# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Should we abolish traffic laws?

## DonGlock26

Should we abolish traffic laws? I say no, but I would like to hear the arguments of those who feel they should be abolished.

----------


## Matt

I feel the police would be better off roaming their communities and being vigilant rather than harassing drivers. A cop sitting on the side of the road with that little LIDAR does not slow traffic...he doesn't make it safer. He creates a snow ball effect of those quickly braking, those rubber necking, and those caught off guard which can actually cause an accident. Very rarely is someone being reckless yet getting a reckless ticket is so easy - here in VA the highway speed limit is 70 mph...a reckless driving charge (that's a class D misdemeanor mind you..not just a fine) is set at 80 mph. That's 10 mph over the speed limit...which is absurd considering that most will go at least 5 mph over. Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue. That's it. Doesn't make us safer, doesn't help our communities, and people might respect the profession more if they didn't look like fisherman on the side of the road fishing for an unsuspecting citizen to drive by and set off the lidar. 

The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Should we abolish traffic laws? I say no, but I would like to hear the arguments of those who feel they should be abolished.


_You're for traffic laws!!?!?!?!_

What kind of big government, socialist, authoritarian, holster-sniffing statist ARE you, anyway?!?!?! :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

DonGlock26 (04-15-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> I feel the police would be better off roaming their communities and being vigilant rather than harassing drivers. A cop sitting on the side of the road with that little LIDAR does not slow traffic...he doesn't make it safer. He creates a snow ball effect of those quickly braking, those rubber necking, and those caught off guard which can actually cause an accident. Very rarely is someone being reckless yet getting a reckless ticket is so easy - here in VA the highway speed limit is 70 mph...a reckless driving charge (that's a class D misdemeanor mind you..not just a fine) is set at 80 mph. That's 10 mph over the speed limit...which is absurd considering that most will go at least 5 mph over. Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue. That's it. Doesn't make us safer, doesn't help our communities, and people might respect the profession more if they didn't look like fisherman on the side of the road fishing for an unsuspecting citizen to drive by and set off the lidar. 
> 
> The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).


Thanks for your input.

----------


## DonGlock26

> _You're for traffic laws!!?!?!?!_
> 
> What kind of big government, socialist, authoritarian, holster-sniffing statist ARE you, anyway?!?!?!



LOL!!  Can you imagine the road rage murders in the Volutneerist-topia?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (04-17-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> _You're for traffic laws!!?!?!?!_
> 
> What kind of big government, socialist, authoritarian, holster-sniffing statist ARE you, anyway?!?!?!





> LOL!!  Can you imagine the road rage murders in the Volutneerist-topia?


Quite the contrary...




> How often do you hear the minarchist say, "Well, I don't like government, but we at least need things like traffic laws. We need a government to keep us safe"? For all those who call libertarians crazy for wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve, how much more dangerous and criminal would they accuse us of being if we actually began to publicly advocate the abolition of traffic regulations? Yet, here it is, on video, for the entire world to see, that Hobbes was wrong.
> 
> Martin Cassini, a photographer and advocate for road deregulation, has produced a marvelous series of videos documenting the results of the Cabstand Junction Trial that started in September of 2009 in North Somerset, in Great Britain. The videos, which can be viewed on his website FitRoads.com and on YouTube, show the remarkable before and after results of the experiment.
> 
> Without traffic lights regulating intersections, congestion has disappeared and accidents are virtually nonexistent. With the exception of a few who still assume right of way, drivers are courteous and give way to pedestrians and other drivers.


http://mises.org/daily/4745

----------

sparsely (04-17-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> LOL!!  Can you imagine the road rage murders in the Volutneerist-topia?


What you are implying, then, is that without some rules written by politicians to tell you how to behave yourself, you would be unable to control your murderous impulses and would throw yourself into an orgy of drugs and recklessness. How sad for you. Have you thought about therapy?

----------

hoytmonger (04-15-2014),sparsely (04-17-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

North Somerset?!?! Let's try that a little further to the east in London.

Better yet, try that shit in Paris,  or best of all, Rome!! 

Khandahar will seem an island of tranquillity by comparison.

Step away from that bhong, please....

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

:Smiley ROFLMAO: 


> What you are implying, then, is that without some rules written by politicians to tell you how to behave yourself, you would be unable to control your murderous impulses and would throw yourself into an orgy of drugs and recklessness. How sad for you. Have you thought about therapy?


Do they actually let you run around loose?

----------

DonGlock26 (04-15-2014),Old Ridge Runner (04-17-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> North Somerset?!?! Let's try that a little further to the east in London.
> 
> Better yet, try that shit in Paris,  or best of all, Rome!! 
> 
> Khandahar will seem an island of tranquillity by comparison.
> 
> Step away from that bhong, please....


The experiment worked... no? Your concept of the necessity of the state has been proven wrong... again.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Quite the contrary...
> 
> 
> 
> http://mises.org/daily/4745



So, at the end of the day, they are putting in a mini-roundabout and they have a 20mph speed limit and ped crossing lines. That hardly sounds like a Somalia paradise.




> *Mini-roundabout planned for Portishead's Cabstand junction*By This is Bristol  |  Posted: March 22, 2011
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Mini-ro...#ixzz2z1ISwXMK

----------


## DonGlock26

> What you are implying, then, is that without some rules written by politicians to tell you how to behave yourself, you would be unable to control your murderous impulses and would throw yourself into an orgy of drugs and recklessness. How sad for you. Have you thought about therapy?


No Kenneth, but you have used your trademark failed attempt at making a strawman argument move.

----------

patrickt (04-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Do they actually let you run around loose?


I guess so. Will he address the OP?

----------


## hoytmonger

> So, at the end of the day, they are putting in a mini-roundabout and they have a 20mph speed limit and ped crossing lines. That hardly sounds like a Somalia paradise.


What's your point? There's still a government there to muck things up. That doesn't disprove the fact that the experiment worked.

----------


## sotmfs

Stop signs,traffic signals,most speed limits seem reasonable in my humble opinion.

----------

fyrenza (04-17-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> What's your point? There's still a government there to muck things up. That doesn't disprove the fact that the experiment worked.


It showed that the "experiment" wasn't successful enough to allow it to continue.

----------


## Micketto

> I feel the police would be better off roaming their communities and being vigilant rather than harassing drivers. A cop sitting on the side of the road with that little LIDAR does not slow traffic...he doesn't make it safer. He creates a snow ball effect of those quickly braking, those rubber necking, and those caught off guard which can actually cause an accident. Very rarely is someone being reckless yet getting a reckless ticket is so easy - here in VA the highway speed limit is 70 mph...a reckless driving charge (that's a class D misdemeanor mind you..not just a fine) is set at 80 mph. That's 10 mph over the speed limit...which is absurd considering that most will go at least 5 mph over. Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue. That's it. Doesn't make us safer, doesn't help our communities, and people might respect the profession more if they didn't look like fisherman on the side of the road fishing for an unsuspecting citizen to drive by and set off the lidar. 
> 
> The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).


A well placed cop car, even empty, on a highway median has been proven to keep traffic at a slower place.  Some states will just park a cop car in the medians with it's radar on.... for the day.

I find it odd that you don't think keeping traffic at a common pace is safer than traffic full of differing speeds.

And on top of that.... think seat belt laws do any good at all.

----------


## Micketto

To address the OP, I think there should be traffic laws almost exactly like the ones already in place.

Where I live, in the country, we don't really have speed limits (so to speak).... but these are just 2 laners.  
6 lane highways are, and should be, a different issue.


My favorite law is the new "tackleable" offense of walking on the wrong side of the street.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Do they actually let you run around loose?


I'm just wondering why you feel that you ought not be let to run around loose. It's obvious that you feel the need for bureaucrats to control what you do.

Though, I suppose that there is on other possibility, and that's that you live in fear like most progressives, and look for big government to protect you from bogeymen.

So which is it?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> No Kenneth, but you have used your trademark failed attempt at making a strawman argument move.


I've not seen coherent reasoning from you, ever, on this forum, so trying to find the source of your idiotic notions is a mildly amusing pasttime when I'm tired and I don't care to think too much about things. After all, how hard can it be to figure out a progressive such as yourself who can barely rub two thoughts together without pissing himself that someone might do something awful and so a new law or punishment must be called for?

 As I said to your bosom buddy, the other possibility is that like most progressives, you quail in the fear at the idea of people having freedom, and seek government to protect you from dangerous bogeymen.

----------



----------


## hoytmonger

> It showed that the "experiment" wasn't successful enough to allow it to continue.


No, it showed the government refused to completely relinquish authority. The state never relinquishes authority, which is why the state is never reduced in size and scope.

----------

sparsely (04-17-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Should we abolish traffic laws? I say no, but I would like to hear the arguments of those who feel they should be abolished.


The owner of a road has the right to make rules regarding it use.

----------



----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I feel the police would be better off roaming their communities and being vigilant rather than harassing drivers. A cop sitting on the side of the road with that little LIDAR does not slow traffic...he doesn't make it safer. He creates a snow ball effect of those quickly braking, those rubber necking, and those caught off guard which can actually cause an accident. Very rarely is someone being reckless yet getting a reckless ticket is so easy - here in VA the highway speed limit is 70 mph...a reckless driving charge (that's a class D misdemeanor mind you..not just a fine) is set at 80 mph. That's 10 mph over the speed limit...which is absurd considering that most will go at least 5 mph over. Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue. That's it. Doesn't make us safer, doesn't help our communities, and people might respect the profession more if they didn't look like fisherman on the side of the road fishing for an unsuspecting citizen to drive by and set off the lidar. 
> 
> The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).


Are you sure that the fines generated by traffic tickets goes to the state?  I'm asking because here where I am in PA, the state police enforce the traffic laws and the money goes to the township the ticket is written in.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I've not seen coherent reasoning from you, ever, on this forum,


Hahahaha!!!!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> No, it showed the government refused to completely relinquish authority. The state never relinquishes authority, which is why the state is never reduced in size and scope.


Don't they have authority over a straight road?

----------


## DonGlock26

> The owner of a road has the right to make rules regarding it use.


Didn't we talk about this in another thread? Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road right?

----------


## Longshot

> Didn't we talk about this in another thread?



Not sure. Don't remember.





> Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road right?



I don't quite get your question. You asked whether there ought to be traffic laws. I say yes. The owner of the road should be able to make rules regarding it's use, just as the owner of a store, movie theater, or amusement park can make the rules regarding the use of those facilities.

----------


## Matt

> Are you sure that the fines generated by traffic tickets goes to the state?  I'm asking because here where I am in PA, the state police enforce the traffic laws and the money goes to the township the ticket is written in.


They both do. The local government uses the fines to supplement their local budget. Harrisburg takes a cut of those fines mind you via tax and hidden taxes. If your community is too small it may even go to the county because their court systems would need to be used. Even then so many of PA's rural communities are policed by the State Police. My community was. The Barracks was 15 minutes away so getting help on an ambulance call was damn near impossible some days. Luckily PA staties wont bother you unless you are going 15mph over and even then some don't bother...they're real lenient. I have some buddies who are PSP and I even have a PSP shoulder patch in my 911 patch collection.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Are you sure that the fines generated by traffic tickets goes to the state?  I'm asking because here where I am in PA, the state police enforce the traffic laws and the money goes to the township the ticket is written in.


 It does go to the town.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (04-18-2014)

----------


## michaelr

Some of you are amazing, not in a good way either. Regulation is needed, it always has been, but that's not the same as treating adults like children!

----------


## Maximatic

> Didn't we talk about this in another thread? Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road right?


Do you understand the difference between using force and initiating force?

Do you think conflicts should be minimized?

----------


## patrickt

> I feel the police would be better off roaming their communities and being vigilant rather than harassing drivers. A cop sitting on the side of the road with that little LIDAR does not slow traffic...he doesn't make it safer. He creates a snow ball effect of those quickly braking, those rubber necking, and those caught off guard which can actually cause an accident. Very rarely is someone being reckless yet getting a reckless ticket is so easy - here in VA the highway speed limit is 70 mph...a reckless driving charge (that's a class D misdemeanor mind you..not just a fine) is set at 80 mph. That's 10 mph over the speed limit...which is absurd considering that most will go at least 5 mph over. Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue. That's it. Doesn't make us safer, doesn't help our communities, and people might respect the profession more if they didn't look like fisherman on the side of the road fishing for an unsuspecting citizen to drive by and set off the lidar. 
> 
> The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).


So says the man who gets tickets. He seems to want all the laws except, oh, right, speeding. 

I was ordered to run radar in a residential community and I told the chief it was a stupid assignment. "I know that but someone who lives there complained to the mayor who complained to me. So, run radar and if you catch anyone speeding write them a ticket." Okay. So, I sat there for about three hours and had less than six cars go by not speeding. Then, hot damn, a car came screaming around a curve at 50 miles and hour. The speed limit on the narrow residential streets was 25mph. As I was writing the ticket the guy was whining. "It's not me that's the problem. I called the mayor. It's the damned kids in the afternoon." It's always someone else, isn't it? Oh, I sat there all afternoon, too, and didn't get another speeder going more than 30mph.

If you want experience with traffic control with virtually no enforcement, drive down to Oaxaca, Mexico. Four-lane roads are really two, or one, lane because of cars parked in traffic lanes. Traffic signals being red are considered advisory. The amber light is a warning for everyone to hurry. It's rare to see a woman driving without a cell phone in her hand for either chatting or texting. Protesters routinely close major highways, including the traffic police closing the highways when they protested, and traffic officers refuse to help.

On the other hand, people when not overly controlled do find solutions to problems. A major road was blocked by leftists protesters so traffic moved to the next road over, which was one-way south, and because two-way traffic without anyone throwing a fit.

I survive but driving in Oaxaca is tense.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-18-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> They both do. The local government uses the fines to supplement their local budget. Harrisburg takes a cut of those fines mind you via tax and hidden taxes. If your community is too small it may even go to the county because their court systems would need to be used. Even then so many of PA's rural communities are policed by the State Police. My community was. The Barracks was 15 minutes away so getting help on an ambulance call was damn near impossible some days. Luckily PA staties wont bother you unless you are going 15mph over and even then some don't bother...they're real lenient. I have some buddies who are PSP and I even have a PSP shoulder patch in my 911 patch collection.


Because of the turnpike being right here in Breezewood we have two PSP barracks.  One in Everett called the turnpike Barracks and the other for the county about 20 minutes west of me. I don't worry bout ambulance service, our fire department is a 5 minute drive from me and the Everett fire department is only 8u miles away.

----------


## DonGlock26

> So says the man who gets tickets. He seems to want all the laws except, oh, right, speeding. 
> 
> I was ordered to run radar in a residential community and* I told the chief it was a stupid assignment. "I know that but someone who lives there complained to the mayor who complained to me. So, run radar and if you catch anyone speeding write them a ticket."* Okay. So, I sat there for about three hours and had less than six cars go by not speeding. Then, hot damn, a car came screaming around a curve at 50 miles and hour. The speed limit on the narrow residential streets was 25mph. As I was writing the ticket the guy was whining. "It's not me that's the problem. I called the mayor. It's the damned kids in the afternoon." It's always someone else, isn't it? Oh, I sat there all afternoon, too, and didn't get another speeder going more than 30mph.
> 
> If you want experience with traffic control with virtually no enforcement, drive down to Oaxaca, Mexico. Four-lane roads are really two, or one, lane because of cars parked in traffic lanes. Traffic signals being red are considered advisory. The amber light is a warning for everyone to hurry. It's rare to see a woman driving without a cell phone in her hand for either chatting or texting. Protesters routinely close major highways, including the traffic police closing the highways when they protested, and traffic officers refuse to help.
> 
> On the other hand, people when not overly controlled do find solutions to problems. A major road was blocked by leftists protesters so traffic moved to the next road over, which was one-way south, and because two-way traffic without anyone throwing a fit.
> 
> I survive but driving in Oaxaca is tense.



You mean to say that police officers are detailed to specific areas to enforce minor laws because citizens complained about other citizens breaking minor laws? I thought police officers enforce these minor laws because they enjoy the god-like power of filling out a violation?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Do you understand the difference between using force and initiating force?
> 
> Do you think conflicts should be minimized?


Are you trying to say that trespassing is using force and worthy of being answered with force?

How do you minimize a conflict with an uncooperative trespasser?

----------


## Longshot

> Are you trying to say that trespassing is using force and worthy of being answered with force?





I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that you don't think a property owner has a right to forcibly eject a trespasser? That right seems to be historically well established.


Traffic laws should be established by the owner of the road.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Not sure. Don't remember.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't quite get your question. You asked whether there ought to be traffic laws. I say yes. The owner of the road should be able to make rules regarding it's use, just as the owner of a store, movie theater, or amusement park can make the rules regarding the use of those facilities.



Can those rules include the use of deadly force against an uncooperative trespasser?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that you don't think a property owner has a right to forcibly eject a trespasser? That right seems to be historically well established.
> 
> 
> Traffic laws should be established by the owner of the road.


The state is "historically well established". Are you supportive of the idea of the state?

I asked you a pretty simple question. Can't you answer it?

Is trespassing using force or not? If not, then the property owner has no right to use force based on volunterrist philosophy. 

If so, the property owner has NO state restriction as to the amount of force that he may use based on volunterrist philosophy, right?

----------


## Longshot

> Can those rules include the use of deadly force against an uncooperative trespasser?



No, not in my opinion. A store that has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign has no right to kill those who enter barefoot. That would be completely nonproportional, in my opinion. 


However, getting back to your original question, the owner of a road certainly has a right to establish the rules for using that road.

----------


## Longshot

> The state is "historically well established". Are you supportive of the idea of the state?



No, I'm not supportive of the idea of the state.





> I asked you a pretty simple question. Can't you answer it?
> 
> 
> Is trespassing using force or not?



No, it's not. 





> If not, then the property owner has no right to use force based on volunterrist philosophy.



I think a property owner has the right to eject a trespasser from his property, forcefully, if necessary. Do you disagree with this?





> If so, the property owner has NO state restriction as to the amount of force that he may use based on volunterrist philosophy, right?



Wrong. The property owner may only use as much force as is required to eject the trespasser from his property. He may not use excessive force.

----------


## DonGlock26

> No, not in my opinion. A store that has a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign has no right to kill those who enter barefoot. That would be completely nonproportional, in my opinion. 
> 
> 
> However, getting back to your original question, the owner of a road certainly has a right to establish the rules for using that road.


Your opinion does not restrain a property owner in a volunteerist society in any way, right?

Is there a "nonproportional" restriction on the use of force by a property owner in a volunteerist society?

----------


## Longshot

> Your opinion does not restrain a property owner in a volunteerist society in any way, right?


What is a "volunteerist society"?

But in my opinion, a property owner may only legally apply as much force as is necessary to remove the trespasser from his property. Any force in excess of that should be illegal.





> Is there a "nonproportional" restriction on the use of force by a property owner in a 
> volunteerist society?



I don't know what you mean by "volunteerist society".

----------


## DonGlock26

> No, I'm not supportive of the idea of the state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not. 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not a volunteerist. I am examining volunteerist political philosophy. Therefore, my opinion on trespassing is not germane to the examination. I would advise a property owner to call the police to eject a trespasser.

How does a property owner have the right to use force against a person who has used no force according to you? How does this not fly in the face of volunteerist philosophy of non-aggression?

What entity in a volunteerist society regulates the use of "excessive force"?

----------


## DonGlock26

> What is a "volunteerist society"?
> 
> But in my opinion, a property owner may only legally apply as much force as is necessary to remove the trespasser from his property. Any force in excess of that should be illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "volunteerist society".


I thought you were an advocate of volunteerist political philosophy? Are you saying that you are not an  advocate of volunteerist political philosophy?

I mean the idea of a volunteerrist philosophy put forth by volunteerists here on this forum. Did I just hear a cock crow?

I'm really only interested in your opinion as it applies to volunteerist political philosophy. So, please be specific and apply your opinion to that political philosophy.

If you are rejecting VPP, then please say so.

----------


## Longshot

> I'm not a volunteerist. I am examining volunteerist political philosophy. Therefore, my opinion on trespassing is not germane to the examination. I would advise a property owner to call the police to eject a trespasser.



I'm not a volunteerist either, so I can't help you out. Sorry.





> How does a property owner have the right to use force against a person who has used no force according to you? How does this not fly in the face of volunteerist philosophy of non-aggression?
> 
> 
> What entity in a volunteerist society regulates the use of "excessive force"?



Again, I'm not a volunteerist, so I can't give you their perspective. 


However, I do support property rights. I think that the owner of a road should be the one who makes the rules regarding the use of that road.

----------


## Longshot

> I thought you were an advocate of volunteerist political philosophy? Are you saying that you are not an  advocate of volunteerist political philosophy?
> 
> I mean the idea of a volunteerrist philosophy put forth by volunteerists here on this forum. Did I just hear a cock crow?
> 
> I'm really only interested in your opinion as it applies to volunteerist political philosophy. So, please be specific and apply your opinion to that political philosophy.
> 
> If you are rejecting VPP, then please say so.


I'm not a volunteerist. 

I am, however, a proponent of non-aggression and property rights. 

That's why I am in favor of the owner of a road being the one who makes the rules regarding the use of that road.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm not a volunteerist. 
> 
> I am, however, a proponent of non-aggression and property rights. 
> 
> That's why I am in favor of the owner of a road being the one who makes the rules regarding the use of that road.


You are anti-state, so what is your idea of a stateless society?

If there is no state and the road owner makes the rules, then who is to say to him that he cannot use excessive force?

----------


## Longshot

> You are anti-state, so what is your idea of a stateless society?


One in which there is no state. 




> If there is no state and the road owner makes the rules, then who is to say to him that he cannot use excessive force?


Society's law forbidding the initiation of aggression. Excessive force is an initiation of aggression.

----------


## DonGlock26

> *I'm not a volunteerist.*




*Are these your words?*






> *Remember, anyone who espouses any solution that is not based on voluntaryist principles is robbing others* to accomplish their solution. In my eyes, -they- are the the heartless bastards. The ends don't justify the means.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ull=1#post9873








> *Thread Title:* 
> *Voluntaryism versus Anarchism: Ethics, Terminology, and Other Points to Ponder*
> 
> I think that one must continually evangelize for the idea that it is wrong to initiate aggression against the person and property of another. Meanwhile, use the political process to eliminate coercion by the government wherever we can.
> 
> Ultimately, when enough political support has emerged, we should, to use Hoppe's words, [/FONT][/COLOR]


http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ll=1#post10027
[/QUOTE]








> Of course it can. 
> 
> 
> You'll have to give examples of this violence to which you refer. 
> 
> 
> 
> If it can be done without the initiation of violence against person or property, then it IS capitalism.


http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ll=1#post13669
[/QUOTE]





> Because taking away someone's property (including firearms) would require initiating aggression against him, and it is unjustified to initiate aggression against a person who hasn't assaulted or violated anyone's person or property.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post220493






> As do I. Nothing ought to be illegal except acts that assault or invade the person or property of others. 
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post220979





> If you're asking me, peaceful people are those who haven't harmed other people or any object owned by others.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post222069






> How could there be law in a stateless society? Simple, the people could adopt a constitution (fundamental law) that prohibits the initiation of aggression against person and property. Such a law would make it illegal for anyone, including the state, to initiate aggression against the person or property of others, thus the state could no longer legally exist. The society would then be stateless.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post226536






> Thanks. It's good to see you again too.
> 
> Yes, the fundamental question, to me, is, why do many people have the belief that there are some people who have more rights than others, namely the right to initiate aggression against their fellow man?
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post226849






> But surely you don't believe that might really makes right. You can't think that a stronger man has the right to kill a weaker man, or rape a weaker woman.
> 
> From my understanding, voluntaryists want law, and they want that law to be enforced with power. The question is what should the law be. Voluntaryists simply want the law to forbid anyone, including the state, from initiating aggression against others. They want to make such acts illegal. This would allow the victim to take legal action against a violator, and to legally use force to enforce the legal judgement.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post226926






> Then how do you form an opinion regarding whether or not we ought to have a particular law?
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe that such actions ought to be against the the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The law can only be effective when it can be enforced with power. We don't disagree on this point. 
> ...






> Again, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that laws require physical power in order to be enforced. 
> 
> The question being debated is the _content_ of the law, what sort of laws the people _ought to_ establish and enforce. 
> 
> *Voluntaryists desire to enact laws that forbid anyone, including the state, from initiating aggression against others, since they see the initiation of violence as ethically unjustified.*
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post227799






> We disagree on what the fundamental law ought to be. Voluntaryists hold that the law ought to specify that it is illegal for anyone, including the state, to initiate aggression against others. This is based on their position that the initiation of aggression is ethically unjustified.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post228885






> I am not summarizing the law.* I am saying that I am in favor of the law explicitly stating that it is illegal to initiation aggression against others.* 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I wasn't stating a summary. I was suggesting a specific law. Nor was I suggestion that there be no other law that the one I was suggesting. 
> 
> 
> 
> My suggestion is definitely NOT that everyone gets to hire their own muscle to squeeze any compensation they choose from others. Not sure from where you're getting that.
> ...






> Voluntaryists don't advocate that there should be no rules or laws. On the contrary, they advocate that there ought to be laws against initiating aggression against anyone's person or property, and that these laws ought to apply to ALL people and organizations in society, including the government.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post235234






> Voluntaryists actually do think that people require laws. In particular, they support laws that prohibit violating the person or property of others. They also want such laws applied universally, to all people in the society, including those in government.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post235356






> Yeah, that's a very good way to put it:
> 
> Certain people with legal powers *that no one else has*. 
> 
> Certain people with legal privileges *that no one else has*.
> 
> That's what voluntaryists oppose. They don't oppose laws that forbid the violation of the person and property of others.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post235376






> *Originally Posted by* *DonGlock26* 
> _So, what's the bottom line? Voluntaryists want to live under the protection of law and a state's military without paying taxes and obeying the law?_
> 
> 
> *The bottom line is that voluntaryists want the law to forbid the violation of person and property, and they want this law to apply to all people in society, including those people in government. Such a law would make it illegal for one person in society to levy taxes on another person in society. Under such a law, no person in society would have such a special legal privilege.*
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post235393

----------


## Longshot

> Are these your words?


Yes, they are. What's your point?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yes, they are. What's your point?


That you were playing semantics game. You are a voluntaryist, right?

----------


## Longshot

> That you were playing semantics game. You are a voluntaryist, right?


Yeah, a voluntaryist. Not a volunteerist though.

You asked me questions about the philosophy of volunterrism. I've never heard of that political philosophy.

So anyway, I think that the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules concerning that road's use.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> Yeah, a voluntaryist. Not a volunteerist though.
> 
> You asked me questions about the philosophy of volunterrism. I've never heard of that political philosophy.
> 
> So anyway, I think that the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules concerning that road's use.





> *Voluntaryism (or sometimes voluntarism), is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.[1] The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
> *
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism


You could have asked for a clarification, but you didn't. Regardless, you've shown us that your philosophy is inherently illogical and unworkable in the real world.

----------


## Longshot

> You could have asked for a clarification, but you didn't. Regardless, you've shown us that your philosophy is inherently illogical and unworkable in the real world.


And how does that address my position that the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules concerning that road's use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## DonGlock26

> And how does that address my position that the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules concerning that road's use?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because it is conflict with the aggression principals of Voluntaryism as you have shown us. Isn't that why you claimed not to be a volunteerist?

----------


## Coolwalker

Yeah, no more traffic laws, now we can play "bumper cars"...so much fun for the whole family, right! What a dimwit idea.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-18-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Because it is conflict with the aggression principals of Voluntaryism as you have shown us. Isn't that why you claimed not to be a volunteerist?


You don't think that the owner of property has a right to set the rules for the use of that property?

----------


## Dan40

> The owner of a road has the right to make rules regarding it use.


And who owns the roads?

The people.  Right.



And who makes the rules?

The politicians the people elected to do so.

And even worse, the bureaucrats appointed by the politicians the people elected, make the most rules.

Who is at fault and who has to make corrections?

The people.

----------


## Maximatic

> Are you trying to say that trespassing is using force and worthy of being answered with force?


Yes.

Now, do you understand the difference between force and the initiation of force?




> How do you minimize a conflict with an uncooperative trespasser?


Can you answer my questions?

Should conflicts be minimized?

----------


## Matt

> So says the man who gets tickets. He seems to want all the laws except, oh, right, speeding.


I've ever gotten one speeding ticket. Doesn't chance the fact that speeding laws are a waste of time and tax dollars. I mean hell...go sit there on the highway and play game boy in your squad car....who the hell cares. Just leave citizens alone. Don't pretend speeding laws mean shit. They don't, you know it, I know it, and we've both been on the streets long enough to just drop the act. Then we wonder why people hate cops so much...well being the street bullies really does not help. I like the cops, I'd love to be a cop, but reality is reality here. Sorry. /2cents

----------


## Dan40

> Yes.
> 
> Now, do you understand the difference between force and the initiation of force?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you answer my questions?
> 
> Should conflicts be minimized?


More libertarian wacko gobbledygook that causes the public to ignore the good ideas and reject ALL of libertarianism.

You have no time to worry about big govt or rights, you're too busy shooting yourselves in the foot.

----------


## Roadmaster

I remember a story about on small town that had radars in town and people were getting upset because the radar was wrong and sending them a  ticket in the mail. Now the mayor knew it was wrong only wanted the money. One reporter went, drove under the speed limit and got a ticket.

----------

Longshot (04-18-2014)

----------


## Dan40

2008 thru 2012, over 266,000 people KILLED in TA's.  Sure, do away with all traffic laws.  People being people, will behave themselves,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,in a pig's ass they'll behave themselves.

----------


## Network

All those people died on state controlled roads.

Once again, a failure to understand privately owned vs. chaos. Private owners have more incentive to make their roads safe than the monopoly of 10 mexicans filling a pothole because they work under an employer who gets a certain amount of funding no matter how bad of a product they provide.

----------

Longshot (04-18-2014)

----------


## Network

Tell me how many people died on private roads in the past decade.

Ready? Go!

----------


## Dan40

> I remember a story about on small town that had radars in town and people were getting upset because the radar was wrong and sending them a  ticket in the mail. Now the mayor knew it was wrong only wanted the money. One reporter went, drove under the speed limit and got a ticket.


I read a story about a reporter that drove by an automatic radar enforcement machine.  The display on the machine said he was exceeding the speed limit.  He did not think he was so he turned right at the next intersection and went around the block and drove past the machine again at the same speed.  Again it said he was in violation.  Around the block again and this time he went 5 mph under the speed limit.  The display said he was ON the limit.  Around the block again and he went by a 5 mph over the limit and the display said he was in violation.

He felt he had a good story to write and a good case to fight in court..

He told the judge his story and the judge threw out the 3 speeding tickets..................................But made the reporter pay all the illegal right turn tickets.

----------


## Network

State roads have led to the breakup of the smaller community and the family. Unnecessary spiderwebbing of a large area of land, where people depend on food and products coming from thousands of miles away. State highways and interstates go hand-in-hand with the increasing amount of federal and global rule over every cockroach.

Most of it is a scam as well.  Why do you think Buffet wants highspeed rail, for the people or because he has a stake in moving things via rail?  The corporations and top dogs would pay for the roads themselves if needed, but they prefer to buy the government with the monopoly to forcefully take money from you to pay for their transport.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You don't think that the owner of property has a right to set the rules for the use of that property?


Not absolutely and you agree with me on that, since you say that society has the right to limit the amount of force that a property owner may use.
This is yet another example of your political philosophy falling apart under examination. 

Here's another example:

*Here you say that trespassing is not using force.*





> *Is trespassing using force or not?*
> 
> 
> No, it's not.





*Here you say that a property owner has the right to use force against a trespasser.*




> I think a property owner has the right to eject a trespasser from his property, forcefully, if necessary.




*
Yet here, when you were speaking of your voluntaryist political philosophy, you claim that it would be illegal to "initiation aggression against others".*





> I am saying that I am in favor of the law explicitly stating that it is illegal to initiation aggression against others. 
> 
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...l=1#post234030



Your positions do not make logical sense. That's why it is an unworkable fantasy.

_

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yes.
> 
> Now, do you understand the difference between force and the initiation of force?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you answer my questions?
> 
> Should conflicts be minimized?



Yes.


It depends on the situation.


Can you answer this:

_Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road right?_

----------


## Network

Gotta pay the troll toll to get in this boy's hole.

----------


## Maximatic

> Yes.
> 
> 
> It depends on the situation.
> 
> 
> Can you answer this:
> 
> _Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road right?_


What is your answer to the question of whether or not conflicts should be minimized?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> More libertarian wacko gobbledygook that causes the public to ignore the good ideas and reject ALL of libertarianism.
> 
> You have no time to worry about big govt or rights, you're too busy shooting yourselves in the foot.


I'm sure that you feel it's better to be you, an unprincipled, big government loving catankerous old asshole, flinging spittle at the keyboard while typing furiously about the libertarians, in the hopes that people will someday vote for the right people. How well has that worked for you so far, Dan? You've accomplished *nothing* in your entire life when it comes to politics, and every politician you have ever voted for who won office has contributed to the financial enslavement and destruction of liberties of future generations. All because you are a True Believer when it comes to the system. Congratulations!

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> What is your answer to the question of whether or not conflicts should be minimized?


Answer: It depends on the situation.



What was your answer to this question:

_Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road, right?_

----------


## Maximatic

> Answer: It depends on the situation.


That's not clear enough. Why should it depend on the situation? How can it ever be better to have a conflict than not have one?

----------


## Dan40

> I'm sure that you feel it's better to be you, an unprincipled, big government loving catankerous old asshole, flinging spittle at the keyboard while typing furiously about the libertarians, in the hopes that people will someday vote for the right people. How well has that worked for you so far, Dan? You've accomplished *nothing* in your entire life when it comes to politics, and every politician you have ever voted for who won office has contributed to the financial enslavement and destruction of liberties of future generations. All because you are a True Believer when it comes to the system. Congratulations!


You really do not know anything about the adult world.

----------


## Network

Dans been in the adult world for so long, he's turned into a stop sign.

----------


## Maximatic

I still feel temporarily disallowed to say anything about the amount of time Dan has spent in the world.

----------


## Dan40

> I still feel temporarily disallowed to say anything about the amount of time Dan has spent in the world.


Don't hold back.  If you don't have the good sense to know, ask.  I'll give you good info and you'll ignore it to your own detriment.  Not a problem.

----------


## patrickt

> You mean to say that police officers are detailed to specific areas to enforce minor laws because citizens complained about other citizens breaking minor laws? I thought police officers enforce these minor laws because they enjoy the god-like power of filling out a violation?


Police officers, unlike lawyers and college professors, aren't all exactly the same.

----------


## Longshot

> Not absolutely and you agree with me on that, since you say that society has the right to limit the amount of force that a property owner may use.
> This is yet another example of your political philosophy falling apart under examination. 
> 
> Here's another example:
> 
> *Here you say that trespassing is not using force.*
> 
> *Here you say that a property owner has the right to use force against a trespasser.*
> 
> ...


My position is that 1) a property owner has a right to eject (using force, if necessary) a trespasser from his property, and 2) a property owner has a right to place conditions upon those who wish to use his property.

What about this doesn't make logical sense?

----------


## DonGlock26

> That's not clear enough. Why should it depend on the situation? How can it ever be better to have a conflict than not have one?


That's my answer. I'll be happy to answer your follow up questions after you answer mine.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Police officers, unlike lawyers and college professors, aren't all exactly the same.


So, some may be assigned to work a jaywalking detail or a sidestreet speed enforcement detail because of citizens' complaints, while others might be assigned to go after parole absconders? If that's true, the cop-haters' freak out over a minor law being enforced may be unjustified, if  citizens' complaints generated the reason for the detail in the first place.

----------


## Maximatic

> _Basically, even deadly force could be used to keep trespassers off the volunteerist toll road, right?_


Right.

How can it ever be better to have a conflict than not have one?

----------


## DonGlock26

> My position is that 1) a property owner has a right to eject (using force, if necessary) a trespasser from his property, and 2) a property owner has a right to place conditions upon those who wish to use his property.
> 
> What about this doesn't make logical sense?


Your positions are:

1. Trepassing is not a use of force

2. A property owner has the right to use force against a trespasser

3. "_that it is illegal to initiation aggression against others"._ 

They cannot all co-exist. It would be irrational to believe so. So, which one(s) are you rejecting?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Don't they have authority over a straight road?


No... why should they? If the traffic situation improves without their interference then the authority they assumed  is unnecessary and detrimental.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Right.
> 
> How can it ever be better to have a conflict than not have one?


It depends on the situation because causes for conflict can vary greatly. 

It would be better to have a conflict with a man bent on murdering you, than to meekly submit to destruction.

----------


## DonGlock26

> No... why should they? If the traffic situation improves without their interference then the authority they assumed  is unnecessary and detrimental.


The question wasn't about the way you want things to be. It was a question about reality.

----------


## hoytmonger

> The question wasn't about the way you want things to be. It was a question about reality.


My answer was reality, it's your perception of it that's in error. You believe the state has authority, I don't. The state assumes authority and enforces that perception through coercion. Because the state uses coercion to enforce it's existence, you believe they have authority... I believe they're criminals.

----------


## Maximatic

> It depends on the situation because causes for conflict can vary greatly. 
> 
> It would be better to have a conflict with a man bent on murdering you, than to meekly submit to destruction.


Okay, sure. My willingness to be murdered would not be sufficient to cause a conflict. Since the default state of people is one of not wishing to be murdered, and I think it's safe to assume that it is, moving to murder someone is practically certain to result in a conflict. It would be even better, then, if he didn't initiate the conflict in the first place by moving to murder me. Wouldn't it?

----------


## Longshot

> Your positions are:
> 
> 1. Trepassing is not a use of force
> 
> 2. A property owner has the right to use force against a trespasser
> 
> 3. "_that it is illegal to initiation aggression against others"._ 
> 
> They cannot all co-exist. It would be irrational to believe so. So, which one(s) are you rejecting?


I don't consider trespass to be not an act of force, but I do consider it an act of aggression, as it violates the property of another person. 

Thus the trespasser is the party initiating the aggression in this scenario. The property owner may respond, with force if necessary, to remove the trespasser from his property. 

So, as I said, the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules regarding the use of that road.

LATER EDIT:

It occurred to me that your confusion might be due to conflating the words "force" and "aggression". Not all aggression is forceful. For example, a burglar could sneak into your house and rob you while you aren't home. He used no force against you, but initiated aggression against you.  Perhaps it would be helpful to regard aggression as the violation, either forceful or not, of another's person or property.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> The question wasn't about the way you want things to be. It was a question about reality.


Some people believe that if they dream hard enough, reality will "go away" and their fantasy world will exist.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-19-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> My answer was reality, it's your perception of it that's in error. You believe the state has authority, I don't. The state assumes authority and enforces that perception through coercion. Because the state uses coercion to enforce it's existence, you believe they have authority... I believe they're criminals.


You are outvoted.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Okay, sure. My willingness to be murdered would not be sufficient to cause a conflict. Since the default state of people is one of not wishing to be murdered, and I think it's safe to assume that it is, moving to murder someone is practically certain to result in a conflict. It would be even better, then, if he didn't initiate the conflict in the first place by moving to murder me. Wouldn't it?


We have no control over others. You cannot control their willingness to create conflict. So, if they wish to murder you, you will logically increase the conflict by resisting/killing them. Thus, always moving to reduce a conflict is not a rational position.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't consider trespass to be not an act of force, but I do consider it an act of aggression, as it violates the property of another person. 
> 
> Thus the trespasser is the party initiating the aggression in this scenario. The property owner may respond, with force if necessary, to remove the trespasser from his property. 
> 
> So, as I said, the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules regarding the use of that road.
> 
> LATER EDIT:
> 
> It occurred to me that your confusion might be due to conflating the words "force" and "aggression". Not all aggression is forceful. For example, a burglar could sneak into your house and rob you while you aren't home. He used no force against you, but initiated aggression against you.  Perhaps it would be helpful to regard aggression as the violation, either forceful or not, of another's person or property.


So, if a person steps on your lawn, it is an act of aggression, and you can then use whatever force you decide is appropriate because you make the rules? 

Who assigns property borders and handles disputes?

He used force to enter your home.

----------


## Longshot

> So, if a person steps on your lawn, it is an act of aggression, and you can then use whatever force you decide is appropriate because you make the rules?


In my opinion, one ought only use enough force as is necessary to remove the trespasser from one's land. I would consider an excessive use of force to be an initiation of aggression itself. 




> Who assigns property borders and handles disputes?


Right now, government judges. That doesn't need to change in order for property to be protected from aggression. 




> He used force to enter your home.


Equivocation. Force has many meanings. That's one of them.

----------


## DonGlock26

> In my opinion, one ought only use enough force as is necessary to remove the trespasser from one's land. I would consider an excessive use of force to be an initiation of aggression itself. 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, government judges. That doesn't need to change in order for property to be protected from aggression. 
> 
> 
> 
> Equivocation. Force has many meanings. That's one of them.


Your opinion? You said that he was forbidden from using excessive force.




> *The property owner may only use as much force as is required to eject the trespasser from his property. He may not use excessive force.*


So, you need a state to assign borders and solve disputes? I thought you didn't want any states?

Yes, it is one of them.

----------


## Longshot

> Your opinion? You said that he was forbidden from using excessive force.


Yes, in my opinion.

Also, under current law, it is forbidden to use excessive force to remove a trespasser from one's property.




> So, you need a state to assign borders and solve disputes? I thought you didn't want any states?


You're right. I don't believe that a state is needed in a society. However, we currently have a state, and that is sufficient to enforce laws against trespass. 




> Yes, it is one of them.


Not sure to what this is in reference.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yes, in my opinion.
> 
> Also, under current law, it is forbidden to use excessive force to remove a trespasser from one's property.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right. I don't believe that a state is needed in a society. However, we currently have a state, and that is sufficient to enforce laws against trespass. 
> 
> 
> ...


What would prevent a property owner from using excessive force in a volunaryist society? Isn't that the political philosophy that we have been talking about? 

Again, you fall back to a state. LOL!!!!  Who sets up borders and handles disputes in a voluntaryist society?

The use of the term "force".

Look, if you can't defend your voluntaryist political philosophy, I understand. But, if you want to defend it, then stop jumping back to a state's laws or solutions as a defense.

----------


## Longshot

> What would prevent a property owner from using excessive force in a volunaryist society? Isn't that the political philosophy that we have been talking about? 
> 
> Again, you fall back to a state. LOL!!!!  Who sets up borders and handles disputes in a voluntaryist society?
> 
> The use of the term "force".
> 
> Look, if you can't defend your voluntaryist political philosophy, I understand. But, if you want to defend it, then stop jumping back to a state's laws or solutions as a defense.


Actually, my statement was that the owner of a road ought to be the one who establishes the rules for the use of that road. One doesn't need a fully voluntarist society for that.

----------


## Dan40

> Actually, my statement was that the owner of a road ought to be the one who establishes the rules for the use of that road. One doesn't need a fully voluntarist society for that.


And the owner of the road, THE TAXPAYERS,  elected representatives to make the rules for the road.  By electing the representatives to the federal ans state governments, the owners [TAXPAYERS] gave explicit permission to the representatives to make the rules of the road.

----------


## Maximatic

> We have no control over others. You cannot control their willingness to create conflict. So, if they wish to murder you, you will logically increase the conflict by resisting/killing them. Thus, always moving to reduce a conflict is not a rational position.


No one has proposed always moving to reduce conflict, only that prevention of conflict and resolution of disputes has always been the initial purpose of law.

You pointed out that submitting to murder would serve to avoid a conflict. We all know that not moving to murder someone would also serve to avoid a conflict. That gives us two ways in which the same conflict can be avoided. It would be contrary to every sense of justice, reason and common sense to make a law requiring that no one should resist being murdered. So sensible people put the restriction, rightly, on the one who would trespass against the life of another. If someone proposed to do it the other way, by putting a legal restriction on anyone who would resist being murdered, we would all think that person is out of his mind.

That the law should serve to minimize conflict is obvious. It's something everyone presupposes.

The innate desire of people, to preserve their own lives, would make it so that a law against resisting murder would create more conflicts than a law against murder, so that, even if it were not already obvious to all normal people that such a law would be completely ludicrous, the goal of minimizing conflict would still be served even if the entire population were psychopaths with no empathy or sense of justice at all.

So, even after considering your very strange objection, we still arrive at the conclusion that justice is served if conflict is minimized. So, let's add this qualifier to the question:

Is it not better, for an entire society, that conflicts be minimized?

Or

Is a society better off with more conflicts or with fewer conflicts?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Actually, my statement was that the owner of a road ought to be the one who establishes the rules for the use of that road. One doesn't need a fully voluntarist society for that.


Are you now avoiding discussing a voluntaryist society with me?

How is a private road's owner prevented from using excessive force against trespassers in a voluntaryist society?

----------


## DonGlock26

> No one has proposed always moving to reduce conflict, only that prevention of conflict and resolution of disputes has always been the initial purpose of law.
> 
> You pointed out that submitting to murder would serve to avoid a conflict. We all know that not moving to murder someone would also serve to avoid a conflict. That gives us two ways in which the same conflict can be avoided. It would be contrary to every sense of justice, reason and common sense to make a law requiring that no one should resist being murdered. So sensible people put the restriction, rightly, on the one who would trespass against the life of another. If someone proposed to do it the other way, by putting a legal restriction on anyone who would resist being murdered, we would all think that person is out of his mind.
> 
> That the law should serve to minimize conflict is obvious. It's something everyone presupposes.
> 
> The innate desire of people, to preserve their own lives, would make it so that a law against resisting murder would create more conflicts than a law against murder, so that, even if it were not already obvious to all normal people that such a law would be completely ludicrous, the goal of minimizing conflict would still be served even if the entire population were psychopaths with no empathy or sense of justice at all.
> 
> So, even after considering your very strange objection, we still arrive at the conclusion that justice is served if conflict is minimized. So, let's add this qualifier to the question:
> ...


I think the obvious answer is less conflicts. So, how do you propose to cause less conflicts in society?

----------


## Longshot

> Are you now avoiding discussing a voluntaryist society with me?
> 
> How is a private road's owner prevented from using excessive force against trespassers in a voluntaryist society?


This thread isn't about voluntaryist society. It is about traffic laws. I think that the owner of a road ought to be the one to make the rules regarding it's use.

----------


## Maximatic

> I think the obvious answer is less conflicts. So, how do you propose to cause less conflicts in society?


By the law of the society being such that it does not create more conflicts than it prevents while serving as a standard by which disputes can be most easily resolved, which entails allowing for clear and distinct, universal standards of ownership.

If something is believed to be owned equally, by a number of people, and disputes arise over how that thing is to be used, there is no obvious standard by which to decide how those disputes should be resolved. Arbitrary standards for resolving those disputes become necessary. In the interest of fairness, elections systems are established, whereby it is possible, in principle, for the desires of any party to become the way in which the commonly owned property is used. But this solution not only fails to prevent disputes, but also creates several additional problems. One, it turns administration of justice into a shameless popularity contest. Two, it establishes and perpetuates the injustice of routinely and systematically imposing, on the minority, an adverse resolution of what will be done with what is, in name, their own property. Third, the elections system is, by its very nature, an adversarial system which actively invites and instigates disputes, just by its mere existence.

Since failing to define ownership by saying something is owned in common creates more conflict than it prevents, and the best way of resolving those conflicts, given the absence of a distinct owner, is an elections system which, itself, creates more problems than it solves, the solution that minimizes conflict will be one on which we forgo any pretense of common ownership in the first place.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

We should have one day a year like "The Purge" where no laws exist outside of one's own home.  Those who want to play cowboy in highways can have at it.  

Personally, I think the result will be the death of a lot of dumb asses and anger management candidates.  A good for society.  The bad news is most pussies will stay home and be back on the highway the following day.  Still, it'd be a great way to clean the gene pool.

----------


## Maximatic

> We should have one day a year like "The  Purge" where no laws exist outside of one's own home.  Those who want to  play cowboy in highways can have at it.  
> 
> Personally, I think the result will be the death of a lot of dumb asses  and anger management candidates.  A good for society.  The bad news is  most pussies will stay home and be back on the highway the following  day.  Still, it'd be a great way to clean the gene pool.


Clean the gene pool by thinning out the non-pussies?

Seriously though, if you did that, I'm pretty sure that day would look something like this:

----------


## hoytmonger

> You are outvoted.


Irrelevant. Simply because the ignorance of the majority sustains the tyranny of the state doesn't mean the state's assumed authority supersedes natural law.

----------


## DonGlock26

> This thread isn't about voluntaryist society. It is about traffic laws. I think that the owner of a road ought to be the one to make the rules regarding it's use.


I accept that you cannot defend a voluntaryist society.

----------


## DonGlock26

> By the law of the society being such that it does not create more conflicts than it prevents while serving as a standard by which disputes can be most easily resolved, which entails allowing for clear and distinct, universal standards of ownership.
> 
> If something is believed to be owned equally, by a number of people, and disputes arise over how that thing is to be used, there is no obvious standard by which to decide how those disputes should be resolved. Arbitrary standards for resolving those disputes become necessary. In the interest of fairness, elections systems are established, whereby it is possible, in principle, for the desires of any party to become the way in which the commonly owned property is used. But this solution not only fails to prevent disputes, but also creates several additional problems. One, it turns administration of justice into a shameless popularity contest. Two, it establishes and perpetuates the injustice of routinely and systematically imposing, on the minority, an adverse resolution of what will be done with what is, in name, their own property. Third, the elections system is, by its very nature, an adversarial system which actively invites and instigates disputes, just by its mere existence.
> 
> Since failing to define ownership by saying something is owned in common creates more conflict than it prevents, and the best way of resolving those conflicts, given the absence of a distinct owner, is an elections system which, itself, creates more problems than it solves, the solution that minimizes conflict will be one on which we forgo any pretense of common ownership in the first place.


What is your proof that there are more conflicts over common property than private?

----------


## DonGlock26

> We should have one day a year like "The Purge" where no laws exist outside of one's own home.  Those who want to play cowboy in highways can have at it.  
> 
> Personally, I think the result will be the death of a lot of dumb asses and anger management candidates.  A good for society.  The bad news is most pussies will stay home and be back on the highway the following day.  Still, it'd be a great way to clean the gene pool.


I don't think the Democrats would want to see their base's grievances "solved" in this way because their base would be disappeared.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Irrelevant. Simply because the ignorance of the majority sustains the tyranny of the state doesn't mean the state's assumed authority supersedes natural law.


The reality is that people banded together into tribes and then states for protection from predatory bands of other humans. If the state suddenly disappeared, you would have to band to together in a mini-state of a tribe or become prey to predatory humans. We have recently found pre-state, neolithic walled fortifications in Eastern Europe around a salt mine. As Man gained wealth via mining and agriculture, those productive people became rich targets for raiders. 

The need for security led to the invention and evolution of the state. Simply because the ignorant ignore this reality does not make them right.

----------


## Maximatic

> What is your proof that there are more conflicts over common property than private?


Why did you ask that question?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't think the Democrats would want to see their base's grievances "solved" in this way because their base would be disappeared.


I think most of their base would be hiding in the basement and, therefore, not part of the purge.  Tree-huggers aren't exactly the "charge the hill" types.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why did you ask that question?


To get a reply from you. Why didn't you answer it?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I think most of their base would be hiding in the basement and, therefore, not part of the purge.  Tree-huggers aren't exactly the "charge the hill" types.


They would be the "purged".

----------


## hoytmonger

> The reality is that people banded together into tribes and then states for protection from predatory bands of other humans. If the state suddenly disappeared, you would have to band to together in a mini-state of a tribe or become prey to predatory humans. We have recently found pre-state, neolithic walled fortifications in Eastern Europe around a salt mine. As Man gained wealth via mining and agriculture, those productive people became rich targets for raiders. 
> 
> The need for security led to the invention and evolution of the state. Simply because the ignorant ignore this reality does not make them right.


People still live in tribes, as in Somalia, they fare better without a state than with one... since when one tribe gains the assumed authority and monopoly of coercion the state provides, the tribe with power can reward their friends and punish their enemies.
The state doesn't provide security, it preys on society... that's reality.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> They would be the "purged".


Ahh, so you are advocating genocide, not a voluntary participation exercise.   That's something I'd expect from you; to go into homes and basements to murder those with whom you disagree.

----------


## Longshot

> I accept that you cannot defend a voluntaryist society.


My comment was not about a voluntaryist society. My comment was that the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules regarding that road's use.

----------


## Maximatic

> To get a reply from you. Why didn't you answer it?


Because I never made the assertion. Because I have no idea what you mean by proof. Because the post you responded to with that question just IS the closest thing you can get to an answer to it. Your responding to an argument by asking for a proof of one of its unstated conclusions makes me think you're not putting much thought into your responses, that, instead, you're just typing out the first question that pops into your head without thinking it through.

----------


## sotmfs

> You mean to say that police officers are detailed to specific areas to enforce minor laws because citizens complained about other citizens breaking minor laws? I thought police officers enforce these minor laws because they enjoy the god-like power of filling out a violation?


About 15 years ago a neighbor of mine called the police because of speeders on our road.The officer said they would send an officer with radar if the neighbor insisted.He also said most of the people He would catch would be those that live on the street.

----------


## DonGlock26

> My comment was not about a voluntaryist society. My comment was that the owner of a road ought to have the right to make the rules regarding that road's use.


I've asked you questions about your voluntaryist society directly and you are leaving the field to me.

----------


## sotmfs

> Are you sure that the fines generated by traffic tickets goes to the state?  I'm asking because here where I am in PA, the state police enforce the traffic laws and the money goes to the township the ticket is written in.


Same where I live.About 25 years ago my town was going to have a vote on Prop 2.5 which would limit taxes to 2.5 percent.I was eating lunch with a local police officer.He said "if prop 2.5 passes it would mean layoffs in the police department.It would mean less money for the town."I replied "I thought the police provided public safety.I did not no they were revenue agents."

----------

Max Rockatansky (04-19-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> I've asked you questions about your voluntaryist society directly and you are leaving the field to me.


This thread is not about voluntaryism.

The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road is used.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Because I never made the assertion. Because I have no idea what you mean by proof. Because the post you responded to with that question just IS the closest thing you can get to an answer to it. Your responding to an argument by asking for a proof of one of its unstated conclusions makes me think you're not putting much thought into your responses, that, instead, you're just typing out the first question that pops into your head without thinking it through.


I'm asking for your direct answer to it. If you have no idea if there are more conflicts over common property than over private property, then how can you justify abolishing the state?

----------


## Maximatic

> This thread is not about voluntaryism.
> 
> The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road is used.


Hey, at least you got him spelling it right. I'd call that progress.

----------


## DonGlock26

> About 15 years ago a neighbor of mine called the police because of speeders on our road.The officer said they would send an officer with radar if the neighbor insisted.He also said most of the people He would catch would be those that live on the street.


Odds are he was right unless he was on a secondary road that people used to cut through an area to a main road.

----------


## DonGlock26

> This thread is not about voluntaryism.
> 
> The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road is used.


I told you, I accept your decision not to defend your pet philosophy. I understand why. It is extremely weak.

----------


## sotmfs

> Odds are he was right unless he was on a secondary road that people used to cut through an area to a main road.


He was right and did not want to do it.

----------


## Longshot

> Hey, at least you got him spelling it right. I'd call that progress.


Yeah. Volunteerism. How idiotic.

----------



----------


## Longshot

> I told you, I accept your decision not to defend your pet philosophy. I understand why. It is extremely weak.


Okay.

I don't think we need traffic laws. The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road should be used.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Okay.


Okay.....

----------


## DonGlock26

> He was right and did not want to do it.


Exactly, he was being asked by one resident to go enforce speeding laws and write ticket to people who lived on the street. 

Those people would be pissed off and howl that the cop was enforcing "bullshit" laws, etc. 

Then, they would come here and vent their spleens. LOL!!

----------


## Longshot

> Okay.....


I don't think we need traffic laws. The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road should be used.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't think we need traffic laws. The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road should be used.


What if the public owns the road?  Who determines then?

----------


## Maximatic

> I'm asking for your direct answer to it. If you have no idea if there are more conflicts over common property than over private property, then how can you justify abolishing the state?


I gave an argument that shows WHY there are more conflicts over property presumed to be commonly owned than over property of which ownership is well defined. How, exactly, can you justify your claim that I have no idea whether or no it's true? And then, out of nowhere, you suddenly throw in the idea of justifying abolishing the state, as if we had gotten anywhere near the question yet.

I'm concluding the discussion now:

You're lazy, Don. You don't want to think things through. You want to oppose our position, but you don't how, and you're too lazy to learn.

Here's the answer to your OP:

It's a non-starter. It's just another one of your stupid questions that doesn't make sense in any context. Nobody in his right mind believes that there should be no rules on roads.

----------

Longshot (04-19-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> What if the public owns the road?  Who determines then?


Then the public (whatever that means) should have a right to determine how that road should be used.

The owner of a resource ought to set the rules regarding the use of that resource.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Then the public (whatever that means) should have a right to determine how that road should be used.


Do you know what a co-op is?  

Theoretical proposition:  Several farmers and ranchers meet and come to the conclusion that, by working together, they can fund roads that allow easier transport of their goods to market.  Easier = cheaper here.  A little investment in asphalt or gravel and everyone has better profits because their produce or other goods aren't blocked from market.  The end result is they all own the roads.  The co-op.  The citizens of the valley.  The public.

Now take the citizens of a city, a county or a state.  They, as a group, decide to pool their money to build better roads, bridges, railroad tracks and other infrastructure for the mutual benefit of all.  Who owns all of that infrastructure?  _The public_.  We can say it's owned by that city, county or state that built it, but it doesn't make sense that they'd restrict it to only those who built it since the purpose was _public_ transport for trade and other business reasons.  

I don't know your age, but aside from the romanticism of Route 66, do you know what that really meant before President Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway system?  Do you have any idea how trade and profits increased once this country had such a system?  Do you understand how important it was when this nation built the intercontinental railroad and how important it was to the growth of this nation?

----------


## sotmfs

> Exactly, he was being asked by one resident to go enforce speeding laws and write ticket to people who lived on the street. 
> 
> Those people would be pissed off and howl that the cop was enforcing "bullshit" laws, etc. 
> 
> Then, they would come here and vent their spleens. LOL!!


Most ,if not all,my encounters with police  have been civil or good.I never received a ticket I did not deserve.Many times I was given a break.
I do,however,know instances  of police abusing their authority.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-19-2014),Max Rockatansky (04-19-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Most ,if not all,my encounters with police  have been civil or good.I never received a ticket I did not deserve.Many times I was given a break.
> I do,however,know instances  of police abusing their authority.


Agreed on all counts and well said.  My experiences are very much alike to yours.

----------


## Longshot

> Do you know what a co-op is?  
> 
> Theoretical proposition:  Several farmers and ranchers meet and come to the conclusion that, by working together, they can fund roads that allow easier transport of their goods to market.  Easier = cheaper here.  A little investment in asphalt or gravel and everyone has better profits because their produce or other goods aren't blocked from market.  The end result is they all own the roads.  The co-op.  The citizens of the valley.  The public.


Several farmers and ranchers is not the public. 




> Now take the citizens of a city, a county or a state.  They, as a group, decide to pool their money to build better roads, bridges, railroad tracks and other infrastructure for the mutual benefit of all.  Who owns all of that infrastructure?  _The public_.  We can say it's owned by that city, county or state that built it, but it doesn't make sense that they'd restrict it to only those who built it since the purpose was _public_ transport for trade and other business reasons.


I'm all in favor of individuals freely entering into agreements to fund roads. I'm not big on the forcible taking of people's money to fund roads.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Several farmers and ranchers is not the public.


Disagreed, but your's is an interesting position for someone who just admitted they don't know what "public" means.  :Smile: 




> I'm all in favor of individuals freely entering into agreements to fund roads. I'm not big on the forcible taking of people's money to fund roads.


Agreed on both.  The problem is, what do you think it means to live in a democracy?  A republic?

Are you an anarchist, Longshot?

----------


## sotmfs

Private ownership of roads by individuals and private or public corporations not subject to state or federal laws that are the only means of access  to and from sites the public must have access to is not a good idea.

----------


## Maximatic

> Private ownership of roads by individuals and private or public corporations not subject to state or federal laws that are the only means of access  to and from sites the public must have access to is not a good idea.


Sites like what, grocery stores, gas stations, shopping centers, houses, apartments, factories, and other workplaces? The things you're talking about are all privately owned anyway.

A privately owned road that provides the public with access to places they want to go:

 

Why is it a bad idea?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I gave an argument that shows WHY there are more conflicts over property presumed to be commonly owned than over property of which ownership is well defined. How, exactly, can you justify your claim that I have no idea whether or no it's true? And then, out of nowhere, you suddenly throw in the idea of justifying abolishing the state, as if we had gotten anywhere near the question yet.
> 
> I'm concluding the discussion now:
> 
> You're lazy, Don. You don't want to think things through. You want to oppose our position, but you don't how, and you're too lazy to learn.
> 
> Here's the answer to your OP:
> 
> It's a non-starter. It's just another one of your stupid questions that doesn't make sense in any context. Nobody in his right mind believes that there should be no rules on roads.



Your argument does no such thing. Show us how it does. 

You made an argument. I'm asking questions about it and you are refusing to answer much as Longshot is. 

That seems to be a common thread among the voluntaryists here. Your political philosophy is easily laid bare as an unrealistic fantasy, when it is tested with questions about the assumptions surrounding it or how it would work in the real world with human nature. 

It is Longshot and you who are lazy or more likely fearful. You can't answer critical questions about your pet philosophy, so you use various parlor tricks and insults to avoid answering them.

The regulars here are watching and they know who is not answering critical questions and avoiding them.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't think we need traffic laws. The owner of a road should have the right to determine how that road should be used.


Absolutely?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Most ,if not all,my encounters with police  have been civil or good.I never received a ticket I did not deserve.Many times I was given a break.
> I do,however,know instances  of police abusing their authority.


My experience has been the same and I agree.

----------


## sotmfs

A road ,subject to the owners whim and financial status,that provides the only access to a location people and businesses have a need to get to is not a good idea because some can be prevented from using the road .The owner determines who gets to use the road.
It will not happen,people and the businesses will not support it.Unless the road leads to the business or property of the owner of said road.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm not big on the forcible taking of people's money to fund roads.


Tax avoidance- that's the real attraction of voluntaryism, isn't it?

Do you think toll roads will be free for you?

How would you like to live surrounded by a monopoly of toll roads? Would you live out your existence on your property because you couldn't afford to travel off it very often? 

What do you think travel was like during the Early Middle Ages? Was it cheap, easy, and safe?

----------

sotmfs (04-19-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Sites like what, grocery stores, gas stations, shopping centers, houses, apartments, factories, and other workplaces? The things you're talking about are all privately owned anyway.
> 
> A privately owned road that provides the public with access to places they want to go:
> 
>  
> 
> Why is it a bad idea?



You are replacing gov't taxation with monopoly toll roads and that's just for starters. Either way, your pocket will picked. 

If you want lower taxes, you can vote for representatives that will lower them. Can you vote for a robber baron to lower his toll road prices?

----------


## Maximatic

> A road ,subject to the owners whim and financial status,that provides the only access to a location people and businesses have a need to get to is not a good idea because some can be prevented from using the road .The owner determines who gets to use the road.


People are prevented from using state owned roads. All commercial property is privately owned, and we don't have the massive problems you seem to be suggesting we would have with roads. In no area does government provide a service better than the same service provided by private actors. Why should we believe that roads are an exception?

----------


## DonGlock26

> People are prevented from using state owned roads. All commercial property is privately owned, and we don't have the massive problems you seem to be suggesting we would have with roads. In no area does government provide a service better than the same service provided by private actors. Why should we believe that roads are an exception?


Private property owners call the state's police all the time for crimes ranging from loitering to armed robbery.

----------


## Maximatic

> Private property owners call the state's police all the time for crimes ranging from loitering to armed robbery.


And communist governments own the means of production of everything. So what?

----------


## DonGlock26

> And communist governments own the means of production of everything. So what?


What does communism have to do with an American strip mall and calls for police service?

----------


## sotmfs

> What does communism have to do with an American strip mall and calls for police service?


Nothing.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Nothing.


Agreed.  Ax is simply trying to throw in a red herring by equating state "ownership" of public infrastructure with the commies.   It fits the anarchist paradigm: there are those who believe in no government and there are all the others.

----------


## sotmfs

In no area does government provide a service better than the same  service provided by private actors. Why should we believe that roads are  an exception?

I prefer the U.S. military over Blackwater for my protection.

----------


## Tessa

> Should we abolish traffic laws? I say no, but I would like to hear the arguments of those who feel they should be abolished.


Is that a serious question??? Maybe there are too many, but there has to be some basics.

----------

Karl (04-20-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Absolutely?


Any reason you can think of for not absolutely?

----------


## Karl

> _You're for traffic laws!!?!?!?!_
> 
> What kind of big government, socialist, authoritarian, holster-sniffing statist ARE you, anyway?!?!?!


Well @Ghost even with TRAFFIC LAWS half the drivers out there are Complete Morons

Can ya just IMAGINE how much WORSE the roads would be without ANY CONSEQUENCES

----------

DonGlock26 (04-20-2014)

----------


## Karl

> Is that a serious question??? Maybe there are too many, but there has to be some basics.


Well said @Tessa and 100 percent SPOT ON

----------

Tessa (04-21-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Tax avoidance- that's the real attraction of voluntaryism, isn't it?


I don't feel the right to tax others in order to pay for the things I think are important. So yeah, it's a very important part of my political philosophy. 




> Do you think toll roads will be free for you?


No. Toll roads are, by definition, not free. 




> How would you like to live surrounded by a monopoly of toll roads? Would you live out your existence on your property because you couldn't afford to travel off it very often?


I have no reason to believe that every single road would be a toll road. However, even if it were, I would then pay the tolls.




> What do you think travel was like during the Early Middle Ages? Was it cheap, easy, and safe?


Not very much during the early middle ages was cheap, easy, or safe.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> In no area does government provide a service better than the same  service provided by private actors. Why should we believe that roads are  an exception?
> 
> I prefer the U.S. military over Blackwater for my protection.


Some things are best left to publicly supported action like the military, prisons and infrastructure.  Privatizing such things makes "profit" take precedence over morality.

----------

sotmfs (04-20-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Any reason you can think of for not absolutely?


Yes, your own prohibition against excessive force.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Is that a serious question??? Maybe there are too many, but there has to be some basics.


If you read the comments, you'll see that several people feel differently than you. Weird huh?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't feel the right to tax others in order to pay for the things I think are important. So yeah, it's a very important part of my political philosophy. 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Toll roads are, by definition, not free. 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no reason to believe that every single road would be a toll road. However, even if it were, I would then pay the tolls.
> ...



You don't want to be taxed, right?

So, either way, you are paying to use roads that you do not own.

What other kinds of roads would there be without a state?

Exactly, where the state cannot maintain order and safety nothing will be cheap, easy, or safe.

----------

Karl (04-20-2014)

----------


## Karl

> You don't want to be taxed, right?
> 
> So, either way, you are paying to use roads that you do not own.
> 
> What other kinds of roads would there be without a state?
> 
> Exactly, where the state cannot maintain order and safety nothing will be cheap, easy, or safe.


Well if you got a PROBLEM and Nobody Else can Help maybe you can hire the A-TEAM

----------


## Longshot

> Yes, your own prohibition against excessive force.


I agree. A person does't have a right to use excessive force.  Also a property owner ought to have the right to establish the rules for those he allows to use his property. And no, that doesn't mean that a property owner has the right to murder someone on his property. It means that he may grant access to his property conditionally.

----------


## Longshot

> You don't want to be taxed, right?


Wrong. I don't want to tax others, since I consider it unethical.




> So, either way, you are paying to use roads that you do not own.


But I won't be taxing others to pay for the roads (or anything else) I want.

----------


## Karl

> Wrong. I don't want to tax others, since I consider it unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> But I won't be taxing others to pay for the roads (or anything else) I want.


If they want to use TOLLS to fund NEW ROADS or Bridges thats cool

But I am AGAINST placing TOLLS on already EXISTING ROADS because they are already PAID FOR 
 @Longshot

----------


## Calypso Jones

Do you think they care what you think?

----------


## Longshot

> If they want to use TOLLS to fund NEW ROADS or Bridges thats cool
> 
> But I am AGAINST placing TOLLS on already EXISTING ROADS because they are already PAID FOR 
>  @Longshot


I wouldn't mind if we sold off the roads that we've built so far. We could use the money, I think.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Wrong. I don't want to tax others, since I consider it unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> But I won't be taxing others to pay for the roads (or anything else) I want.


So you are fine with being taxed by the state?

Oh, you would be paying for fire protection, police protection, military protection, etc in your voluntaryist fantasy world.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I agree. A person does't have a right to use excessive force.  Also a property owner ought to have the right to establish the rules for those he allows to use his property. And no, that doesn't mean that a property owner has the right to murder someone on his property. It means that he may grant access to his property conditionally.


So, a property owner does not have absolute authority on his own property. I believe you and Axis disagree on this point. 

So, what entity would judge excessive force cases and murder cases on private property?

----------


## Dan40

> I don't feel the right to tax others in order to pay for the things I think are important. So yeah, it's a very important part of my political philosophy. 
> I have no reason to believe that every single road would be a toll road. However, even if it were, I would then pay the tolls.


If taxes don't pay for PUBLIC roads[and tolls are taxes] then roads would be PRIVATE.  And in addition to being charged to use a private road, the private owner may have restrictions on whom may use his road.

One of the many things that our present administration does is lie about the infrastructure.  They claim they need higher INCOME taxes to pay for our roads and bridges.
Part of out income tax does go to the DoT.  But the funding for the infrastructure is supposed to, AND DOES, come from:

Gasoline tax

Tolls

And road use tax on every commercial vehicle.

The issue is not wether that is enough funding or not.  The issue is WHERE has 100 years of those collected taxes gone to?

----------


## Karl

> I wouldn't mind if we sold off the roads that we've built so far. We could use the money, I think.


Already exist and already paid for and maintained by fuel taxes and registration fees

Furthermore @Longshot Id love to see your FACE as you are driving if every street in America became a TOLL ROAD yeah good way to destroy the economy

----------


## Longshot

> So you are fine with being taxed by the state?


As I said before, yes. I do oppose taxing others, since I consider it unethical.




> Oh, you would be paying for fire protection, police protection, military protection, etc in your voluntaryist fantasy world.


Yes, I would expect to pay for services that other provide me.

Although frankly, I don't see the state giving up these services any time soon. They will likely be the very last thing for the state to let go.

----------


## Longshot

> So, a property owner does not have absolute authority on his own property. I believe you and Axis disagree on this point.


Correct. Just because Jones is on Smith's property doesn't give Smith authority to murder Jones. Smith ONLY has authority to control the manner in which Jones uses his property.

I'm not quite sure why you find this topic so difficult. This is pretty much the way the law is right now. 




> So, what entity would judge excessive force cases and murder cases on private property?


Currently, state and federal judges. I haven't suggested anything to the contrary with respect to roads.

----------


## Maximatic

> What does communism have to do with an American strip mall and calls for police service?


As much as security has to do with roads.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> As much as security has to do with roads.


National security does have something to do with roads.  Why do you think we bombed Iraqi bridges, major highways and railroad terminals in 1991 and 2003?

----------


## Maximatic

> National security does have something to do with roads.  Why do you think we bombed Iraqi bridges, major highways and railroad terminals in 1991 and 2003?


The government ownership has something to do with communism.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The government ownership has something to do with communism.
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it, too.


It's a material world.  Show me any form of society on a city or higher level which didn't have some form of laws governing property?  Grain silos, water resources, roads, gates, etc.

----------


## Longshot

> So, a property owner does not have absolute authority on his own property. I believe you and Axis disagree on this point.


A property owner merely has the right to control who may access his property and what are the conditions to allow that access.

A property owner has no special authority beyond that. A property owner may not murder someone simply because that person is on his property.

----------


## Dan40

> A property owner merely has the right to control who may access his property and what are the conditions to allow that access.
> 
> A property owner has no special authority beyond that. A property owner may not murder someone simply because that person is on his property.


Depends on the State.  Homicide, is primarily a State jurisdiction, not the federals.

----------


## DonGlock26

> As I said before, yes. I do oppose taxing others, since I consider it unethical.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would expect to pay for services that other provide me.
> 
> Although frankly, I don't see the state giving up these services any time soon. They will likely be the very last thing for the state to let go.


It seems that you've given up on the voluntaryist fantasy world. I don't blame you. It was a pipedream.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Correct. Just because Jones is on Smith's property doesn't give Smith authority to murder Jones. Smith ONLY has authority to control the manner in which Jones uses his property.
> 
> I'm not quite sure why you find this topic so difficult. This is pretty much the way the law is right now. 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, state and federal judges. I haven't suggested anything to the contrary with respect to roads.


That hardly sounds like voluntaryist philosophy. It seems that you have evolved.

----------


## DonGlock26

> As much as security has to do with roads.


Roads are patrolled by the police, or in other countries the military.

That was just a lazy post.

----------


## Longshot

> It seems that you've given up on the voluntaryist fantasy world. I don't blame you. It was a pipedream.


Not given up at all. Voluntarism is the ideal. Getting there is going to take a lot of changes, and the state will exist and be involved for a long time, if not forever.

----------


## Longshot

> That hardly sounds like voluntaryist philosophy. It seems that you have evolved.


Allowing road owners to be the one's to make the rules regarding the use of those roads is absolutely consistent with voluntaryist philosophy.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Not given up at all. Voluntarism is the ideal. Getting there is going to take a lot of changes, and the state will exist and be involved for a long time, if not forever.


An idea that you won't defend. It's a fantasy.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Allowing road owners to be the one's to make the rules regarding the use of those roads is absolutely consistent with voluntaryist philosophy.


No, it is not because even you state he must be restrained from absolute authority.

----------


## Longshot

> No, it is not because even you state he must be restrained from absolute authority.


Voluntaryism does not hold that a property owner has absolute authority over those on his property. Only that a property owner has the right to grant or deny access to his property.

Allowing road owners to make the rules for those accessing their roads is absolutely consistent with voluntaryist philosophy.

----------


## Longshot

> An idea that you won't defend. It's a fantasy.


I absolutely defend property rights and non-aggression. Violation of others' person or property is unethical.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Voluntaryism does not hold that a property owner has absolute authority over those on his property. Only that a property owner has the right to grant or deny access to his property.
> 
> Allowing road owners to make the rules for those accessing their roads is absolutely consistent with voluntaryist philosophy.


Who holds the power to restrain a private property owner on his own property in your stateless "Cloud Cuckoo Land"?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I absolutely defend property rights and non-aggression. Violation of others' person or property is unethical.


None of that is limited to a voluntaryist position.

----------


## Longshot

> Who holds the power to restrain a private property owner on his own property in your stateless "Cloud Cuckoo Land"?


I'm proposing that road owners be the ones who make the rules regarding the use of their roads by those wishing to access them. 

I'm also pointing out that such a proposal is 100% consistent with the voluntaryist philosophy.

My proposal has nothing to to with eliminating the state, so I don't see how your question is relevant to it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm proposing that road owners be the ones who make the rules regarding the use of their roads by those wishing to access them. 
> 
> I'm also pointing out that such a proposal is 100% consistent with the voluntaryist philosophy.
> 
> My proposal has nothing to to with eliminating the state, so I don't see how your question is relevant to it.


Your proposal is not consistent with voluntaryist philosophy, since you hold that the state should forbid the property owner from using excessive force. 

Voluntaryists are against the existence of any state.

----------


## Longshot

> Your proposal is not consistent with voluntaryist philosophy, since you hold that the state should forbid the property owner from using excessive force.
> 
> Voluntaryists are against the existence of any state.


I hold that the law should forbid the property owner from using excessive force. That is perfectly consistent with voluntaryist philosophy.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I hold that the law should forbid the property owner from using excessive force. That is perfectly consistent with voluntaryist philosophy.




Who decides, if a property owner acted excessively or not in a stateless voluntaryist society?

----------


## Longshot

> Who decides, if a property owner acted excessively or not in a stateless voluntaryist society?


My proposal is for the owners of roads to make the rules regarding how those roads would be used by people accessing them, in lieu of traffic laws produced by a legislature. 

My proposal has nothing to do with a stateless society, so your question is irrelevant.

----------


## DonGlock26

> My proposal is for the owners of roads to make the rules regarding how those roads would be used by people accessing them, in lieu of traffic laws produced by a legislature. 
> 
> My proposal has nothing to do with a stateless society, so your question is irrelevant.



You keep claiming to be 100% consistent with voluntaryist philosophy. Then, you don't want to talk about it, when asked a question?

----------


## Longshot

> You keep claiming to be 100% consistent with voluntaryist philosophy. Then, you don't want to talk about it, when asked a question?


Road owners making the rules for those who use their roads, in lieu of those rules being established by a legislature is consistent with voluntaryist philosophy. That's what my suggestion was. 

Why do you want to talk about everything else other than my suggestion?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Road owners making the rules for those who use their roads, in lieu of those rules being established by a legislature is consistent with voluntaryist philosophy. That's what my suggestion was. 
> 
> Why do you want to talk about everything else other than my suggestion?


Because your position is illogical. On one hand you claim to be consistent 100% with a voluntaryist stateless philosophy and on the other you talk about laws restricting a property owner. 

How is a property owner restrained in a stateless society? If you can't explain it, then your position is not consistent with voluntaryist stateless philosophy.

----------


## Longshot

> Because your position is illogical. On one hand you claim to be consistent 100% with a voluntaryist stateless philosophy and on the other you talk about laws restricting a property owner.


Inconsistent? I don't know where I made the statement that I am consistent 100% with voluntarism. Rather, I said that road owners making the rules of use for their roads is 100% consistent with voluntarism. 




> How is a property owner restrained in a stateless society? If you can't explain it, then your position is not consistent with voluntaryist stateless philosophy.


At this point I think you're just looking for things to be disagreeable about.

In your OP, you asked whether we should abolish traffic laws. I said that, rather than traffic laws being enacted by a legislature, the owners of roads ought to be the ones who establish the rules of use for their roads. I made no mention of voluntarism -- you did. You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to label me, rather than actually even think about my suggestion.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Inconsistent? I don't know where I made the statement that I am consistent 100% with voluntarism. Rather, I said that road owners making the rules of use for their roads is 100% consistent with voluntarism. 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I think you're just looking for things to be disagreeable about.
> 
> In your OP, you asked whether we should abolish traffic laws. I said that, rather than traffic laws being enacted by a legislature, the owners of roads ought to be the ones who establish the rules of use for their roads. I made no mention of voluntarism -- you did. You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to label me, rather than actually even think about my suggestion.



These are your words, are they not?




> I'm proposing that road owners be the ones who make the rules regarding the use of their roads by those wishing to access them. 
> 
> I'm also pointing out that such a proposal is 100% consistent with the voluntaryist philosophy.
> 
> My proposal has nothing to to with eliminating the state, so I don't see how your question is relevant to it.

----------


## Longshot

> These are your words, are they not?


Yes, "such a proposal". Not that I am, but that the proposal is. 

I did not state that I am consistent 100% with voluntarism. Rather, I said that road owners making the rules of use for their roads is 100% consistent with voluntarism. 

However, once again I will point out, you asked a question in your OP, and I gave you an answer. I did not bring up voluntarism - you did. Your OP was not about voluntarism. It was about whether or not there ought to be traffic laws. 

My suggestion was that, rather than legislatures writing traffic laws, the owners of the roads ought to be be the ones making the rules for how those roads are used. That is not a voluntarist solution. It is simply a solution. Voluntarism doesn't enter into it at all.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yes, "such a proposal". Not that I am, but that the proposal is. 
> 
> I did not state that I am consistent 100% with voluntarism. Rather, I said that road owners making the rules of use for their roads is 100% consistent with voluntarism. 
> 
> However, once again I will point out, you asked a question in your OP, and I gave you an answer. I did not bring up voluntarism - you did. Your OP was not about voluntarism. It was about whether or not there ought to be traffic laws. 
> 
> My suggestion was that, rather than legislatures writing traffic laws, the owners of the roads ought to be be the ones making the rules for how those roads are used. That is not a voluntarist solution. It is simply a solution. Voluntarism doesn't enter into it at all.


Yes, you've repeated your answer many times. I get it. Of course, if the state owns the roads, then they make the laws on it. 

What parts of voluntarism do you disagree with?

----------


## Longshot

> Yes, you've repeated your answer many times. I get it. Of course, if the state owns the roads, then they make the laws on it. 
> 
> What parts of voluntarism do you disagree with?


Disagree with? What do you mean?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Disagree with? What do you mean?


What philosophical issue(s) is keeping you from agreeing completely with the voluntaryist political philosophy?

----------


## Longshot

> What philosophical issue(s) is keeping you from agreeing completely with the voluntaryist political philosophy?


I believe in property rights and the nonaggression principle. I think voluntarists do so as well.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I believe in property rights and the nonaggression principle. I think voluntarists do so as well.


I see. So how is the nonaggression principle applied when a property owner uses excessive force on a trespasser and kills him?

Who deals with the property owner after the killing for using excessive force?

----------


## gainso

who says that the killing was "excessive force" and that a tasing, clubbing/macing etc was acceptable force, hmm?

----------


## Karl

Wow go away aboutn12 hours and 22 PAGES just WOW

----------


## Longshot

> I see. So how is the nonaggression principle applied when a property owner uses excessive force on a trespasser and kills him?


Personally, I would consider such excessive force to be a violation of the nonaggression principle, since more force was used than was necessary to remove the trespasser.




> Who deals with the property owner after the killing for using excessive force?


Not my call. That would depend upon the rules of the particular society.

----------


## Victory

> A well placed cop car, even empty, on a highway median has been proven to keep traffic at a slower place.  Some states will just park a cop car in the medians with it's radar on.... for the day.
> 
> I find it odd that you don't think keeping traffic at a common pace is safer than traffic full of differing speeds.
> 
> And on top of that.... think seat belt laws do any good at all.


What's odd is your use of "slower" then "common" when talking about the "pace" of traffic.  They're not the same.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Personally, I would consider such excessive force to be a violation of the nonaggression principle, since more force was used than was necessary to remove the trespasser.
> 
> 
> 
> Not my call. That would depend upon the rules of the particular society.


Let's say it is against the voluntaryist society's rules. What happens then?

----------


## Longshot

> Let's say it is against the voluntaryist society's rules. What happens then?


Then they break the rules I think are important. They either violate property rights, or they initiate aggression.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Then they break the rules I think are important. They either violate property rights, or they initiate aggression.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that the voluntaryist society goes after the property owner that used excessive force and thereby "They either violate property rights, or they initiate aggression"?

----------


## Longshot

Hm, I think misunderstood your previous question: "Let's say it is against the voluntaryist society's rules. What happens then?"

Answer: Not sure yet. But I'm would favor any societal institutions that respected property rights and avoided the initiation of aggression. Those are my goals. 

Abolishing legislated traffic laws and allowing the road owners to set the rules for the roads they own would be a step in that direction, in my opinion.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Hm, I think misunderstood your previous question: "Let's say it is against the voluntaryist society's rules. What happens then?"
> 
> Answer: Not sure yet. But I'm would favor any societal institutions that respected property rights and avoided the initiation of aggression. Those are my goals. 
> 
> Abolishing legislated traffic laws and allowing the road owners to set the rules for the roads they own would be a step in that direction, in my opinion.


Ok, I think I have enough information to say that voluntaryist philosophy is vacuous. Thanks for reluctantly allowing me to put it to the test.

----------


## Longshot

> Ok, I think I have enough information to say that voluntaryist philosophy is vacuous. Thanks for reluctantly allowing me to put it to the test.


Vacuous? Do you disagree with property rights or the nonaggression principle?

----------


## Maximatic

> Vacuous? Do you disagree with property rights or the nonaggression principle?


You're talking to a guy who thinks that dozens of homicides taking place during a two-day cop strike, under progressive city and state governments, is a free market failure.

----------

Longshot (04-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> You're talking to a guy who thinks that dozens of homicides taking place during a two-day cop strike, under progressive city and state governments, is a free market failure.


Oh, you're back. Isn't the free market always present, when the state retreats from enforcing the laws?

----------


## Longshot

> You're talking to a guy who thinks that dozens of homicides taking place during a two-day cop strike, under progressive city and state governments, is a free market failure.


I'm not quite sure what's with the opposition to property rights and non-aggression.

----------


## gainso

ah, but the citizenry was NOT free to shoot those pos's. they KNEW that they'd be prosecuted for doing so. So it was NOT any sort of a free market. Nobody said that the improvements would be instaneous without gov't oppression. It never OCCURS to you to ask "were any of those shot any LOSS to decent society".   DOES IT?   the answer, of course is "probably not".  and most likely, GOOD RIDDANCE, WISH MILLIONS MORE LIKE THEM GOT SHOT, FATALLY.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Vacuous? Do you disagree with property rights or the nonaggression principle?


We've already established that property rights are not absolute. I would prefer a great deal of private property rights.

The non-aggression principal seems to be an unworkable fantasy of people who want to dodge paying taxes.

----------


## michaelr

> We've already established that property rights are not absolute. I would prefer a great deal of private property rights.
> 
> The non-aggression principal seems to be an unworkable fantasy of people who want to dodge paying taxes.


I think the cops should shoot the hell out of speeders. Work for you? Especially if the don't wanna lick boots clean!

----------


## Maximatic

Taxes seem to be just an excuse for psychopaths who just want to get away with violently oppressing other people.

----------

Longshot (04-22-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> We've already established that property rights are not absolute.


We've established that the right of an owner to control access to that in which he has a property right is not absolute? Where did we establish that exactly? 

Property rights absolutely means that the owner has the exclusive and absolute right to control who has access to that in which he has a property right. That's what property is. 




> I would prefer a great deal of private property rights.
> 
> The non-aggression principal seems to be an unworkable fantasy of people who want to dodge paying taxes.


I'd prefer to support the principle of non-aggression rather than the principle of aggression. I consider the initiation of aggression against my fellow man to be unethical. 

I generally support policy choices that are more in line with non-aggression. That's why I support the idea that the owner of a road, rather than a legislative body, makes the rules regarding how that road is used.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> I think the cops should shoot the hell out of speeders. Work for you? Especially if the don't wanna lick boots clean!


No, it doesn't. That would be excessive force.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Taxes seem to be just an excuse for psychopaths who just want to get away with violently oppressing other people.


The whole world is made up of  psychopaths except for the anacho-capitalists who want to relive the LA Riots and Hurricane Katrina forever.

----------


## Longshot

> Taxes seem to be just an excuse for psychopaths who just want to get away with violently oppressing other people.


I don't feel I have a right to initiate aggression against my fellow man in order to take his money. That's why I prefer societal institutions in which I am not a party to the initiation of force.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> We've established that the right of an owner to control access to that in which he has a property right is not absolute? Where did we establish that exactly? 
> 
> Property rights absolutely means that the owner has the exclusive and absolute right to control who has access to that in which he has a property right. That's what property is. 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer to support the principle of non-aggression rather than the principle of aggression. I consider the initiation of aggression against my fellow man to be unethical. 
> 
> I generally support policy choices that are more in line with non-aggression. That's why I support the idea that the owner of a road, rather than a legislative body, makes the rules regarding how that road is used.



I made no mention of access as a sole qualification for property rights. You just have. 

Yet, you would allow a property owner to use force to eject people from his land as they simply tired to cross it peacefully. 

Non-aggression as part of a voluntaryist philosophy makes no sense because there is no state to ensure justice for everyone.

----------


## DonGlock26

> That's why I prefer societal institutions in which I am not a party to the initiation of force.


Like what?

----------


## Longshot

> I made no mention of access as a sole qualification for property rights. You just have.


Well that's what a property right means. It means that the owner has the right to control access to that which he owns. 




> Yet, you would allow a property owner to use force to eject people from his land as they simply tired to cross it peacefully.


Do you disagree that a property owner has a right to exclude a trespasser from his property? I thought you were in favor of property rights. 




> Non-aggression as part of a voluntaryist philosophy makes no sense because there is no state to ensure justice for everyone.


Non-aggression makes no sense? You condone the initiation of aggression against your fellow man? I don't.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Well that's what a property right means. It means that the owner has the right to control access to that which he owns. 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that a property owner has a right to exclude a trespasser from his property? I thought you were in favor of property rights. 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-aggression makes no sense? You condone the initiation of aggression against your fellow man? I don't.


That's only a part of property rights.


What do you mean by exclude?

I explain why it doesn't make sense. It is unworkable in that context for the reasons that I gave.

----------


## Longshot

> That's only a part of property rights.


No. That is the essence of property rights. If you can't exclude people from your property, it's not your property. 




> What do you mean by exclude?


The legal right to forbid access. 




> I explain why it doesn't make sense. It is unworkable in that context for the reasons that I gave.


If you support the initiation of aggression, that's your decision. I don't feel I have the right to violate the body or property of my fellow man.

----------


## Longshot

> Like what?


For example, I would prefer institutions that don't initiate violations against the person or property for violating "traffic laws". Rather I would prefer institutions that allow the owner of a road to make the rules regarding the use of that road.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Non-aggression as part of a voluntaryist philosophy makes no sense because there is no state to ensure justice for everyone.


Justice shall be ensured by the local warlord.




What???

----------


## DonGlock26

> No. That is the essence of property rights. If you can't exclude people from your property, it's not your property. 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal right to forbid access. 
> 
> 
> 
> If you support the initiation of aggression, that's your decision. I don't feel I have the right to violate the body or property of my fellow man.


That's only part of property rights.

Sure he can forbid it. How he enforces his will is where the question lies.

It's not that I support it, it's that the principal is unworkable as described in VP.

Really? So let's say you have several small children and live next door to a houseful of people who have no respect for anyone else. They fly up and down the sidestreet at 85mph in your residential neghborhood. blast their radio at all hours so loudly that no one else can get any sleep. They use drugs and leave dirty needles on the sidewalk that kids find and play with. They also run prostitutes and these prostitutes fornicate on the front lawn as kids walk to school. As a father, you would be accepting of all this?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Justice shall be ensured by the local warlord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What???



That's what I keep telling them. They think security companies are going to accept a bushel of corn in exchange for protecting them. LOL!!!

----------


## Longshot

> That's only part of property rights.


What other parts are there?




> Sure he can forbid it. How he enforces his will is where the question lies.


If society recognizes that he has a legal right to forbid access, then I would have to assume that he has a legal right to use force sufficient to remove a trespasser, or that police officers would have the legal right to do so on his behalf. 




> It's not that I support it, it's that the principal is unworkable as described in VP.


I don't know what you mean by "as described in VP."




> Really? So let's say you have several small children and live next door to a houseful of people who have no respect for anyone else. They fly up and down the sidestreet at 85mph in your residential neghborhood.


I assume driving on this street at 85mph violates the rules of the road owner. I would probably talk to the road owners to bring this chronic problem to their attention. Also, if their actions pose an immediate danger, I would think that those who are endangered would be justified in pursuing legal action against them and could probably get some sort of injunction.




> blast their radio at all hours so loudly that no one else can get any sleep.


They would be violating the body (eardrums) of their neighbors in a harmful way. They are initiating aggression against their neighbors, and I would think that their neighbors would be justified in initiating legal action against them. 




> They use drugs and leave dirty needles on the sidewalk that kids find and play with.


By discarding dangerous garbage on other people's property, they are clearly violating that property and could face legal action.




> They also run prostitutes and these prostitutes fornicate on the front lawn as kids walk to school. As a father, you would be accepting of all this?


This is a tricky one. I think a lot would depend on whether the vast bulk of the people in the community approved or disapproved of this. If the vast majority disapproved (which I consider to be very likely), then I imagine we (the community) would find a way to mediate this problem. Either by applying various means of social pressure, or by retrofitting our property (including sidewalks and roads) to establish a visual barrier to the sight of the offender's front lawns. However, if the vast majority approved of people fornicating on their front laws (which I consider very unlikely), then I'd have to consider it my problem and find a solution. This might mean letting go of my prudish notions, or if I can't do that, it might mean moving to a place where the vast majority disapproved of people fornicating on their front lawns.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's what I keep telling them. They think security companies are going to accept a bushel of corn in exchange for protecting them. LOL!!!


More likely the "security companies" will be demanding half their crops in exchange for not burning them out.

----------


## Maximatic

Why don't you geniuses put your minds together and come up with an explanation for how a warlord, or security company, can impose its will on an entire population without calling itself the government?

----------


## DonGlock26

> What other parts are there?
> 
> 
> 
> If society recognizes that he has a legal right to forbid access, then I would have to assume that he has a legal right to use force sufficient to remove a trespasser, or that police officers would have the legal right to do so on his behalf. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "as described in VP."
> ...






> *Property rights* are theoretical constructs in economics for determining how a resource is used and owned. Resources can be owned (the subject of property) by individuals, associations or governments.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as abundle of rights:[3]
> 
> the right to use the goodthe right to earn income from the goodthe right to transfer the good to othersthe right to enforcement of property rights.
> In economics, property usually refers to ownership (rights to the proceeds of output generated) and control over a resource or good.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propert...ts_(economics)



The police would exist in a state society, which is hardly a non-aggression system. In voluntaryist society, who would prevent property owner from using what ever level of force they pleased?


Stop acting purposefully obtuse. I think you knew that I abbreviated voluntaryist philosophy. 

You assume? Let's say the road owner could care less. Legal action? Injunction? Wouldn't a court injunction be aggression?

I see, now aggression is anything that bothers others. That's why a non-aggression principal is not really realistic. People can act in non-aggressive ways that harm society, and sociey is going to use force to stop it no matter what the voluntaryists want to label it.

If it's not your property, but your kids are endangered, what right do you have to do anything about it other than to complain? Legal action? You mean use a court system where force is used to enforce rulings? That hardly seems to be non-aggressive in principal.

Social pressure? Like what? 

What is the property owners don't want to put up fences at their expense or because they feel that they are not at fault?



As you can see, non-aggression does not really work in real world scenarios. This is why Axis avoids these questions like the plague. He is much more entrenched in voluntaryist philosophy and cannot handle this type of examination. It is too damaging.

----------


## Longshot

> Really? So let's say you have several small children and live next door to a houseful of people who have no respect for anyone else. They fly up and down the sidestreet at 85mph in your residential neghborhood. blast their radio at all hours so loudly that no one else can get any sleep. They use drugs and leave dirty needles on the sidewalk that kids find and play with. They also run prostitutes and these prostitutes fornicate on the front lawn as kids walk to school. As a father, you would be accepting of all this?


Another fairly simple solution to these problems that would be consistent with the non-aggression principle would be explicit, voluntary contractual arrangements between neighbors and community members, similar to homeowner's associations.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why don't you geniuses put your minds together and come up with an explanation for how a warlord, or security company, can impose its will on an entire population without calling itself the government?


Because a warlord wouldn't make a claim of working for the people and be expected to actually perform gov't functions. Fear and terror would be used to get what ever he wanted.

Clever warlords can hire the strong from communities for muscle and even back factions against other factions. This yet another reason why voluntaryist philosophy is a fantasy.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Another fairly simple solution to these problems that would be consistent with the non-aggression principle would be explicit, voluntary contractual arrangements between neighbors and community members, similar to homeowner's associations.


Why would the problem neighbors sign it or care about violating it?

Let me guess- violating a "voluntary contractual arrangements between neighbors and community members" would be "aggression"?  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Maximatic

> Because a warlord wouldn't make a claim of working for the people and be expected to actually perform gov't functions. Fear and terror would be used to get what ever he wanted.
> 
> Clever warlords can hire the strong from communities for muscle and even back factions against other factions. This yet another reason why voluntaryist philosophy is a fantasy.


So you write the words "fear" and "terror", talk about hiring the "strong", and expect that to suffice as an explanation of how a single party would subjugate an entire armed population?

You watch too many movies. 

I asked for an explanation of how you expect such a thing to be done.

----------


## Roadmaster

We have people coming back from the service only to find out their homes have been taken over by illegals and the police do nothing but can arrest someone walking on the wrong side of the road.

----------


## Longshot

> Why would the problem neighbors sign it or care about violating it?
> 
> Let me guess- violating a "voluntary contractual arrangements between neighbors and community members" would be "aggression"?


While violating the contract might not be, in itself, an initiation of aggression, failing to hand over the resulting contractual penalties would definitely be a violation of others' property.

----------


## Longshot

> The police would exist in a state society, which is hardly a non-aggression system. In voluntaryist society, who would prevent property owner from using what ever level of force they pleased?


Just as in a society with a state, in a stateless society, the act of using excessive force might not be able to be prevented on the spot. There might not be anyone else around to stop it. However, such excessive force could be found by a judge to have violated the law, in which case the perpetrator could be held liable for damages. As in a society with a state, the anticipation of punishment serves as a disincentive for the illegal acts.




> Stop acting purposefully obtuse. I think you knew that I abbreviated voluntaryist philosophy.


I really didn't get that. 




> You assume? Let's say the road owner could care less. Legal action? Injunction? Wouldn't a court injunction be aggression?


I don't think so. If a judge finds that someone is violating his neighbor's person or property (which is, in a voluntarist society, against the law) then the judge ought to be able to issue an injunction. 




> I see, now aggression is anything that bothers others. That's why a non-aggression principal is not really realistic. People can act in non-aggressive ways that harm society, and sociey is going to use force to stop it no matter what the voluntaryists want to label it.
> 
> If it's not your property, but your kids are endangered, what right do you have to do anything about it other than to complain? Legal action? You mean use a court system where force is used to enforce rulings? That hardly seems to be non-aggressive in principal.


Remember, non-aggression princple says that *the initiation* of aggression is wrong. Using force against those who initiate aggression against others is different.




> Social pressure? Like what? 
> 
> What is the property owners don't want to put up fences at their expense or because they feel that they are not at fault?
> 
> As you can see, non-aggression does not really work in real world scenarios. This is why Axis avoids these questions like the plague. He is much more entrenched in voluntaryist philosophy and cannot handle this type of examination. It is too damaging.


I don't agree that it is impossible to create institutions that are consistent with the non-aggression principle. If the vast majority of society considers the imitation of aggression to be unethical and illegal, then they will devise social institutions that permit people to live together peacefully.

I consider it more in keeping with the non aggression principle to have private road owners fund and make the rules for their roads than it is for the legislature to make the rules and to levy taxes to pay for them.

----------


## Maximatic

> I explain why it doesn't make sense. It is unworkable in that context for the reasons that I gave.


What reason, ↓this one?↓




> Non-aggression as part of a voluntaryist philosophy makes no sense  because there is no state to ensure justice for everyone.


That's not a reason, it is a naked assertion, which is all you, and all the other state apologists, ever give. You've never given a single reason to believe it's true, ever. All you ever do is beg the question. You ignore all the ARGUMENTS to the contrary, and prance around as if you have some kind of epistemic advantage. You don't. You're not even in the same league as the average voluntarist, who actually DO give reasons to back up what we believe, reasons that you never answer except with that same mindless statement over and over, and over again.

----------

Longshot (04-23-2014)

----------


## Dan40

I guess we have now VOLUNTARILY changed theories into facts, or "reasons."

I've been a volunteer Scout Leader.

I've been a volunteer football coach.

I've been a volunteer event coordinator for the Cancer Society.

I've been a volunteer race safety worker.

I volunteered to serve in our military.

But I've never been a voluntarist, which I consider is a code word for anarchist.

----------


## hoytmonger

The government's monopoly on roads and traffic laws is the reason for traffic related accidents and deaths, traffic jams and poor road conditions. The government has no motivation to make roads safer or more efficient...




> The reality is that new traffic laws are enacted every single year, yet the tragedies continue, and the most obvious change such legislation has actually managed to effect is increased revenues for governments through increased fines and citations. For every ticket that is written, for every accident that occurs, and for every person who is injured or killed on the nation’s roadways, witness the failure of state bureaucrats to meet the consumption demands of the driving public.
> 
> To be more specific, people want to be allowed to drive faster; to not spend hours per day sitting in traffic; to make U-turns when necessary; to blow red lights and stop signs when safe; to drive on roads without gigantic pot holes; to be able to read street signs; to text or talk on the phone while driving; to be notified of road closures; to have construction projects on their preferred roads be completed as quickly as possible at times that are convenient; to be surrounded by competent motorists; to drive in cars that will not malfunction; to drive where extreme weather conditions are minimized as much as technologically possible; to assume the potential risks of driving after consuming alcohol; and perhaps most importantly, to not lose their lives in the process of moving from place A to place B.
> 
> 
> For those accustomed to living with a real lack of alternatives, it’s difficult to envision how such seemingly contradictory demands are to be satisfied — but that’s the point entirely: a uniform approach by definition only serves one set of interests, typically those of the people administering and enforcing it. Nevertheless, society is full of all different kinds of interests. There is no reason why some roads can’t have lower speed limits for bad and inexperienced drivers, while others have no limits at all for people who desire such services. Likewise, some roads could advertise warnings saying they allow intoxicated drivers at minimal speeds, while others boast a zero tolerance policy. The possibilities are numerous and diverse.
> 
> 
> By allowing for more than one provider, not only will each develop their own areas of specialization, but competition will help all providers figure out what works and what doesn’t in terms of the bottom line: maintaining happy customers.
> ...


http://mises.org/daily/6730/With-Gov...s-Always-Wrong

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why don't you geniuses put your minds together and come up with an explanation for how a warlord, or security company, can impose its will on an entire population without calling itself the government?


A warlord is the de facto "government" aka Ruler in such a situation aka anarchy.   The Rule of the Jungle would be the law of the land.   There are plenty of examples in the history books.  If you know of some where it was anarchic bliss, please let us know.   Ones that weren't conquered or destroyed by more organized groups are the ones I'd like to see.  Not the hippy communes that lasted for a few years then fell apart.

----------


## DonGlock26

> So you write the words "fear" and "terror", talk about hiring the "strong", and expect that to suffice as an explanation of how a single party would subjugate an entire armed population?
> 
> You watch too many movies. 
> 
> I asked for an explanation of how you expect such a thing to be done.


What part of armed oppression don't you understand? 

I read a lot of history books. You should give it a go. 

I gave it to you. What part don't you understand?

----------


## DonGlock26

> We have people coming back from the service only to find out their homes have been taken over by illegals and the police do nothing but can arrest someone walking on the wrong side of the road.


Do you think laws might be involved?

----------


## DonGlock26

> While violating the contract might not be, in itself, an initiation of aggression, failing to hand over the resulting contractual penalties would definitely be a violation of others' property.


Why would they sign in the first place? 

So, violating a contract is taking property? What if they don't agree? What then?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Just as in a society with a state, in a stateless society, the act of using excessive force might not be able to be prevented on the spot. There might not be anyone else around to stop it. However, such excessive force could be found by a judge to have violated the law, in which case the perpetrator could be held liable for damages. As in a society with a state, the anticipation of punishment serves as a disincentive for the illegal acts.
> 
> 
> 
> I really didn't get that. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so. If a judge finds that someone is violating his neighbor's person or property (which is, in a voluntarist society, against the law) then the judge ought to be able to issue an injunction. 
> ...



A judge in a stateless society? How does that work? What weight does an injunction have from a stateless judge?

See above regarding speeding.

Yeah, but it's really a meaningless principle because people will consider what ever they chose to be "aggression". So far, you've called trespassing and loud stereos- "aggression". 

It is impossible and you are proving it so. This is why Axis avoids answering questions about voluntaryist philosophy. It cannot stand up to critical examination and he knows it.

You've shown that to maintain peace and order, force would eventually be used as the term "aggression" is stretched to fit whatever public order disturbance has become unbearable to the public in a voluntaryist society. 

See above.

----------


## Maximatic

> A warlord is the de facto "government" aka  Ruler in such a situation aka anarchy.   The Rule of the Jungle would  be the law of the land.   There are plenty of examples in the history  books.  If you know of some where it was anarchic bliss, please let us  know.   Ones that weren't conquered or destroyed by more organized  groups are the ones I'd like to see.  Not the hippy communes that lasted  for a few years then fell apart.





> What part of armed oppression don't you understand? 
> 
> I read a lot of history books. You should give it a go. 
> 
> I gave it to you. What part don't you understand?


I've invited you to debate the matter.

If you ever decide exactly what claim you want to make and want to actually try to make some kind of case to back that claim up, I'll be waiting.

----------


## DonGlock26

> What reason, ↓this one?↓
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a reason, it is a naked assertion, which is all you, and all the other state apologists, ever give. You've never given a single reason to believe it's true, ever. All you ever do is beg the question. You ignore all the ARGUMENTS to the contrary, and prance around as if you have some kind of epistemic advantage. You don't. You're not even in the same league as the average voluntarist, who actually DO give reasons to back up what we believe, reasons that you never answer except with that same mindless statement over and over, and over again.


I've given several reasons in this thread with the help of Longshot. 

Voluntaryist non-aggression principal will not work in a society because society will want force to be used on people who violate the peace and order of the community. 

Without a state, there will be no mechanism to stop excessive force being used by private "security" firms or private property owners. There would be no state to protect the right of children or the mentally ill. There would be no state to defend borders. There would be no state to police weights and measures. There would be no police to maintain food saftey or water safety? There would be no state to license doctors, etc. 

Yours is a simplistic attempt to justify a fantasy that would allow tax dodgers to avoid taxes. Yet, you enjoy the protection of a state at many levels. You make as much sense as a Leftist calling for a ban on corporations as he uses an Apple laptop at a Starbucks wearing Old Navy hipster clothing.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I've invited you to debate the matter.
> 
> If you ever decide exactly what claim you want to make and want to actually try to make some kind of case to back that claim up, I'll be waiting.


I asked you these questions right here, right now:




> What part of armed oppression don't you understand? 
> 
> I read a lot of history books. You should give it a go. 
> 
> I gave it to you. What part don't you understand?


Are you going to answer them or flee again?

----------


## Sentinel

> The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).


So, basically you support every goddamned nanny state law?  You're just not keen on the laws being enforced? ("Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue ")  Where's your list of bad traffic laws?  Or, did you post it, it just has a zero length?   I can't wait to hear your view on Hitler throwing Jew into ovens, "It was for one purpose, cheap fertilizer for German crops."

I'm against seatbelt laws, DUI laws, and everything else that isn't directly reckless movement of the vehicle.  Good laws are speed limits and other laws related to movement of the vehicle.  But, I'm thinking of something more concrete than the mush in your list ("weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents)".  Speed limits are concrete.  Running red lights are concrete.  Crossing over the center of the road (without signaling) is concrete.

----------


## Sentinel

> Voluntaryist non-aggression principal will not work in a society because society will want force to be used on people who violate the peace and order of the community. the protection of a state at many levels. You make as much sense as a Leftist calling for a ban on corporations as he uses an Apple laptop at a Starbucks wearing Old Navy hipster clothing.


There has never existed in the history of the world a sustained governmentless society.  And, the one reason why it has never and can never happen is as you say.  There are people who want to use force against you, and they will govern you as they wish, without your consent.  The best an anarchist can do is support a government that is most limited to stopping the aggression of others.

----------


## DonGlock26

> There has never existed in the history of the world a sustained governmentless society.  And, the one reason why it has never and can never happen is as you say.  There are people who want to use force against you, and they will govern you as they wish, without your consent.  The best an anarchist can do is support a government that is most limited to stopping the aggression of others.


I don't think an anarchist can make that leap of logic.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I've given several reasons in this thread with the help of Longshot. 
> 
> Voluntaryist non-aggression principal will not work in a society because society will want force to be used on people who violate the peace and order of the community.


You don't understand the non-aggression principle. The NAP prohibits the initiation of the use of force, it does not preclude violent self defense.




> Without a state, there will be no mechanism to stop excessive force being used by private "security" firms or private property owners. There would be no state to protect the right of children or the mentally ill. There would be no state to defend borders. There would be no state to police weights and measures. There would be no police to maintain food saftey or water safety? There would be no state to license doctors, etc.


There is no mechanism currently to stop police from violating the rights of the innocent or for the excessive use of force by the government police that's becoming more and more common. The state is grossly violating the rights of Justina Pelletier and her parents and they have no recourse due to the fact that the state holds a monopoly in 'justice.'. The federal government isn't protecting the borders, especially the Southern borders. The state isn't required to set and maintain universal standards of weights and measures, food or water safety and licensing for doctors and rather diminishes quality and limits availability of services. All services are better off being supplied by private industries, which would be more effective and efficient due to competition. State control over the means of production is detrimental to human society.




> Yours is a simplistic attempt to justify a fantasy that would allow tax dodgers to avoid taxes. Yet, you enjoy the protection of a state at many levels. You make as much sense as a Leftist calling for a ban on corporations as he uses an Apple laptop at a Starbucks wearing Old Navy hipster clothing.


The only simplistic fantasy being held is yours... that the state is necessary, without it human society would devolve and technology would disappear. Such dystopian rhetoric suggests you're incapable of logical thought

----------


## hoytmonger

> *There has never existed in the history of the world a sustained governmentless society.*  And, the one reason why it has never and can never happen is as you say.  There are people who want to use force against you, and they will govern you as they wish, without your consent.  The best an anarchist can do is support a government that is most limited to stopping the aggression of others.


Yes, there has. In fact there's an entire thread dedicated to just that... because someone got sick and tired of hearing the same old ignorant nonsense you just posted.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You don't understand the non-aggression principle. The NAP prohibits the initiation of the use of force, it does not preclude violent self defense.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mechanism currently to stop police from violating the rights of the innocent or for the excessive use of force by the government police that's becoming more and more common. The state is grossly violating the rights of Justina Pelletier and her parents and they have no recourse due to the fact that the state holds a monopoly in 'justice.'. The federal government isn't protecting the borders, especially the Southern borders. The state isn't required to set and maintain universal standards of weights and measures, food or water safety and licensing for doctors and rather diminishes quality and limits availability of services. All services are better off being supplied by private industries, which would be more effective and efficient due to competition. State control over the means of production is detrimental to human society.
> 
> 
> 
> The only simplistic fantasy being held is yours... that the state is necessary, without it human society would devolve and technology would disappear. Such dystopian rhetoric suggests you're incapable of logical thought


I do understand it and your definition has nothing to do with the point that I made in regards to a discussion with Longshot.

That's just a bald-faced falsehood. Citizens can complain to law enforcement agencies at various levels all the way to the DoJ and they can see redress in the courts as well.

This federal gov't is refusing properly close the borders for political reasons. But, the exception proves the rule. Who would be stopping the Mexican invasion without a state? Wouldn't it be completely unrestricted with no border patrol whatsoever? Not required? That's one of their functions. USDA ring a bell??

Would Bahamian diploma mills partake in your medical education unrestricted free market? How about false credentials? 

If you were right, where are the stateless, advanced societies throughout recorded history? All that I've seen was some English proto-socialist farmers' commune mentioned here. That's hardly as impressive as the USofA or Rome.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If you ever decide exactly what claim you want to make and want to actually try to make some kind of case to back that claim up, I'll be waiting.


Anarchies don't work above the tribal level and are vulnerable to larger groups with some form of government.   History bears this out as true.

If you want to advocate that they can work on the national level, please provide your evidence.

----------


## Maximatic

> Anarchies don't work above the tribal level and are vulnerable to larger groups with some form of government.   History bears this out as true.
> 
> If you want to advocate that they can work on the national level, please provide your evidence.


What national level? What tribal level? None of that means anything without a state. If that is what you want to debate, you'll have to agree to a coherent resolution. And no I'm not gonna just state a case. I've already posted many of those, and they're all unopposed. I need you to agree to the terms of the debate first.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What national level? What tribal level? None of that means anything without a state.


"Fun with Semantics" can  be an interesting game, but I always get bored with it very quickly.  The bottom line is that a bunch of disorganized farmers are going to get their asses kicked by an organized force.  

If you don't follow that logic, I can't help you.  If you don't want to acknowledge that logic, that's fine too.  All anarchists live in a fantasy world; a world that cannot exist with the current state of human evolution since human beings are predators, not sheep.

----------


## Maximatic

> "Fun with Semantics" can  be an interesting game, but I always get bored with it very quickly.  The bottom line is that a bunch of disorganized farmers are going to get their asses kicked by an organized force.  
> 
> If you don't follow that logic, I can't help you.  If you don't want to acknowledge that logic, that's fine too.  All anarchists live in a fantasy world; a world that cannot exist with the current state of human evolution since human beings are predators, not sheep.


That is NOT semantic dispute. Those terms smuggle the presupposition of a statist worldview into a dispute over the necessity of that very same thing.

I understand your claim, and I told you I would be happy to debate it. But, if that's what you want to do, I need for you to agree to resolution that makes sense. A resolution that begs the question in favor of your claim does not make sense.

----------


## Longshot

> A judge in a stateless society? How does that work? What weight does an injunction have from a stateless judge?
> 
> See above regarding speeding.
> 
> Yeah, but it's really a meaningless principle because people will consider what ever they chose to be "aggression". So far, you've called trespassing and loud stereos- "aggression". 
> 
> It is impossible and you are proving it so. This is why Axis avoids answering questions about voluntaryist philosophy. It cannot stand up to critical examination and he knows it.
> 
> You've shown that to maintain peace and order, force would eventually be used as the term "aggression" is stretched to fit whatever public order disturbance has become unbearable to the public in a voluntaryist society. 
> ...


Listen. I support property rights. I'm not sure whether or no your do, but it sounds like you don't. Because I support property rights, I view states as unethical social institutions, since they violate property rights.

However, I'm not going to keep bickering with you about how a stateless society might operate. It's been explained to you enough times that if you really wanted to know, you would know by now.

My suggestion that road owners, rather than legislatures, make establish the rules for the roads they own could be implemented in a stateless society or one with a state. It doesn't matter.

So, from now on, when I make some sort of policy recommendation, we'll go on the assumption that it is in the context of our current society, which is one with a state.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That is NOT semantic dispute. *Those terms smuggle the presupposition of a statist worldview into a dispute over the necessity of that very same thing.*


You deny semantics has anything to do with this then say something like that?  

If you are so certain Anarchism is the perfect society, why  not try to persuade me why you think this is so instead of constantly attacking everyone who disputes your assertion as being a "statist"?

----------


## Maximatic

> You deny semantics has anything to do with this then say something like that?  
> 
> If you are so certain Anarchism is the perfect society, why  not try to persuade me why you think this is so instead of constantly attacking everyone who disputes your assertion as being a "statist"?


I find it very pathetic that you're ignoring the invitation to debate in favor of latching on to to some silly obsession over what you insist is a semantic dispute.

You know what I usually do when someone includes a meaningless statement in a post addressed to me? 

I ignore it and respond to the meaningful part. Let me know if you ever feel up to a structured debate. I'm pretty close to being done with all these pointless exchanges.

----------


## DonGlock26

> However, I'm not going to keep bickering with you about how a stateless society might operate.


That's because you can't. Talking about unicorns would be more productive.

----------


## Longshot

> That's because you can't. Talking about unicorns would be more productive.


Yes, I understand that is your opinion. I disagree. But I'm going to put that aside, since there is a lot of voluntaryism to implement before we finally get to eliminating the state.

So my position is that it would be preferable to allow road owners to make the rules regarding the use of their roads, rather than legislatures doing so.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> Yes, I understand that is your opinion. I disagree..


Well, if you disagree, then please tell us how voluntaryism would work in the real world. I'm all ears.

Show us what the unicorn looks like.

----------


## Longshot

> Well, if you disagree, then please tell us how voluntaryism would work in the real world. I'm all ears.
> 
> Show us what the unicorn looks like.


As I said, I'm going to put that aside, since there is a lot of voluntaryism to implement before we finally get to eliminating the state.

So my position is that it would be preferable to allow road owners to make the rules regarding the use of their roads, rather than legislatures doing so.

----------


## DonGlock26

> As I said, I'm going to put that aside.


I'll bet. LOL!!

----------


## Longshot

> I'll bet. LOL!!


And still my position is that it would be preferable to allow road owners to make the rules regarding the use of their roads, rather than legislatures doing so.

----------


## Dan40

> And still my position is that it would be preferable to allow road owners to make the rules regarding the use of their roads, rather than legislatures doing so.


The "road owners" ARE the taxpayers.  The taxpayers elect the legislature.  The legislature, elected by and empowered by the voting taxpayers make the rules.  Therefore, the "road owners" DO make the rules.

----------


## patrickt

> The "road owners" ARE the taxpayers.  The taxpayers elect the legislature.  The legislature, elected by and empowered by the voting taxpayers make the rules.  Therefore, the "road owners" DO make the rules.


I have to disagree with you there, Dan. That's like saying the voters "own" the federal land. No, we don't. Or that the voters make the rules that ban soda pop and Happy Meals. No, they don't. The thousands and thousands of pages of ridiculous regulations aren't "made by the voters".

----------


## Dan40

> I have to disagree with you there, Dan. That's like saying the voters "own" the federal land. No, we don't. Or that the voters make the rules that ban soda pop and Happy Meals. No, they don't. The thousands and thousands of pages of ridiculous regulations aren't "made by the voters".


We, the voters ARE ultimately responsible for what we have done to ourselves!

I'd rather avoid that truth but we cannot avoid it.

barack hussein bin obama is the president.  Whose fault is that?

the voters that voted AND the voters that didn't vote for Romney, and the voters that passed on their RESPONSIBILITY.

We give the elected  legislatures permission to make laws.  That doesn't mean they make good laws.  But we are still responsible.

If we are NOT responsible, how could we fix our problems?  We have to do it.

----------


## Longshot

> The "road owners" ARE the taxpayers.  The taxpayers elect the legislature.  The legislature, elected by and empowered by the voting taxpayers make the rules.  Therefore, the "road owners" DO make the rules.


Currently, yes. However, I would suggest that roads should be privately owned, not socialized.

----------


## Dan40

> Currently, yes. However, I would suggest that roads should be privately owned, not socialized.


But I wish to KEEP the roads I own.

Our Interstate System cost $425 BILLION in 2006 dollars.  It is 47,000 miles of Interstate.  That's a shade over $9 MILLION dollars a mile.  How much do you plan to pay the road owner to use his road,,,,,,,,,,,,,WITH his RULES?

----------


## Longshot

> But I wish to KEEP the roads I own.


I am not in favor of socialized means of production, as they require forced taxes to fund them.  I'd rather that we see the error of our ways, sell off these assets, and apply the money against the national debt.

----------


## Dan40

> I am not in favor of socialized means of production, as they require forced taxes to fund them.  I'd rather that we see the error of our ways, sell off these assets, and apply the money against the national debt.


The national debt is made up of at most 30 year treasury bonds.  A measure of them are retired on time each year.  And interest is paid on all of it each year as per bond contract.  If we simply balanced the budget which has to include interest payments and maturing bonds.  The national debt would be zeroed in 30 years.  The problem is out of control spending causing us to borrow money faster than we are meeting our obligations.

Some pundits, even conservative ones, claim we haven't paid a penny on what we borrowed for WWI.  That's bullshit.  Our debt is massive and completely wrong, but we have paid off what we borrowed 31 years ago.  We have too much debt, but we are not behind in payments.

People, institutions, and even other nations would not still be buying treasuries if our debt was not being paid AS AGREED.

And private roads, how many rules of the road do you want to have?  The government has more than enough road rules.  Private roads could make the govt rules seem like a small list.

----------


## Maximatic

> But I wish to KEEP the roads I own.
> 
> Our Interstate System cost $425 BILLION in 2006 dollars.  It is 47,000 miles of Interstate.  That's a shade over $9 MILLION dollars a mile.  How much do you plan to pay the road owner to use his road,,,,,,,,,,,,,WITH his RULES?


The average driver spends more than $9,000 per year on driving. There are 247,900,000 vehicles on the road in the US. Multiplying only the amount the average individual spends on driving every year (i.e. not accounting for the cost of ANY commercial or government owned and operated vehicles, which is greater than the average cost of individually owned vehicles), by the number of vehicles on the road, you get $2,231,100,000,000.00 per year. That's 2.2 trillion dollars per year.

Those are 2012 numbers. Assuming 3% inflation compounded annually, that's $1,858,443,840,197 2006 dollars.

Given this wildly conservative accounting (without even taking into consideration the amount that would have, otherwise, been paid on it in taxes or the >20% of embedded taxes in the price of everything Americans buy), and the assumption that the average driver would pay 25% more to drive than we've accounted for,

*the entire interstate system in the US could be paid for by the free market in ONE YEAR*.

----------

Longshot (04-26-2014),ManilaFolder (04-26-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> And private roads, how many rules of the road do you want to have?


As many as are necessary for safe operation.

----------


## sotmfs

Yes! I should be exempt from all traffic laws.

----------


## sachem

> Yes! I should be exempt from all traffic laws.


You and I should, but everyone else has to follow them.

----------


## sotmfs

> You and I should, but everyone else has to follow them.


Of course.Imagine if everyone was exempt?It would be very dangerous!!
I think I will practice being exempt later today.

----------


## sachem

> Of course.Imagine if everyone was exempt?It would be very dangerous!!
> I think I will practice being exempt later today.


That should be fun.

----------


## Dan40

> As many as are necessary for safe operation.


According to whom?

You?  NO, you don't own the private road.

The govt?  NO, they don't own the private road either.

The owner decides how the road will be built and what the rules will be.  Count on a sign at all entrances.  "ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK."

I've driven on the 31 degree  banking at Daytona Speedway.  Why couldn't a private road owner put high banks on his road?

----------


## Dan40

> Of course.Imagine if everyone was exempt?It would be very dangerous!!
> I think I will practice being exempt later today.


Everyone is exempt until the radar takes your picture!

----------


## sotmfs

> Everyone is exempt until the radar takes your picture!


LOL! That is why one must be under the radar!!

----------


## Longshot

> According to whom?
> 
> You?  NO, you don't own the private road.
> 
> The govt?  NO, they don't own the private road either.
> 
> The owner decides how the road will be built and what the rules will be.  Count on a sign at all entrances.  "ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK."
> 
> I've driven on the 31 degree  banking at Daytona Speedway.  Why couldn't a private road owner put high banks on his road?


The owner of the road would establish the rules regarding the use of that road.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I do understand it and your definition has nothing to do with the point that I made in regards to a discussion with Longshot.
> 
> That's just a bald-faced falsehood. Citizens can complain to law enforcement agencies at various levels all the way to the DoJ and they can see redress in the courts as well.
> 
> This federal gov't is refusing properly close the borders for political reasons. But, the exception proves the rule. Who would be stopping the Mexican invasion without a state? Wouldn't it be completely unrestricted with no border patrol whatsoever? Not required? That's one of their functions. USDA ring a bell??
> 
> Would Bahamian diploma mills partake in your medical education unrestricted free market? How about false credentials? 
> 
> If you were right, where are the stateless, advanced societies throughout recorded history? All that I've seen was some English proto-socialist farmers' commune mentioned here. That's hardly as impressive as the USofA or Rome.


No, you obviously don't understand the NAP... if you did you'd realize that force isn't necessary to maintain peace and order. Force is what statists use to maintain fear.

So, you consider a civilian complaining about state law enforcement to others in state law enforcement and expect to see redress in state run courts by state employed adjudicators as a fair way to obtain 'justice?' I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you... cheap.
Not only is the federal government refusing to close the borders to the South, they're refusing to protect the private property rights of landowners on the border and preventing the same landowners from protecting their own property. Without the US federal government providing entitlements to illegals and preventing landowners from protecting their private property, illegals wouldn't be an issue.
Weights and measures can be standardized by the private sector just as they could be by the state... why do you think a monopoly on anything is required?
 USDA is another illegal function of the state which has no provision written for it in the Constitution of the US.
Licensing for physicians, engineer and other professions is unnecessary and causes shortages and added expense which is ultimately paid for by the consumer. There is no negative impact on services. Licensing is pandering to special interest groups.
Rome collapsed... and the US has failed as a limited state and is also collapsing... but the internet you seem to enjoy using is a stateless free market... no? Of course the state wants to regulate it and make it less user friendly and more expensive, but that's what government does... makes things worse.

----------


## Dan40

> The owner of the road would establish the rules regarding the use of that road.


Well DUH!  That is what I have been telling you.  But his rules might be expensive cars only.  Or no blacks.  Or no whites.  Or speed limit 20mph strictly enforced.  Or speed limit 200mph.  Or toll, $25.00 per mile.  Or NOT YOU!

----------


## old wood

> I feel the police would be better off roaming their communities and being vigilant rather than harassing drivers. A cop sitting on the side of the road with that little LIDAR does not slow traffic...he doesn't make it safer. He creates a snow ball effect of those quickly braking, those rubber necking, and those caught off guard which can actually cause an accident. Very rarely is someone being reckless yet getting a reckless ticket is so easy - here in VA the highway speed limit is 70 mph...a reckless driving charge (that's a class D misdemeanor mind you..not just a fine) is set at 80 mph. That's 10 mph over the speed limit...which is absurd considering that most will go at least 5 mph over. Traffic laws serve one purpose and one purpose only....to fill the states coffers with an easy source of revenue. That's it. Doesn't make us safer, doesn't help our communities, and people might respect the profession more if they didn't look like fisherman on the side of the road fishing for an unsuspecting citizen to drive by and set off the lidar. 
> 
> The only good road laws I see in play are DUI laws, seat belt laws, distraction free laws, and those actually being reckless (IE: weaving, cutting people off, almost causing accidents).


So...you are okay with a FEW...yet you did not mention stuff like liscence + reg, insurance, speed limits, LIGHTS...stop signs, traffic lights, hit + run,,right of way....and whatever?   Yeah...that ought to go REAL well.   if you drive a dumptruck to work.

When nutcases advocate  bare minimum Govt...it's a bit ironic that traffic laws are  about 95% of our interaction with Govt. yet it's very rare that gets mentioned.   Running on the idea  that "life" ought to be a mix of demolition derbys and shootouts?   Maybe that needs a bit of thought?

----------


## old wood

> That should be fun.


  Yeah... how about we try the Indy 500 but with some semi trucks,cross traffic,bald tires and a lot of jaywalkers?   Add a texting teen, A little old lady who hangs a right when it's left only......the usual mix.  If it works at 190 mph...hell..it ought to work at 100 mph.

Might amend "Stand Your Ground" to include crosswalks.

As for Privately owned toll roads......been here..done that..we hated it. Google up the 1800's.  There were toll gates ..toll roads ..toll bridges (a lot).   Who would...for example....own I-80? I-75?  How's that work?

What part of "act like a Third World shithole"...do ya like best?  How much stress..chaos...would be enough?

----------


## Longshot

> Well DUH!  That is what I have been telling you.  But his rules might be expensive cars only.  Or no blacks.  Or no whites.  Or speed limit 20mph strictly enforced.  Or speed limit 200mph.  Or toll, $25.00 per mile.  Or NOT YOU!


Such rules obviously wouldn't be very good for business. Why would he make such rules?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Such rules obviously wouldn't be very good for business. Why would he make such rules?


One wonders if Dan is really telling the truth about his business experience. Or, maybe he did run his company that way and made a ton of money from Stormfront members.

----------

Longshot (04-28-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> One wonders if Dan is really telling the truth about his business experience. Or, maybe he did run his company that way and made a ton of money from Stormfront members.


I take all claims on the Internet with a very large grain of salt.   Regardless of claims, it's  a person's acuity and ability to intelligently follow and respond to a conversation that are most important to me.   Many people, regardless of the noise they make, are not worth my time.  This is a general statement, not about Dan or anyone else in particular.

----------


## Dan40

> One wonders if Dan is really telling the truth about his business experience. Or, maybe he did run his company that way and made a ton of money from Stormfront members.


To my knowledge, I've never met a Stormfront member.  Are they relatives of yours?

And the naive textbook crap you've posted about business tells me all I need to know about you.  NOTHING!

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> And the naive textbook crap you've posted about business tells me all I need to know about you.  NOTHING!


As always, you project.

This is what you wrote: "Well DUH!  That is what I have been telling you.  But his rules might be  expensive cars only.  Or no blacks.  Or no whites.  Or speed limit  20mph strictly enforced.  Or speed limit 200mph.  Or toll, $25.00 per  mile.  Or NOT YOU!"

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about business knows that arbitrary restrictions, especially in the extremes you describe, does not gain customers nor bring in profit. That only works for government, since the customers are captive. Sometimes it works for government-created monopolies where income has little to do with service.  Can you, to your knowledge, name any companies in competitive industries that have high arbitrary restrictions on the use of their products or services? The only ones I can think of are country clubs, and those sorts of clubs are becoming more and more rare.

Regardless of what you think that I know about business, I would never make such a blatantly stupid argument about it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What part of "act like a Third World shithole"...do ya like best?  How much stress..chaos...would be enough?



10's of thousands of people are killed every year on government roads. if it were any other industry causing that much carnage, you'd be screaming your authoritarian head off about how awful it is for consumers. So why does government get a pass when it comes to transportation?

----------


## Dan40

> As always, you project.
> 
> This is what you wrote: "Well DUH!  That is what I have been telling you.  But his rules might be  expensive cars only.  Or no blacks.  Or no whites.  Or speed limit  20mph strictly enforced.  Or speed limit 200mph.  Or toll, $25.00 per  mile.  Or NOT YOU!"
> 
> Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about business knows that arbitrary restrictions, especially in the extremes you describe, does not gain customers nor bring in profit. That only works for government, since the customers are captive. Sometimes it works for government-created monopolies where income has little to do with service.  Can you, to your knowledge, name any companies in competitive industries that have high arbitrary restrictions on the use of their products or services? The only ones I can think of are country clubs, and those sorts of clubs are becoming more and more rare.
> 
> Regardless of what you think that I know about business, I would never make such a blatantly stupid argument about it.


You read my post, AND copied it and pasted it.

ANY intelligent person would recognize I was being sarcastic.

That is obviously why you "thought" it was intended as a business plan.

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

I have a tree stump way back at the corner of the property that is quicker on the uptake than you will ever be.

----------

