Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I read not that long ago that a politician in Florida was fighting to stop the RKBA violations against MM card holders.

Does anyone know how he's fighting this? Is it as discrimination against civilians? Government employees aren't above the law, and as such, when any of them fails any type of drug test they should also be disarmed, professionally and personally. This would include cops, gov building security, and soldiers. It's only fair. Thoughts?
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Stay out of Columbus, Ohio. Since Ohio legalized medical mj I have not made a single trip into the city without smelling the odor of mj coming from a passing car. There are a lot of accidents and traffic fatalities in Columbus.
This sounds too much like the gun-grabbers "There'll be blood running in the streets in constitutional carry states" Which of course, we know was completely wrong. Please provide some sources to backup your claims.
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
So if we have a substance that's presence is hard to test for, and we don't test for it because the cops didn't show up, we can accurately determine that it is responsible for accidents that were so minor the cops didn't show up. Got it.

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence, true, not responsible in any case. Under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, prescription medication, distraction, age, sleep loss no difference. Some people are responsible and some are not.

But honestly I don't see marijuana being responsible for the type of accidents we see from other causes. Sure your reaction time can be increased, but you are going to be acutely aware of it and maybe even concerned, and probably correct for it in a very meticulous fashion. Rather than a drinker barreling down the road cleaning out both ditches and ignoring intersections and oak trees, I see a pot smoker being more laser focused on staying precisely between the lines, their ability to do so being impaired, but the focus causing them to correct, and at some point with enough inebriation they are going three miles per hour. With heavy enough use they might stop and take a nap, or to look for snacks, and perfectly organize the change in the console, but I just don't see the careless abandon, blackout drunk, wild careening at a high rate of speed associated with alcohol use. When I hear things about the dangers of marijuana on our roadways, it sounds an awful lot like a strawman argument. A random statistic, and a very predictable one, an increase in accidents, can just be blamed on a group of people we don't like, and don't understand because we don't like them.
As a retired medic who associated with LEOs and talked about our experiences, I can tell you that the dangers to the imbibers and others are exponentially higher with alcohol than MJ. Not just for driving, but for everything. Yet, the DC parasites don't try to take the people's guns because they bought a bottle of whiskey.
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #32 ·
The more fundamental problem is that we approach these situations, from a law & order standpoint, from the wrong direction. Why is driving impaired illegal in the first place?

It doesn’t matter if someone is drunk, high, distracted, incompetent or stupid. As a society, we don’t care about that. What we want to prevent is people being injured by the negligence of other drivers and, just like we do with so many other things, we try to legislate what we see as some of the causes of that thing, limiting the rights of the people who most likely will never do the thing we were really trying to legislate away.

Prosecution and punishment should be reserved for those who actually harm others, not those who only did something that someone else happens to think may hurt others in certain circumstances. Trying to legislate away modes rather than outcomes just results in us all losing Liberty.
I rarely find myself in 100% agreement with you... but yes: no victim, no crime
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
Back that up one step. Why do we want to prevent the driver from having a beer in his cup holder, rather than a cup of coffee or soda? As a society, does a driver drinking a beer while he’s driving harm us in some way?

Why is there a penalty for drinking a beer on the way home from work, and why is it the same as driving while drunk? Why is the penalty for driving drunk higher than the penalty for actually causing an accident while stupid (yet sober)?
It was legal to have an open drink (not being drunk of course) in my rural part of Colorado into around 2003, and here in Montana until around 2008.

The Montana MADD rep got fired for speaking against the open container law. He said something like Montana is the state where distances between towns are measured I number of beers. The home office was not happy
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #56 ·
Can you and I play 20 questions. I'd like to understand the mindset of the system you advocate?

Question #1 - Would there be such a thing as a national (Army, Navy, etc., as we know it today) defense force in your world?
This is the most comprehensive collection of the An/cap ideas.

 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #62 ·
From the first link I provided:

"The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by "anarchocapitalism" and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world.

These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property-rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps. Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.

The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 ·
If we were to engage seriously in the task of dismantling the government as it exists in the US, the political economist would find no scarcity of programs to eliminate. However, as the dismantling continued, the decisions would become more and more difficult, with the last "public goods" to be dealt with probably being programs designed to define and enforce property rights. Consider the following two categories of responses to this problem:

The first school we shall represent as the "constitutionalist" or "social contractarian" school. For this group the important question is "how do rights re-emerge and come to command respect? How do 'laws' emerge that carry with them general respect for their 'legitimacy'?"1 This position does not allow us to "'jump over' the whole set of issues involved in defining the rights of persons in the first place."2

Here, collective action is taken as a necessary step in the establishment of a social contract or constitutional contract which specifies these rights. To the extent that rights could be perfectly defined, the only role for the state would be in the protection of those rights, since the law designed for that protection is the only public good.

If rights cannot be perfectly well-defined, a productive role for the state will arise. The greater the degree to which private rights cannot be perfectly defined, the more the collective action will be plunged into the "eternal dilemma of democratic government," which is "how can government, itself the reflection of interests, establish the legitimate boundaries of self-interest, and how can it, conversely carve out those areas of intervention that will be socially protective and collectively useful?"3

The contractarian solution to this dilemma is the establishment of a rule of higher law or a constitution, which specifies the protective and productive roles of the government. Since the productive role, because of the free-rider problem, necessarily requires coercion, the government will be given a monopoly on the use of force. Were this not the case, some individuals would choose not to pay for services from which they derive benefits.

The second school can be labeled "anarchocapitalist" or "private-property anarchist." In its extreme form this school would advocate eliminating all forms of collective action since all functions of government can be replaced by individuals possessing private rights exchangeable in the market place. Under this system all transactions would be voluntary except insofar as the protection of individual rights and enforcement of contracts required coercion. The essential question facing this school is how can law and order, which do require some coercion, be supplied without ultimately resulting in one provider of those services holding a monopoly on coercion, i.e., government.

If a dominant protective firm or association emerges after exchanges take place, we will have the minimal state as defined by Nozick and will have lapsed back into the world of the "constitutionalist." The private-property anarchist's view that markets can provide protection services is summarized as follows
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
The profit motive will then see to it that the most efficient providers of high-quality arbitration rise to the top and that inefficient and graft-oriented police lose their jobs. In short, the market is capable of providing justice at the cheapest price. According to Rothbard, to claim that these services are "public goods" and cannot be sold to individuals in varying amounts is to make a claim which actually has little basis in fact.4

Hence, the anarchocapitalists place faith in the profit-seeking entrepreneurs to find the optimal size and type of protective services and faith in competition to prevent the establishment of a monopoly in the provision of these services.

There are essentially two differences between the two schools discussed above. First, there is the empirical question of whether competition can actually provide the protection services. On the anarchocapitalist side, there is the belief that it can. On the constitutionalists or "minimal-state" side, there is the following argument.

Conflicts may occur, and one agency will win. Persons who have previously been clients of losing agencies will desert and commence purchasing their protection from winning agencies. In this manner a single protective agency or association will eventually come to dominate the market for policing services over a territory. Independent persons who refuse to purchase protection from anyone may remain outside the scope of the dominant agency, but such independents cannot be allowed to punish clients of the agency on their own. They must be coerced into not punishing. In order to legitimize their coercion, these persons must be compensated, but only to the extent that their deprivation warrants.5

The second issue is more conceptual than empirical, and hence cannot be entirely resolved through observation. This issue centers on the question of how rights are determined in the first place; how do we get a starting point with all its status quo characteristics from which the game can be played.

Buchanan, a leading constitutionalist, criticizes Friedman and Rothbard, two leading private-property anarchists, because "they simply 'jump over' the whole set of issues involved in defining the rights of persons in the first place."6 To theconstitutionalist, the Lockean concept of mixing labor with resources to arrive at "natural rights" is not sufficient. The contractarian approach suggests that the starting point is determined by the initial bargaining process which results in the constitutional contract.

Debate over this issue will undoubtedly continue, but even Buchanan agrees th

if the distribution or imputation of the rights of persons (rights to do things, both with respect to other persons and to physical things) is settled, then away we go. And aside from differences on certain specifics (which may be important but relatively amenable to analysis, e.g., the efficacy of market-like arrangements for internal and external peace-keeping), I should accept many of the detailed reforms that these passionate advocates propose

Our purpose in this paper is to discuss, in a historical context, some of the important issues that Buchanan says are amenable to analysis. We do not plan to debate the issue of the starting point, but will be looking at the "efficacy of market-like arrangements for internal … peacekeeping.

It does seem, for the time period and the geographical area which we are examining, that there was a distribution of rights which was accepted either because of general agreement to some basic precepts of natural law or because the inhabitants of the American West came out of a society in which certain rights were defined and enforce

Such a starting point is referred to as a Schelling point, a point of commonality that exists in the minds of the participants in some social situation9 Even in the absence of any enforcement mechanism, most members of Western society agreed that certain rights to use and control property existed. Thus when a miner argued that a placer claim was his because he "was there first," that claim carried more weight than if he claimed it simply because he was most powerfu

Tastes, culture, ethics, and numerous other influences give Schelling-point characteristics to some claims but not to others. The long period of conflicts between the Indians and the settlers can be attributed to a lack of any such Schelling points. We concentrate, however, on arrangements for peace-keeping and enforcement that existed among the nonindigenous, white populatio

In the following pages we describe the private enforcement of rights in the West between 1830 and 1900. This description does allow one to test, in a limited fashion, some of the hypotheses put forth about how anarchocapitalism might functio

We qualify the test with "limited" because a necessary feature of such a system is the absence of a monopoly on coercion.10 Various coercive agencies would exist but none would have a legitimized monopoly on the use of such coercion. The difficulty of dealing with this proposition in the American West is obvious. Although for much of the period, formal government agencies for the protection of rights were not present, such agencies were always lurking in the background.
 

· I love boobies
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 ·
Therefore, none of the private enforcement means operated entirely independent of government influence.

Also, one has to be careful in always describing private agencies as "nongovernment" because, to the extent that they develop and become the agency of legitimized coercion they also qualify as "government." Although numerous descriptions of such private agencies exist, it is oftentimes difficult to determine when they are enhancing competition and when they are reducing it.

Despite the above caveats, the West is a useful testing ground for several of the specific hypotheses about how anarchocapitalism might work. We use David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom as our basis for the formulation of hypotheses about the working of anarchocapitalism, because it is decidedly nonutopian and it does set out, in a fairly specific form, the actual mechanisms under which a system of nongovernment protective agencies would operate. The major propositions are:

  1. Anarchocapitalism is not chaos. Property rights will be protected and civil order will prevail.
  2. Private agencies will provide the necessary functions for preservation of an orderly society.
  3. Private protection agencies will soon discover that "warfare" is a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) will result.
  4. The concept of "justice" is not an immutable one that only needs to be discovered. Preferences do vary across individuals as to the rules they prefer to live under and the price they are willing to pay for such rules. Therefore, significant differences in rules might exist in various societies under anarchocapitalism.
  5. There are not significant enough economies of scale in crime so that major "mafia" organizations evolve and dominate society.
  6. Competition among protective agencies and adjudication bodies will serve as healthy checks on undesirable behavior. Consumers will have better information than under government and will use it in judging these agencies.


Check the link for all the supporting cases
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top