Law Without The State: 3 Videos + Article

J

JakeStratham

New member
Oct 28, 2009
2,641
177
0
Location, Location
A lot of folks are unable to imagine how conflicts between individuals might be resolved peacefully without the state to provide protection and justice. The following article and 3 videos provide a good demonstration:

Law without the State - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khRkBEdSDDo]Law without Government, Part One: Principles - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPyrq6SEL0]Law without Government, Part Two: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qmMpgVNc6Y]Law without Government Part Three: The Bargaining Mechanism - YouTube[/ame]


I'm not looking for an internet argument. Just thought a few folks would enjoy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MSTeacher


Someone really needs to send these YouTube videos to the Bloods, Crips, Hells Angels, Mexican drug cartels, Taliban, Mossad, CIA, etc... All of our problems will be solved!
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Someone really needs to send these YouTube videos to the Bloods, Crips, Hells Angels, Mexican drug cartels, Taliban, Mossad, CIA, etc... All of our problems will be solved!
Click to expand...

The drug war is the reason a majority of those organizations even exist.
 
JarredLv said:
The drug war is the reason a majority of those organizations even exist.
Click to expand...

Ok, scrap drugs, and let's go with human trafficking. Or we can a higher level with things like fresh water, oil, copper, silver, gold, nickel, etc.

These things aren't getting peacefully solved over arbitration with a bunch of like-minded libertarian folk. When it comes down to it, they're getting solved over who has the biggest guns.

I know there's loads of libertarians on this board, who believe we can just get rid of government all together, and live happily ever after. That's delusional, to say the least. We're human, we're not solving all of our problems peacefully. Just the way the world works.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
I know there's loads of libertarians on this board, who believe we can just get rid of government all together, and live happily ever after.
Click to expand...

I believe the word you're looking for is Anarchists. Libertarians don't want to get rid of Government - we just want much smaller, less intrusive government.
 
Yuckystuff said:
I believe the word you're looking for is Anarchists. Libertarians don't want to get rid of Government - we just want much smaller, less intrusive government.
Click to expand...
Rothbard was Mr. Libertarian, and he was an anarchist.

Walter Block is arguably the most famous libertarian economist after Milton Friedman, and he is an anarchist.

Milton Friedman's son David Friedman is a legendary libertarian, and an anarchist (Author of Machinery of Freedom).

David's son Patri Friedman, is a libertarian anarchist, and working with Peter Thiel on the SeaSteading project.

Hoppe is probably the most significant libertarian political scientist in the last 30 years, and he is an anarchist.

Lew Rockwell is the most significant libertarian publisher and he is an anarchist.

"Libertarians" who are for small government are Minarchists.

Now, you're welcome to be a minarchist, and we can disagree on what size government is appropriate or what we individually want to live under.

But if you're going to talk about small L libertarianism, which is an idea, then I think it's important to emphasize that small L libertarians have for the most part been anarchists for the last 200 or so years.

Granted, most minarchists only know about US constitutional government, which is based on classic liberalism, not libertarianism (the two are not interchangeable, they have different economic systems of understanding).

I am always happy to have an intelligent and good faith discussion about political philosophy, on forum is harder than off, but with you, I would be happy to accommodate either, if for no other reason than for us to reach a better understanding of what the other guy's rationale for his position is.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Ok, scrap drugs, and let's go with human trafficking. Or we can a higher level with things like fresh water, oil, copper, silver, gold, nickel, etc.
Click to expand...
First, learn economics. Then study the origins of law.

Then decide to argue this topic. Because your ad hoc misrepresentations and arbitrary examples don't make your point, and they aren't worth addressing until you can provide a rationale for why you're saying what you're saying.

In other words, any idiot can say,

"But what about if Aliens invade with mind control devices!!!!"

as an argument against anything. It doesn't make it interesting, or promising as a discussion of merits.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
I know there's loads of libertarians on this board, who believe we can just get rid of government all together, and live happily ever after. That's delusional, to say the least. We're human, we're not solving all of our problems peacefully. Just the way the world works.
Click to expand...
This is an example of a misrepresentation.

No one is saying we can get rid of government. What some us are saying is that government is unnecessary.

And we can demonstrate an argument why.

You assert government is necessary "because we're human".

It's like me saying to you,

"We need SOPA regulation because we're human"

"We need the NDAA because we're human"

Do you think either of the above two statements are good arguments? I do not.

If you have an opinion try to articulate it in a manner which demonstrates a chain of reasoning. Explain what your first premise is.

The first premise for a libertarian anarchist is that aggression (the initiation of force) is wrong. If you agree with that, you're halfway to being a libertarian anarchist.

If you disagree, send me your address, because it would be fun to beat the crap out of someone who thinks getting beat up for no reason is ok.
 
stickyicky said:
Yet all of the violence and conflict doesn't seem to be solving much either.
Click to expand...

I know. For being one of the poorest evolving species on the planet, who's only reason for not being extinct is our large brain power, we're not very smart, are we?

We might be very intelligent mammals, but nonetheless, we're still just mammals, so expect the fighting to continue. :)
 
guerilla said:
If you have an opinion try to articulate it in a manner which demonstrates a chain of reasoning. Explain what your first premise is.
Click to expand...

guerilla, no disrespect, but you generally spend more time debating about the logic of debating than the actual topic at hand, so I'm not even going to start. When someone says something you disagree with, you evade their points, and go off on a tirade about how they're not debating properly.

Go open any history book. That's my argument. We're mammals with swinging dicks, filled with testosterone, so trust me, we're not going to be sitting around singing kumbaya as a species anytime soon.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
guerilla, no disrespect, but you generally spend more time debating about the logic of debating than the actual topic at hand, so I'm not even going to start.
Click to expand...
Of course you're not. You don't want to explain whether or not your opinions start with a logical premise, which is why I always strike there first.

If you start with up is down and down is up, why should anyone care whatever else you have to say?

If you're a hypocrite and your ends don't match your principles (presuming you have any) then again, why should people accept your argument?

Would you accept a mathematical proof based on 2 + 2 = 5?

I get you. You're one of these clever guys from the post fact society, where things are true because you say them, not because you can prove them.

I accept the world has a lot of guys like you and while unfair and irrational, that's how it is. Or to paraphrase you, "We're human". Reason was always an uphill climb.

Kiopa_Matt said:
Go open any history book.
Click to expand...
An appeal to history isn't a logical argument. Telling me to open "any" book implies that every history book is the same.

What you're doing, in your typical lazy and anti-intellectual manner is to refuse to make a precise argument, after offering an opinion.

Does it bother you at all that you say stuff you can't prove? Doesn't your own intellectual dishonesty bother you?

I suppose pride isn't something to be expected from someone who endorses violence.
 
Guerilla, I'm interested in your opinion.

Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. I agree.

Two questions:

1) Do you agree with that statement?

2) What makes you think that the system Jake referred to would get us closer to a goal such as decreasing the number of innocent people who are wrongfully punished?

There's no doubt in my mind that private companies would be able to provide protection and justice at cheaper prices. My main concern is that in order to maximize profits, they'd eliminate several mechanisms which are currently in place and that by doing that, the number of innocent people who are wrongfully punished would increase.
 
guerilla said:
Rothbard was Mr. Libertarian, and he was an anarchist.

Walter Block is arguably the most famous libertarian economist after Milton Friedman, and he is an anarchist.

Milton Friedman's son David Friedman is a legendary libertarian, and an anarchist (Author of Machinery of Freedom).

David's son Patri Friedman, is a libertarian anarchist, and working with Peter Thiel on the SeaSteading project.

Hoppe is probably the most significant libertarian political scientist in the last 30 years, and he is an anarchist.

Lew Rockwell is the most significant libertarian publisher and he is an anarchist.
Click to expand...

Appeals to Authority.

I refuse to let you use logical fallacies, since you make such a point of calling out everyone else on them.

Reread the context of the exchange by Kiopa Matt and myself and you should see the error in your statement. In general, a libertarian does not want to get rid of Government completely, and those that do generally refer to themselves as anarchists, since that's what they are.
 
Related to Jake's OP which I hijacked a bit, this guy is basically making the libertarian anarchist argument, perhaps as well as I have ever heard it in the mainstream.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZUNi-W_zHQ]Welcome to Free America by David Barker on Dylan Ratigan's show - YouTube[/ame]
 
Yuckystuff said:
Appeals to Authority.

I refuse to let you use logical fallacies, since you make such a point of calling out everyone else on them.
Click to expand...
I don't mind being called on logical fallacies, as long as you understand what the fallacy is.

An appeal to authority would be my saying that libertarianism is anarchism BECAUSE Rothbard said so. That would be appealing to Rothbard's authority as a libertarian bigshot.

Instead, what I have said is that Rothbard was known as Mr. Libertarianism, and he was in fact an anarchist, which would put the discussion between anarchism and libertarianism much closer than you indicated.

Again, I make fuckups, and I should be called on them, but you're misusing the "appeal to authority" claim here. I am simply providing examples which contradict your statement, not claiming my examples prove a fact because they are authority examples.

It's a very important distinction I wish more people here observed.

Yuckystuff said:
Reread the context of the exchange by Kiopa Matt and myself and you should see the error in your statement. In general, a libertarian does not want to get rid of Government completely, and those that do generally refer to themselves as anarchists, since that's what they are.
Click to expand...
In general is vague. Now, we all sometimes have to make a claim with some hedging, because it's hard to make absolute statements about values and group values in particular.

However, we can make absolute statements about objective reality. In order for the word "libertarianism" to have meaning, say meaning separate from "liberalism" or "conservatism" it must describe something specific.

Basic law of identity. 1 + 1 = 2 therefore 1 + 1 cannot equal 3.

So what exactly is the meaning of libertarianism as you see it?

I'm not so much obsessed with the semantics of the terms, as the things they stand for. I'm much happier being called an anarchist than a libertarian, because indeed there are libertarians, and EGAD libertarian political movements which I do not approve of ethically. But that said, the term libertarian has a very deep tradition and includes many anarchists.

s'okay?
 
charlie.simm said:
Guerilla, I'm interested in your opinion.

Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying that it's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to convict one innocent person. I agree.

Two questions:

1) Do you agree with that statement?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I'd really have to think about it. It's a value statement, and I am not sure I ever want to be in the position to make those decisions.

Justice isn't perfect. I'll stick with that for now.

charlie.simm said:
2) What makes you think that the system Jake referred to would get us closer to a goal such as decreasing the number of innocent people who are wrongfully punished?
Click to expand...
Because victimless crime would cease to exist, and the only crimes that would require justice would be fraud, theft and violence.

charlie.simm said:
There's no doubt in my mind that private companies would be able to provide protection and justice at cheaper prices. My main concern is that in order to maximize profits, they'd eliminate several mechanisms which are currently in place and that by doing that, the number of innocent people who are wrongfully punished would increase.
Click to expand...
Read David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom (free online) and watch his lecture at Google.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8talvLDfow]Authors@Google: David Friedman - YouTube[/ame]

Btw, that is one of the great lectures given at Google in general on technology, society etc. Really great brain food IMO.
 
Actually, this is the lecture on law I was thinking of

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXWFWIM8OCI]David D. Friedman - Anarchy and Efficient Law Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom