Freedom Is Not My Enemy

reply to post by DINSTAAR



I guess I see some of those as being a part of society and some as being law.
The hard thing for me is I have to be attuned to your specific paradigm to understand what is a law, right or freedom/tyranny. Break down each, cross reference and extrapolate from various documents to laws to constitution... Sighting which points are the threshold of freedom and tyranny.


I suppose I am lucky not to recognize the same hinderances,

Having been born into income tax, drug laws, child protection laws, safety codes and building codes I rather enjoy them. On a trip to Africa, Somalia in particular, there are none of these things that hinder your freedom here. Although I think you would find the other things you take for granted CANNOT exist when taking a dump becomes a moral hazard I am not convinced many of you understand what type of life takes hold when freedom becomes tyrannical in the most chaotic of ways...

Ground beef is a mixture of Oxen and anything else meat

Some bottled water is good others give you the worst of squirts

The money you exchanged is infact counterfeit but you are clueless because you are not from there

Everytime you flip a switch you face electrocution

Is that really pure GASOLINE you are putting into the engine??? Looks a little thick

Spelling/pronunciation is not agreed upon and become a point of extreme division


My point is this nation and its laws have grown out of a less "evolved" form where above IS commonplace. I believe the entirety of what bugs you can be found in East
Africa amongst other places, but I doubt you would like what you get in return for your freedom and 1/10,000th the legal structure/regulation.

There is give and take with everything, I don't think some of you realize how much you get for your give (or being taken from)

Thats my point I guess, thanks


PS I do not hold the key to your freedom all - just talking here






[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
You know, such contracts might also create a secondary market.

For example, a doctor might provide an exculpatory contract that prevents you from suing him in the event of malpractice - BUT - you as an individual could then purchase your own malpractice insurance to cover you in the event that the doctor screws up.

This way if you want SUPER cheap care, you could visit a doctor that provides no coverage if he screws up - and the choice is YOURS if you want to take out malpractice coverage before seeing him or not.


God this all makes so much sense - hence why its all illegal.





[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

I like that one!!!

Cheers!

reply to post by Janky Red


Africa is hosed due to a lack of guns.

The bullies have them, good people don't.

I think we could do more to solve Africa's problems if we cargo dropped machine guns into every village.

Sounds counter intuitive, but I find thats generally the best cure. Obviously what they have been trying up to this point has been a complete and utter failure.

Africa needs stable currencies and free trade agreements. This would allow the people to begin the process of specialization. A necessary step for economic growth to occur. Right now they are in an agricultural society that has no trade specialization. That has to change and the thugs need to be removed from power before any growth can occur.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Africa is hosed due to a lack of guns.

The bullies have them, good people don't.

I think we could do more to solve Africa's problems if we cargo dropped machine guns into every village.

Sounds counter intuitive, but I find thats generally the best cure. Obviously what they have been trying up to this point has been a complete and utter failure.

Africa needs stable currencies and free trade agreements. This would allow the people to begin the process of specialization. A necessary step for economic growth to occur. Right now they are in an agricultural society that has no trade specialization. That has to change and the thugs need to be removed from power before any growth can occur.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

When I was there they had plenty of AK's with the red tapped banana clips (armor piercing rounds), EVERYWHERE where are you talking about???

I personally think the problem is ZERO structure ak: laws, regulations and enforcement.

There is no uniformity (except for bullets M43 I believe) and everyone does/sells what they want.

The country has very free trade - you kill it you sell it, call it what you want and there is nobody and no way to get it straight.

There is a thresh hold where freedom gets you this, anything goes, but you get poisoned often, ripped off often, rarely buy what you thought, no brakes (cause they are not required), no licenses so you don't really know who ran you over or who fed you god knows what, which is burning your colon...

ITs VERY FREE...





[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


No, they are not free and they do not have free trade.

www.cato.org...

Africa has some of the highest tariffs in the world. Many of the countries even have tariffs on medical goods.

Africa is killing itself and the WTO, World Bank, and the US are colluding with the African governments to keep them in the dark ages.

I haven't read through this thread yet so I apologize if these questions have been asked yet.

First question.

How exactly does the concept of private property gel with your statements on freedom? Even at it's most basic, unenforced form, private property would require the respecting of a social contract. Violation of this contract at it's most basic form would resort to violence, would it not? I'm not bashing the concept of private property here, I'm just trying to understand how this would work in a 100% "free" society.

Second question.

Does the wage system stay the same way that it currently is? Suppose the workers want to go the route of self-management? As the state and the business model are practically the same, how would an attempt by workers of, say, a local coffee shop to turn their place of work into a collectively owned system be dealt with? Allowed or disallowed?


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Someone336]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

No, they are not free and they do not have free trade.

www.cato.org...

Africa has some of the highest tariffs in the world. Many of the countries even have tariffs on medical goods.

Africa is killing itself and the WTO, World Bank, and the US are colluding with the African governments to keep them in the dark ages.

well I was there in 2000, which was probably a more free time and you could sell what you wanted, where you wanted, when you wanted - and buy anything -

Didn't need a license for anything and the central "government" was to weak to enforce anything or collect revenue... (although I think they license vehicles now)

they were very FREE, they could be naked, piss on your foot, sleep in the road, fire a gun in a building, sell rotten food, create a fire in the middle of room
(petrol drum)...



[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by Someone336
I haven't read through this thread yet so I apologize if these questions have been asked yet.

First question.

How exactly does the concept of private property gel with your statements on freedom? Even at it's most basic, unenforced form, private property would require the respecting of a social contract. Violation of this contract at it's most basic form would resort to violence, would it not? I'm not bashing the concept of private property here, I'm just trying to understand how this would work in a 100% "free" society.

You own it if you are the first to transform a given resource. If I take a block of wood and shape it into a spear, I own that spear. This is natural and right. I can trade my spear for some pants or I might use it to hunt with, but its my spear. If someone tries to take my spear by force, I'm entitled to defend myself.

If I was really concerned about keeping my spear, I might hire some really big mean looking guys to protect me. In fact, big mean guys might make it a business to offer protection services for a fee that I could subscribe to.

Also, since I want to protect my spear and myself from any harm, I might take out insurance on my spear and myself. This way, if someone harms me or steals my spear, I would be covered. Since the insurance industry wouldn't have to pay me if it recovered my spear for me, it might hire those big men on my behalf to go find my spear.

If the big men find the criminal that stole my spear but he already broke it/lost it/sold it, the big men might make that criminal work for me until he either produced me another spear or worked enough to pay me back for the damages.

Of course, since the criminal might feel a little threatened by this, he might also take out insurance to protect him from my big mean men. Then the two insurance companies would have to determine who is at fault. If the two insurance companies can't determine who is at fault, they might turn to a third party arbitrator to decide for them (a private court for example).

That's the basics.

Second question.

Does the wage system stay the same way that it currently is? Suppose the workers want to go the route of self-management? As the state and the business model are practically the same, how would an attempt by workers of, say, a local coffee shop into a collectively owned system, be dealt with? Allowed or disallowed?

If its voluntary action and cooperation between individuals, its allowed.

That's what freedom means.

reply to post by mnemeth1

That's the basics.

Alright, makes sense to me. Thanks!

If its voluntary action and cooperation between individuals, its allowed.

That's what freedom means.

Let me rephrase me question.

We have this hypothetical coffee shop in this hypothetical free society. There is the dishwashers, the employees who run the counter, shift leaders and managers. Above them is the ownerships, outnumbered by their employees.

The workers get together an decide that they want to transform this coffee shop into a worker co-operative where they would earn, instead of their hourly wages, equal owner shares. This could boost their earnings, but significantly lessen that of the actual owners.

How would this scenario be solved? Since it is voluntary for the majority, would the workplace be transformed? Or would it require the intercession of a third party arbitrator, as in the private property scenario, to solve the issue?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Excellent post my friend! Great list of resources also. Too bad those arguing against it haven't taken the time to review even one of your suggestions. If nothing else it serves to help us know who the enemies of freedom are.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Someone336
I haven't read through this thread yet so I apologize if these questions have been asked yet.

First question.

How exactly does the concept of private property gel with your statements on freedom? Even at it's most basic, unenforced form, private property would require the respecting of a social contract. Violation of this contract at it's most basic form would resort to violence, would it not? I'm not bashing the concept of private property here, I'm just trying to understand how this would work in a 100% "free" society.

You own it if you are the first to transform a given resource. If I take a block of wood and shape it into a spear, I own that spear. This is natural and right. I can trade my spear for some pants or I might use it to hunt with, but its my spear. If someone tries to take my spear by force, I'm entitled to defend myself.

If I was really concerned about keeping my spear, I might hire some really big mean looking guys to protect me. In fact, big mean guys might make it a business to offer protection services for a fee that I could subscribe to.

Somalia

right there, spot on

Big mean guys and concentrated big money begets more of the same there and filling the void left by a unified central governing body.

But the manipulation big money provides that creates the true miracles

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Someone336


Since the owner owns the coffee shop, he could either agree to the workers demands or fire them.

If he doesn't agree to the demands, the workers could strike or quit.

Originally posted by Janky Red

Somalia

right there, spot on

Big mean guys and concentrated big money begets more of the same there and filling the void left by a unified central governing body.

But the manipulation big money provides that creates the true miracles

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

not quite the same.

the big mean guys in Somalia operate a racketeering operation.

that's not exactly a competitive market in security services.


For example, I have my pick of security services here in America right now. If I wanted too, I could hire a guard for my house by any number of agencies.

We don't have chaos here because of that.

In fact my condo complex has a private guard that operates on my behalf.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

That's the basics.

Alright, makes sense to me. Thanks!

If its voluntary action and cooperation between individuals, its allowed.

That's what freedom means.

Let me rephrase me question.

We have this hypothetical coffee shop in this hypothetical free society. There is the dishwashers, the employees who run the counter, shift leaders and managers. Above them is the ownerships, outnumbered by their employees.

The workers get together an decide that they want to transform this coffee shop into a worker co-operative where they would earn, instead of their hourly wages, equal owner shares. This could boost their earnings, but significantly lessen that of the actual owners.

How would this scenario be solved? Since it is voluntary for the majority, would the workplace be transformed? Or would it require the intercession of a third party arbitrator, as in the private property scenario, to solve the issue?

Questions like this must be trolling... The workers have no say because it is not thier property.The coffee shop is the owners property. They are not free to steal the owners property that would be harming him. If they want an employee owned cooperative they are free to start their own.

Dog the bounty hunter is another example of a private firm enforcing laws.

We don't have chaos here in America even though there are thousands of private bounty hunting and security firms conducting private police work.

Dog isn't going to run around arresting people without cause, it would be a waste of his time and it would provoke a reaction by other bounty hunters who might come looking for him.

State or no State, Dog isn't going to cause chaos.




[edit on 25-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by hawkiye

Questions like this must be trolling... The workers have no say because it is not thier property.The coffee shop is the owners property. They are not free to steal the owners property that would be harming him. If they want an employee owned cooperative they are free to start their own.

No trolling here, just an honest question. Ask a question, get an answer. Discuss with civility. That's the way discourse works, that is, until someone starts name calling.

Originally posted by Janky Red
well I was there in 2000, which was probably a more free time and you could sell what you wanted, where you wanted, when you wanted - and buy anything -

Didn't need a license for anything and the central "government" was to weak to enforce anything or collect revenue... (although I think they license vehicles now)

they were very FREE, they could be naked, piss on your foot, sleep in the road, fire a gun in a building, sell rotten food, create a fire in the middle of room
(petrol drum)...

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

Being free to buy meat in a market or a gun from a street corner is not free trade.

If the country is not allowing free imports and exports, it prevents trade specialization and maximization of resources. This is precisely why North Korea is such a sh*thole.

A country MUST have unrestricted trade in order for trade specialization to occur. This is a major source of economic development. The African's need to be able to sell cheap goods on the world market and buy cheap goods on the world market.

How did China get so prosperous so quickly? They liberalized trade agreements. This allowed their workers to produce tons of cheap goods for the world market. The same could be true of Africa, lots of cheap labor available, but the trade tariffs and unstable currencies/politics make it unsuitable for development.

The tariffs, unstable currencies, and unstable politics are ALL because of government. Government is the problem, not the solution.

Originally posted by Janky Red
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by Someone336

Somalia

right there, spot on

Big mean guys and concentrated big money begets more of the same there and filling the void left by a unified central governing body.

But the manipulation big money provides that creates the true miracles

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Janky Red]

What you seem to miss is that central government is always the biggest meanest guy on the block and the biggest usurper of rights by force there is. And why do people always try and equate freedom with places run by force like somalia.

There have been several societies who had viturallyl no government like the ancient celts and lived in relative peace and freedom for a thousand years being the most sophisticated society of thier time without all the trappings of government and police etc. They have private arbitrations and contracts were enforced using sureties. Once and a great while they had a feud over something they could not settle using thier methods but nothing even close to the wars and destruction of the 20th century check it out: www.libertarian.ie... Scroll down to:
"For a New Liberty
12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts
Murray Rothbard
Police Protection"

And start reading

Originally posted by Someone336
reply to post by hawkiye

 

Questions like this must be trolling... The workers have no say because it is not thier property.The coffee shop is the owners property. They are not free to steal the owners property that would be harming him. If they want an employee owned cooperative they are free to start their own.

No trolling here, just an honest question.

Ask a question, get an answer. Discuss with civility. That's the way discourse works, that is, until someone starts name calling.

Well when someone asks a question like Gee the employees of a coffee shop want to take it over and do what they want how do you handle that, one has to wonder because that is theft and when you try and act like you don't know taking someone elses property is theft it makes me think you must be trolling, so I am not buying it and not buying the guilt trip to try and cover your tracks either.

reply to post by hawkiye

Well when someone asks a question like Gee the employees of a coffee shop want to take it over and do what they want how do you handle that, one has to wonder because that is theft and when you try and act like you don't know taking someone elses property is theft it makes me think you must be trolling, so I am not buying it and not buying the guilt trip to try and cover your tracks either.

Look at it in the context of this thread: it's about anarcho-capitalism. The question of private property is one of the key issues when discussing anarchism, and I'm sorry you if don't like that.

Your assumption that the workers can't take over the coffee shop due to property laws is based on your idea that there has to be a state there to prevent such things from happening.. however, this is hypothetical for a hypothetical stateless world.

Both of my questions are rooted in how to enforce private property laws in such a society, as well as the role of the majority vs. the minority. Nothing more, nothing less.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Someone336]