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.
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.
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*.
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.
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.
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?
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?
I argued that individuals can often be just as oppressive to other individuals as government is,
No person could possibly be as oppressive as government. Your hyperbole which you began with in your 4 post.
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 know it is. I told you in my posts 8: "Objective law. When a person thinks they have been harmed they can take the suspect to court and do their best to convince an impartial jury that they have been harmed and to what extent so that you may gain restitution for your loss."8. I said it again in post 17 which you responded to.
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
Again, as plain as the nose on your face. That's an awful lot of words you used there to state the glaringly obvious. Sheesh!!
As for your argument, "But most people don't violate another person's property", it is perhaps true, but also meaningless.
It's not meaningless. It's the root of the Libertarian platform. BTW, I'm not a Libertarian. Anyhow, it's true that better than 95% of the populace lives by that. It's the 3,000 laws and regulations created each year by republicans and democrats that for the most part initiate force, thereat of force and fraud against persons and their property. And the populace continues voting for the lesser of evils knowing that it still always begets evil.
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"?
Yes it occurred to me. It's not because of the laws nearly as much as it is respect for their neighbor. That is, better than 95% of the populating lives by a sort of golden rule: do unto others as you would have others do unto you. On the other hand, about 9 percent of the populace does recreational drugs despite that there are laws against it. And about 40% of the populace has at least once used an illicit drug, again despite the laws against it. Laws cannot force morality into people -- the 95% do it based on their own objective reasoning. Initiating force against a person is immoral, ingesting a drug isn't.
I fail to see how any of this is unreasonable,
Almost none of it is. This however, is unreasonable: " individuals can be as dangerous to each others' liberty as excessive government." It's unreasonable because it's false.
(contracts which, by the way, are also only enforceable, ultimately, because the government ensures compliance between the parties to the contract).
All the contracts I've had with clients have designated arbitration as a means to their resolution. Correct me if I'm in error, but I assume you think private contracts should be protected so long as they don't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person or their property?