Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wallace wrote:
If I wanted to I could kill my neighbor and take his house right now, the police wouldn't "prevent" it.


Not physically, no. But there's plenty of research to suggest the major thing that keeps most people honest is a risk / benefit analysis and the knowledge that you aren't going to get away with stuff like that. The reason that CCH jurisdictions have lower violent crime rates is the same reason that effective policing and courts systems reduce crime. I'll be one of the first to admit that the justice system in Canada needs an overhaul. I think the police do a great job on the other hand, we just need more of them.

Wallace wrote:
Individuals are worth more alive than dead or imprisoned anyways.

Imprisoned, yes. Dead, not always ... but then I see you agree:

Quote:
But I believe contracts can be made between the victim, the criminal, the court, and a third party so that the victim is compensated, and the criminal has to work off what they've done. Failing that there is always the death penalty.


I think with crimes that don't include any element of violence, this is a good concept. But there's not really any way that someone could 'work off' a murder or rape, for example. Even muggings and break and enters are too violent for that approach, IMO.
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Not physically, no. But there's plenty of research to suggest the major thing that keeps most people honest is a risk / benefit analysis and the knowledge that you aren't going to get away with stuff like that. The reason that CCH jurisdictions have lower violent crime rates is the same reason that effective policing and courts systems reduce crime. I'll be one of the first to admit that the justice system in Canada needs an overhaul. I think the police do a great job on the other hand, we just need more of them.

I think with crimes that don't include any element of violence, this is a good concept. But there's not really any way that someone could 'work off' a murder or rape, for example. Even muggings and break and enters are too violent for that approach, IMO.


Okay let's say your hypothetical daughter is murdered (if you do have a daughter I mean no offense)

Let's say you have the chance to do business with any protection agency you wish. Which in a free market, you would indeed have that chance. If you had a child like the hypothetical girl in question, the first thing you would want to know from this agency is "How will her rights be protected?" If some idiot mumbles a reply to this very important question, You would of course decline doing buisness with this group and seek protection of rights elsewhere. If you feel that a person who commited this act should be put to death, then you would naturaly contract an agency who felt the same way.

That's the wonderful thing about a truly free market. You actually have a choice concerning "what happens next." While with a state power it's anyone's guess. Maybe some lawyer reps the killer in question, finds a loophole and the killer walks. Meanwhile we have a child murdered. This happens often under state rule. Every day actually.

Could we have prisons and courts without a state? Of course. :)
Once state rule is no longer an issue, Our rights are actually protected by folks who are obligated to do so. That is, if they want their agency to thrive rather then collapse. What would happen next? Well this person would suffer whatever fate YOU and the community surrounding you thought just. those who thought differently from you could simply go elsewhere for right protection.

We all want the same basic right to live peacefully. So once people realize that the state has failed at providing it's population with any real protection against acts that violate our lives, it's really simple to understand. When there is a demand for protecting rights, that demand is met. As of now no such demand exists. Why? Simple:
No matter how poor a job the state does at protecting it's population, it will never collapse on that concept alone. Only a market would.

Edit: Oh, and the presence of private defense agencies would have the same effect as the current bureaucratically governed force does if not more so as far as risk benefit analysis goes.
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2008 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2008 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was fun! Have to post that to a few friends!!

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good for a chuckle, thanks.
Wallace





Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 73
Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7Reputation: 4.7
votes: 2

PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A side question for Wallace and others who are not just for smaller government but for no-government/total free market. How do you feel about monopolies? (sorry maybe this should be another thread).


Well the thing is, there are monopolies (and oligopolies) now, so you really can't use the possibility of their formation as an argument against Free market anarchy. But the existence of a monopoly is not inherently bad. The economies of scale allow larger businesses to sell their products for lower prices which benefits the consumer. Smaller businesses are inherently more adaptive to changes in the market, and often can have superior customer relations. A business that grows too large would collapse on it's own, were it not for subsidies. Without intervention, all businesses would achieve the right scale for each point in time.

However the government creates monopolies on purpose all the time. Most government institutions use violent means to maintain their control of a certain product. This is not free market but corporatism/soft fascism/socialism. They make it so you can only buy a certain product from them, so it looks as though they are doing a good job, when you have no basis for comparison. The government bails out large corporations all the time, which is stupid, because while the loss of such a service is annoying, the source of the problem in the first place will not be solved until the market finds the best possible solution.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Free Market Anarchy

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB