article on canadian casinos

[Peter666]

This shows the end results of AC and why a Government is necessary to protect the common good. AC inevitably leads to "warlords". The only way you could get justice in the matter of me stealing your car is if there is a much greater power that will intervene. Of course, nobody has the motive to intervene for your car, unless there is a power whose purpose is to serve the common good.

This does not mean that the governing power should enact a lot of restrictive legislation against its memebers or tax them excessively like is being done by governments today. If they do, we have a right to take advantage of them.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
This shows the end results of AC and why a Government is necessary to protect the common good. AC inevitably leads to "warlords".

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, AC actually makes warlording unprofitable. Where do you think warlords get their financing (without which they would have no power)? By filling demands in markets that governments have driven underground.

[ QUOTE ]
The only way you could get justice in the matter of me stealing your car is if there is a much greater power that will intervene. Of course, nobody has the motive to intervene for your car, unless there is a power whose purpose is to serve the common good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens when you get your car stolen in present-day canada? You call the cops, you fill out some paperwork, and then the cops put the paperwork in a drawer somewhere. Maybe they'll stumble upon your car, but maybe not. You'll get a check from the insurance company (if you have one) and that will be that.

This is basically the same thing that happens in AC, except that you can choose to pay more to have your police force pursue the matter further (or, more likely, your insurance company could direct their police force to expend more resources). Of course, you could hire a private detective presently, but you've already been taxed for police "protection". In AC, there's no bureaucrat deciding to spend the enforcement budget on chasing drug dealers instead of car theives. That's how "externalities" get created.

[Peter666]

"On the contrary, AC actually makes warlording unprofitable. Where do you think warlords get their financing (without which they would have no power)? By filling demands in markets that governments have driven underground."

This is only half true. Warlords can also take over legal markets by force or fear, just like the mafia with their unions and protection rackets. Without an overall governing body, might will make right.

I agree that governments have been incompetent in dealing with issues at various times in history and today, but when working within their set parameters, they are very useful.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlords can also take over legal markets by force or fear, just like the mafia with their unions and protection rackets. Without an overall governing body, might will make right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, you're actually trying to claim that the existence of warlords under anarchy proves anarchy is inferior to statism, even though those warlords *already exist* under statism?

[Peter666]

Those warlords exist in the state but are contained to a lesser or greater degree depending on the competence of the state. In anarchy, the warlords have more or less power depending on their own competence or incompetence. This gives them the ability to control the whole darn place if they are powerful and competent enough, thus creating a total tyranny based on their own principles. The end result is slavery.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Those warlords exist in the state but are contained to a lesser or greater degree depending on the competence of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a convenient arrangement. These warlords are contained by a force (the state) which is more violent and oppressive than the warlords are, but one which by its existence enables the existence of the warlords.

[ QUOTE ]
In anarchy, the warlords have more or less power depending on their own competence or incompetence. This gives them the ability to control the whole darn place if they are powerful and competent enough, thus creating a total tyranny based on their own principles. The end result is slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Is this worse than oppression under statism?

2) How do these warlords build their power base without black markets? They are starting from scratch. Why doesn't anyone oppose them? It's going to be pretty tough to finance a world-enslaving operation through car theft.

[Peter666]

A warlord's reign of terror is not subject to a Constitution or Magna Carta or what have you. It is these things which outline how far a state can go in "oppression" and is the one advantage over an anarchy.

The state can fight for the little guy against the big guy in a matter of justice. So, in a Mad Max world where cars actually would define the power of a warlord, me taking your VW Beetle and adding it to my fleet would be theft. But you will not be able to do anything unless the state will back you up with its greater fleet, which it must do to satisfy justice according to the constitution. You could ask your buddies to help you, but they might not be motivated enough to do so. They would rather ignore you than help if it meant going through hardship and pain. A properly functioning state is meant to protect the weak from tyranny.

Of course, the leaders in that state might decide to become warlords themselves, or I as a warlord might try to bribe them into illegal actions, in which case you are screwed. But at least we tried. state was your only hope in recovering your car.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
A properly functioning state is meant to protect the weak from tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it just replaces the threat of tyranny with the certainty of it.

You didn't answer either of my questions.

[Peter666]

I don't understand what you are calling tyranny or oppression? Is the threat of putting someone in jail if they commit a crime, and doing it if the crime is committed tyranny and oppression?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what you are calling tyranny or oppression? Is the threat of putting someone in jail if they commit a crime, and doing it if the crime is committed tyranny and oppression?

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard (for the sake of argument) that Charles Manson once donated some money to a church. If I call him a murderer, does that mean that I think donating money to a church is murder?

Now, where did I say law enforcement is tyranny or oppression?