Recent comments

Indeed, Paul, not only does the word "property" have french(actually Latin-I believe it is a Roman concept, as we understand it)roots, but so does "common law" which I often(and I once did myself)hear many in the liberty community lauding. There is, in fact, a considerable controversy amongst historians of the pre-Conquest era over just how centralized authority was, and how organized it was-in the academic literature those who see the evidence pointing to a largely de-centralized government are known as minimalists and those favoring a more fully developed State prior to 1066 are known as maximalists. At any rate, certainly the concept of property, at least in land, was in evidence in the record far before the Conquest-the term for it was "book-land." Literally land recorded on paper. We cannot though presume that this was a spontaneous development, since the Romans had control of lower Britain for many centuries. Indeed, the long term resistance of Scotland, Wales, and to a significant extent Kent to "civilization" in the quasi-Roman sense is evidence of Roman influence in Wessex and other areas that were under their direct control. As to Common Law, this is 100%, without historical question, a development of Norman Conquerors (Specifically, but not limited to, Duke William and William Rufus.) It is a legal system that relies on central authority as the final adjudicator, and as such presumes the supremacy of the State. Often the structure of common law reflected the old customary law principles, but the relationship was only superficial the common law was a system designed to ensure that the conquerors controlled "justice." There is no question about this, to any historian with an understanding of the era the notion that the Common Law is "natural" is like stating that the sky is green and the Sun is blue. One of my one of these days is to write a STR column-perhaps when I do I'll elaborate. For the moment let me cite an essay by Frederick Pollock: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=284&id=1167&option=com_conte... In this document, Pollock is referring to late Saxon society-the "hundred" is a construct of positive law, not the customary law-later kings came up with this to help standardize law, and enact its enforcement(it was a crime to not chase a thief, for instance); when he refers to "the witan", the best corollary is Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings in his dealings with various kings, minus any magic. Tolkien was, after all, a professor of Anglo-Saxon. Not a perfect analogy, but good enough to get the point across. Also, forget not that Pollock was writing at the turn of the last century, when "progress" was still a God. I think a great resource for you would be Max Gluckman's "Peace in the Feud": http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/1/1.extract I'm sorry, I do not have a non-copyright version available free....it should be out there though(or PM me.) Also "the Law of the Somalis" by Michael von Notten (I recently gave my copy to Kent McManigal): http://www.amazon.com/Law-Somalis-Foundation-Economic-Development/dp/156... For anyone who has got themselves convinced that "Natural Rights" somehow exist in the concrete world(i.e. minus a State to enforce them) I suggest "The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law 1150 1625 " by Brian Tierney: http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Natural-Rights-University-Religion/dp/0802848...

My goodness Paul, you ARE confused. Are you plagued by old-timer's disease? ;-) I may be the only man on STR[1] who hasn't used a Taxpayer Identification Number of any kind, had any government licenses or identification cards of any ilk, or taken any member-only benefits or privileges in about a dozen years. How about you? p.s. You didn't have very good control of "your" money in the bank before, if your government confiscated it, so what makes you believe that you have any better control over "your" money now? lol ________________________________________________________ [1] If there are any others here, they've never made themselves known to me, and I don't expect them to.

I don't think I do confuse them. I have some money in the bank. It is not in my possession, but it is still my stuff (because I control it). Until it is confiscated, as the federal government did with a 1mdc account I once had. Then it is no longer my stuff. Suverans, you sound a bit like those old farts who justify their receiving Socialist Security because they are "just recovering what I was forced to contribute when I was young". Of course that is silly. The money that was "contributed" was pissed away, just like all the other tax dollars that were sent to government. The same way the mugger in the article spent it on a prostitute. And no, I'm not getting confused about the fungibility of money either.

This true story is distributed to schoolchildren in New Zealand as part of their Maori heritage... Tarore In 1835, The Bible Society published 100 copies of the Gospel of Luke in the Maori language. In 1836, missionaries gave one to a young Maori girl, Tarore, at a mission school near Matamata. She read it to her father, the chief of the Waikato tribe. She kept her treasured copy of the Gospel of Luke under her pillow when she slept. Under threat of a neighboring warring Rotorua tribe, the mission school was in the process of relocating to Tauranga. On October 19, 1836, at the Wairere Falls, a raiding party killed the 12-year-old girl and took the treasured object from under her pillow. Later, unable to read, the Rotorua chief discarded it until a slave boy came along who had learned to read, and he revealed its contents to his fascinated listeners. The Rotorua chief himself was convicted by its con-tents and resolved to become a Christian. He also re-solved to seek out the father of the murdered girl and beg for his forgiveness. This mission was, of course, life threatening. When finally confronting the father, the chief of the Waikato tribe—and risking the customary tribal response of revenge—the father of the murdered girl forgave him, and thus began a peaceful relationship between the two previously warring tribes! A young girl murdered… A devastated father refusing to seek revenge… A murderer transformed through the Gospel he stole from his victim… Then forgiveness given and peace achieved! The Good News Spreads The story of this young Maori girl and her copy of the Gospel of Luke then became the key to the conversion of many of the Maori tribes. When missionaries visited both the North and South Islands, they discovered that many of the Maori tribes had already been converted to Christ due to the story of Tarore and her copy of the Gospel of Luke making its rounds… The Treaty of Waitangi On February 6, 1840, the nation of New Zealand was born by the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi between the Crown of England and the Maori tribes. While primarily dealing with land rights and other issues, this foundational document continues to obligate the Crown of the United Kingdom to safeguard and protect the Maori’s rights of worship. Since a significant portion of the Maori tribes had previously been converted to Christianity, the government now continues to be legally committed to protect Christianity in New Zealand. There are Bibles in schools, home schooling is encouraged, and many Christian schools receive significant government sup-port. (See New Zealand’s national anthem, left.) It seemed appropriate that we recorded our most recent update of our exposition of the Gospel of Luke in New Zealand, where it has had such a unique and special historical impact. The Gospel of Luke The Gospel according to Luke has been called the most beautiful book ever written.1 At its heart is the perfect Life—Christ’s teachings, redemption through Him, and the changed lives of those who cluster around Him. The religion of Israel could only produce a Pharisee; The power of Rome could only produce a Caesar; The philosophy of Greece could only produce an Alexander, an infant at heart; It was to this Greek mind that Luke wrote: he presents Jesus Christ as the perfect Man, the Universal Man, the very person the Greeks were looking for. H.A. Ironside For the Gentile Reader Of the four Gospels, Luke’s seems to be the most popular to the Gentile reader. Luke is a Gentile, and as such he focuses on the reality that the Gospel is for all nations. There are many Old Testament prophecies which foretold that the Gentiles would be beneficiaries of God’s kingdom. Luke helps us see through Matthew’s Jewish veil and presents to us a broader perspective. Luke the Physician Luke is a Greek physician, and as a physician, he is focused on Jesus’ humanity. As the “beloved physician,” he used more medical terms than Hippocrates, the father of medicine. He has given us an obstetrical account by a doctor of the virgin birth, then he carries us through to the agony of the Cross and the miracle of the empty tomb. Luke was chosen by the Holy Spirit to write this gospel—Luke’s Greek is the highest Greek in the New Testament, the best of any New Testament writer. His writings are regarded as some of the finest pieces of historical writing in ancient literature. Sir William Ram-say set out to disprove Luke. After diligent investigation, he concluded that Luke had not made one historical inaccuracy—his gospel is the most complete historically. Special Features Luke gives us many features omitted by Matthew and Mark: An obstetrical account of the virgin birth; 20 miracles, six of which are in no other gospel; and 23 parables, 18 of which are found nowhere else. It is Luke alone who mentions the coming of the angel to our Savior to strengthen Him during Gethsemane’s agony. And had it not been for Luke, we would never have known of the penitent thief, or of the visit of our resurrected Lord with the two disciples on the way to their home at Emmaus. Parables that are unique to Luke’s Gospel include the story of the Good Samaritan, the rich fool, the barren fig tree, the great supper (not to be confused with the marriage of the king’s son as given in Matthew), the lost coin, the Prodigal Son, the unjust steward, the story of Lazarus, the unjust judge and the widow, the Pharisee and the publican, and the parable of the pounds (distinct from the ten talents). These are re-corded in Luke’s Gospel alone. And only Luke reports on the sending of the 70. Paul’s Trial Documents? There are some scholars who suspect that Luke’s Gospel—and its sequel, the Book of Acts (“Luke Volume 2”)—may have been required trial documentation. Roman law required that the historical background of a case had to precede an appeal to Caesar. Such an undertaking was expensive and Theophilus may have been Paul’s sponsor. We notice two interesting observations about Luke’s writings that corroborate this: first, uprisings were in-variably the fault of Paul’s Jewish adversaries; and second, centurions are always portrayed as the good guys. http://www.khouse.org/

Paul, I think you make an important distinction between "possessions" and "property". I've come to think of the term "property" as an abstract legal definition, whereas "possessions", or your stuff, is the real world concrete description. This is a tricky issue, since "ownership" is an implication of "property". For me, the key in understanding this was studying Anglo-Saxon England. This is a society in many ways very similar to viking age Iceland that David Friedman has written about, particularly prior to the year 800. Long historical treatise made short, one of the primary reforms that Alfred and assorted other kings made that unified the disparate kingdoms(then really quasi-anarchic societies that unified only for defensive purposes)was to first codify and standardize rates of restitution for violence and other harm( the system of wer, bot, and wite- with the king suddenly getting a cut), and then to essentially create the crime of theft. Theft was (is) essentially unenforceable under the customary law system(which is non-government, by the way) but most certainly IS enforceable by magistrates of the king. The concept of property, and "rights" to it is directly traceable to the efforts of kings to consolidate power. I've studied reports of many contemporary customary law societies, and while, as in Saxon England, possessions are generally respected, it is because an attempt to take them might cause violence, rather than that they are "owned." People are generally expected to see to their possessions, and if they are taken by guile or though stealth the loss is born by the individual, and any attempt to recover possessions are made by that person. Unfortunately, most libertarians I've come across are quite myopic on this subject and tend to place property on an absurd pedestal where it becomes sane, and even beneficial, to execute simple trespassers despite the lack of any true threat. Since, particularly in the US, most land claims can be traced to either violence of its threat(and are essentially ALL technically property of the government anyway), and that a huge proportion of wealth is based upon some level of government interlocution, it seems a strange position for people devoted to non-aggression.

Sorry, I was not being clear. I was actually referring to the decades-long debate among libertarians about what IP is, or whether it exists (of which the SOPA thing is the latest example). I reject such silly anthropomorphic arguments as "information wants to be free". Instead I think property is the stuff in your possession and control.

I'm going to have to think about your "homegrown theory" some Paul, but I think I genuinely agree with your premise. I repeatedly found myself thinking about George Carlin's famous rant about "stuff" and smiling. Well done, sir.

Obviously the dialectical critical realism in this monograph may be seen under the aspect of Rothbardian-style strategic reversal of the unholy trinity of Aristotelean/Neitzschean/Randian provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalism (in practice, Platonic foundationalism) and irrationalism (in practice, capricious exercises of will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psychosomatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of pseudo-Objectivist philosophy, vulgar libertarian ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy within its ontic dual; Clearly s/he’s not read and/or internalized the libertarian canon and its complementary social science analog Austro-Agorian econometric (but non-parametric) statistical analysis. But I do give Borer an “A” for effort though.

@John deL I think he's referring to the proposed SOPA law.

KenK, you wrote "In my 42 years I have been held up at gunpoint, had my apartment broken into, as well as my house, my car, and had my then wife's car stolen right out of our driveway..." Wow. Five robberies in, what, 20 years since you came of age? That's one every four years. The crime stats to which I linked you a few days ago say there are 150 robberies a year per per 100K in the population, on average; so 600 over four years. So you are one person in (100K/600 =) 167. Obviously, your story proves that government "protection" doesn't work. In fact, you may have come across _Warren vs D.C._, a case that decided government even denies having a _duty_ to protect you; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia I'd supposed government claims to exist to provide protection, but that case showed it doesn't even make such a claim. Perhaps you've wondered what more you could do to protect yourself. That might well involve carrying a suitable weapon. But you'll know how many obstacles government puts in the way of that reasonable precaution. So government doesn't protect, and it inhibits self-help. Who needs it? When it has dissolved, all alternatives are back on the table. In this thread you asked first what I would do, regarding the low-life people who may attack me in some way; I'd explore two options. First, I'd get armed and know how to use the gun, get training. Then second, I'd get insured. Insurance will be a useful option in the coming zero-government society. Policies might offer (for a fee) to respond to emergency calls within a stated number of minutes - and that will then be a _contractual obligation_ of the insurer or defense company. They fail, they must compensate. Other policies would pay for whatever you lost in a robbery, leaving you free of the hassle of having to track down and sue the perp - the insurer would handle all that, and take what restitution they could get via the courts. (Mind you, insurers are risk-averse. If crime sought me out as eagerly as it seems to have found you, I might not get the best rate!) Again, _please read._ If I may say so, it was a mistake to shut out the "pantheon" of libertarian writers; they have good answers for your questions but if you won't read, you won't find. I listed a few, above.

“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2) The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed.While the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed. You are right Suverans2, In Mark 8:12 Christ Jesus was refering to that instant generation. Christ had already performned miracles and healings,and similiar to when the Devil tempted him in the desert,the lawyers and liberals would still not believe.(even if some are brought back from the dead.) Mar 8:11 ¶ And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, TEMPTING him. Also the devilish tempting recorded in Mat16- Mat 16:1 ¶ The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and TEMPTING desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. (To this very day a wicked person will try and tempt the Lord.) Christ states ''there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.'' The Bible uses types and foreshadowings. Jesus Christ is throughout the Old Testament in a variety of details. For instance, before his death and resurrection, Jesus offered simply the "sign of Jonah" as a foreshadowing of how long he would be dead. "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the fish's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matt 12:40 [Jonas survived for three days and nights in the big fish. http://johnwsewell.blogspot.com/2007/05/in-late-1800s-man-named-james-ba... (One man, Marshall Jenkins, was swallowed alive by a sperm whale in 1771 and survived. Another incident concerns James Bartley. In 1891, Bartley was swallowed by a sperm whale that his whaling crew had harpooned. The whale slipped away, was found and killed a day or so later. Bartley was found alive, but unconscious, in the stomach of the whale. He was revived and in a few weeks regained his health (for documentation see Ambrose James Wilson, Princeton Theological Revue, October, 1928).] God called Jonah to minister to Nineveh, which had served as the capital of the world for several centuries. It was the enemy of Israel, and Jonah was not attracted to the assignment until God explained it to him a bit more clearly.When he finally did go there, he didn’t present a polished, “seeker friendly” sermon! God had declared that they were 40 days from being destroyed. Jonah went through town proclaiming, “Forty days and you get yours!” Jonas was sent unto the pagan city of Nineveh as a prophet,gleefully pronouncing Gods judgement.The King of Nineveh surmised that if their was a God,than he was just,and if they repented he(God) might be merciful. Mercy is not receiving the punishment one deserves. “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God … I will show wonders in the heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath …”(Acts 2:17,19) Critics discounted the Bible for hundreds of years because their was no evidence of Nineveh................. “It wasn't until 1850 that Nineveh was discovered by archaeologists. It is interesting to read liberal commentaries from before 1850 because they had problems with believing the books of Jonah and Nahum because there was no record of Nineveh.” (Source: bible.org article: ‘Nahum’ by Hampton Keathley IV Th.M.) Many arguments against the Bible are based on information that has not yet been found. One will say, “Well, we haven’t found a record of this city, or of that king, and so it (or he) probably didn’t exist!” Then in time a discovery is made, and the doubtful speculation is proven to be false. This has been the repeated history of archaeology and the Bible throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The Bible also anticipates the critics. Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. (We are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, We know right from wrong;unlike the beasts.We can create unlike any beast.) Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (when God is rejected as Creator he is apt to give one over to their own early demise! In his mercy!!!) Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. http://www.adullamfilms.com/CanBibleBeTrusted.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d7dhniprH4

@ KenK: Most schizophrenics are neither violent nor dangerous, except to themselves, and very few of them are "substance abusers," whether you use that term in the medical sense of actual addiciton or the legal sense of being caught in possession of a substance that Washington politicians disapprove of. Your comment shows a rather disturbing level of either ignorance or prejudice, or more likely, a dangerous combination of both.

These disgusting perverts consider this 'healthy food' ??? http://www.tempo.com.ph/2012/child-abuse-scandal-haunts-school/

Not much of an article, hardly worth the 55 seconds needed to read it. I spent more time looking for a (non-existent) link to the alleged shadow web project. If I had known it was a "Scientific" American article, I would never have clicked the link. SA articles are invariably inaccurate and out-of-date long before they are published, which is why I stopped my subscription decades ago. Dennis

KenK, What's sad is your inability to understand the principle of the argument. No one is trying to sell you some libertarian utopia here, we are simply explaining the natural conclusion of self-ownership. You are basically saying, "yeah, well, I've examined all your big-brained arguments, and I am still not convinced you own yourself." You seem to think you have some higher claim on my own life, because it's scary out there. Yeah, reality is scary, but it should not cause you to think and act irrationaly. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are basically denying that others own themselves because you have been a victim of crime. Your argument is a pragmatic one, and the libertarian position is one of principle. Tell me, how scared do YOU have to be to vote or advocate for my complete enslavement? That's what your argument is; you think you have the right to usurp my self-ownership because there are bad guys out there without realizing that you yourself have just become the bad guy. You have let the thug force your hand, and now you have become the thug. Like I said before, you can't rid the world of cannibals by eating them. What you are failing to realize is that you were still a victim of crime in a society that is dominated by laws. Go ahead and explain that one. No libertarian ever said that real evil would be erased in a libertarian society; we just want to stop adding to the evil. You would have been robbed in any society, sorry buddy, that's life. Now, how much crime does it take before you start spouting your pragmatism? What level of thuggery will it take to turn KenK into a thug? "In my 42 years I have been held up at gunpoint, had my apartment broken into, as well as my house, my car, and had my then wife's car stolen right out of our driveway. I won't mention all the minor stuff like items pilfered from my garage, or acts of vandalism, littering, trespassing and such because over the years there have been too many to count. Nor the disturbance of my peace and privacy individually b/c they are too many to count as well." Of all the crimes listed here, please pinpoint for me exactly when I lose ownership of myself. Since you are not arguing on principle, I would like to know what level of thuggery it takes to turn you into a thug. I know you said that you were done with this chat, but if you could just clear that up for me it would be nice. Thanks in advance. If you don't want to bother with such things, please formulate a principled argument as to why you think you have a higher claim to my life than I do, and then we can discuss that "reasoning" you were talking about.

Yeah, you're right Darkcrusade, another built in excuse; "There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8:12) So-called Christian superstitionists love to throw that one around, when, in fact, JESUS [sic] was obviously dedicating that to "this", i.e. his, current "wicked and adulterous generation", not every "wicked and adulterous generation" before, or after, he made that declaration. Otherwise the very "wicked and adulterous generation" of Elijah would not have been given a sign. Otherwise you can't call that "Boy survives 15, 20, 25* minutes under water" a miracle of God, because that, of course, would be a "sign", from God. And, I am curious to ask, wouldn't you call JESUS' resurrection from the dead a "sign" to "this", i.e. his, current "wicked and adulterous generation"? * The reason the length of time varies from report to report is because it is based on the hearsay evidence of purported witnesses. Think about it rationally, if "there shall no sign be given unto this generation" were true of every generation, then all the prayers that appear to be answered are just coincidence, because the Christian god named JESUS said, unequivocally, "there shall be no sign given" (Mark 8:12). So, why would those who believe that "there shall be no sign given", seek a sign by praying? It makes no sense. Yes, PB Blaster is some really good stuff. One time I prayed that it would loosen the nut on my lawn mower blade, and it answered my petition...well, it seemed to anyway. A miracle is a "supernatural event", which in turn is, "a deviation from the known laws of nature". Therein lies the key, viz. "from the known laws of nature". Man, by his very nature, is an inquisitive animal; he always wants an explanation for everything he sees, hears and feels around him. The explanation for all those things he cannot yet explain "from the known laws of nature", he calls "supernatural", "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces[1]." Some individuals call this "power" God, others call it magic, and some simply call it unexplained, with what we know at this time. Then, of course, there are all the faked and lied about "miracles", designed to profit the "miracle worker", either by gaining him, (or his group), more believers/proselytes, more power, or more babel bux, or any combination thereof. As a individual secessionist ruled by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", I am pretty much in agreement with these, "I know this world is ruled by infinite intelligence. Everything that surrounds us- everything that exists - proves that there are infinite laws behind it. There can be no denying this fact. It is mathematical in its precision" and "The game of life is the game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later, with astounding accuracy." And, last, but not least, of course, I could be wrong about all of this. ______________________________________________________________________ [1] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Good job, JGVibes, these are analogies I'd not seen before. To my mind the big-gun idea is the better of the two, for the large numbers taking part in its construction and well-oiled operation are distanced somewhat from the blood and gore its firing will produce, and so can more easily take pride in their work. That's exactly how millions of government employees function. It reminds me of a popular WW-II image: Rosie the Riveter. After men had been drafted, the resulting shortage of labor was met by ladies, working for the first time in factories, often building munitions - riveting bomber wings for example. They could all marvel at the precision of the machine they were assembling, and take pleasure when it was flown off the factory airstrip. The resulting firestorms of Hamburg and Dresden, with ruined buildings (which had earlier been constructed by others with equal pride) and mangled bodies of children and mothers, were horrors to which they could easily close their minds.

Fair question, S2. First, anyone posing a proximate threat to the life of a human being is placing himself at risk of immediate execution, as an act of self-defense by the intended victim. My article did mention that. In the free society I visualize, everyone will of course be free to own can carry such weapons as he sees fit, so that risk is non trivial. We are therefore considering only the survivors - those who repeatedly engage in violence and fall into the hands of the justice industry. They'll be few. Have you read my article on "Justice", to which a link is provided in the piece? - if not please do so, it's a courtesy I would appreciate. That in turn is excerpted from a longer work, _A Vision of Liberty_, and a link to that is shown in my bio at the foot of the article. I am really quite tired of hearing people moan and bleat about the way things are, yet who have miserably failed to sit down for a single hour and figure out a rational way to change them. That Trilogy describes a detailed method, operating now. The abolition of prisons is one of the many benefits having a zero government society. So, how would that free-market court decide how much violence was "enough" and shackle the monster so he can do no more? Answer: fairly, so as to as to maximize its reputation and profits in the justice marketplace. For me to quantify that would be premature; but a raw guess would in my mind be in the low single digits of murders. Where would you draw the line, if you were a judge in that environment? You mention this question is a "start". Again, please do the homework above before posing any others. I've done mine; now it's your turn.

@voluntaryist Yep. It's all speculation. On Davies' part, and mine as well. I admit that. These facts are documented though. 1) The "New Soviet Man" and other ideological/social/religious constructs that were supposed to occur after a changed political system never happened. 2) The French Revolutionaries, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot among others all tried to create their just societies by razing the former social structures and killing off their dissenters, counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries, traitors, malcontents, lumpen, ownership classes, bureaucrats, kulaks, and all the rest. Yet the productive happy free society that was to be the refined remnant just was no where to be seen when all the smoke cleared away. And which brings me back to my original criticism of Mr. Davies' article. Which to restate was "...tell me in plain simple English sentences how people in an utterly stateless condition could deal with problems like street gangs, lumpen antics, and the rare but seriously violent actors without using police, prisons, or involuntary exile..". I think Davies' model would reduce and mitigate the problems we have now perhaps and maybe that's the best we can do. And I again want to thank him for even bothering to take the time to write it.

Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. (That is what happened.) http://www.reasons.org/about/photo-gallery I much perfer 'power blaster' mo-better than wd-40. As you would say these superstionists get beter results> 'God can work miracles': Boy survives 25 minutes under water= http://www.komonews.com/news/local/127437853.html Or + http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/miracles-in-the-bible-and-t... I know this world is ruled by infinite intelligence. Everything that surrounds us- everything that exists - proves that there are infinite laws behind it. There can be no denying this fact. It is mathematical in its precision. --Thomas A. Edison The game of life is the game of boomerangs. Our thoughts, deeds and words return to us sooner or later, with astounding accuracy. --Florence Shinn Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. I wonder,what you believe, did the universe will itself into existence? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOjqpdlRFmo

I'm am not trying to dodge here but I don't want to be drawn into a lengthy debate more suited to a philosophy grad student seminar. I would just like for Jim or anyone who agrees with him to tell me in plain simple English sentences how people in an utterly stateless condition could deal with problems like street gangs, lumpen antics, and the rare but seriously violent actors without using police, prisons, or involuntary exile which was the thrust of the article. If Jim can and does then great! I will admit that I am or could be wrong and will consider it further. I have no ego invested in this question. (Side note to Jim. I now regret my opening sentence. I provided no context for "revert to reality" and now see that it has been misunderstood. My bad.) Chris Dates People will build their living situations to deal with the condition they find themselves in. No more no less. If the lumpen prove to be a serious issue, then that issue will likely be resolved with brute force just as it is now; the only difference will be that the "brutes" will be private security employees instead of government police. As to seriously dangerous sorts, I don't know. It took government police more than a decade and millions of dollars to find Unabomber, or the Grim Reaper suspect just to name but two. How a stateless society will address these types (esp. without forced exile and prisons) I will leave to the advocates for complete statelessness. I don't think it can myself. Rational people will construct their lives around being safe. Those that don't or whose efforts are inadequate or are just plain unlucky will suffer for it. Some people don't buy insurance for their homes because rationally they think the odds are on their side.

Before even reading this, I must ask the same question I've asked here, perhaps, too many times before. Is identifying yourself as a "TAXPAYER", by using a Taxpayer Identification Number voluntary? I haven't used any of these in well over ten years, and not one single man or woman acting as an AGENT for any STATE, the UNITED STATES, the IRS, or any other CORPORATION has ever put a "gun to my head" and said I must use one. Now, I will say that every person around me, (with the exception of my natural law wife), does use a T.I.N., and a good many of them, if not most, refuse to do business with non-members, but they certainly have that right, just like COSTCO can refuse to do business with non-members, and so, I do not consider that force.

Thanks for the come-back, KenK. So you say "reality" is not determined by ideas we may have about it. Doesn't that contradict, however, the thrust of your earlier post here? - for you did appear to say that the situation prevailing today (a government-infested, crime-ridden society) consists of "reality" - and you did contrast it with what I'd written about the nature of a free society, some years in the future. You did seem to me to be implying that my description could never constitute reality, that it could never work. Your opener was "Now let us revert to reality." We are in sync well enough if what you meant to say was something like "looks wonderful, but how do we get from today's reality to tomorrow's possible reality?" - and I have a few answers available for that. But I hope we agree now on the difference - between scorning an ideal as impossible of realization, on the one hand, and questioning or even doubting how it can be achieved - and, perhaps, whether it would be stable if it _was_ achieved, or unstable and therefore Utopian. Your post did prompt me, though, to search for crime statistics, and I found something interesting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States. There is a _huge variation_ over time, within the US - and between different countries, an even more massive difference! Typically the US has _three times_ the violent crime rate found in Canada, France, or Britain - societies very comparable in other ways. I suspect the numbers for Russia and central America because they are so wildly out of line, but it says Russia is thirteen times more violent even than the USA! From this I see that the prevalence of violence varies enormously _even within government-run societies_. When government has been abolished, with all the violence it fosters, these numbers suggest we shall see reductions counted in orders of magnitude. Yes there will be a problem still (and I found no stats for pissers on the street, so must rely on your own expertese there:-) but as Paul confirms, it won't be very big.

Very good! Thank you, BrianAnderson.