>From: "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > My idea of the concept of property is that most people on this planet
>find
> > it worthwhile to label things as his, hers, theirs, ours, mine, public,
> > private, or whatever other forms of ownership you can define. No
>government
> > is necessary to establish the idea or defend the concept of private
> > property.
>
>So my community decides that property is a good idea. Soon, a couple
>people disagree about something. How do they resolve their dispute?
>
>They can't--so they get angry and kill each other. Or maybe one side gives
>in and accepts the loss in exchange for his life.
That's two ways of many possibilities(probably hundreds) for the situation
to work out.
>Now, I'm not stupid--I don't want to end up like them! So before I make
>any deals, my partner and I pick a trustworthy, fair, level-headed guy and
>make another deal.
Oh, you're talking about an Arbitration Council, or something to that
effect, if I interpret you correctly.
>In the event of a dispute, he agrees to resolve it according to an
>agreed-upon procedure that we like.
So, you're brought in a third party, and he/they have agreed, along with the
2 primary participants, on what dispute resolution will entail. Sounds like
2 private parties contracting, without the need for a government.
>For example, we might agree to argue
>our cases in public before him, or that a group of ordinary people would
>be asked to consider our case and make a decision.
Sure, sounds agreeable.
>We might specify
>previous rulings upon which to base new ones.
I don't like the idea of "case law", but you're free to include it in your
contracts, I just won't get involved in them. "Case law" ignores the
uniqueness of each and every situation, in the interests of convenience, and
expediency. Not a fair trade-off if you ask me.
>We also agree to allow him
>to enforce his decision.
Enforcement would come from the other party, or company risking their
reputation, first of all, and can also be enforced by hired security, or
other means, as well. Enforcement should be completely seperated from the
Arbiters forum. The Arbiter should not be granted more than the power to
make the decision, thus not be able to become biased toward the side that
can repay his favors more favorably. I smell corruption already...
>After all, if this guy doesn't hold up his end of
>the bargain, I want my money back!
People get their money back quite often without having to involve
"government". I've even heard of agreeable "dealers" who accept returns of
unsatisfactory product...(no further comment here) I'm sure that getting
government involved would be a poor choice for either party, but there can
still be honest dealings.
>In short, we would create a new government, because trading without one is
>too risky.
Seems that you would recreate a new government, where I'd prefer to deal
with people who find honor and honesty in their dealings with other people,
and don't assume the worst of human nature of everyone when that facet is
confined to quite a small number of individuals.
>Which brings me to my next point: criminal law. Norms and conventions mean
>nothing if they are not enforced. We don't think murder is right--but what
>good does that do when there's a murderer terrorizing the community!
People get together and find the killer. What kind of answer are you
looking for here? When someone harms another, a crime has been committed,
regardless of the status of "government". Common Law does not disappear
because there's no "authoritarian" factor guiding a society.
>What (better) alternative is there to demanding that all people in zone A
>abide by our rules X, Y, and Z--and alleged violations of the rules must
>be handled according to procedures M and N?
When I go into a restaurant, and sit in the nonsmokind section, I don't
smoke. I respect their rules. I don't consider them a government.
When I go to a concert, and consent to being searched before I am allowed
in, I consent, becasue they don't want weapons on their property. They are
also not government.
If my next door neighbor erected a sign, saying "Tresspassers will be shot",
I would not call him government, and I would abide by his wishes(rules).
If public nudity is frowned upon in a neighborhood, and you've signed an
agreement with the neighborhood association before moving in, and then
disregard that rule, then maybe you agreed to donate a specific amount of
money to the neighborhood beautification fund.
Crimes that involve harming a person or their property, will always be
crimes, regardless of the locale, and can be prevented, or punished without
"government".
Consentual crimes, those defined as distasteful, or immoral by a group, will
only have effect in certain areas, and only on those who agree to abide by
certain rules.
Punishment, in either case, can still be accomplished.
> > Sure each tribe probably had its own rules, and elders
> > for guidance, and some probably even were oppressed by the elders of the
> > tribe, but that's a part of human nature we're still trying to overcome.
>
>No, that was the way they governed themselves. Tribal aristocracies are as
>much a government as their European counterparts. I wouldn't want to live
>under either.
Exactly, they "governed themselves". Self-government. Anarchy. Hmmm...
When people live in groups, they will invariably create certain norms, and
rules they all seem to agree upon, and wish to live by. That fact is not in
dispute by me. My idea is that these people enter into these understandings
with full knowledge of the expectations they are taking on.
As far as Indian tribes of the past, they experienced much less oppression,
IMO, than people do today. There was little trouble regarding public
nudity, or what one chose to ingest, or how they amused themselves.
As far as not wanting to be part of those particular forms of government,
you are free to choose which group of people, if any, you wish to associate
with.
> > It's thinking like that above that keeps the human race stagnant in the
> > middle ages. We may have computers and cars, and all sorts of fancy
>
>Like what above?
Your original statement that government is necessary to establish, or retain
law and order(you mentioned it in response to the concept of property). I
think it causes the very misery we see today.
> > technology, but that, to me, is no indicator of advancement of the
>species.
> > We're not far removed from a sharpened stone tied to a stick today.
>Maybe
>
>That's not true. A modern, pluralist democracy offers its citizens
>incomparably more freedom than any other form of government so far tried.
How about the "Republic"an form of government the founders of the uSA wrote
into the constitution? The democratic part was only intended for who and
how we elected the people to manage the machine. A Republic places the
rights and freedom of the individual before the interests of the masses. I
see majority rule here, thus nothing even slightly related to what the
CONstitution elucidates on. That's the biggest pipe dream of all... that we
are as free as the constitution says.
Well, I'm free, and hold little regard for much of what people call
"government" today.
> > Capitalism is not "bad", it's just not being put to it's "highest and
>best
> > use" at the moment, and I don't think it has been, since governments
>decided
> > to stick their fingers into the "free-market" millenia ago...
>
>Please describe this free market of millennia ago, and what high uses it
>was put to.
Since I wasn't there, I cannot really give you an accurate picture, but most
trade occured with little involvement of government, and oppressive
taxation, and regulation, etc, etc. I did not claim that it was ever put to
a higher or better use than is done today, I just claim that it has tons
more potential. Why do you suppose there's such a variety of stuff to be
found on the "black market"? Those items, and services are found there,
because they are not approved of by the "majority" rulers, and the minority
must acquire those services by hiding the existenceof those very services
from the "majority". The "black market" is the ideal "free market", it just
has to hide its activities from the "governments" that would see fit to
destroy them.
Mikus
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Chat mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
