I feel like were about to have a very well-worn series of posts that probably already exist in every AC-ist thread in the forum, and it might be too tedious to do it one post at time. Obviously my next post brings up the necessity of forcing people to do stuff as a way of preventing those people from doing other stuff to other people. That being sort of a premise for criminal justice at least. And I would propose that there exists at least some minimal set of moral values which a community might agree to adopt whereby some actors are authorized to force people to do stuff (be arrested, be tried, go to jail, pay restitution, etc) as a means of preventing other people from doing other stuff that is prohibited under the agreed upon set of moral values. But the main point of this would only be as a way of expressing disagreement with the statement that forcing people to do stuff is absolutely wrong.

There is then a somewhat difficult question to resolve about in what manner are subsequent generations added to this system which they neither agreed to nor had part in forming, or difficulties about modifying the agreed-upon principles, or what meta-principles should inform the selection of moral laws, and etc etc. There is also the expansion of the argument to things like taxation, but I think as far as the statement goes, really the answer is just a disagreement with it as an absolute, as well as the argument that on a certain level the adoption of certain kinds of social normative structures constitutes something more akin to a contract than coercion, at least as an ideal. In the real world it is significantly more complicated and often significantly less ideal, but nevertheless I don't believe it is sugar-coating a moral falsehood to say that there exist some set of circumstances in which it is morally justified to force people to do stuff.

please don't

WN - you forget a very important concept

1. I'm not an ACist, so there needs to be SOME government
2. Once you break the rules and are eligible to be punished based on whatever laws there exists. So whiel you are being forced to do something, it's only because you've voluntarily given up your freedom by breaking some rule.

There's a big difference between laws that infringe upon freedom and punishing people for transgressions.

I was talking to amp

I was pointing out the obvious thing you missed

I don't get it. Forcing people to do stuff is wrong. Agree or disagree?

Edit: Oh, I guess this is like "limitation", you are defining it in a less general way than I am, and basically saying basic laws don't amount to forcing people to do things. I'm not sure amp is making this interpretation, but that is based on my reading of past AC-ists. So perhaps you're right. Although in that case, I think there was no point to the post...

That's fine and good. But I haven't chosen to live where I live. I was born here. What happens if I think that the uk law on gambling, or drug taking, or oddball sexual practices (LDO) whatever, something that doesn't impact on other people is horse****.

There are lots of laws which infringe on my freedom for some perceived greater good that i have no say in.

I'm clearly not explaining myself worth ****

Assertion: People should be free to do whatever they choose as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others

Addendum: Once you interfere with anothers rights, you lose some of your rights, and are then punished under the law.

Laws: Should abide by the assertion above.

so in essence there's only one law: dont mess with other people n their stuff?

Yeah. What other law do you need?

Automakers vs AIG

I'm not sure how to respond to this. It does cause me to pause... Esp considering that I was/am against both bailouts.

What a puddle of muck we stuck our foot into.

i'm not having any series of poasts whatsoever, just reminding people to consider the possibility of a voluntary society

how large can said practically be?
would it be able to build roads n stuff like that?
would it be able to defend itself from attack by aggressive other societies?

kokiri - no

Can't it be disproven by using three words?
time preference, interest

Like building a huge wall to keep cheap labor out. No thanks I'll pass.

Europeans invented Democracy (not that that's a good thing)

The standard solution that is usually offered is than "an eye for an eye" applies to "police forces"/"courts" as well. So if you enforce the death penalty (someone will claim responsibility) on someone and it turns out he was innocent, you're going to get executed as well.

gonna lock you up in Guantanamo imo

There was a billboard I used to pass all the time on I-70 between St. Louis and Columbia that read "A friend of the world is the enemy of God" that I never understood for a long time until one day I did.

I was like, "wait, God hates environmentalists, wat!?" and then finally I got it.

That's awesome.

How large could it be? Pretty large, imo.
Of course. Major roads are profitable, local roads are necessary. Major corporations build major highways, charge tolls. Communities build & maintain local roads.
Yes. Why wouldn't it?

Why not?

You guys give the Government too much credit, in the sense that you assume that ONLY government can accomplish these things. I challenge you to find something that government can do significantly better than private enterprise, outside of the three things that are the sole acceptable government services

1. Law enforcement
2. Defence from outside attack
3. Court system to adjudicate disputes between individuals.

EDIT: Individuals here are of course defined as individuals and/or firms

I'm endlessly amused by the media's cries of doom whenever a massive bailout is denied by the government, and expressions of shock when the dow goes up the next day anyway. It's happened a few times, now.

I work in the Senate. I have an idea of how much they care. The senator I work for voted for the bailout (ldo) but I will say that all incoming mail is read, the opinions and positions entered into a database, and these opinions do have an effect on how he votes and what issues become prioritized. For instance, I am working on two research projects right now regarding energy and the environment that have been spurred by constituent mail.

And a tidbit from this mornings mail- newflash companies are trying to increase profitability and apparently this is bad for the US economy.

i'm pretty sure that we'll all have to turn in our shoes now

How did he get the second 'shot' off?

If he had a gun, he would have been able to get off like 6 rounds before the secret service could pull their thumbs out of their asses.

I think the secret service's main protocol involves not letting the guy in there with a gun in the first place. Limiting them to only one shot just doesn't seem like a brilliant strategy

Multiple shoe shots = ok, multiple gunshots (or even a single) = not, I get that.

It just seems like the SS moved pretty slow there. Maybe they were laughing at the whole thing, for all I know.