posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 6:15PM
Okay. So you personally prefer violent conflict resolution, and I guess you are willing to pay for the kidnapping, and I guess the food and accomodation for the anti-copyright people too? Oh, how long would you cage them for, by the way? (You'll notice I'm specifically asking *you* -- you can only reliably speak for yourself, not for "we" or any other group.) (The next question, of course, is what you *speculate* the majority would vote upon -- would they also agree with violent-kidnapping as the solution, or something else? Don't you think these things should be put to a vote?)
Your union-example is absurd. The most powerful ones are in bed with the state -- it's actually *the inherent problem of statism* -- as soon as you provide centralized institutionalized ready-to-go violence, all the dirty corrupt scumbags (teacher union leaders, whoever..) begin crawling out of their dirty woodwork to take advantage of it -- statism is a criminal's paradise. Except you don't see that, because they're disguised under white collars. How easily you're fooled. If nothing else, anarchy would make life more difficult for these scumbags -- they wouldn't automatically have complete control over an entire population -- they'd have to somehow use free-market methods to infiltrate each insurance/organization separately.
(You still don't quite seem to understand how majorities work. The US had the strongest and most clear constitution in the world. Look how well they kept their majority in check. (Clue: a magic piece of paper is completely useless in the face of a majority.) In fact, if we're going to rely on history (we really shouldn't), minarchy is your best and fastest road to big-state-monstrosity. Just look at the US. Where did the American experiment go wrong? Do you think their states should have federated, or remained sovereign? Answer: the solution is clearly not (simply) minarchy -- that was tried -- it failed. The problem is clearly much more difficult and deeper -- there needs to be a culture (majority) that rejects violence. The degree to which this is the case determines whether the resulting system will resemble state-socialism, minarchism, or voluntaryism -- in increasing order of respect for other people's disagreements.)
Your union-example is absurd. The most powerful ones are in bed with the state -- it's actually *the inherent problem of statism* -- as soon as you provide centralized institutionalized ready-to-go violence, all the dirty corrupt scumbags (teacher union leaders, whoever..) begin crawling out of their dirty woodwork to take advantage of it -- statism is a criminal's paradise. Except you don't see that, because they're disguised under white collars. How easily you're fooled. If nothing else, anarchy would make life more difficult for these scumbags -- they wouldn't automatically have complete control over an entire population -- they'd have to somehow use free-market methods to infiltrate each insurance/organization separately.
(You still don't quite seem to understand how majorities work. The US had the strongest and most clear constitution in the world. Look how well they kept their majority in check. (Clue: a magic piece of paper is completely useless in the face of a majority.) In fact, if we're going to rely on history (we really shouldn't), minarchy is your best and fastest road to big-state-monstrosity. Just look at the US. Where did the American experiment go wrong? Do you think their states should have federated, or remained sovereign? Answer: the solution is clearly not (simply) minarchy -- that was tried -- it failed. The problem is clearly much more difficult and deeper -- there needs to be a culture (majority) that rejects violence. The degree to which this is the case determines whether the resulting system will resemble state-socialism, minarchism, or voluntaryism -- in increasing order of respect for other people's disagreements.)
|
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 6:21PM
Oh, just to add to your personal preference for kidnapping and caging anti-copyright people, what do you think will happen when a competing dispute resolution organization pops up, and offers all the exact same services, but instead of expensive kidnapping and incarceration, they offer some cheaper retaliatory alternative -- that's peaceful to boot. Which organization do you suppose will prosper? Would you continue paying $100/month for your hardlined org, possibly in the hopes of long-term indirect impossible-to-measure benefits of more serious copyright-enforcement ... or $50/month for a cheaper alternative -- that still respects copyright -- but doesn't choose to enforce it so expensively/brutally? Which would you subscribe to?
But, I guess the more important question isn't this kind of speculation -- it's the process. What exactly are you afraid of, if competing dispute resolutions arise? You haven't really given any examples -- but you claim they exist. |
