When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Without state-run police or courts there is no one to enforce anti-murder laws. One only needs to be more powerful then those that would wish to stop him and then he can act with impunity. Much like a warlord in a third world country.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an easily-debunked straw man. The existence of a state does not prevent a community from degenerating into civil war. We know this because we have seen communities living under state control degenerate into civil war over and over and over again. If the US were going to degenerate into a warlord condition without government, it would also do so WITH government.

What prevents warlording is not the state, but the citizens.

Look at New Orleans. The chaos after the floods was commonly described as "anarchy", but nothing could be further from the truth. The city had the exact same government that it had before the storm. There were no new hoodlums imported into the city after the storm. The difference is that the bulk of property owners left town.

I'll even go further, and argue that warlording is *less* likely to occur in a stateless community where security is provided by private firms than in a community with a state. Political powers have control of military assets that are effectively someone else's property, while private firms own their own equipment; the private firms will be much less eager to consume and destroy their own privately-owned equipment for aggressive purposes than polititians (who don't feel it in the pocketbook).

Do you think civil war in the US would have broken out if Lincoln and Davis had to hire manpower on the open market? Do you think anarchy could ever produce a warlord of Lincoln's magnitude?

Anarcho-capitalism can't totally eliminate warlords, but neither can state domination. Anarcho-capitalism has the distinct advantage, however, of making warlording extremely unprofitable. Most warlords derrive their power ultimately from black market finance, which obviously wouldn't exist in a world without a state to restrict markets. Without this black market, there is no organized crime.

[ QUOTE ]
It is known that use of the drug will result in deaths in the aggregate. I'm concerned with overall effect not specific cases. A gain for one persons freedom can be a loss for another when violence is involved. We are concerned with the net effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the number one way to justify oppression. Ignore individuals and focus on the "greater good." Incidentally, this is the fatal flaw of Keynesian economics - focus on aggregates and completely ignore the individuals.

[ QUOTE ]
"No. How could they be? Your system (outlaw both the drug and murder) outlaws two things, only one of which is disprespectful of others. I pursue only the thing that actually violates others' rights.

Since in your scenario, you want to imply that using the drug is effectively the same as committing murder, why even bother differentiating? "

They are close to equiviliant, but not quite. There are still some that won't end up killing someone, but most will. No doubt some innocents will have thier rights infringed unjustly.

However, if we assume there is no way to stop someone who took the drug from killing then it is an inescapable fact that people will die as a result. The most aggregious loss of freedom.

In either case someone losses thier freedom. The determining factor is which policy choice results in a greater loss of freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't come right out and said it, but you seem to be assuming that outlawing the drug will eliminate its usage.

Let's assume, as you said previously, that there is a 100% probability that the user will murder someone, with no way to stop it. I still say there is no reason to outlaw the drug, assuming murder is still considered a rights violation.

If I point a loaded gun at someone's head and pull the trigger, they're (probably) going to die. Let's just go ahead and put it at 100% certainty. Now, some people might find this activity enjoyable, though it clearly violates someone's rights. However, I don't need a law that says "don't point a loaded gun at someone's head and pull the trigger." I just need a rule saying "thou shall not kill."

Now, replace "point a loaded gun at someone's head and pull the trigger" with "consume murder-rage-drug".

Don't legislate against *specific methods* of violating rights. Just focus on the violation itself, not the implementation of the violation.

This is the equivilent of "security" measures undertaken by governments in response to terrorist attacks. Guy tries to blow up his shoes, make everyone take their shoes off. Guy uses a cell phone to blow up a bomb, shut down the cell phone network. You're not stopping terrorism, you're stopping a particular implementation method. There are an infinite number of other methods.

[lehighguy]

If I had a billion dollars, and I was a sick [censored], I would just hire some thugs and go around some poor neighborhood shooting and raping. Who the [censored] would stop me?

I wouldn't even need a billion dollars. I might just kill people in the street when I was pissed.

If I was a company and I wanted to use someone elses idea I would just steal it because there were no patent laws and no one to enforce them.

The goal of criminal enforcement is not to punish people after the fact or judge the morality of an action. They are to prevent negative outcomes from happening before they happen. They are a deterent. We way the benefits of deterence versus the social and financial costs of enforcement.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If I had a billion dollars, and I was a sick [censored], I would just hire some thugs and go around some poor neighborhood shooting and raping. Who the [censored] would stop me?

I wouldn't even need a billion dollars. I might just kill people in the street when I was pissed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. You broke the code. In a stateless system, people would just cower and accept whatever happened. Nobody would stand up to bullies. Only government can do that.

Are you arguing that people would murder in spite of private security/courts/enforcement? Of course they would. But people commit murder in spite of state enforcement, too.

Why do so many objections to stateless systems consist of "but people would do XYZ if there were no government!" when people do XYZ when there IS government?

[ QUOTE ]
If I was a company and I wanted to use someone elses idea I would just steal it because there were no patent laws and no one to enforce them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is begging the question of whether patent laws are a good thing in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
The goal of criminal enforcement is not to punish people after the fact or judge the morality of an action. They are to prevent negative outcomes from happening before they happen. They are a deterent. We way the benefits of deterence versus the social and financial costs of enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

So only a state can provide deterrence? What magic do they have?

[lehighguy]

"Are you arguing that people would murder in spite of private security/courts/enforcement?"

If there personal power exceeded the power of a weaker force that opposed them, yes. What can a poor/weak person do to protect themselves?

"Why do so many objections to stateless systems consist of "but people would do XYZ if there were no government!" when people do XYZ when there IS government?"

Because people don't do XYZ as often with the government in charge.

"So only a state can provide deterrence? What magic do they have?"

A monopoly on the use of force. No one can raise a big enough army to oppose them. Thusly, they have to obey the laws of the government.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"So only a state can provide deterrence? What magic do they have?"

A monopoly on the use of force. No one can raise a big enough army to oppose them. Thusly, they have to obey the laws of the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

So might makes right? States are desirable because they are invincible and must be obeyed?

First of all, I reject your assertion that government cannot be successfully opposed. We've seen successful revolutions.

Second of all, you're doing one of two things with your argument; you're either building up to the warlord objection, or you're trying to submarine it into the debate. It's been asked and answered. Warlording is unprofitable in a stateless system. It's unsustainable.

[lehighguy]

"First of all, I reject your assertion that government cannot be successfully opposed. We've seen successful revolutions."

Revolutions happen when government has begun to act like a warlord. When it starts to be more of a burden on society then a help then revolution occurs. However, for the revolution to be successful it needs the support of a majority of the society.

"Warlording is unprofitable in a stateless system. It's unsustainable."

I dispute what is essentially a blind assertion on your part. It would be immensely profitable to steal from people. That's why people do it. Think of the margins:
Money + Goods Stolen - Thug Fees and Gun Purchases = Profits.

[radek2166]

All drugs should be legal or, they should all be illegal.

[wmspringer]

My vote depends on whether or not anybody else is affected.

If you smoke in my area, you're infringing on my right to breathe. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I dispute what is essentially a blind assertion on your part. It would be immensely profitable to steal from people. That's why people do it. Think of the margins:
Money + Goods Stolen - Thug Fees and Gun Purchases = Profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep spouting this as if nobody will oppose the thief. You can't seriously believe that, can you?

[warlockjd]

Having done every drug except heroin, peyote, and crystal meth, I can see no reason in my experience to outlaw any of them. Self destructive people destroy themselves with or without the drug, and responsible people enjoy their drugs responsibly, regardless of strength or 'addictiveness.'

However that's really irrelevant. It is immoral for the government to decide what drugs I can and can't do. Even in the case of 3.