Replies

But guess what? That means *drum roll please* government, now doesn't it?

As obvious as the nose on your face. You're so ignorant you thought I was unaware that when I said "take the suspect to court" that you thought of some alien court or court I have no idea that exists outside of government. So Apparently you coated a really juvenile straw man for the sole reason of kicking the stuffing out of it. Very lame.

That means the commonwealth as a whole, through the delegated power of the court and the jury, acting to restrain my neighbour from an objectionable behaviour that is harming me and my property.

It means a civil court deciding if you suffered a loss and what amount of restitution you are due. Criminal court is a different issue -- I bring it up only to acknowledge it. The zoning laws your neighbor broke are what was supposed to restrain him. But as we see it didn't work for you or him. But most people don't violate another person's property so you two are the exception rather than the rule. As it should be.

I don't have to shoot him, or start a tit-for-tat feud, all I have to do is enlist the power of the commonwealth to which we are both citizens, and utilise its power to protect my person and property. Get it?

You've got that all wrapped up nice and neat in your communitarian cloak. The persons that make up a community, as they are, better than 95% of them anyways, doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against persons or their property.

As for the rest of what you wrote, it's just bilious grandstanding that has nothing to do with my original proposition. Merely a straw man argument.

You might as well just say no comment, or that you don't understand. Ignorance isn't your best suit. Curiously what acts by a person do you want to enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate force against persons that commit said acts?

What are you blathering about? I mean, in your first post in this discussion, you showed a complete lack of understanding/cognizance of what I had even written. I argued that individuals can often be just as oppressive to other individuals as government is, and therefore some government is in fact needed to arbitrate disputes and/or conflicts between individuals rather than resorting to the sort of "state of nature" shootouts or blood feuds that you would have in an anarchic situation. You then yammered at me about "enlisting government agents to act on my behalf to initiate force/harm against persons that are minding there own business without initiating force against anyone", which had absolutely nothing to do with what I had written. Then, when I called you on it, instead of giving a rational defence, you started complaining about the "newbie bias" in my tagline.

Let me ask you Zon - are you, or are you not, in favour of having government arbitration of disputes between individuals when problems arise between them, or when one individual begins to act in a way that is detrimental to the life or property of the other? That's the important question because THAT is the crux of my point.

You *are* aware that civil courts are part of the government too, right? The term "civil" does not refer to their composition, but to their jurisdiction..... Likewise, the zoning laws which you mention are ALSO instituted by government (though they have nothing to do with my example, per se, since a zoning law does not serve as a regulation on one individual damaging the life/property of another).

As for your argument, "But most people don't violate another person's property", it is perhaps true, but also meaningless. I'm using the point as an *example*.

Ah, but did it ever occur to you that the *reason* 95% of them don't initiate force or fraud is *because* of the fact that there is the threat of "community enforcement"? That's the argument Locke would make, at least. Again, there's that commonwealth ideology which says that government - i.e., "the commonwealth" - acts as a means to provide arbitration and protection to each member of the community. If that's "communitarian", then I'm guilty as charged, as are John Locke, the Founding Fathers, and pretty much anyone else who is in the mainstream of classical liberal political philosophy.

I didn't address the rest of your arguments for the same reason that I didn't bother posting and responding to today's weather report - it had absolutely nothing to do with what I had actually written.

I mean, my argument, in a nutshell, is that individuals can be as dangerous to each others' liberty as excessive government, and therefore the commonwealth is necessary to arbitrate between individuals when one begins to infringe upon the liberty, life, or property of another. I would think that this would be self-evident. After all, if you start dumping your household garbage onto my property, and refuse to cease even after I ask you to stop, then you are infringing on my right to enjoy my property as I see fit and unhindered, even though you are another individual rather than a government. Now, I could just shoot you, I suppose, which might well be the typical libertarian solution to the problem, but you and I would probably both prefer that I simply call the police and have them tell you to stop, and if you continue, then file trespassing or some other charges against you and take you to court. I fail to see how any of this is unreasonable, and indeed, I would think it was tautological.

Yet, your response to the argument was to rant about "legislating morality" and "criminalising CEOs" and "3000 new federal laws and regulations a year" and "private contracts be d***ed" (contracts which, by the way, are also only enforceable, ultimately, because the government ensures compliance between the parties to the contract). None of this has a single blessed thing to do with what I had actually written, so why would I waste time addressing each specifically?