on what?

here is a more detailed comparison if you wish, it separates prehistoric from modern.


note they include the most violent state society in known history.

but you're relying on the Somalia Fallacy to push your point. They by no means form a case against a voluntary society, because I'm willing to bet that none of these 'non-states' were libertarian in any way.

define libertarian, because I am willing to bet you define it as something that requires a state to exist.

interrupting cycles of revenge.
creation and enforcement of rights.
ect.

Cycles of revenge is a non-issue, because it will not be made of people? do oyu have any idea how much violence is due to cycles of revenge without a state to intercede?

and rights exist with or without government. Just like science, or physics.

no rights are created and defined by society, and only states are any good at it.
rights are a creation of society, like laws and courts.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Creating crime on a mass scale to eliminate crime on individual scales is extremely paradoxical.

No, it isn't.

10/10 argument, I'm convinced.

In other words, if you're poor, well, fuck you. You don't deserve to challenge someone in court if you can't afford it.

You're throwing a big blanket over complex subject matter. A lot of legal opponents these days never even reach court, because so many of them use private arbitration, which can free or very costly. It's likely that the less wealthy party would have 'legal insurance' provided either by the company they work for or perhaps a union or mutual society they are a member of. But even without these, I believe that existing legal aid programs would continue to function, just on a voluntary basis. And when all else fails, the party could rely on the help of others. Or they could just represent themselves.

And isn't what you're describing endemic of the current legal system? Surely it's much easier to corrupt the public sector than the market, where people have every incentive not to piss off their customers?

Also, why even fucking bother if the judge can simply be paid off?

This would be unlikely to happen, as the judge's reputation would suffer and customers would be turned away if they learned of a corrupt judicial service. Consumers like to get what they pay for, so most legal parties would probably avoid judges/judicial firms with reputations for corruption.

Why would they? Businesses are about profits, and we ALREADY know that they'll do anything in their power to make more of it.

People generally have some kind of moral compass. Businesses are operated and led by people.

And if they can simply pay off the justice system, what incentive do they have NOT to do business with criminals?

Utterly simplistic thinking. A company could never "pay off the justice system" (which in itself is built with the assumption that the only thing anyone cares about is money), and even if they could they'd completely alienate their customers and the market itself. It would fail.

Holy shit, you therefore ADMIT that rich people gain everything and the poor lose everything.

"Kill dozens of people? Don't worry, we'll still let you use our stuff if you pay us some money!"

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

That's a nice statistic that works well when you're intellectually dishonest and quote it out of context. See, spouting that statistic means nothing. You actually need to COMPARE it to something. Compare the 20th century, which, according to you, demonstrates that the bigger our governments are becoming, the more violence we are getting.

I never said this. In fact, you dodged the entire crux of my argument, which was that governments commit far more crimes against individuals than individuals commit crimes against individuals.

It's too bad that this "Somolia Somalia Fallacy" shit doesn't exist.

It does now.

You know what does? NoTrue Scotsman Fallacy. Come on, you can at least TRY to demonstrate that those non-states were not libertarian.

No. Go pick up a book and read.

But, let's assume they weren't libertarian... what would that do to support your argument? Absolutely jack shit. Why? Because you'd then be admitting that there has never been a single example where a period of statelessness then lead to your fantasy libertarian/voluntaryist society while also thriving. If anything, you pointing that out HURTS your argument.

Most stateless societies existed before the development of capitalism. Those that existed afterwards were short-lived and contained few of the fundamental building blocks of a voluntaryist society.

No it isn't. There is nothing stopping me from getting rid of people or competing businesses I don't like through sabotage. Absolutely nothing. I can anonymously purchase bounty hunters. I can pay off judges.

Yes, you can. In fact it's much easier to do these things with a state in place. Judges are bought off all the time in this world, but the difference is that private judges have the incentive to maintain a clean, reputable practice so to avoid scandal and damage to their livelihoods. How come when I go into McDonald's they don't just take my money and give me nothing? Because they want repeat businesses. Your postulation, that businesses would resort to open criminal activities in order to make short-term profits, is utterly stupid and ignores the entire structure of the modern business model.

The only thing preventing this would be if I were poor. And again, A system that's stacked against the poor significantly more than the one right now is downright fucking stupid.

There'd be far less poor people in a voluntaryist society, because there wouldn't be a government entrapping individuals in poverty for its own gain and far less burdens upon market activity. But for those who are still disadvantaged, there'd be many more voluntary networks designed to help them. The 19th Century was the greatest period of voluntary giving in human history, but this was ultimately brought to an end by the rise of the welfare state.

Uh, no. The CONCEPT exists. Without an actual organization that is responsible for the entire population, this statement is bullshit. I am under no incentive whatsoever to recognize your rights without a government. As long as you're poorer than me, I can do whatever the fuck I want with respect to denying you rights.

You seem to hold the opinion that economically disadvantaged people are somehow inferior to those with more wealth. That's a disgusting point of view, and holds no basis in reality. Level of wealth does not correspond with your value as a human being.

Every individual is endowed with the same natural rights by their own existence. How do we know natural rights exist? Because I own myself. And you own yourself. Therefore, we, as individuals, have the right to use our own bodies to whatever means we desire, as long as we're not infringing on the rights of others.

In other words, it doesn't exist without government. Because, you know, science and physics doesn't actually "exist" as tangible objects. The CONCEPTS would still exist, but without a group or organization solidifying the "existence" they're meaningless.

So you're telling me that 1 hydrogen + 2 oxygen doesn't equal water without the existence of a state to recognise it? What you're saying is just a silly spin on the "if a tree falls" question.

But I see what you're getting at. A centralised, coercive institution does not have to enforce the rights of man. Man can enforce these rights, or fellow men.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Well, okay then, I'll concede that nations with established governments are more stable than war-torn countries, if fixed tyranny is your piece of cake. But it does not change the fact that aggression is continually occurring, so there can never be a 'peaceful' state.

Who said anything about peaceful?

If you SERIOUSLY believe that "yeah, but there isn't world peace!" Is a legitimate argument, you might as well give up now.

Okay then, I'll concede this point. Some states may produce stability, but this does not mean that stability cannot exist without a state.

I realize you hate the poor, but you could at least TRY to pretend that you don't.

It's because of pathetic jabs and ad hominems like these why nobody takes you seriously. Care to give me an actual argument rather than dancing around your own ignorance of the subject?

No. Go pick up a book and read.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

In general though, coercion is required because people tend to be selfish in the sense that if they could benefit from a public good without paying for it, they would choose to do so. That is the pinnacle of unfairness and injustice, so we have organizations large enough to ensure that these people contribute.

This is very vague. What kind of public goods are you referring to? Why would you classify them as public goods, and why can't they be provided by the private sector?

[Oppressorion]

Why would they? Businesses are about profits, an we ALREADY know that they'll do anything in their power to make more of it.

People generally have some kind of moral compass. Businesses are operated and led by people.

Um, yeah. Because businesses like, say, privately-run prisons don't put profit ahead of their inmates' welfare,nope nope nope. Also, Cash for kids. The truth is that a business' only concern is increasing profit, one way or another, and if bribing a judge will increase their revenue, that's what they'll do. Power corrupts regardless of whether it comes from elections or cash.

[Mavorpen]

10/10 argument, I'm convinced.

You should be. It's miles better than blindly calling the government "CRIMINAL!" in a vain attempt to appeal to some silly emotional reaction.

You're throwing a big blanket over complex subject matter. A lot of legal opponents these days never even reach court, because so many of them use private arbitration, which can free or very costly. It's likely that the less wealthy party would have 'legal insurance' provided either by the company they work for or perhaps a union or mutual society they are a member of.

Pfft. You think unions can survive in a world without workplace protections? You think ANY collective bargaining tool that doesn't fit the desires of large businesses would survive? Sorry, but this is reality, not Wonderland.

But even without these, I believe that existing legal aid programs would continue to function, just on a voluntary basis. And when all else fails, the party could rely on the help of others. Or they could just represent themselves.

And all for naught when the judges are paid off.

And isn't what you're describing endemic of the current legal system? Surely it's much easier to corrupt the public sector than the market, where people have every incentive not to piss off their customers?

No, it isn't. Because, here's the thing: the "customers" aren't a monolith. Some customers are going to drown out other customers simply because they have more money.

This would be unlikely to happen, as the judge's reputation would suffer and customers would be turned away if they learned of a corrupt judicial service.

And they would learn of this through what, psychic powers?

Consumers like to get what they pay for, so most legal parties would probably avoid judges/judicial firms with reputations for corruption.

And so the solution is to place a chokehold on anyone that tries to cry corruption. It's really that simple. You're ASSUMING businesses would just sit back and allow them to spread information about corruption. Why would they?

People generally have some kind of moral compass. Businesses are operated and led by people.

Oh yes, because businesses have clearly demonstrated strong moral compasses, from knowingly polluting the environment to knowingly releasing faulty products that lead to the deaths of their customers.

Utterly simplistic thinking. A company could never "pay off the justice system" (which in itself is built with the assumption that the only thing anyone cares about is money), and even if they could they'd completely alienate their customers and the market itself. It would fail.

No, what's simplistic thinking is believing that we live in a world full of rainbows and pixie dust. What's simplistic thinking is assuming that businesses would sit back and ALLOW customers to spread information of corruption.

I never said this. In fact, you dodged the entire crux of my argument, which was that governments commit far more crimes against individuals than individuals commit crimes against individuals.

I dodged it because it's completely and utterly irrelevant unless you want to be as intellectually dishonest as possible. The reason why this is true is because governments have demonstrably reduced the number of crimes against individuals. Humans have ALWAYS committed violence against each other, whether it be in groups without a state or groups with a state. What we do know, however, is that violence without a state is significantly more than with the state.

It does now.

Maybe in your fantasy world.

No. Go pick up a book and read.

So you can't defend your point and therefore you're wrong. Got it.

Most stateless societies existed before the development of capitalism. Those that existed afterwards were short-lived and contained few of the fundamental building blocks of a voluntaryist society.

Wrong. They contained the fundamental blocks of a communist society. There still existed governments because with communism, most of them at least have the reason and knowledge to recognize that a government, even if it's a direct democracy, is an important tool to maintain a stable society.

Judges are bought off all the time in this world, but the difference is that private judges have the incentive to maintain a clean, reputable practice so to avoid scandal and damage to their livelihoods.

Which can be done by accepting money with a specific promise attached to it: that the business paying them crushes any attempt at revealing a scandal. ANY sensible large business would more than likely have their own news network as well to control the flow of information.

How come when I go into McDonald's they don't just take my money and give me nothing? Because they want repeat businesses.

Yes. And they can't get that because of the government in place.

If you're going to make a hypothetical, it's best to not do so in the context of the system you're arguing against.

There'd be far less poor people in a voluntaryist society, because there wouldn't be a government entrapping individuals in poverty for its own gain and far less burdens upon market activity.

Thank you for once again proving why your system would be utter shit. You're arguing governments entrap individuals in poverty for its own gain. The only reason it would do this would be because the individuals in charge of it benefit. Given that the only way they would benefit from this would be if they were being given massive amounts of money by big businesses, you've effectively admitted that everything you've said so far is complete and utter bullshit.

Large businesses are not led by a moral compass. They repeatedly influence the government to try to stifle competition. Getting rid of the middle man to stop this is completely and utterly fucking stupid. It only gives them DIRECT access to fucking us over, hard.

But for those who are still disadvantaged, there'd be many more voluntary networks designed to help them. The 19th Century was the greatest period of voluntary giving in human history, but this was ultimately brought to an end by the rise of the welfare state.

No, it was brought to an end by the collapse of the economy in the early 20th century, which demonstrated something that we've known now for almost a century: voluntary giving is completely and utterly defunct to dealing with issues of poverty in modern times.

You seem to hold the opinion that economically disadvantaged people are somehow inferior to those with more wealth. That's a disgusting point of view, and holds no basis in reality. Level of wealth does not correspond with your value as a human being.

Yes, it's a disgusting point of view and holds no basis in reality. Which is precisely why I don't hold that view.

Every individual is endowed with the same natural rights by their own existence. How do we know natural rights exist? Because I own myself. And you own yourself. Therefore, we, as individuals, have the right to use our own bodies to whatever means we desire, as long as we're not infringing on the rights of others.

Except for when I have a bigger gun than you. Then I own you and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

So you're telling me that 1 hydrogen + 2 oxygen doesn't equal water without the existence of a state to recognise it?

No. I'm telling you that entire concepts do not actually exist. "Physics" does not exist without scientists. It's a systematic way of classifying and studying information.

But I see what you're getting at. A centralised, coercive institution does not have to enforce the rights of man. Man can enforce these rights, or fellow men.

And they can do so with a decentralized coercive institution, which, quite frankly, seems like a huge fucking waste of time.