emergent

Try reading.

guerilla

It was in the first paragraph of the article.

It's customary law. It is practiced in many rural parts of the world where there is no effective government.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

JakeStratham

I can't speak for guerilla, but here's my take...

I don't get offended. But if someone calls me a fucking moron, douchebag, idiot, etc., I write 'em off. After all, like everyone, I have friends and loved ones with whom I want to spend time. I need to get my work done in order to do that.

Why on earth would I waste my limited time having a conversation with someone who dismisses me as a fucking moron, douchebag, idiot, etc.? It's a poor use of my time, which would be better spent with those I love.

guerilla displays far more patience. Oddly, he seems to attract even more animosity because of it.

It's surreal. lol

__________________
.
"I consider electoral politics the milquetoast equivalent of terrorism." - Wendy McElroy

Read. Learn. Prosper.

"You see, but you do not observe." - Sherlock Holmes

handrewrites

I'll have to apologize for this - wasn't a cool way of expressing that I had different views.

But you can't ignore this reality even when just hypothetically putting your theories into practice.

It was simply an analogy.

Again, bad move on my part. I was just trying to emphasize the potential for the enormous social chaos that might result from trying to implement such a change if it didn't go perfectly as planned (assuming there was a perfect plan) - the cost (in many senses of the word) might just be too great.

Unfortunately pretty much every corner of the Earth has been colonized, which means no-one has much of a choice. As you said, it's damn near impossible to become stateless.

Remove it and the next biggest organized crime syndicate will grow into its place and legitimize itself. There are certain evils that you have to simply accept as being a permanent part of the world. Just as many see elections as "choosing the lesser of two evils", i.e. compromise, a stable central government still involves less chaos than a bunch of tribes.

It's common sense given the presence of organized crime - they WILL take control when there's anarchy. Doesn't matter if all households are notified years in advance and everyone has guns at home - there will always be a gang with bigger guns.

Laws are worthless without enforcement, and to "enforce" something requires force - more force than the next-strongest guy. Of course this then brings up the issue of abuse of power, but doing our best to keep this powerful central authority in check while ensuring they don't lose power is the compromise.

__________________

guerilla

I don't think it is outrageous that I would like to have a discussion that is based on facts and ideas, not on personal attacks an ad hoc opinions.

Then just set me to ignore. No one is forcing you to read my posts. Exercise some self-discipline!

And cue more avoiding discussing ideas, and more attacking style. Very substantive!

You know, when I first got into economics (thanks to Ron Paul) I had the same attitude towards libertarian philosophers that you have to me. True story, I openly mocked one of the more well known libertarian professors of philosophy as an egghead.

But then I realized something. He actually knew a lot of interesting stuff, and I didn't like that I didn't have a better argument than being a child, name calling and attacking him personally.

So I tried to learn more.

Here we are today, and I suppose this is my comeuppance. I am attacked by people who like me, wouldn't make a logical argument, and who prefer to attack people personally rather than intelligently defend a point of view.

I really don't care who calls me a troll, the sincerity and accuracy of what I post is what is here for judgment. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine. I've been here for 5 years and haven't changed my posts or position.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

guerilla

The following is why I show patience. I got this by PM the other day. I'm not trying to convince people in this thread who are not interested in new ideas. I am setting the discussion forth for people who are interested in new ideas, or thinking differently than we have all been collectively educated.

You know the sort of person I am talking about.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

jonas33h

^ you have yet to prove your idea works yet you always fire with

Do you have proof of that?

lame provide proof that anarchy works...

and no showing that some town village or society that used anarchy for a little bit then ends up with government doesn't count...because if it was successful why would they have changed to a government lead society that strips their rights away?

guerilla

I am not arguing that anarchy "works" because everyone has a different value scale for what "works" means. I am also not into empirical arguments. We can argue history and statistics all day long.

My claim is that government is irrational. I have explained this to you numerous times, and you have not responded to those specific arguments.

You continue to ask me to prove something while not accepting any of the proofs, logical or empirical presented. You have also argued, yet again, that an absence of proof, is a proof. I have demonstrated to you how this is a logical fallacy.

What do you want from me? Let's start at the beginning. Let's find one thing we can agree upon. Like, you don't like taxes. I don't either. Why don't you like them? Why don't you feel you should have to pay them?

Ultimately, my ability to be persuasive with people who do not approach things from an economic perspective is going to be limited. I understand this. If there is nothing else to take from this thread, please get interested in economics. The world makes a lot of sense very quickly when we take cause and effect into account.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

lukep

Bloody hell that clip is depressing!

I agree with it wholeheartedly, of course, but the moral in the end makes me want to go and cry... Can't we come up with anything better than "To see the cage you're in is the closest you'll get to freedom" ???

This problem, more than any other, is what is causing people to argue for governments. They can't face this truth. Ignorance is Bliss.

The Denial Express.

In your opinion Guerilla, is this what you 'are trying to solve' with your explorations into anarchy? A way of happily existing outside of that cage?


Yes, the ill-informed and hyper-emotional folks on here don't seem to have anyone else that will argue with them.

My purpose in being here in STS is to learn. Not just about the world, but about myself. That's why I keep coming back and taking abuse from dimwits from time to time, it's the price I pay for learning something worth knowing. (Sadly public schools can't give you that knowledge. I bet Jon didn't know he's sitting on a school system far more useful than any US school!)

Anyway, I've disagreed with Guerilla in the past (population density & global warming issues) but every thread he's posted on he's left some gold. And he puts up with more shit than anyone here just to be able to leave it, too... Making himself a target to every nutjob who is ill-informed on the subject du jour. You'd do well to start recognizing his efforts and learning from his style and perseverance, if not from the subject matter he's speaking of itself.


All smart people sound like that to stupid people. Fact of life, brah.

Don't worry, it'll get easier to take as you get smarter yourself.


I would certainly have given up on them long ago.

Sometimes I suspect that G's main purpose in STS is to direct conversations into making content for his websites somewhere...

(Gotta admit, it's more fun than simply writing it!)

jonas33h

Yeah economically speaking it's advantageous, but my whole argument was not based on economics it was based on social behaviors that can not be ignored.

Adam Smith even acknowledged the importance of government in the economy... so what's your point about looking at it economically?

I don't like taxes because it goes towards things that I do not support (abortions, keeping people in prison[we should just kill killer imo], welfare, social security, NPR, obamacare, just to name a few).

Circling back you are not persuasive because of the approach, it's because you have nothing to support your opinion. I have never seen a society that exist today without a governing body, anarchy is a utopia that sounds awesome but the harsh reality is you need some sort of government in place.

whether the government is the entire people of a community voting on crimes committed or a democracy or republic, or having your judge being appointed at birth. What ever you choose to keep the calm would be the government body pick your choice of words but it will be there.

guerilla

Just food for thought.

Humans have biases, me, you everyone, and we all are biased towards our own lifestyles, cultures and past decisions. That's very hard to overcome without reason and self-awareness.

I already ethically exist as far outside the cage as I can, and I am going to go after making the last 15% a possibility in the next couple years.

I am more happy today than any other day in the past, and that bodes well for my future.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

lukep

So, um, you're buying a remote Island?

Wow, DFB is more profitable than I thought!

Pseudo Nym

Guerilla, would you care to address this for me? Let's say the following:

I own the world. Every square inch. Under your system of property rights, this is a logical possibility. Anyone anywhere on the world is violating my property rights, and I can ask them to leave, and if they don't, it's my right to kill them. Or I could offer some people a contract that says, you can be on my property, but you must do everything I say and all the output of your work belongs to me. So the choice is either, in effect, death or slavery.

Back to me, here, now. Why would I, knowing that the likelihood of me being that guy is virtually zero, in my own self interest, support a system that allows for that logical possibility?

Hammi

That is a fantastical situation that likely wouldn't happen. Heres why:

1) How does this person gain ownership? He can't homestead all of it, so his only choice is to purchase it. As the supply of real estate for sale drops, the cost increases for a given demand, so as long as people were demanding real estate, the cost would rise high enough to make such a plan for world domination impossible. You can see examples of this happening when people in a neighborhood get word that a large corporation is trying to buy up all of the properties in the area.

2) Lets say that a person was wealthy enough to be able to purchase all of the earth on the planet. Do you really think anyone would sell to him without contractual protection for themselves and all of their descendents?

guerilla

This fella gets it ^^^

@Luke, not quite.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

Pseudo Nym

So you acknowledge that it's a possibility, regardless of how likely you think it is.

guerilla

Yeah, it is likely like an army of aliens from planet Pop-Tart invading Poland in in search of an award winning cheese helmet.

He gave you the boundaries that would have to be overcome for such an event to happen. Do you think it is likely they could be overcome? Do you think that everyone, everywhere in the world would voluntarily choose slavery, including yourself?

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

Pseudo Nym

Is it relevant what I think is likely?

Is it relevant what you think is likely?

Just because you believe some boundaries cannot be overcome, does that mean they cannot?

dreamache

Yeah, I'd say it is relevant. How else can progress be made if action can't be taken based on highly unlikely scenarios?

Moxie

Police are also just people with guns. A forced collection of money is not required for their existence.


Harrison County Deputy Sheriffs Association

We are a non profit organization that is entirely funded by donations from local businesses and citizens of Harrison County...

The donations that we receive are used to maintain the organization in as much as paying bills and maintaining our firing range which we allow other local Law Enforcement to train on as well as the citizens of Harrison County. But that is just a small part of it. The rest of the donations that we receive are used to help the children of Harrison County as well as those in need. The Harrison County Deputy Sheriff’s Association provides funds to local youth sports teams, local schools, and other local youth organizations such as the Civil Air Patrol. We also provide funds to those who suddenly find themselves in need. We donate money to those who have suffered a sudden tragedy such as a fire or serious medical emergency.


I'm not from West Virginia, but I assume they also have state and other types of police. The people also of course pay a variety of other taxes. Despite this, at least one Sheriff's
unit is able to operate entirely on donations, and even have money left over to spread to other causes.



Pinkerton National Detective Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America... Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.

__________________

Moxie

__________________

Pseudo Nym

It's "highly unlikely" the world could be owned by one person.

It's also "highly unlikely" that the earth could be hit by an asteroid that wipes out all life.

Is one worth acting to prevent and not the other?

guerilla

As I mentioned in this thread or another similar one recently, there is no amount of security you can get that will protect you from everything and still leave you with any amount of personal liberty worth having.

See, the nice things about libertarian anarchists is that we're happy to let you have your state based society. We just want to be left alone. You're welcome to engage in social welfare programs, and taxes, and regulation to your heart's content.

In fact, I almost insist you guys try it, with the producers able to opt out and fend for themselves.

But no one is holding you or anyone else from setting up a kibbutz, commune or federation of states. Just let those of us who want to be responsible for ourselves, the freedom to handle our own affairs.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

Pseudo Nym

This is already the case. Nothing is stopping you from going out to sea and living on a boat.

Rusky

Bravo. Great video.

__________________
Doing the Greenback Boogie - Because It's Never Enough

Kamee CA

governing is the most difficult and the work needs more resposibility. government is resposible for each and every living being within its jurisdictions whether its a human or an animal. It has to work for the well being of both.

Pseudo Nym

Sorry for responding to this again, but I had a few more thoughts on it.

You're saying anyone who wants to set up a state can do so. But look around. They're already set up. It seems to me what you want is some new frontier, some new land that has never been claimed by any person or state... but that no longer exists on this planet. Should a state give up some of its territory to you, just because you want it? Do you feel it's owed to you, or that you have some right to it? It's not the fault of any state that there's no more unclaimed land.

Or do you claim that some land is illegitimately claimed as territory by a state? Can you prove it?

It seems to me that the same problem would happen if there were some new unclaimed land that suddenly became available, say a new planet we could access: eventually, all the land would be the property of someone, whether a state or individual. If no one is willing to give up any of their land, you're SOL. If all the land is acquired by states (which it probably would be, eventually), then you're in the same position you're unhappy with now.

Kiopa_Matt

Wasn't calling you retarded. Was saying the notion of calling yourself a slave is fucken retarded. There's a difference. You're obviously very intelligent, albeit eccentric, which is great. Eccentric people are generally the ones who make long lasting changes on the world.


Then go do it, instead of bitching on an internet forum. What you mentioned is easily done with the current state of affairs. If you don't believe so, then it's in your mind, with no basis in reality.


Nope, it's actually quite simple. Throw some clothes in a bag, grab your laptop, and take a taxi to the airport. Not really much else to it. At least that's how it's always worked for me, and obviously, this is assuming you don't have kids or anything. I agree, you get fucked on the taxes thing. Convince your government to quit getting such a hard-on over bombing brown people, I guess. Not much you can do there.


Why would you think there wouldn't be big business? You think if the government disappears, Walmart will go with it, and Joe Blow in bumfuck Iowa will be able to start a profitable family owned hardware store again? Not likely. If anything, it'd be the opposite. Walmart would threaten Joe not to open shop, and if Joe did, his shop would probably be fire bombed within a month. Hell, there's no government or laws, and Joe is cutting in on your action, so why not? Again, you don't seem to understand the fundamentals of human nature.

I always loved the analogy that compared the economy to Monopoly. At the beginning of the game, everyone is on a level playing field with the same resources. As time goes on, some players pickup and consolidate more wealth, while others gets kicked out of the game. This continues until there's only one player left, who has all the wealth. The only real solution is to start the game over, where everyone is on a level playing field again.

Pretty much, yep. Big business raped & pillaged that country quite good too, I might add.


Ohhh, so if guys like Walmart didn't have a piece of paper saying they were a corporation, they wouldn't be such cunts around the world? Now it makes sense!


If there weren't currently laws protecting low-end workers, I guarantee you there'd be loads of people in the US working for $2/hour right now, if not less. You have 9% unemployment, and in some places hovering around 20%. Or for example, there's not much government regulation where I live (they like it like that), and there's loads of people working for $0.40/hour, and employers don't seem to have any trouble finding employees.

Anyway, I have a chicken marsala to cook, so I'm out.

Pseudo Nym

Really... he claims he's a slave yet is free to walk out the door any time. What's more, by his own admission he's felt this way for at least five years... so for all that time he's felt "enslaved" yet was free to free himself but hasn't? You'll excuse me if I can't summon any sympathy for his plight.

JarredLv

Except for the lack of potable water, healthy sanitation, proper food sources, etc...

Source?

__________________
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state."

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Tesla

Pseudo Nym

Indeed... this is why humans band together in groups. We've got all that stuff because society has taken care of it. If a guy wants to roll his own, he's got to figure out how to get that stuff on his own. Still, that should all be pretty manageable. You can easily trade for what you can't provide for yourself.

JarredLv

Society != Government

Now this is a fallible example, but an example none the less. Look at the illicit drug trade. None of it government sponsored or sanctioned...yet it still thrives. No government subsidies or government regulation. Private citizens providing for private citizens with no assistance from a government. It's a self-regulating market.

__________________
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state."

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Tesla

Pseudo Nym

Sure. But there's no society on earth, AFAIK, that doesn't have some form of government. So practically speaking, if you want the benefits of society right now, you either have to accept some government, or you and some other people have to find a place to set up an anarchist society of your own.

JarredLv

Nobody is arguing that there is currently a decent example of a large scale peaceful anarchist society. And while I may currently live under the rules of a government, that's only for self-preservation. I'm constantly working on increasing my personal liberty. Is the goal of living 100% without government feasibly obtainable...probably not, but I'll keep trying. Everything I need or want could be supplied to me without a government in place. The only thing stopping that from happening is the heard mentality that we "need" government to survive and prosper, which is simply not the case.

__________________
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state."

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Tesla

Kiopa_Matt

Human trafficking, forced labor, and forced prostitution are also extremely lucrative, self-regulating industries as well. We should definitely get the government and law enforcement out of those people's way. Just look at the jobs, prosperity, and peaceful society they're helping create!

Hammi

notsureifserious.jpg

Hammi

You don't need government to stop those things. Infact government often gives people a false sense of security, causing them to not protect themselves against things like kidnapping well enough. The places with the highest rates of kidnapping make it difficult for the average law abiding citizen to get guns.

Another example of the false sense of security government causes is the SEC. It just recently came out that the SEC burned all of the files on preliminary investigations that never went past the early stages from the late 80s until today. It included files on madoff and almost every top bank out there. Yet people assume these guys are protecting them and their investments. The higher levels of the SEC are rotating door. The best way to get a cushy position in a big bank is to get a job at the SEC and kill an investigation of the bank.

Pseudo Nym

I want to respond to this exchange from the other day: what I described already exists in communities all over the country. They have zoning laws and city councils that govern who can build what where. People generally prefer living in a community where they have some say over how it develops. According to you, at least some of them should be communes by now. Yet they aren't.

Say you live in a nice neighborhood - you let your kids play in the street until after dark, don't have to lock your doors, etc. Now say one day someone buys up a cheap lot in your neighborhood and announces they're going to build a strip club there. Of course the neighborhood freaks out and resolve to put a stop to it.

In most communities, the zoning laws or at worst a significant popular appeal to the city council would be enough to deny a permit. Problem solved. The only loser is the guy that bought the property, but hey, that's his fault for thinking it would fly.

Now, I know your response is probably going to be something along the lines of, "well, if they care that much they'll offer to pay the guy to stop him/buy him out." But people don't want to do that. Can you imagine being asked to open your wallet every time some douche wants to build something that fucks up your neighborhood? Well, maybe you can. Anyway, most people prefer to live someplace where they don't have to worry about crap like that. Consequently, they support rules that regulate their community. And somehow, they're not communists.

Hammi

Don't buy land in a subdivision where the developer is not contractually obligated to require every single person who purchases land to sign a contract that would forfeit their property if it was used for certain purposes?

Pseudo Nym

Sure I was. It was pretty much brushed off due to it not being "likely." Well, there's a non-zero chance some individual or some group could eventually manage to own the whole world, isn't there? The whole world (excepting the oceans) is already owned, or governed in some sense (Antarctica), and the effective owners are the nations of the world, and those nations... well, a lot of them are probably effectively owned by the IMF. So I imagine the true number of actual owners is far fewer than one might initially think. There's no reason I can see why a similar scenario would not happen, by a determined group over a span of time, under the anarchist-libertarian property rights system. Sure, there'd be some holdouts, but if one is determined, there are ways of coercing people. Trade sanctions, for example. Or even invasion, as the most powerful military in the world is almost certainly not going to belong to some anarchist enclave somewhere.

JarredLv

Yes, because government has been oh so effective at stopping it. Now if people had the proper means to defend themselves instead of relying on the same government that took away the right to self defense....

__________________
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state."

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Tesla

Pseudo Nym

How would you know ahead of time what "certain purposes" the community might object to? It'd have to be me more open-ended than that... like, a majority of the community must approve it.

Furthermore, what if someone sells their property and writes up a new contract that doesn't include the provision? Perhaps the buyer is willing to pay more for that? Or perhaps a clause in the original contract could stipulate that the provision must be included in a new contract at the time of sale? Or, I suppose, the neighborhood could offer to pay the seller to include the provision. But again, most people are probably going to prefer a community government to enforce the rules, rather than opening their wallet every time it comes up.

lincolndsp

who/wat's gonna protect you from the govt if you believe you need protection?
think ancient Rome for example, and you are a slave in those times.

to cut the crap ask the question in the thread title as if you are back then XXX B.C. for example and compare you answers

guerilla

Why do I have to go out to sea?

Not what I am claiming.

So you're claiming the state owns everything and individuals own nothing? If so, you're making my case.

Can you define legitimate, and can you define state?

Based on your previous posts endorsing aggression endorsed by majority, I don't think we have the same definitions of either.

And yet you're the one tagging these threads with Guerilla is a troll.

I am doing it. You don't know me personally bro. Best not to personalize the discussion.

A handful of you guys decided to take up for the state, there are plenty of hardcore libertarians and anarchists on this forum, and we've been talking about this stuff for years. I'm not bitching about the state, just pointing out how irrational and immoral it is. Arguments which you and PseudoNym have avoided repeatedly.

How so? You're a Canadian. Anywhere you go in the world, the Canadian government claims the right to tax your income. How do you do it?

How do you smoke pot when it is illegal? How do you buy land without a lien against it?

Please, explain this. Millions of libertarians are waiting decades for these answers.

Why should I have to leave? Why can I not own property?

If the government represents me, why would I have to leave where I am? That doesn't make any sense, unless the relationship is that the government is greater than me, not my representative.

Why do you think there would be? I have already explained how incorporation is necessary, and incorporation is created by the government.

This is a strawman. Laws come from the market, not the government. No one is promoting a society without laws.

I could easily say you do not understand history, politics or economics. But then that wouldn't be very constructive to the discussion, would it?

Are you a capitalist? Because what you just described is a bad caricature of the economy, with the element of capitalism being the part you don't like.

Can you name two and explain how?

Again, are you a capitalist? Why is Walmart a cunt? They don't hurt anyone, they trade with millions of people a day, peacefully and voluntarily, their global reach helps develop poorer economies, and they produce lots of tax revenue and profit for their shareholders? What exactly has Walmart done that is so bad? Who have they hurt?

You're supposedly in business, but from my experience, no one who makes money talks the way you do about successful firms. There is a reason why WF and most successful people are overwhelming libertarian instead of anti-capitalist. The anti-capitalist mentality keeps people from being successful because it is a self-defeating pathology.

Minimum wage increases unemployment. Any price floor raises prices and higher prices reduces demand. That's economics 101.

Higher wages can only come from having higher productivity. A guy digging a ditch with a shovel is a lot less productive than a guy who operates a backhoe. Capital goods like backhoes help increase the productivity of workers, which as mentioned, raises their wages, because they can do more work in less time. There is a reason why the countries with the most capital have the highest wages. It's not because they have protectionist laws that help out special interest labor groups. Throughout history, capital has been the difference. Capital is profit, maintained as savings for investment. When you tax, you destroy capital.

You would do well if you intend to be successful at business to spend some time learning economics. It is hard to make money if you don't understand capital, profit, exchange, and prices.

You haven't responded to my substantive points, and now you're talking about me personally. Yet, you don't know me, how much money I make, what my plans are, or what I have done.

This is not the first time you have done this. It's really the refuge of a scoundrel, considering how many times you have avoided challenges on facts and claims.

I've already addressed the walking out the door (love it or leave it) argument above and earlier. It's an emotional appeal and anyone promoting it is implicitly admitting the state rules us, and doesn't represent us.

As far as sympathy, if I wanted it, which I do not, I would look for it from successful people.

And with that, I am out for the day to work on launching something very exciting. Looks like Hammi and Jared, among others, have you guys on the run anyhow. Plenty of capable thinkers on this forum.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

Pseudo Nym

The same reason that I would have to leave your property if I didn't agree with your rules and wanted to live by own.

I don't understand what you're claiming then. You've said:
Everyone already has their state-based societies. If you want to be left alone completely and be able to do what you want, not subject to any laws, you'll have to go someplace that isn't the territory of a state. The only place that is currently possible is the ocean beyond territorial waters.

The state has ultimate ownership of all land within its territory, yes. Individuals effectively purchase a limited right to use a piece of land within the state's territory. The state retains the authority to limit the use of the land, and the land and everyone in the jurisdiction of the state is subject to the state's authority. As long as you have the option of leaving at any time, you cannot claim equivalence to slavery.



You never gave a satisfactory (to me) solution to the problem of collective behaviors that result in damage to property (e.g., pollution). Your answer of simply "property rights" isn't adequate to address the problem. Pollution has real effects on people and property, and in many cases it can't be traced to a single source.

Take acid rain, for example. It has very real, measurable effects that damages property. It makes lakes too acidic to sustain life, kills trees, peels paint, ruins limestone and marble. But the pollution that causes acid rain can travel hundreds of miles from the source. It's obvious that if you pollute, you're contributing to the damage.

Can you show that this type of damage can be prevented without regulation?



Here's a Rothbard quote:
Polluting is an act of aggression against people and property. If you pollute, you are contributing to the aggression. Therefore, it is justifiable to use force against the polluters to prevent aggression. The fact that a direct causal link between the polluting act of a single person, and the damage caused by that same type of pollution cannot be proven, is irrelevant. If you contribute to a problem, you are guilty.

Hammi

What is the source of their ownership of the property? Is it "just how things are done" or did they actually come to possess that claim in some legitimate way? I actually don't know the answer to this offhand and would be interested in seeing what you could dig up on the subject.

These days you can't leave the US at anytime. They charge a fee to renounce citizenship. They used to try and tax people for 10 years after the date they gave up their citizenship.


Nobody is arguing you cant use some form of force to stop polluters. The argument is that the state is not required, and actually makes the problem worse by blocking attempts to use force to compel polluters to pay for their misdeeds. A huge amount of legislation these days is written by people with ties to the industries that are supposed to be regulated. The polluters are using your desire for social justice to protect themselves from being regulated by the market, and to protect themselves from competitors.

JarredLv

Why isn't working to change the state from within an option? Why should I have to leave?

If that is the case then we do not live in a representative government as is claimed by most. And if we don't have a representative government, what do we have? What are you in the eyes of the state if you don't have the right to own property? Will the phrase indentured servitude work for you?


You deal with pollution like you would with any form of aggression. In a truly free market, how long do you think a business would last if it was polluting the lands of the very people it depends on for business, and in effect, it's survival? Would you patronize a business that disrespected your property rights?

This. The government's solution is to simply fine a polluter, which for most companies is often cheaper than the alternative. The very government you support is most often the perpetrator of the offenses you seem to so despise.

__________________
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state."

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Tesla

Pseudo Nym

Read up on eminent domain.

A $450 fee instituted last year, apparently. Yes, this doesn't make it "free," so you could argue that you have to "buy" your freedom, I suppose. On the other hand, practically speaking, if you're seriously considering renouncing your citizenship, $450 isn't a big deal. In principle, I don't agree with it though.

Seems to me the argument being made is that some causal link must be shown between the act of a polluter and the harm to a person's property.

Debating whether the state or a private agency is better suited to stopping pollution is a different issue. One thing that stands in the way of a private agency enforcing pollution control is that they lack any authority to enter private property where it's possible to directly measure pollution output before it's dispersed into the environment. The state has that authority.

I agree that lobbyists and private interests have too much influence over the law making process. A lot of people would like to see that influence greatly reduced. It's up to the voters to demand it.

It's not as if government is completely in the pockets of big corporations, however. There are plenty of regulations that do make a difference and do save lives. Sometimes corporations may be willing to change to less harmful processes/products that increase their costs, but only if their competitors are forced to go along with it as well. Companies typically aren't going to do things on their own that give them a competitive disadvantage.

Pseudo Nym

You can do that if you want. But if your goal is to actually live free of government, you know, sometime in your lifetime, that's probably not going to achieve what you want. But sure, do what you want.

How are eminent domain and representative government mutually exclusive?

You have the right to own property, but the state reserves the right to take it away under certain conditions.

Would I patronize a business that made its products in a factory in a different region where I would not feel the effects of the pollution created? Would I even be aware that it was polluting? Often, the polluted aren't the customer of the polluter. What then?

The government makes an awful lot of regulations that require monitoring and limiting output, installation of safety devices, proper handling and disposal, etc. If it's cheaper for the offender to pay fines for not complying, then the government needs to raise the fines or disallow their operating permit.

Hammi

What is the source of legitimacy of eminent domain? The fact that the state has claimed it for generations, but that does not make them right.


The people whose property was destroyed in that region have a right to damages. A state is not needed to enforce this.


In time these safety features will come from the market. Instead we have laws that sometimes have a beneficial result, but always erode your right as an individual to control your own destiny, and always have many other side effects that hurt people and businesses.