political philosophers

[Bono]

Locke could have been much better if he hadn't been too afraid to take his ideas to their logical conclusion. Besides, he was the one who first claimed that governments have a monopoly on the use of force.
I like Aquinas and Augustine.
I think the best political philosopher of today is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, hands down.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We've all seen how that has worked out. Read this, plz.

[Bono]

What is "legal?" It is an abstract concept. All it is is people using force.

With a state, it is possible to have the right to defend your property. Without a state, you definitely have that right. That means having a state that doesn't honor the right to protect property is inferior, but having a state that does is equal.

How does a state honor teh right to property if to survive a state needs taxation?

[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.

[Bono]

We've all seen how that has worked out. Read this, plz.

OK, I did read it. It's well written but full of fundmental utopian flaws. Without spending 2-3 hours writing a detailed rejoinder, I'll focus on the obvious shortcoming - population density.

There are many libertarian utopias well fleshed out in written form. I'd enjoy living in many if not most of them. What they have in common is a substantially smaller population base to work from than our current situation. The problem in libertarian, non-statist utopias, is how to handle the "bad apple", that is to say the person who takes advantage of the system to the long term detriment of society. The best defense is a society of low enough density that these people can be identified and isolated by those who want to maintain their libertarian ideals.

As population increases both the number of people who act against the libertarian interests of society increase, and their ability to hide within society increases. Above a critical density a government of laws is needed to maintain societal order. Utopias need to impose some hierarchical order or they fail this test.

Hoppe's point is that a self-interested dictator (ie king) is superior to the random fluctuations of democratic rule. In the short term one can make the argument that a self-interested dictator will provide a better government allowing the population to act freely. However, te law of averages kicks in as the population increases. The likelihood of incompetance taking the throne increases, and with it comes the probability of revolution from the power centers directly beneath the titular ruler. Rather than Hapsburg Austria-Hungary one should consider Imperial Rome.

In the end, large numbers of people force statistics into play. Democracy can have the disadvantage of short-term inefficiency, but it has the ability to provide long-term corrections that are difficult without its averaging powers.

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.