Going Galt

[Francisco Ferrer]

You need a law to treat it as a crime for no prosecutor will touch this without a law.

--Brant

of course, you just might try lunching lynching, like they used to do with cattle rustlers

(thanks for the G. H. Smith link--I'll read it later)

Natural law exists independently of the state.

crime: "3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality."

[Francisco Ferrer]

Nobody likes a whiner Frank..get it?

A...

Now that I have been revealed as a "whiner," you'll know in the future to skip my posts. They are likely to consist of extended whining about socialism, the welfare state, and centralized power.

[Brant Gaede]

I stand with Frank.

Ich bin ein Whiner!

[Brant Gaede]

You need a law to treat it as a crime for no prosecutor will touch this without a law.

--Brant

of course, you just might try lunching lynching, like they used to do with cattle rustlers

(thanks for the G. H. Smith link--I'll read it later)

Natural law exists independently of the state.

crime: "3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality."

Then lynch 'em! High 'em high!

--Brant

The Ox-Bow Incident--that's a good enough template for me (let God sort 'em out!)

more such Hollywood justification is found when they hanged "Turkey" in Johnny Guitar

[Francisco Ferrer]

The lynch mob in The Ox-Bow Incident rushed to judgment, hanged three innocent men and thus committed a "serious offense, especially one in violation of morality."

So did the legal executioners in the Jesse Tafero case.

[Brant Gaede]

The lynch mob in The Ox-Bow Incident rushed to judgment, hanged three innocent men and thus committed a "serious offense, especially one in violation of morality."

So did the legal executioners in the Jesse Tafero case.

So, which way or the highway?

--Brant

shit happens

[moralist]

Interesting to watch a newbie run into Greg. Greg is invulnerable. This is not necessarily desirable to emulate. Reminds me of Jack Nicholson in As Good As it Gets: asked how he comes up with his great female characters--he's a novelist--he says, "I think of a man. Then I subtract reason and responsibility." That's not Greg, of course, for he keeps the responsibility.

--Brant

and his balls

Unreasonably responsible... you nailed it, Brant.

Greg

[moralist]

As I have shown with examples...

The only example you've shown me is that you're not decent responsible and productive enough to prosper regardless of the government.

That's why you complain about it so much... while the only sound you make is the ring of the leper's bell.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, the right word was probably "accountability." Same difference.

--Brant

edit

[BaalChatzaf]

Greg, the right word was probably "accountability." Same difference.

--Brant

edit

One of the funniest scenes ever. The girl in that scene was the actress Julie Benz who was excellent in -Dexter-

[jtucek]

In the same way that firefighting services can be privately contracted, so can justice services. I will refer you to an excellent paper by the scholar and frequent contributor to this forum, George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market."

Hello Francisco, this is some great material. It is easiest to see how the public firefighting department can be replaced with private contractors, and I can see now also the case for private courts. Thinking about it, they already exist today in the form of various private arbitration agreements.

What would you say about national defense, however. Would people "voluntarily" contract with a private national defense provider, knowing that if their neighbours contract, they can easily free-ride instead? And if they wouldn't, do you not accept the necessity of a public service and a forced taxation to pay for it?

The only argument I've seen on the topic was made by Harry Brown in How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World, who claimed that national defense is not needed at all and neither is the government. The citizens are safer that way, since who would conquer them and how? If there is no central government, and no bureaucratic machinery to control a country, an invader cannot force the central element to surrender and take over the machinery - he'd have to conquer and police every single one of the hundreds of millions of citizens, keeping a permanent occupational force in the area.

That is a semi-passable argument if you're thinking of rational invaders seeking to conquer you. It is very disappointing today though, as we also have to consider invaders trying to just wipe you out and make Lebensraum for their own gang.

EDIT: I guess, you can also take the same stand I made about NASA some posts ago. If I care about national defense, and my neighbour doesn't, what right do I have to force him to pay for it through taxation...

[Derek McGowan]

In the same way that firefighting services can be privately contracted, so can justice services. I will refer you to an excellent paper by the scholar and frequent contributor to this forum, George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market."

Hello Francisco, this is some great material. It is easiest to see how the public firefighting department can be replaced with private contractors, and I can see now also the case for private courts. Thinking about it, they already exist today in the form of various private arbitration agreements.

What would you say about national defense, however. Would people "voluntarily" contract with a private national defense provider, knowing that if their neighbours contract, they can easily free-ride instead? And if they wouldn't, do you not accept the necessity of a public service and a forced taxation to pay for it?

The only argument I've seen on the topic was made by Harry Brown in How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World, who claimed that national defense is not needed at all and neither is the government. The citizens are safer that way, since who would conquer them and how? If there is no central government, and no bureaucratic machinery to control a country, an invader cannot force the central element to surrender and take over the machinery - he'd have to conquer and police every single one of the hundreds of millions of citizens, keeping a permanent occupational force in the area.

That is a semi-passable argument if you're thinking of rational invaders seeking to conquer you. It is very disappointing today though, as we also have to consider invaders trying to just wipe you out and make Lebensraum for their own gang.

EDIT: I guess, you can also take the same stand I made about NASA some posts ago. If I care about national defense, and my neighbour doesn't, what right do I have to force him to pay for it through taxation...

I feel like in the instance that someone doesn't pay for national defense and yet the defense paid for me and other neighbors actually does work to repel the invaders , then it should be lawful for us payers to forcefully eject the freerider from the lands.

The main problem though with the no government based defense scenario is that the entire world would have to operate under the same conditions. If the US dropped their government based national defense then another country's centrally coordinated army could easily occupy entire regions and multiple other countries could form pacts and split up America same as they did 300 years ago. In fact because you wouldn't have a forced "same" vision on defense and unity of the country, in the case of invaders there would be those neighbors who would fight FOR the occupiers because they think it's the safer option.

Lastly as far as the text on private courts, I haven't read the file yet, though I have downloaded it, but it's hard for me to see where the punitive power of the court comes from without backing by governmental force. All the participants in the court will not simply follow the words of some judge even if that judge is agreed upon. How do you ensure judgements are followed out would be my question. If the answer is "my private army is legally able to use force after the judge rules in my favor" why would people wait for the judge at all?

Either way, I haven't read it so....

[Francisco Ferrer]

As I have shown with examples...

The only example you've shown me is that you're not decent responsible and productive enough to prosper regardless of the government.

That's why you complain about it so much... while the only sound you make is the ring of the leper's bell.

Greg

Here's Ayn Rand ringing the leper's bell:

In view of what they hear from the experts, the people cannot be blamed for their ignorance and their helpless confusion. If an average housewife struggles with her incomprehensibly shrinking budget and sees a tycoon in a resplendent limousine, she might well think that just one of his diamond cuff links would solve all her problems. She has no way of knowing that if all the personal luxuries of all the tycoons were expropriated, it would not feed her family—and millions of other, similar families—for one week; and that the entire country would starve on the first morning of the week to follow . . . . How would she know it, if all the voices she hears are telling her that we must soak the rich?

No one tells her that higher taxes imposed on the rich (and the semi-rich) will not come out of their consumption expenditures, but out of their investment capital (i.e., their savings); that such taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods; and that by the time the rich have to lower their standard of living, hers will be gone, along with her savings and her husband’s job—and no power in the world (no economic power) will be able to revive the dead industries (there will be no such power left).

It bears repeating: "taxes will mean less investment, i.e., less production, fewer jobs, higher prices for scarcer goods."

If the U.S. government had set out to create a depression in the high end boat building industry, it could not have done better than by placing a 10% tax on yachts. From the Broward County Sun-Sentinel:

Nationally, yacht sales dipped from 7,500 in 1990 to 3,500 in 1992. There were 30,000 jobs lost nationwide, 8,000 in South Florida, where one in every four of America`s boats is built.

The drop in sales and jobs was not the result of businesses failing to provide value for value, but of government suddenly tilting the playing field and placing domestic yacht factories at a great disadvantage vis–à–vis foreign yacht manufacturers and vis–à–vis sellers of other goods available in the marketplace.

The private enterprise-killing effect of higher taxes is not something dreamed up by a university economist; it is an effect reported by entrepreneurs themselves. T.J. Rogers, the highly successful founder of Cypress Semiconductor and an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, explains how taxes on the rich kill investment:

A couple of years ago, I decided to invest in my hometown of Oshkosh, Wis., by building a $1.2 million lakefront restaurant. That restaurant now permanently employs 65 people at an investment of $18,000 per job, a figure consistent with U.S. small businesses. If progressive taxation in the name of "fairness" had taken my "extra" $1.2 million and spent it on a government stimulus program, would 65 jobs have been created?

You keep talking about personal responsibility. The surest way to make everyone 100% responsible for themselves is to abolish taxes. When that happens, virtually the only dollars held by individuals will be those they earned through work or obtained through persuasion.

As long as we have taxation, millions of unproductive people will be able to count on the monopoly of force to provide them with a livelihood.

That is not personal responsibility.

[Francisco Ferrer]

In the same way that firefighting services can be privately contracted, so can justice services. I will refer you to an excellent paper by the scholar and frequent contributor to this forum, George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market."

Hello Francisco, this is some great material. It is easiest to see how the public firefighting department can be replaced with private contractors, and I can see now also the case for private courts. Thinking about it, they already exist today in the form of various private arbitration agreements.

What would you say about national defense, however. Would people "voluntarily" contract with a private national defense provider, knowing that if their neighbours contract, they can easily free-ride instead? And if they wouldn't, do you not accept the necessity of a public service and a forced taxation to pay for it?

Gustave de Molinari's On the Production of Security (1849) was the first description of how justice could be provided without the state. You will find it online here. The Market for Liberty, a presentation of anarcho-capitalism by admirers of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, was published 35 years ago by Linda and Morris Tannehill and is now available in a free PDF download. Click here.

[moralist]

Greg, the right word was probably "accountability." Same difference.

--Brant

edit

One of the funniest scenes ever. The girl in that scene was the actress Julie Benz who was excellent in -Dexter-

We saw "As good as it Gets" a couple of months ago on Netflix. It was hilarious and Jack is brilliant!

[moralist]

Frank rings his own leper's bell: The surest way to MAKE everyone 100% responsible for themselves is to abolish taxes.

Real responsibility comes from the inside... not from the outside... and that's why you don't have it.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

If advocating the abolition of taxes makes one irresponsible, then Ayn Rand was clearly the most irresponsible woman in her lifetime.

Real responsibility comes from the inside? Good, then it should not be difficult to be against taxes, which are imposed from the outside.

[Selene]

In the same way that firefighting services can be privately contracted, so can justice services. I will refer you to an excellent paper by the scholar and frequent contributor to this forum, George H. Smith, "Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market."

Hello Francisco, this is some great material. It is easiest to see how the public firefighting department can be replaced with private contractors

Not as easy as you think.

Argument is wonderful, however humans are curious creatures...

Firefighters Respond ...watch house burn ...fee not paid <<<<this was an OL thread from October 5th 2010.

The incident has caused a raging debate, and has even left one talking head warning this is an example of "Tea Party" America. (See the original story and video from the scene.)"

http://www.theblaze....-party-america/

If I could remember how to post the link to an OL thread it would make it easier for you.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9359&hl=%2Bfire+%2Bdepartment

A...

Old dog remembers new tricks!

[Francisco Ferrer]

The theory that monopolies provide the best service is also flawed.

Chicago Police Will No Longer Respond to Burglaries or Robberies

[Brant Gaede]

Response is reactive. The crime is done. What the police are saying is you can phone in a report which may or may not result in an investigation but at least you'll have something for insurance.

A monopoly in government means one law. It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself or hire someone to defend you.

If there is a logical response, even factual too, to this then please explain how do we get from here to where you think we should be.

In the meantime, Greg is having fun, fun, fun--until Dad takes the T-Bird away!

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Then then residents of Chicago should hire private protection agencies to investigate, arrest those responsible and try them in a private court--all under one law, of course. And the City of Chicago should stop collecting extortion fees taxes.

[Brant Gaede]

Then then residents of Chicago should hire private protection agencies to investigate, arrest those responsible and try them in a private court--all under one law, of course. And the City of Chicago should stop collecting extortion fees taxes.

What should you do (1) then what should others do (2)? Not your sarcasm indicating impotence. You're a good ripper-downer. In capitalism it's called creative destruction, except for you it's sans the creative. You seem to need a partner. The best secondary argument for government is at least when someone shows up at your door and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," you'll know immediately he's full of shit.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

If I could remember how to post the link to an OL thread it would make it easier for you.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9359&hl=%2Bfire+%2Bdepartment

The links are in the post number (eg, #21) and for quotes the links are tied to this image:

Do the right-click thing on either link and you have the URL you need.

Edited May 3, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

You're a good ripper-downer. In capitalism it's called creative destruction, except for you it's sans the creative.

Again and again, Frank just keeps telling everyone that he creates nothing.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Then then residents of Chicago should hire private protection agencies to investigate, arrest those responsible and try them in a private court--all under one law, of course. And the City of Chicago should stop collecting extortion fees taxes.

What should you do (1) then what should others do (2). Not your sarcasm indicating impotence. You're a good ripper-downer. In capitalism it's called creative destruction, except for you it's sans the creative. You seem to need a partner. The best secondary argument for government is at least when someone shows up at your door and says, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," you'll know immediately he's full of shit.

--Brant

In a libertarian legal framework, it's called putting violators of property rights behind bars.

But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. --John Galt

You find me "sans creative"? Then by all means please spend less time on my posts and go read some original libertarian thinkers like Frédéric Bastiat, Étienne de La Boétie, Auberon Herbert, Gustave de Molinari, Albert Jay Nock, or Herbert Spencer.