Do We Work Too Hard?

[PokerAmateur4]

Hey pvn you kind of rule I think.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"There's no reason that only government can function as a third-party arbitrator. None."

What is the role of an arbitrator other than to determine determine the validity of one of two claims? How is that different from the Judiciary branch of government?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if there is a difference - I asked if the government is the *only* entity that can provide such arbitration. If there's no difference, then the answer is obviously "no."

Of course, there are differences. The main difference is that in a free market for arbitration services, corrupt and inefficient arbitrators are run out of business, whereas in a state-monpoply arbitration system, they are not discouraged.

[ QUOTE ]
And if one does not adhere to the final verdict, who will enforce the judgement? Apparently no one in your case, so the arbitrator is useless to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one? Anyone that values their business reputation will abide by the judgements of reputable arbitrators. That means that third parties not involved in the dispute will refuse to do business with a disputant that violates or ignores a judgement against him.

[ QUOTE ]
"Your problem is that you think in terms of "society" instead of in terms of the individuals."

No individual person can exist outside of a society. You can't have one without the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if that were true that doesn't justify putting "society's" interests (which are vague and undefinable) ahead of individual freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Give me an example of where your notion of anarchy has been implemented in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Celtic Ireland.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you conclude that if two people cannot agree on a property issue, they will simply ignore one another and go somewhere else?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Why would you get that idea?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If some individuals want to *voluntarily* band together and pool some resources and appoint some leaders to make some decisions for them, go ahead, why should anyone stop them?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying they are doing it already, and if you take that body away it will only get formed again, slightly differently of course and probably in a better way, but still with the same fundamental idea of stealing from the richer, giving to the poorer, pilfering some off the top and using violence (or threats thereof) to maintain it all.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have that already. Note the word "voluntary".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, individuals that value order will have to guard against such criminals.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but when the majority of the population are criminals (ie. voluntarily and willingly endorse organized theft and coercion backed by force to gain an advantage), then the size of the counter-operation needs to be of a scale much larger than what could currently come about from voluntary contributions IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the majority are criminals, then no system will be able to maintain order. Not even a coercive state.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those who do the most valuable work get rewarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why do car salesmen make more money than nurses and teachers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people value car salesmen more than teachers, despite their statements to the contrary?

We're not talking about what's "important" - brushing your teeth is important, but professional tooth-brushers don't have much of a job market. People can brush their own teeth just fine, so they don't value someone else's tooth-brushing labor.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
If the majority are criminals, then no system will be able to maintain order. Not even a coercive state.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about if they are criminals exactly to the extent that the state is a criminal? Or is the state not committing any crimes by its stealing and coercion practices? By its own definition it isn't but by yours (ours), is it?