Hi MIke -

> 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.

I don't know enough about Nader to comment upon how
much he spent. Do you have a reference?




> 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?

While I am not yet sure how a transition to an
anarchic society would take place, this is not
relevant to whether it is the correct political system
or not. Our current government is far from minimalist
and one cannot change that overnight either.

I suspect the transition would require a re-education
effort, as would a transition to a minimalist
government, because as long as people accept the
premise that the government can and should have a
monopoly over police and court functions, they will
accept that monopoly's authority and not the authority
of private security firms or courts (though the latter
is accepted in certain situations--i.e. parties in
conflict sometimes use arbitrators rather than going
through the legal system.), as well as accept any
attempts on the government's part to hold onto their
monopoly.

> 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.

I realize that. The difference between our views is
that I do not believe that any government can remain
committed to minimalism and freedom long term. The
reason is that any government, even minimalist
government, holds a monopoly on the ability to use
force against others. This type of monopoly leaves
little recourse should a particular government choose
to wield its power unfairly against its citizens, and
sooner or later some leader will be tempted to do just
that, because he can get away with it. Therefore, over
time any government will tend to become less committed
to freedom.

This is far less likely to happen in an anarchist
system. First, there is competition for protective
services. This means that legitimacy is not *presumed*
to belong to a particular court or security firm just
because it exists. Instead, like any other business,
the courts and police firms will have to demonstrate
that they are worthy of respect--and thus it is in
their self-interest to be fair.

You might think that this causes more problems than it
solves, because corrupt people might appeal to corrupt
courts, people who feel that they have been treated
unjustly might appeal endlessly to other courts, and
so forth. However, a private court does not have to
accept any case it does not want to try; in addition,
it may be in the self-interest of the courts to
require that the loser of a case pay the attorney fees
for the winner, in order to cut down on congestion.
And if only corrupt people use a particular court,
that court will get a reputation for corruption, which
will make it less likely that those people interested
in fairness will patronize it.

> > 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!

Yes, but to me this suggests only that the deomcratic
system allows politics to interfere with taking
necessary steps to solve problems within a community.

Look at the current issue regarding the "War on
Terrorism": the Republicans continually claim it is
Clinton's fault that Bin Laden is still at large while
the Democrats blame Bush for the problem, and in the
meantime there is little, if any, thoughtful dialogue
about how to deal with the problem of terrorism. This
hardly constitutes efficient problem solving, and the
lives of all Americans may depend upon this.

Conversely, in the small community society I envision,
each community would have to take responsibility for
solving problems such as defense. I would not choose
to live in a community where the response to a
threatened attack was to begin blaming each other for
the problem, and I don't think many people would. It
would therefore be in the self-interest of the owners
of each city to find a solution to defense problems.

> > 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.

I am not sure as to why people were unable to move,
but I suspect it had something to do with feudalism.

>
> 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.

I disagree. Democracy is *not* supportive of freedom
or of justice. It is supportive only of the idea that
whatever values are most popular should be forced upon
those who disagree with them.

I do not say this in order to be contentious, but
because of what democracy is. It is the "rule by the
people". That means that if the majority of people
believe, for example, that smoking cigarettes is an
eivl that must be stopped, and vote for politicians
who pass laws to protect people from themselves, then
that value is *forced* upon dissenters.

It doesn't matter whether I personally agree with any
law that is currently on the books, any more than it
matters what I think ought to be done with my tax
money. The government can still punish me should I be
caught doing something "the people" have deemed wrong,
even if I have deemed it right.

As for this business about the American way being to
change laws, in order to get any change you must get a
majority of people to agree with you--and even then it
is not guaranteed. As soon as the change *your* group
favors has been enacted, another group of people who
preferred the old way can begin lobbying towards
changing the law back. Thus, I not only have to rely
on a huge group of other people in order to gain
freedom, but I also have to make sure that *my* group
is bigger and stronger than *your* group, at all
times, in order to protect my values.


> 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.

This makes several unwarranted presumptions. First, it
presumes that without government, there is no respect
for property rights. I have already dealt with this
elsewhere. More importantly, it presumes that there is
no incentive for any private community to evolve.

I believe that the opposite is true. Because one can
easily move to a different community, it is in the
self-interest of the owners of each city to make sure
their citizens are happy with the rules as they are,
and to take criticisms of their rules seriously. In
addition to this, people no longer have to waste their
time attempting to change the rules they live
under--since they can go elsewhere if they dislike
those rules--and can therefore devote their creative
energy fully to creating the type of life they want to
live. Also, if an inventor believed that the owner of
his city had stolen something of his, he could easily
resolve the matter via a private court, so there is no
particular advantage to stealing.

The situation you describe is more like the
totalitarian society of _Anthem_, in which rulers have
absolute power over ordinary people, than like any
anarchist system. There are no "rulers" in an
anarchist system. There are merely people who happen
to own property and make their livings by providing
housing on that land for certain others who share
their values.


> 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.

This is only true if there is no freedom of movement
and a separation between the rulers and the ruled,
neither of which is consistent with anarchism.

> Don't be so great in love with a small society where
> you can change societies.

Why not? Small communities such as the ones I am
describing provide the greatest amount of freedom,
encourage tremendous creativity, and free up energy
ordinarily wasted in attempting to protect one's
values from government intrusion. The idea excites me
tremendously.

> 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.

Why? Would you move into an apartment complex where
the managers constantly stole from the tenants? If
not, why would you move into a private community where
the city owners constantly stole from their citizens?

Relatedly, would you move into an apartment in the
middle of a gang-dominated area that did not have any
security guards or even a front door lock?

It is to the self-interest of a private community to
respect property rights--especially if surrounding
communities do not. It would also be in the interest
of security firms to open businesses in such a
community.

I can see your point if the majority of
communities--i.e. 100 million out of 101 million
available communities--did not support property
rights. Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I do not
believe that this would happen. Even in gang-dominated
areas in our current society, there are plenty of
people who want to see positive change, and I see no
reason why this would be different in private
communities.

best always,
Jeffrey




>
>
> >
> >
> > > 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
>
> 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/
>
>



=====
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