Hi Jeff:)
--- Jeffrey Geiger <god_complex_2000@...> wrote:
> Hi Mike -
>
> First, while I appreciate your insights into
> medieval
> Iceland, I need to read the articles you cite, in
> order to determine what the truth is. I will do so
> later, as I don't have time now.
>
> In any case, if you are correct that there was a
> central government, medieval Iceland is not an
> example
> of anarcho-capitalism, as I thought it was.
> However,
> I want to address some of your points, on the
> presumption that they do refer to conditions under
> anaracho-capitalism.
>
It's as close an example as anything, I guess, but it
has problems galore. I would never want to live in
such a society.


>
> --- Mike Rael <mikesrael@...> wrote:
> > In the Mises article you cite, you note that
> > Iceland broke up because five families dominated
> the
> > government. This was, in part, an issue of the
> > government seats being bought. How would you feel
> > about the folks enforcing the laws being able to
> buy
> > their way to power?
>
> I am not fully comfortable with this, but as with
> hash113's comment, I am unclear as to how this
> differs
> from the situation we have *now*. In order to get
> media exposure, votes, etc. one must have money
> and/or
> people willing to donate money. Thus, people with
> little money and no connections are far less likely
> to
> become leaders in a democratic system. How does this
> differ from "buying one's way to power"?
>
The point is that the "little person," if he has fame
or enough of a following, can break straight into the
political equation, as Ralph Nader has shown with a
few thousand bucks as opposed to many millions, and a
rather decent showing at the presidential polls. That
kind of thing could never happen in Iceland.


> In a private system, there would be no monopoly of
> law
> enforcement services, as there is in the current
> system. Thus, if you believe that a particular
> police
> or court agency is corrupt, you can simply choose
> not
> to patronize it, instead calling upon a different
> one
> should you need its services. I believe this would
> lead to less corruption of this nature, not more,
> long-term.
>
All kinds of problems with this kind of service. The
most fundamental is:how do you get from here to there?
In this current political climate, what do you imagine
would happen if a city hired mercenaries to fill the
shoes of the judges and police? Instead of the current
imperfect system of cilvil service, being voted in, or
being appointed by the governor? Any idea what kind of
really serious problems there might be in that kind of
transfer of power?

> Also, under a democratic system, even a minimalist
> one, I am stuck with whatever leader the majority
> votes for, and it is difficult to move elsewhere
> should I not like that leader or his policies, as he
> has power over the entire country. Under the private
> community system that I support, if I do not like
> the
> rules, it is fairly easy to find a less restrictive
> community (I explain this more fully in response to
> your next point).
>
Remember, I'm all in favor of a minimalist government,
but that still means having rule of law in the hands
of the government, but a government committed to the
principle of minimalism and freedom.

> Finally, consider Hoppe's argument on publically
> owned
> government. Hoppe believed that democratic leaders
> were more likely to abuse government resources
> because
> they were only in power for a short time--i.e. by
> the
> time the consequences of some disasterous policy
> came
> to pass, the person responsible for those policies
> would no longer be in office and thus would not be
> blamed.
>
:)

> I am not quite sure I agree with this, but I have
> noticed that whatever President is in office at the
> time of a crisis tends to be blamed for the
> existence
> of the crisis.
>
uh huh. But the folks doing the blaming seem to be of
the opposite political party, I notice. You don't find
many *Republicans* blaming Bush for Clinton's errors!


>
> > As I understand the situation, everyone had
> *no*
> > chance to change the laws. If you didn't agree
> with
> > them, tough luck. You either left Iceland, or were
> > killed. How does that square with freedom?
>
> Personally, I believe it is fully supportive of
> freedom and it is *exactly* what I support. I agree
> with Harry Browne that if you do not like something,
> rather than wasting effort trying to get laws passed
> in order to force everyone else to agree with your
> values, you should choose to live where your values
> are already supported.
>
Nothing wrong with moving--if you have the money to
move, and most folks did not.

Problems:fundamentally that is not what freedom or
America is about. America is about changing the laws
when they are unjust. It is about the small guys
speaking up and having their say. Sure, I'm not saying
that is always how the system works, but it *can* work
that way. That is the romance and the democratic
ideal, Jeff.

Worse yet, from an Objectivist sense, you end up with
a static society. Since the laws can't be changed, and
you have no laws protecting copywrite or patent, that
means folks have no rewards for the pains of writing a
masterpiece or creating a great labor-saving
invention. The *best* people in the society, the
creators, are shortchanged, with their inventions
kiped as needed by the rulers, and the society as a
whole tends to degenerate.

You need the laws to change to protect folks who are
using a new invention and those, on the other hand,
whose rights can be *abused* by the new invention.
Again, without changing laws working under the
principle of copywrite with a central government
administering it, you have a static society.


> The private community system makes this principle
> far
> easier to enact, IMJ. One has thousands of small
> communities to choose from, and the chances are that
> several that square with his values will accept him
> as
> a member.
>
> In short, choosing a city to live in would be no
> different than choosing an apartment complex to live
> in. If you do not like the fact that your apartment
> manager inspects your property every two weeks, you
> cannot change her policy, but you can move to
> another
> apartment.
>
> In what way is this anti-freedom?

Don't be so great in love with a small society where
you can change societies. Sounds OK but if *all* the
societies around do not have property rights as
fundamental and protected by law, they are all going
to have severe problems.


>
>
> > Murder wasn't considered the worst of crimes.
> You
> > paid folks off when you killed someone. Of course,
> a
> > murder done without properly *covering* the
> victim,
> > or
> > immediately telling the victim's relatives, was
> > considered far more serious. How do you reconcile
> > this
> > with the notion that life is sacred?
>
> I do not believe that murder for hire is appopriate,
> but I would like to see the context and some
> evidence
> that this occurred. In any case, I see no reason why
> this is less likely to happen under a minimalist
> government system than an anarchist one. This is a
> problem that does not begin at the political level,
> but at the ethical one--i.e. if there are people who
> believe murder is appropriate, there are going to be
> murders, no matter what political system you live
> under.
>
In a minimalist system, murder for hire is the
anomaly. In every anarchist or near-anarchist system,
it is the ordinary. Total difference in perspective.
Again, I am not talking theory here, Jeff, but just
that which I have observed in reading about it a bit.
As you, though, I am no expert in this area. I am
certainly willing to learn more.

>
> > Since you could compensate families for a
> murder,
> > guess what? Alot of folks were only too happy to
> > compensate for a murder. Leading to long drawn-out
> > blood feuds that only seemed to be settled when so
> > many people were killed off that the parties felt
> > satisfied.
>
> This directly contradicts the Mises article, which
> claims that feuds were extremely short because it
> was
> too costly to continually fight. I need to read more
> in order to determine who is correct.
>
Fair enough.


> best always,
> Jeffrey
>
best returned,
Mike


> =====
> Jeffrey Geiger: self-expressive subpersonality and
> co-founder of The Subpersonality Project
>
> "The attorney here is afraid I might accidentally
> lapse into the truth." - the FICTIONAL Jeffrey
> Geiger (not me), Chicago Hope episode 1
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
> now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> nathaniel_branden-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:
> http://www.nathanielbranden.com/
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com