political philosophers

[Bono]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

[muon2]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

And when one such "protection company" dominates and gains a monopoly on "protection" it becomes a de facto government. Essentially it is a kingdom without inheritance of rulership. At that point the society is certainly not an anarchy of private property.

[Bono]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

And when one such "protection company" dominates and gains a monopoly on "protection" it becomes a de facto government. Essentially it is a kingdom without inheritance of rulership. At that point the society is certainly not an anarchy of private property.

Agressive monopolies can't exist with no government. Creating Monopolies that Controll Us

[Gabu]

Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

I think his point was not that we don't know how to deal with the bad apple, but that when population density increases high enough, it becomes increasingly difficult to even identify who the bad apple is in the first place.

It's times like these that the idea of simulated reality that can take input would be very useful.  As it stands right now, no one can really prove the other person wrong because this situation likely will never occur.

[muon2]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

And when one such "protection company" dominates and gains a monopoly on "protection" it becomes a de facto government. Essentially it is a kingdom without inheritance of rulership. At that point the society is certainly not an anarchy of private property.

Agressive monopolies can't exist with no government. Creating Monopolies that Controll Us

You've dodged my statement. What then is a "protection company" but a unit of government? I contend that such companies would compete for power and a monopoly (or perhaps cartel) would form acting in lieu of any other governmental structure.

In any case its certainly not an anarchy of private property. It looks more like a corporate oligarchy.

[Bono]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

And when one such "protection company" dominates and gains a monopoly on "protection" it becomes a de facto government. Essentially it is a kingdom without inheritance of rulership. At that point the society is certainly not an anarchy of private property.

Agressive monopolies can't exist with no government. Creating Monopolies that Controll Us

You've dodged my statement. What then is a "protection company" but a unit of government? I contend that such companies would compete for power and a monopoly (or perhaps cartel) would form acting in lieu of any other governmental structure.

In any case its certainly not an anarchy of private property. It looks more like a corporate oligarchy.

First, corporations would not exist in an anarchy of private property, because they are legal fictions. Second, a state has a monopoly of jurisdiction over a certain area, while Private Defense Agencies would only have has much jurisdiction as property owners would be willing to give them. Third, in a certain sense, everyone is his own PDA, so that defense agencies would probably be more like militias than private companies.

[W in 2004]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

If someone breaks into my house and I kill them, the government was not the only thing with force.

The state is just an organized way for the people to use force.

But the state could take that right away from you, if it'd be willing to.

The state would be forsaking one of its main purposes for existing, the protection of private property.  Then, according to Locke, we would have the right to overthrow that government.     

[Bono]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion.

And what's that?

That a monopoly on the use of force is an infrigment on property rights, and thus a state is immoral.

Well, the state does not have a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes it does.

If someone breaks into my house and I kill them, the government was not the only thing with force.

The state is just an organized way for the people to use force.

But the state could take that right away from you, if it'd be willing to.

The state would be forsaking one of its main purposes for existing, the protection of private property.  Then, according to Locke, we would have the right to overthrow that government.     

That is not the issue. THe issue is if you own your property, you have the right to prive for its security, not the state.

[JohnFKennedy]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you.

Difference is without a state, you have a legal right to fight them.

Without a state you also don't have laws and an established judicial system so your "legal right" is non-existent.

Without the state and the governing body laying down laws, how are these "legal rights" decided, who decides what people can and cannot do?

Even if we suppose that there is some form of legal system without the state, who exactly enforces the laws?

You're right, without a stat ethere are no laws. There are only costums, which are derived from natural rights.

What is a "natural right"?

All these so called rights we hold are afforded to us by society. The codes of morality that we follow as law have been created by man for man, it is our own belief of what is right and what is wrong that defines these morals and creates the laws.

As humans have created these codes by which they must live by, what are "natural rights"? Where do they come from? Why do we have to follow them?

[W in 2004]

Hobbes, because the man is so dead on. To think that people are naturally good is silly and childish. That's why I detest Locke and most of the other enlightenment writers. I believe in free-market and democratic ideals, but do not wear rose-tinted glasses when looking at humanity.

Hobbes portrayed people in the state of nature as being evil, violent, and bloodthirsty.  This view differs from that of Rousseau, who believed that people are good, but societies are bad.  According to my understanding, both followers of Hobbes and Rousseau would call for a strong government that would restrict freedom.  The followers of Hobbes would say that the purpose of government is to bring people out of the state of nature and impose upon them the civilizing effects society.  The followers of Rousseau would claim that the purpose of government is to correct the wrongs caused by society against individuals.  The way that both of these men look at human nature and chart a course of governmental action based on that view is fundamentally flawed.  How can a government like the followers of Hobbes might call for be so much more virtuous than the best of its people?  If, as you claim, all people are really so evil, how can you expect a totalitarian government to turn us into little angels?  Whether people are good or evil or both, freedom is definitely should be left in the hands of the people.  I would rather trust in the ability of those who must live their lives and pay the consequences for how their lives are lived to run their lives than a tyrannical, power hungry government.  In my view the problem with both of these philosophers is that they believe that individuals cannot be trusted with the freedom to run their own lives.  For one the reason is the evil of human nature, and for the other the reason is the goodness of human nature.  I MAY NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT I MEAN BY FREEDOM.  I DO NOT MEAN LAWLESSNESS.  I WILL QUOTE FROM LOCKE’S SECOND TREATISE ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT TO EXPLAIN.

“… however it may be mistaken, the end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom: For in all the states of created beings capable of Laws, where there is no Law, there is no Freedom.  For Liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others which cannot be, where there is no Law: But Freedom is not, as we are told, A Liberty for every Man to do what he lists: (For who could be free, when every other Man’s Humour might domineer over him?) But a liberty to dispose, and order, as he lists, his Person, Actions, Possessions, and his whole Property, within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is; and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary Will of another, but freely follow his own.”

 I would ask you to look at countries with more freedom and compare them to countries with less freedom.  In which countries would you rather live?  U.S. history has defied people like Hobbes, Rousseau, and Marx and justified John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson.

[Bono]

Well, government or no government, there are always enough other people who could gang up and take any right away from you.

Difference is without a state, you have a legal right to fight them.

Without a state you also don't have laws and an established judicial system so your "legal right" is non-existent.

Without the state and the governing body laying down laws, how are these "legal rights" decided, who decides what people can and cannot do?

Even if we suppose that there is some form of legal system without the state, who exactly enforces the laws?

You're right, without a stat ethere are no laws. There are only costums, which are derived from natural rights.

What is a "natural right"?

All these so called rights we hold are afforded to us by society. The codes of morality that we follow as law have been created by man for man, it is our own belief of what is right and what is wrong that defines these morals and creates the laws.

As humans have created these codes by which they must live by, what are "natural rights"? Where do they come from? Why do we have to follow them?

They are derived from reason. Those codes by which we must live by that humasn created as you say, existed long before they were codified. How did those come up to existance? Because every men has those natural rights, that emerge naturally.

[muon2]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

And when one such "protection company" dominates and gains a monopoly on "protection" it becomes a de facto government. Essentially it is a kingdom without inheritance of rulership. At that point the society is certainly not an anarchy of private property.

Agressive monopolies can't exist with no government. Creating Monopolies that Controll Us

You've dodged my statement. What then is a "protection company" but a unit of government? I contend that such companies would compete for power and a monopoly (or perhaps cartel) would form acting in lieu of any other governmental structure.

In any case its certainly not an anarchy of private property. It looks more like a corporate oligarchy.

First, corporations would not exist in an anarchy of private property, because they are legal fictions. Second, a state has a monopoly of jurisdiction over a certain area, while Private Defense Agencies would only have has much jurisdiction as property owners would be willing to give them. Third, in a certain sense, everyone is his own PDA, so that defense agencies would probably be more like militias than private companies.

And you now describe any society ruled by "feudal" warlords. There are plenty of real examples of that system throughout history. I see no benefit to landed or unlanded members.

[Bono]

Hoppe argues that a monarchy is superior to democracy. But he also concludes that an anarchy of private property, where an aristocracy of the best will emmerge and be aknowledge as such, is even bette than a monarchy. Personally, I thik a barrel of a gun is the best way of dealing with the bad apple.

An anarchy of private property suffers the most from population density. It only functions in low population environments where essentially everyone knows everyone else.

Not really. That is why protection companies would be needed.

And when one such "protection company" dominates and gains a monopoly on "protection" it becomes a de facto government. Essentially it is a kingdom without inheritance of rulership. At that point the society is certainly not an anarchy of private property.

Agressive monopolies can't exist with no government. Creating Monopolies that Controll Us

You've dodged my statement. What then is a "protection company" but a unit of government? I contend that such companies would compete for power and a monopoly (or perhaps cartel) would form acting in lieu of any other governmental structure.

In any case its certainly not an anarchy of private property. It looks more like a corporate oligarchy.

First, corporations would not exist in an anarchy of private property, because they are legal fictions. Second, a state has a monopoly of jurisdiction over a certain area, while Private Defense Agencies would only have has much jurisdiction as property owners would be willing to give them. Third, in a certain sense, everyone is his own PDA, so that defense agencies would probably be more like militias than private companies.

And you now describe any society ruled by "feudal" warlords. There are plenty of real examples of that system throughout history. I see no benefit to landed or unlanded members.

Feudal Lords had a monopoly on protection over their serbs. I don't propose that.

[muon2]

Bono, I'm not claiming that you propose that. I'm giving examples of what your proposal becomes.  You have no mechanism to insure the stability of the system, other than the wishful view that everyone will want it to stay that way. There will be people who will not want it to stay that way, and that requires some societal mechanism to maintain the system against those who would change it.

[Bono]

Bono, I'm not claiming that you propose that. I'm giving examples of what your proposal becomes.  You have no mechanism to insure the stability of the system, other than the wishful view that everyone will want it to stay that way. There will be people who will not want it to stay that way, and that requires some societal mechanism to maintain the system against those who would change it.

This is why this system admitedly can't work in a global fashion. There most still be some organized states to where the anarchic part of the world can cast out the democrats, communits and others, in a manner so as to protect freedom. You ahve to keep in mind the population would likely be heavily armed, adn not willing to reguinguish their freedom easily.

[Michael Z]

Heh. Marx, of course. Now before anyone bites my head off, I wholly disagree with his evaluation that a bloody revolution is necessary to reverse the status quo; however, I do commend him for being one of the first (perhaps the first) to acknowledge that society is an organism the rules of which are subject to change, and that the status quo is not something that's irreversible and God-given, but a social construct.

Besides, many neocons (aka Straussians) privately agree with Marx's analysis of the social structure. It's just that, as opposed to Marx, they believe it's a good thing that people are controlled via religion, the media, and so forth; which might explain why so many neocons (eg. Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are ex-Marxists.

And for the record, in no way am I a Marxist. As I said, I agree with his analysis of society, not his evaluations. Besides, to say by agreeing with Marx I automatically agree with the horrors of Stalinism is like saying that anyone who agrees with Nietzsche automatically condones Nazism. It's nonsense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Marx's analysis of late 19th Century Capitalism is very good... but I disagree with a lot of his ideological stuff... I just don't like determinism.

[Michael Z]

Marx's analysis of late 19th Century Capitalism is very good... but I disagree with a lot of his ideological stuff... I just don't like determinism.

No, I'm exactly the same. I think Marx's analysis was spot-on, but with his ideological stuff he falls flat on his face.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Marx's analysis of late 19th Century Capitalism is very good... but I disagree with a lot of his ideological stuff... I just don't like determinism.

No, I'm exactly the same. I think Marx's analysis was spot-on, but with his ideological stuff he falls flat on his face.

It's a real shame that he ever picked up a book by Hegel...

[patrick1]

Marx's analysis of late 19th Century Capitalism is very good... but I disagree with a lot of his ideological stuff... I just don't like determinism.

No, I'm exactly the same. I think Marx's analysis was spot-on, but with his ideological stuff he falls flat on his face.

It's a real shame that he ever picked up a book by Hegel...

It is a shame anyone picked up a book by Hegel.  I don't know who is more dry and arcane- 3 finalists Hegel, Kant and Wittgenstein.  They all had some interesting ideas but I felt like shooting myself while I was reading them.

[Democratic Hawk]

Rousseau because "The Social Contract" has informed my political beliefs probably more than anything else

Dave