Atheism and Libertarianism
Posted on: August 8, 2013 - 1:54pm
Offline
Atheism and Libertarianism
The video series below raises some interesting points in regard to theism and statism, with the claim that both employ the same logical fallacies (with the implication that atheism and libertarianism are the most logical positions to hold). One can see that people may think logically in regard to one of the topics, while illogically in regard to the other. Stalin and Mao, for example, were atheists; it is questionable, however, whether they ran their states rationally. Conversely: Ron Paul & Paul Ryal are fans of the atheist Ayn Rand in regard to the economy, yet card-carrying christians.
It does raise a worthwhile question: If atheism is the conclusion when logic is applied to the existence of god, what is the conclusion when logic is applied to the state?
Some of the points raised so far in the series:
- Negative philosophies - Neither atheism nor libertarianism do not make positive claims.
- Atheism is not the assertion there is no god, but the rejection of the proposition that there is one.
- Likewise, libertarianism is rejection of the initiation of force as a means of achieving social or political goals.
- Just as the atheist does not have the burden of explaining how the universe got here (where in failing to do so vindicates god as an explanation); the libertarian does not have the burden of proving how society will function well in absence of government (where failing to do so vindicates the establishment of government).
- Special Pleading ⁃ Theism and statism both posit a universal rule, then make an exception.
- Theism - first cause or fine tuning - everything needs a cause, or the universe is fine-tuned, but god didn't need a cause or fine-tuner itself.
- Statism - Actions considered criminal when performed by individuals are acceptable when performed by the state. Killing someone over a perceived threat is considered murder, but it is acceptable for the government to order drone strikes in which innocent people are killed.
- Pascal's Wager ⁃
- Theism - There's a potential gain for wagering god exists and being right, but nothing to lose by being wrong. (A promise of delayed gratification). This is a false dichotomy as there are multiple religions to choose from.
- Statism - Wager that government is good, rather than take the chance of chaos without it. This is likewise a false dichotomy, as there are multiple types of government to choose from.
- Bottom-up vs. Top-Down organization
- Theism claims a top-down designer is necessary to explain order, ignorant of the phenomenon of emergent complexity / or how evolution by natural selection can account for complex organs such as the eye.
- Statism claims a top-down organization (government) is necessary, ignorant of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. As an example, he provides the example of a pencil, which no one person knows how to make.
- Argument from Incredulity Advancing one hypothesis while ignoring alternative hypotheses, justified by the absence of evidence
- Theism
- god of the gaps ("You can't explain how life started, so it must be god" )
- or missing links in the fossil record ("You don't have a transitional fossil between A and B, so evolution is false".
- Statism
- government of the gaps ("Who will build the roads; feed the poor; keep companies from polluting? You can't explain how, so we need government." )
- Exclusivity - Intolerance of others
- Religion seeks to place restrictions on people's lives, even when their actions/beliefs (or lack thereof) do not affect others. Secularism, on the other hand, allows the religious to belief whatever they want.
- Statism places restrictions on private exchanges. This applies even to "atheist" ideologies like communism. Libertarianism, on the other hand, allows others to conduct exchanges as they wish (i.e., if a group of individuals wish to practice communism amongst themselves, libertarianism does not stipulate they can't).
- Paradox of Interests - Concentration of benefit, with dispersion of cost. A small group reaps huge benefits by the imposition of cost on a large group. While the distributed cost to individuals in the large group is small enough that noone has incentive to contest the imposition, the concentrated benefit to the members of the small group is great enough incentive to impose the cost.
- Church members have less incentive to object to tithing, yet the church profits exorbitantly by the accumulated tithes of the congregation (even if the whole congregation does not donate).
- Consumers may not find it worth their effort to fight a few extra cents here and there in taxes, even though the government gets rich in aggregate.
- I actually find myself vulnerable to this in regard to the recent NSA stories. While it's obvious the government is encroaching far too greatly on our privacy, I haven't yet been so outraged to do anything about it -- since I don't yet feel my personal loss of freedom is great enough to warrant it.
There are no theists on operating tables.
| ππ | π† |
| π† | †† |
- Login to post comments
The statists are apparently under the delusion that if the government doesn't provide police and fire protection, education, healthcare, pensions, etc..., that it is impossible to provide these for themselves. Yet we see people having to provide their own supplemental services because the government is so inadequate at doing this.
I think just like with religion, the delusional expect people to play along with their little games. Their game is to use government to get free stuff at others expense. They don't really believe one can't provide all these services for themselves on a pay as you go basis. They just want them for free and not be forced to work or study to receive these services.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Emergency services are paid for by taxes, moron. They have never been free.
Pay as you go has worked so well with emergency services before. Just look at all the countries who use it successfully!
Oh.. wait...
Keep living in your untenable world, foolish libertarian. I'd laugh when someone robs you and you can't afford to pay the cops to hunt them down because the criminals already paid them off, but fortunately your delusional views of how things should work will never become reality.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The problem with the Socratic method is that it is only effective when a person really wants to question their beliefs. At which point, they are asking themselves the questions already and it isn't necessary for someone else to ask them. Much like religion, people are raised from the time they are children that some people rule and others obey, to respect authority and that people in authority can do things that others can't. It is dominant in family structure, organizations, businesses and virtually every social interaction we have. It isn't difficult to convince someone that the state's use of violence is not acceptable when they are willing to follow questions to their logical conclusion, the difficulty is in getting them to even be willing to go through the process.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Much like religion relies on believers being offended by criticism of supernaturalism, the state relies on the individual's emotional need to justify whatever perk allows his interest group to pick everyone else's pocket. Unfortunately this emotional response fails to factor in the reality that at the same time, a hundred other interest groups are picking his pocket.
There is a war of all against all (at least Hobbes got that right), and it is the state. How much more prosperous and humane a world would we inhabit if only we directed our efforts not into keeping our fellow man down through the violent power of the state but into producing the goods and services that we value!
10: Belief In Belief- This topic draws on a concept developed by Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell: "belief in belief"
My thoughts: While the comparison between theism and statism in regard to "belief in belief" is interesting, I'm not sure the correspondence is accurate. At the very least, statists are far more willing to put their policies to the test than are theists, whether or not they come up with pre- or post-facto rationalizations for any policy failures.
I don't see a semantic equivalence between "Thou shalt not put your lord god to the test", and "There's never been a libertarian society". The former refers to a test of god's existence; however, the latter does not refer to a test of statism, but the lack thereof. At best, it suggests that statists "know" that a libertarian society will succeed, and therefore demonstrate the falsehood of their statist policies; just as the theist "knows" a test for his god will fail and demonstrate the falsehood of this belief. It raises the question whether anyone is willing to attempt a libertarian society, with the committment not to provide any pre- or post-facto excuses for its failure.
Lastly, there is a real-world cost to be considered in the testing of statist policies, or lack thereof. Whereas test for god can be conceived which are relatively innocuous, real lives are at stake in the testing of statism or libertarianism. One can say that communism has been empirically tested and shown to be a failure; but it was at the cost of millions of lives. It is unlikely anyone will be willing to allow for potential suffering and death as the inherent cost of testing libertarianism.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Without the violent power of a state forcing people to comply with rules necessary for a functioning society things would be much worse. The war would still exist, you'd just be removing all the referees.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The source of the conflict is not the state. The source of conflict always comes back to population preasures. We only have a finite amount of resources on this planet to produce "the goods and services that we value", therefore we must wage war and political battles for survival.
Until the state uses 'violent power' to force birth control and closed borders, we're all slaves(except the 1% war profiteers that work the system), doomed to toil away in a world of constant conflict. A Hobbes social contract or meritocracy is not possible.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Question for you Kemono.
If a farmer uses land and water to grow food. Doesn't the state need to defend his right to use the land to grow the food?Otherwise anyone could just come along and take the food for themselves.
Land ownership is a benefit the government provides to individuals and corporations at the expense of everyone else. Same as welfare payments. So people that call themselves libertarian aren't really libertarian all the time. Only when it suits themselves, otherwise libertarians are welfare queens. The want people that don't own land to pay to defend their right to own land.
Just like Vastet, he's a socialist when he believes it could benefit him otherwise he's libertarian.
So any kind of rational society with a ration social contract is impossible with so many irrational people leftist, conservative and libertarian all using government for their own special interest.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'm neither socialist nor libertarian. A term to define my political views doesn't exist. And despite EXC's neverending claims to the contrary, my personal politics have very little to do with how it might benefit me. In fact, I wouldn't be a particularly happy person if I were able to see my positions implemented. But the benefits to the species would be worth a few people being unhappy (even if I am one of them), so I'd deal with it.
If socialism and libertarianism were the only political points one could hold then I'd be a socialist, because libertarianism is irrevocably critically and fundamentally flawed, while socialism is at least workable. But they aren't the only options, and I don't see eye to eye with most people who identify as socialist.
Socialism is the greatest framework ever conceived for a society, but it isn't perfect and needs tweaking. So really, it wouldn't be socialism that I'd like to see. Just something similar, with all the correctable flaws hammered out.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
One can conceive of a great multitude of ways in which a society can exist. The presence or absence of a state is only one variable. The absence of a state is by no means a sufficient condition for ending the war of all against all, but I think it would be premature to declare that in every possible stateless scenario the war would continue and actually be worse.
It is of course possible that you are right and the war of all against all can never be ended as long as mankind exists. Even if that is the case (which I do not think it is), it is still true that belief in authority is a delusion.
Institutions and incentive structures matter. In the current statist system suppressing competition through lobbying for legislation is cost-effective and socially acceptable. This is not a feature of all possible legal systems.
In the absence of alternative institutions that may be true.
Some self-styled libertarians do indeed want the state to enforce land ownership. I do not, save as a stopgap measure until better non-aggressive institutions can come about. But the state will of course not take kindly to such new institutions.
One can conceive a great many impossible things. That doesn't make them possible.
It is the only variable that matters. There has never been a society without someone or a group of someones in power. Even social species which have not achieved a society still have individuals with more power than others. Power is a prerequisite for society.
Until you can present a practical scenario where the nature of the universe (war) is curtailed I'll regard your opinion as ridiculous. War will never end as long as there is life to perpetuate it. The best you can do is police it, which requires power and authority, which necessitates a state.
Belief in authority creates authority. Since authority exists it cannot be a delusion.
And, by the way, the war will continue even if man is wiped out. Life needs to consume life to exist. Violence is a condition of existence.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Vastet,
By both 'the delusion of authority' and 'the war of all against all' I mean something quite different from what you take them to mean. For an explication of the former, please see the first post I made in this thread.
The latter concept is not worth the trouble for me to explain and for you to follow because the context in which I used it was not intended as an argument and not really even meant for statists to comprehend. I will drop the issue because it is irrelevant and a distraction.
(In passing, let me put one peripheral issue to rest. When I said that the presence or absence of a state is only one variable in the makeup of a society, I meant something that is quite obvious and undeniable. That is, North Korea and Luxemburgh are very different societies despite the fact that both have a state. Primitive communities in Papua New Guinea are quite different from Medieval Iceland despite the fact that both are stateless (or at least relatively stateless). This explanation is of course a dead end for the purposes of this thread as I have dropped the subject in whose context the matter came up.)
Series didn't embed: Here's the link
There are no theists on operating tables.
10: Belief In Belief- This topic draws on a concept developed by Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell: "belief in belief"
My thoughts: While the comparison between theism and statism in regard to "belief in belief" is interesting, I'm not sure the correspondence is accurate. At the very least, statists are far more willing to put their policies to the test than are theists, whether or not they come up with pre- or post-facto rationalizations for any policy failures.
I don't see a semantic equivalence between "Thou shalt not put your lord god to the test", and "There's never been a libertarian society". The former refers to a test of god's existence; however, the latter does not refer to a test of statism, but the lack thereof. At best, it suggests that statists "know" that a libertarian society will succeed, and therefore demonstrate the falsehood of their statist policies; just as the theist "knows" a test for his god will fail and demonstrate the falsehood of this belief. It raises the question whether anyone is willing to attempt a libertarian society, with the committment not to provide any pre- or post-facto excuses for its failure.
Lastly, there is a real-world cost to be considered in the testing of statist policies, or lack thereof. Whereas tests for god can be conceived which are relatively innocuous, real lives are at stake in the testing of statism or libertarianism. One can say that communism has been empirically tested and shown to be a failure; but it was at the cost of millions of lives. It is unlikely anyone will be willing to allow for potential suffering and death as the inherent cost of testing libertarianism.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I don't think so:
Without these beliefs authority wouldn't exist, but neither would society. If noone has to obey and noone can earn the right to rule then all you have left is anarchy. Until someone picks up a gun and forces people to obey and takes the right to rule.
The fact you ignore is that all societies share the most basic tenets of society. Just because N.K. and Papua and Luxembourgh are all different doesn't mean they are so different that a state cannot be recognised. Even ants share enough features with N.K., Papua, and Luxembourgh to clearly identify the power of the state at work. With force, lethal or otherwise, being the glue keeping it together. If there is a power structure of any kind, then there is a state: the only variable with relevance.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
11. What If We're Wrong? When a theist or statist fails to convince an atheist or libertarian with his arguments, he might then say the atheist/libertarian will simlply never admit to being wrong.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Teralek, you owe me $48
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
So anyone that thinks one should pay for the food one eats is a libertarian? What is so fucking sacred about police services?
People all the time pay for Private Investigators and lawyers to go after criminals that have wronged them. They buy private security because the state is far too inadequate to protect them and their property.
I've had to hire lawyers to go after corporations that have ripped me off, I have to own a gun to protect myself. The state is too busy handing out welfare to poor that vote and rich that donate to politics to protect me.
So why the hell do I need to pay a police force that doesn't do shit for me?
The example you gave could be handled by insurance. Either the insurance company would find the stuff or pay up.
There is a need for public police, but it would be to go after things like insurance companies that don't pay up, wall street fraud and corrupt politicians. We've got it all backwards, the big corporations are un-policed, while the guy in the ghetto is over-policed. Government by the elites.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
there's no need for public police at all. if you do business with an insurer or corporation and they rip you off, tough fucking titty. you should have been a better judge of character. or you can hire an assassin to murder them, then go take your shit back and then some. fuck the police.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Strawman, red herring.
Nothing is sacred. Emergency services, when correctly utilised, make society safer. Therefore they are inall our best interest.
That the system has flaws is not an argument to abolish the system entirely. Merely that it needs some work. On that point, I would say the entire population of Earth would agree.
This is an absolutely ridiculous claim. You have benefited from emergency services, whether you want to admit it or not.
Insurance companies are scam artists and should be illegal. I'd sooner trust Kim Jong Un to head a police service than an insurance company.
That's all of them, and they have no power or authority. I shudder to think what would happen if that were to change and they were given power and authority..It would be disastrous for everyone not working for them, and even for many that do.
That the system has flaws is not an argument to abolish the system entirely. Merely that it needs some work.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No you implied that want to privatize current government services is libertarian. Is that not true?
Food delivery services, when correctly utilised, make society safer. Therefore they are inall our best interest.
The current system protects the interests of the rich an powerful. They go after Michael Brown and Eric Garner with full force, but try getting a corporate criminal arrested. It makes lawyers and judges rich and lets the police unions bankrupt us.
Why can't society have volunteer police and fire as was done before? It is a scam to make working people slaves. There would not be any muggings or reckless drivers if 'everyone was a cop. Instead the criminals do there deeds when they cops are not looking.
Your house is on fire, wait for fire dept. The taxes you spend on the fire department pensions could have bought your own fire suppresion system that works right away.
Exactly my point, corporate privlege. The cops go after Eric Garner but not the CEO of AIG. So that is why they are scam artists, they don't fear the law at all.
Corporations should pay a tax to have the government police them and force them to pay out damages. Instead they want to tax me to death to pay, when I can handle my own person security.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Are you kidding?
Are you kidding?
I implied nothing. I implicitly stated that privatization of emergency services is a stupid libertarian position. I said nothing about food or other services, and I'm not going to let you change the subject.
Food delivery services do not necessarily have an impact on the safety of people. Emergency services do. I will not allow you to change the subject.
A libertarian system would exacerbate those problems, so you don't appear to have a point.
We do. I've lived in more places with volunteer firefighters than I have professional firefighters.
Volunteer police have never existed in sustainable society. No matter how far back you go. The first police force in any way similar to today were royal and city guardsmen, not volunteers.
Then why are some cops criminals? Why are most cops reckless drivers? You haven't a clue.
No it couldn't. Not even close. Installation of a useful fire suppression system is extremely expensive. I'd have to save the money I pay through taxes to the fire department my entire life before I could afford such a system. By which point I might have already lost everything in fire. Multiple times over. I also would no longer have any use for that system, as I would be dead from old age.
Flaws in the system do not suggest the concept of the system itself is flawed, merely that it needs work.
Lol. I guarantee you that most corporations pay more in one year towards police than you will in your entire life.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not true at all. There is a fairly significant history of volunteer police forces in many countries that are still around today. www.reservepolice.org/history_of_reserves.htm
In the US, they became very common during WWII due to a shortage of manpower. Also, during the westward expansion, most towns didn't have a paid police officer. Policing was done by a volunteer deputy who would call upon citizens to create a posse if they needed more manpower. To this day, volunteer police work in New York City, for the Florida State Highway Patrol and hundreds of cities and towns across the country. Usually, they have the full power to make arrests and some are armed, others aren't. We use volunteer police in my town whenever something is happening that brings extra people into the area like holidays, festivals and whatnot.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You rather make my point. Though I obviously should have been more clear. None of the forces you mention are or were perpetual. They are or were emergency scenarios that are or were temporary. None of them are or were permanent national police forces.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What a fool believes. The goal of the police in present society is self-perpetuation, not your safety and security. As such, the need to maximize the amount of money the extract from the rest of society. They need only provide the illusion of providing safety and security, since the irrational are presently a majority.
For example, everytime you drive, you always see a few wreckless drivers and speeders. The rational thing to do would be to ask for volunteers or draft people to be auxillary police that can ticket these drivers. Have police drive in unmarked cars with popup sirens. Instead, these speeder are even more dangerous because they have one eye on the road and the other eye looking out for marked cop cars.
The police don't want competition from any unpaid people or do-it-yourselfers. government unions enjoy a monopoly by force. If the police and lawbreakers are enemies, why would the police give up the weapon of stealth? The lawbreakers just look around to make sure no cop is around. Marked vehicles and uniforms provide the illusion of safety to fools so they'll support high taxes. It all for marketing.
The police need there to be a moderate amount of crime to justify their existence. If there was less crime, we'd say we don't need to spend so much on police, if there was more we'd fire them. If the police passed out more speeding tickets, no one would speed and they'd loose revenue long term. If there were fewer tickets, they'd immediately loose revenue and eventually get fired because they roads were to dangerous.
So we are stuck a moderate amount of street crime and car accidents. Not good value for all the money we spend. But fools like you just say the police can't be everywhere.
Same thing is true with the legal system. Matters that can be handled in hours take years to resolve. The wheels of justice spin at a speed that maximizes money and job security for the lawyers, judges and prosecutors. Same story with prisions, fire protection and education.
They all exist to exist. Nothing will change until people stop being so easily duped.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What a fool indeed. The safety and security of society is a prerequisite to technological and social advancement.
Illusions are effective, but not so much so that illusions alone can accomplish anything. Those illusions must be at least partly based on reality, and so they are. You might not be more safe on an aeroplane today than you would have been 20 years ago, but you are much better off than anyone a hundred years ago under any circumstance.
Shows how much you know. A speeder is actually less of a danger to others than someone driving below the average speed of vehicles in the area.
Also, it would only be rational to draft additional forces if the resources necessary to supply them existed, and they don't. Unless you are personally volunteering billions of dollars to train, supply, deploy, and keep honest; the necessary numbers of people to accomplish this ridiculous idea that you foolishly call rational.
Even that wouldn't accomplish anything. The people who get paid to enforce traffic laws are as likely to be reckless as those who don't enforce traffic laws. There is absolutely no reason to expect volunteers would be any more likely to obey traffic laws than the professional and paid police forces do.
A necessary monopoly. Even as things are, there are constant problems with jurisdiction. If police weren't overseen by a single authority as they are, things would be a million times worse. Every single homeowner and their dog would make up their own rules and attempt to enforce them. You haven't the slightest idea how much of a fail your preferred system of government is, by definition.
And when a cop is around they move on. Marked vehicles and uniforms accomplish far more than illusions, as anyone who had any experience at all in law enforcement would attest to. The benefits are well beyond your capacity to understant, as is apparent from your ridiculous and ignorant assertions.
I suspect a demonstration of ignorance is about to appear.
I was right. Supply and demand are in effect here. If there is more crime, more police are hired. If crime drops, police forces are reduced. Fools like you don't understand that supply and demand are the basis of all society, not just economics.
You are oversimplifying things to such a degree as to be absurd. And you are biased by the flaws in the system you live under, failing to recognise that other systems are far superior in many or even every way(s). Yes, the US has the shittiest justice system in the world. I've been saying that for decades. So leave already.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
So why not make the goal of government to eliminate crime, rather than maximize the money they make off of it?
Any studies you can site? I know a moderate amount over the limit is not much of a problem. Very slow drivers are often elderly or impared that should have their licenses yanked.
But again, speed limits are set not so much for public safety and public utility but to maximize power and profit for government.. But you fall for the illusion.
Again, the training and equiping of police is also a business designed to maximize profit. That is why it is so expensive.
There is no cost to deploy with volunteer citizen police. They lead their normal lives and only interviene when they see something or get an alert on their cell phone. training could be done by videos and other volunteers.
No. It's hard to get away with anything if almost everyone around is cop. Cops are corrupt now because they think no other cop is looking. Also you require them to videotape any police actions they take.
Might have been a problem in the past. But with video, people with policing authority won't get away with anything. Also police can check immediatly with a panel of judges if there is any question before they act on their cell phone.
You're so 20th century in your thinking. Technology should make things a lot cheaper including policing.
Exactly my point. You see the expensive uniforms and equipment so you feel safe so you want to pay more, a sucker for their marketing.
I say more cops for less money.
No when there is very high crime it drives away the business and taxpayers. Then you can't get more money for more cops. The police chief loses his job. So there is an incentive to not have too much crime, but no incentive to eliminate it. As long as people like you are OK with being a slave through high taxation, nothing will change.
So why rely on the government for so much since they are so shitty and overpriced? Do it yourself whenever possible and don't make government services such a for-profit monopolistic enterprise.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Because the complete elimination of crime is absolutely impossible. Reducing crime is rational. Attempting to eliminate it is irrational.
Sure. Here's one: http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm
If you spend a few minutes looking around with google, you'll find tens of thousands more.
In fact it is mixture of both, and other factors as well. But you fall for your bias.
And changing it to maximize efficiency instead would still be ridiculously expensive. More so, in fact, because you must first devise an entirely new strategy of education, and then implement it.
That's great for the rare incident where someone sees someone else throw a brick through a window. But then we already have in place a system which allows you to make an arrest under the conditions that you witnessed the crime. Any citizen of either of our countries can make such an arrest. So actually, you are suggesting no real changes to the system at all.
Everyone is already a volunteer cop, as per above.
Ironically, socialism could fix the problems you state better than any other system. By making participation in emergency services a requirement for all citizens. Libertarianism is absolutely incapable of arranging such.
Like a cop has time to call a panel of judges while chasing a suspect down the highway. Oh, and doing so would also happen to be illegal. Good call.
L
If you say so. Considering that your thinking is stuck in the 10th century, I don't particularly care what your opinion on my thinking is.
Actually when I'm safe I want to pay less. Everyone wants to pay less when they feel safe. It is only when people feel threatened that they want to pay more.
Yeah there's a great strategy. Make it easier for criminals to be criminals by reducing oversight on the police, and reduce the motivation of the police forces to do their job by reducing their wages. Brilliant. Are you in a mafia?
All of history refutes your beliefs with facts. I'll let you look them up yourself. I've already given you a link to ignore. I'm not going to pull out a hundred links for you to ignore.
I don't. I live in Canada, which happens to have a far superior justice system. Most of the problems you have to experience don't exist here.
In other words might makes right. Because the dark ages were such an awesome time, we must resurrect them. Not.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
It's already here it's called web based learning. And it practially costs nothing.
The reason education still costs so much is again it's a monopolistic goverment-business that exists to soak as much money as possible from the rest of society.
Fire a ton of police and tell them to get a job in the competitive marketplace like the rest of us. You may need to draft people if you don't get enough volunteers. Today, people are too busy working to pay taxes that they have not time to train or serve.
OK where is my siren I can use to pull people over? Where can I get my non-consealed carry permit?
You finally get it! I'm the true socialist.. If you define socailism as wanting a ratiaion social contract. The rest are just scammers using government to get free stuff at everyone's expense.
Government is big business of the worst kind because it is a monopoly.
I guess you've never heard of hands free calling and voice activated dialing. You're still living in 1970 with all your thinking. Even so, police call for backup all the time in emergency situations.
If half the adult population was police, then each person on average would actually do very little. Maybe only a few hours of work you're whole life. So there is no motivation or burnout issues.
As it is now. In high crime areas, they suffer from stress and burnout from too much dangerous work. In low crime areas, they sit on their ass most of the time or pass out tickets for nothing while the rest of us work to pay them off.
In the dark ages, kings had massive armies they sent out to collect massive taxes and force the poor feudal serfs to work to pay for the royal court and nobility and all the king's benefactors. What has changed, the illusion of democracy we have?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen