Brian9

But you were explaining the monopoly of force. In what sense is there a monopoly of force? Since the government is made of individual citizens who take it upon themselves to administer justice in the legal system, or are compensated financially by other individual citizens to do so, where does the monopoly of force reside? It must be in the "single system". But can such a system exist? Or do allowances need to be made for differences of opinion about how to cope with the criminal element on a town-to-town basis, a city-to-city basis, and so on?

Wait, wait. You said a single entity, "the government". But isn't the government a collection of entities, namely individual citizens? I agree 100% with everything you just quoted from VOS. But where I might quibble is where she wrote, "If society left the use of retaliatory force in the hands of individual citizens..." I think she means that every person should not take it upon themselves to be the sole administer of justice. He should consult the legal system. Or in my phraseology - take it to the public square. Of course, everyone administering justice in the public square or legal system are themselves individual citizens. Society is a collection of individual citizens. Not a collective, but a freely joined network. So, when you say there should be a single system, I wonder what that actually means. What does that refer to in reality. Because in reality, there is just a collection of people, who live in towns, which group to make cities, then states, and so on. If a crime is committed, it goes to the public square. How public, how big of a square is determined by the severity of the crime. What I think the so called "anarcho-capitalists" like James Bond, the OP are saying is the following: Each public square is naturally going to run their own affairs a little differently from the next, depending upon their circumstances. Everyone is going to have their own ideas about the most efficient ways to run the public square. Because it is "public", the people who live there "own" it and make rulings on a wide range of issues. For instance, whether nudity is legal. Or how loud you are allowed to play your music at 9pm. Or whether or not to put fluoride in the water. I feel like I'm arguing for their position. I didn't intend to at first. The point I really wanted to make is that I don't think they are for anarchy, and it would be more accurate to describe them as "individo-capitalists" P.S. It occurs to me that the examples I choose were perhaps not the most meaningful of those I could have thought of. There are other more serious issues like privacy issues, or what private security is or isn't allowed to do. I'm not sure since I haven't thought about it all that much. Perhaps I have the wrong idea. Perhaps, even though technology and social moors keep changing, we, as a society, can get together and establish universal laws right down to the minute detail that everyone everywhere can have no possible, conceivable, rational basis for arguing with. Like I said before, I'm less knowledgeable about this, and more confused. P.S.S. And then there is ideas about punishment. It has always struck me as an interesting debate. Personally, I'm in favor of capital punishment. Child molesters? Off with their heads? But perhaps I'm wrong. Do child molesters have a disease that is treatable? If so, should we bother? Perhaps even if they can be "saved", it would still be worthwhile to terminate them as a warning to other possible offenders? I think as science progresses, there are new ways of coping with crime in general. Because this is so, one can't impose solutions from the top-down. You have to just let people be free as much as possible and let the chips fall where the may. I apologize. That was rather like a stream of thought and I now I realize I sound like an "anarcho-capitalist". I mean individo-capitalist. EDIT a third time: Or how about a more simple question, but one that, at least to me is still interesting: If I steal 5 dollars from you, what should the punishment be? Obviously if you simply recover the 5 dollars, you haven't done enough. In some sense, it doesn't matter. It is only 5 dollars. But what is the principle here? Recover the money and lock me up for the weekend? Like I keep saying, I'm obviously no lawyer. I would probably have some sort of definitive answer and cases to cite if I were.

I agree with whoever it was that questioned the term "anarcho-capitalist". Because, "anarcho-capitalists" are not in favor of anarchy. They're against mobocracy. The "anarcho-capitalist" isn't for everyone ruling over everyone else, but rather each individual ruling over him or herself, which is just plain old individualism. If they cooperate to form organizations which administer "law" (Lets call these organizations governments), then it is because it makes sense, capitalistically. It makes more sense to call these people "individual-capitalists", which is the same thing as an Objectivist. On the other hand, I've been confused about what supposedly Rand meant by a monopoly on force. I think I remember her saying citizen's arrests were okay, but if any citizen can make an arrest or stop a crime by applying force, then I don't see in what sense there is a monopoly on force. Perhaps the Objectivist position is that trial and punishment should always take place in the public square? But I wonder what this means in practice. How public does the public square have to be? Asked another way, how many public squares per city blocks? The general rule seems to be, the more minor crimes, the less public it has to be. If I jaywalk across a street, a policeman who sees me do it may decide to give me a "slap on the wrist". Or perhaps it is something else. As you can see, I'm no lawyer. I'm fairly confused about this subject. I mean, I have some questions.

And governments are consumers of other goods. The whole market is an integrated whole. Any agency of force has technology costs, transportation costs, you name it. They have to integrate with the rest of the market in an intelligent and efficient way. As time marches on, some ways are shown to be better than others. One can't snap one's fingers and say, we've figured out the business of governance. Everyone send your checks to us and we'll get the job done. It doesn't work that way. You have to compete. You have to be good at the job and who is the judge of that? Not you. Because anything you can do, I can do better.

Grames, all of that exists in the real world. Armies for hire have always existed. Competing police forces have always existed. Competing court systems have always existed. Competing systems for the incarceration of prisoners have always existed. I think somehow people imagine that competing police forces would have to be shooting at each other all the time for control. Most people have a difficult time fleshing out the concept of competition in any sphere of life and when force is involved, it doesn't make the task any easier I will grant you. But competition exists all the same. Competition is a law of nature. I compete with my local policeman for my own protection for instance. The more I can rely on myself, the less I need him. If I hire private security, I need him less. The FBI and the CIA compete, don't they? All levels of government compete with one another. One policeman competes with his partner for the promotion. States compete for population. Yes, it is true that government often tries to grant monopoly rights to certain agencies. It does this all the time. It never works. Prison systems compete with one another I'm certain. You can think of a thousand way in which the laborers in force compete. They compete with the laborers in other markets as well, because competition is pervasive and goes across all boundaries. So, what do you think? Are you ready to concede that there is a market in force?

I believe you are asking me to try again. Very well, I will try again. You write there is a market in labor, not in force. Could you elaborate? If the labor consists of enforcing laws, or defeating enemy armies... why isn't this a market in force? Do you not discriminate at all? There are different types of labor. Labor isn't just labor. An executioner's labor is different from other kinds. A policeman enforces law. It is part of his labor. I think this is simple. You can understand and acknowledge the point I am making, can you not? And why on god's green earth did you put "I don't feel like paying my taxes" in quotes? Who in the hell are you quoting? Talk about a straw man, will you? Try again, only try to be less snide.

Getting back to the OP's question about whether the monopoly of force governments have means that governments are inevitably corruptible and therefore tyrannical, I agree completely with Volco's responses. I'd add governments don't really have anything like a monopoly on force. Not so long as the second amendment exists. The founding fathers knew that everyone can't just place their trust in some institution, the people who pass through it, and go to sleep. Part of the solution is to make sure every free citizen has access to a gun. Call it mutual self-destruction in the microcosm. Or I suppose there was an advertisement for guns which I think has truth behind it: "God didn't create man equal, Sam Colt did." Aside from education - free society is logically the best society - (which is the final solution), to fill in the gaps, we just have to protect ourselves with guns. Or to say it a different way. The first amendment is first. The second is second. We do need both as a matter of law. But as a matter of practice, I'd rather defeat the enemies of freedom with words than with a gun.

I want to talk about his idea that G in Newton's gravitational law is a scaling constant that gets you from one measured field to another. You're probably better off reading him directly, as I won't explain it correctly; I don't have a background in physics. That you measure the volume of an object in space and multiply it by the object's density to figure out its "mass", but that since you are multiplying "fields" together, you need a number to relate them. So, the reason why G is such a small fraction is that we want to bring the volume down to the level of the photon. And that the photon can somehow explain weight. It is an attempt to explain why matter has "mass" through the photon. Supposedly, the same goes for Coulomb's law and why Coulomb's law is similar to Newton's. They were both unifying the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field? What is the commonly held opinion on this?

Does Ayn Rand ever address the issue of citizen's arrests?

Grames, most people do have a "common sense" idea about the necessity to fund expensive government programs. We agree on that. How else can one explain world wars? Yes, we agree that it is people who argue from first principles who lack this "common sense" grasp of how the real world works. You may wish to deny that there is a market in force, but facts are facts. People pay other people to do their dirty work. That is a fact. It is the right, also. I call it "division of labor". Each man is not a policeman, a judge, a prison guard, or a solider. We pay other people to do our dirty work for us. It is more efficient that way. Good thing too, because I don't want to get my hands dirty. I'd rather wear a tie to work. The "taxpayer" controls the government. He writes the check. He pays for the pyramids to be built. He pays for slaughterhouses. Of the two of us, I'm not the one with the pie in the sky. I know all about how the real world works, and how most people have a "common sense" idea about the necessity of coercion on a grand scale. The "taxpayer" controls the government only insofar as he is able to withhold his "taxes" If he must rebel, then he has previously lost control. Rebelling is a last desperate attempt to regain lost freedoms. You want to reduce the people to pawns. You demand a blank check. You say the government will fill out the sum and you will pay or you will leave the country - Disappear if you disagree. But where will I go? I will seek more freedom. The freedom to use my mind independently from those who not allow it. To freer country. To a land that competes by offering more freedom. And there we are, back to the idea that there really can be no such thing as a monopoly on force. Because every man, true man, knows he should be free and will oppose anyone who denies him his freedom, by force if necessary. At any rate, thanks for the book recommendations. After I read those books, I will probably agree with you, do you think? Or is there some reason I just can't be convinced, do you think? P.S. Who "owns" the government? I mean, if the taxpayer can't withhold payment, presumably he is not in charge. How does one land one of those cushy jobs? P.P.S. What is your opinion on the draft, Grames. Can you refresh my memory?

Grames, you did not understand what I meant. Please, let me try to be more clear about what I was trying to communicate. For example, I meant for you to compare two different American citizens and the (difference in) services each requires from a government. Like people who live in areas prone to natural disasters should logically pay more for home insurance, people who live in areas easily attacked by foreign invaders should logically pay more. But who determines this difference or differences like it? The free market must set the prices. The government services that free individuals require varies from person-to-person and therefore the price must also vary. The free market should set the price as a matter of principle. Free people, left alone to spend their energy as they see fit, is the best way to create goods and services. You wrote: "Are you claiming that in the entire history of tax-funded government from Hammurabi on there have never been any innovations in warfare or diplomacy? No, I'd be a fool to claim that. I suppose you are making the point that historically governments that have taxed have allowed for innovation to take place. But I don't know exactly how you would elaborate this argument and I'm loathe to try to expand upon this idea which I consider fallacious merely in order to try to knock it down. Suffice to say, I'm sure you are aware that advances in the business of governance have been made without the help of government taxes. Oftentimes, governments resist advances in their business because the people in power prefer the status quo. Out of ignorance, stupidity, or malice, or for whatever reason the people given the moral and legal sanction to tax have used that power to stifle progress. Casually, the power to tax prevents improvement more often than not. Logically, it is because people free to support their government of choice tend to support governments which do a good job as opposed to a bad one. I said that people should be free to boycott their government, and you wrote: "No, that would grant a sanction to lawlessness. You can emigrate or rebel. Withholding taxes is more than an argument. You can be a hermit or live on barter if you insist, but those are law-abiding measures." Withholding taxes is more than an argument, but rebelling or moving to another country to support a competing government is not??? Consider what you are saying. It does not hold water. If I oppose your envisioned ideal of government, do you want a boycotter, or a rebel, or do you insist that I pick up and leave or go off the grid? If you can't convince me (I like to think I am smart and educated) to support your government voluntarily - if you have no place for me in your system, what will you do with the uneducated masses? It is an interesting problem, is it not? Let me remind you at this point that if you could instead share the knowledge you allegedly have with me, then I would agree with you. You have read some history books. What books? Let us go to the source, that way it will be easier to get me on the same page as you. But I don't believe you can convince me. Indeed you acknowledge that you can't convince most people about how much money is required to finance good government - which is why, you argue, that we must take it from them by force. Right at the foundation of your argument, you are claiming that I cannot understand what government I must support. You are claiming most people are sheep. They can't understand what they must pay for and the are therefore unwilling to pay for it. Well, I am no ram or buck. I have a mind. So I suggest you start a different thread wherein you explore how much money needs to spent in order to preserve our freedoms, and abandon this one where you explore why it is necessary that we can't be trusted to preserve at all.

Yolo county invades the bay area! I hope no one minds. We are a sedentary breed, rarely straying far from our farm instruments. We have Indian casinos. Do you guys have those? Are you jealous?

The more I read, the more I like this guy. He remakes the point that if the 20th century did what it did to objects like the government, the art museum, the novel, etc. If thinkers in the 20th century and before had to attack logic and universities and schools in order to accomplish all that, why would one presume that math and science were any different? You probably know about the methods whereby children are taught to read and write in public schools. The whole attack on reason was pervasive - that was logical. I started reading his stuff, and was excited at first because it seemed to me he promised incredible things. But he soon fell short of my expectations. Now I'm returning with a more open mind; I'm sure he doesn't know everything, but he makes a great deal of sense in what he says. I mean, what he says may not amount to as much as I had thought it would at first, nor will I agree or be able to verify everything immediately, but I know he knows a lot about this mathematics and physics and that I may benefit from reading him. Also, two things. It seems to me his that the links that are supposed to take you from one chapter to the next don't really accomplish that and that one is better off not using any of his links period. And I saved the best for last: his politics. I'm still sort of scratching my head about his politics. My theory is that is sort of playing devil's advocate. But that is not physics or math.

Grames, if somebody does not recognize the value of your envisioned government, he should be left free to do so. There are multiple reasons why this is so. For example, suppose I choose to live in the mountains away from most other people. Say I own a gun and can defend myself easily. Compare that with an American citizen who chooses to take his vacations at the royal palaces of foreign dictators. Should government charge us the same amount for its services? I say of course not. Who decides how much the difference is? Suppose someone makes some new innovation in warfare or diplomacy or what-have-you. How does it get funded if everyone is being forced to pay for the preexisting institutions? The business of governance has to always change with the times and so people have to be free to choose among competing ideas, is that no so? Should we go to war with this country or that? Should we help that country defend itself and so invite chaos, or are we more cautious? People have to be free in order to make these decisions. They must be able to boycott their government if they think their government is endangering their lives or doing a poor job. We need military rule, we all agree. How about a military that respects individual differences of opinion? When I get the bill, I want to be free to argue about it. You've got to haggle. Basically, free people make better choices.

Quoting other people is usually spamming. It is a relatively effortless semblance of something thoughtful. I don't want what I write to be liberally quoted or even quoted at all. My writing is not good, it should not be quoted. Most people's writing is of a normal quality. It shouldn't be quoted. I think the thing that allows for the liberal quoting is the quote boxes. It is like a safety box that protects its user from having to justify his use of space. If he had to manually do Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V, it would be about as effortless, but then he wouldn't have the box. He'd have only his quotation marks. I tried to start a thread about this in the debate section, but I failed somehow. And prior to that I had accidentally lost a long post about the same subject. I think this is a very important subject and that something should be done. A debate on it in the debate forum is where I would start.

Quoting people is easy when it can be done with a couple of clicks. Quoting people makes it easier to answer them, because you break up their writing into sections and respond to each individually. Another reason quoting makes things easier is because you can move their entire post into your post. Doing that alone is useful, because it says, "I have taken the time to copy what you have written, and include it in what I have to say." Also, having done so facilitates a response i.e. you don't have to remember what the person said because it is already in your post and you can just look and see. And quoting people is a way of making it clear to everyone what you are talking about, provided of course you don't quote everything all the time. Quotes are good and useful, but there is some kind of trade off of course. Quotes take up space. Quoting something means asking other people to reread the same thing. Quoting involves creating words by clicking copy&paste as opposed to rewriting - it is a effortless semblance of something which appears to be, on the surface, as thoughtful as the next body of text - which is the objection to spam in general. When you quote someone, you not only repeat everything they got right, but also any mistakes they may have made. Quotes take up space. Opps, I mentioned that one already. What are your thoughts about quotes?

You're proposing forced expropriation of my wealth. I've pleaded that you stop that and instead appeal to my faculty of reason. And I've declared that I will defend what I've earned from you if you try to bypass my reason. You simply ignore me? That is astonishing to me. That this thread has gone on as long as it has without someone becoming visibly upset as I am, I regard that as an embarrassment. I'm sorry if that is harsh, or you think I'm not treating your arguments with enough respect. It is only because you are declaring that mankind in general should not be allowed to reason independently from you. You, who have read some history books, and think you have learned from them that I can not be trusted to provide for my own security. That you and anyone else who has read the same books must provide it for me against my will. Why can't I provide for my own security? I haven't read those books, so I don't understand and I'm not prepared to spend what it takes to keep my freedom? Nonsense.

I think that bears repeating. If you want something from me, you have to convince me to part with it willingly. You know what I'm implying I hope.

I have lost my wallet. I didn't break into every house around and start shooting, but I did go back to where I thought I left it and started asking people if they knew anything about it. I didn't call the police either because I expected they would not even do that much, but rather cause a lot of embarrassment for everyone, possibly brandish a weapon and file a report. But I'm prejudiced against cops, because my only direct experience with them have been when they write me outrageously expensive fines for petty traffic infractions at 4 in the morning. Anyway, I hope people are a little more rational than you give them credit for, Grames. Like I said before, if you can figure out that we need to spend more on national defense, and if you are correct, then surely you can convince everyone else. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps we will forever be sheep in need of a shepherd willing to shear us from time to time against our protestations, for our own good of course. No, there is the mistake. We are not sheep. We are people with minds and if you want something from me, you have to convince me to give it to you.

Thank you for your advice and the link to Dr. Kenner. I can appreciate the "Just Do It". I've always had a bit of trouble putting my ideas into practice. The world has to be perfect before I roll up my sleeves and do anything. I was reminded that my brother used to tell me to put up a Nike poster in my room. I suppose I'm just afraid of change. For some reason it is hard to accept in myself the flaws I readily see in other people. Go figure.

Let people be free. You say you came to your conclusions after reading history. Well, after you share that history with everyone, everyone will voluntarily adopt whatever scheme you've concluded is necessary, correct. If you can figure it out, then we all can. Therefore, there is no need to confiscate what you need for your scheme by force, correct?

I'm not so sure. He is not flat out claiming Pi is 4. This is from his site: "Abstract: I show that in kinematic situations, π is 4. For all those going ballistic over my title, I repeat and stress that this paper applies to kinematic situations, not to static situations. I am analyzing an orbit, which is caused by motion and includes the time variable. In that situation, π becomes 4. When measuring your waistline, you are not creating an orbit, and you can keep π for that. So quit writing me nasty, uninformed letters." I didn't bother reading that paper since the Abstract scared me away, but I read the abbreviated paper on Calculus the OP linked to and I found it somewhat edifying. I'm skeptical about most of his claims to be sure, but what I have read thus far has been easy to understand and compelling.

I have an older brother. And being 5 years younger than him, I've usually been the protege and he the mentor. But as time has passed, the difference in age has seemed to become less consequential. Usually he teaches me things, but just now I was trying to teach him something. And it was uncomfortable for me. I think it was for the both of us. How should I feel? What should I do? I feel like our relationship is being violated by the passage of time. In part, I don't want to break any ties with him, but I feel it is necessary somehow. Does anyone have a good book they can recommend that deals with this subject? I titled the topic redefining a relationship. I guess my question is, "how?"

Ghostbusters!

2046 is exactly right, and he is making the arguments that I want to make. But I want to emphasis - our society is going to be one in which everyone wants to be free. Eventually mankind in general is going to figure out that Freedom Works. That is my understanding of the theory. Since we want to be free, the first thing we have to do is figure out how to stop Governments from oppressing us. That includes foreign governments. So, we are on the right track, don't you see? You're thinking about this problem, as am I, obviously. If we get enough people to believe that freedom works, we can start spending money to defeat those that don't. So, we want to be free. And to achieve that we have to spend money to defeat our oppressors. Witness the elections. The elections are the problem. Because if we lose those then everyone will be spending money on war. Lots of money. (inflation) Lots of war. But if we win, if people embrace freedom, then everyone will have a lot more money eventually and we'll have plenty to stop the people who want slaves. So, the key is freedom. Was it Salt n' Pepper? "Free your mind, and the rest will follow?"