The Back Alley Archives

That is the simple choice. The worst problems of this society nearly all stem from the fact that so many believe that a society of criminals is better than a society of law. Many folks seem to support a society of criminals because they believe they must do so in order for society to function--as if we need taxes (which are theft), regulation (which legalizes trespass), drug laws (assault and battery), etc.

My main question is: how can one be so confident that our criminal society is better than the potential society of law? Also, hasn't our criminal society simply institutionalized the very things that many people currently fear about anarchy? Is it somehow preferential to at least know that the most likely source of criminal behavior is the state? Is that the draw of supporting criminal statism?

But in fact, it is not madness at all. For the only difference between the recognized-as-a-criminal burglar and the not-recognized-as-a-criminal member of the public is that the burglar does his own dirty work. He does not obtain his television sets, stereos and jewelry through that form of theft called "public policy." Instead of recruiting his local politicians and bureaucrats to steal your property for his own use, he saves them the trouble and goes and gets it himself.

In doing so, he is not able to fall back on rationalizations for his crimes on the grounds of democratic process, political mandates, and other statist notions. He may of course have his own rationalizations, but they are far more half-hearted than the zealous lust for the unearned that is exhibited in the political realm by lobbyists, politicians, and statist media commentators. In any case, it is hardly surprising that he feels entitled to take property that does not belong to him. This is the least of his differences with ordinary, "law-abiding" members of society.

The most common rationalization for those crimes committed under "public policies" is the notion that these policies are the "will of the people" expressed through their elected representatives. But even if some aggregated expression of will could indeed be established by this process — and this is extremely dubious — there can be no such thing as the capacity of a group of people to change the content of law or vote away the rights of people. Here we can again turn to Spooner, who notes that:

"if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed — by any power inferior to that which established it — than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men — whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name — to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe."

http://mises.org/daily/4125

i thought this was going to be about Australia...lol

So what does a society of law look like? You drew a picture of what it is to be in a society of criminals...but how does a society of law work?

So what does a society of law look like? You drew a picture of what it is to be in a society of criminals...but how does a society of law work?

It's impossible to predict with any certainty what a society of law would look like since none of us has ever seen or experienced one. The basic idea, though, is that the society would be based on natural laws, which flow from our natural rights as humans (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Apart from protecting those rights, there would be no restrictions or positive requirements for people to abide by.

Many of the services currently provided through government force would still likely be provided, but on a voluntary basis. For example, I've said repeatedly that if everyone who supports nationalized health care just got together and started a non-profit to serve the needs of those with inadequate health care, everyone in the country would then have access to health care. Of course, when you can use the government to force everyone to pay for something that only a few are interested in, there's no practical reason not to exploit that opportunity (although there are plenty of moral reasons not to).

All services that require cooperation would be based on voluntarism, that is the voluntary assent of customers to the services. Society, thus being based on voluntary cooperation, would actually regenerate itself. Whereas the vast expansion of the State's power tends to destroy society's ability to interact cooperatively due to the State's reliance on force to maintain its control, in the absence of forced interaction people would once again expand their ability to creatively design systems to help them cooperate with one another voluntarily. It's hard to imagine right now, because our experiences seem to tell us that people can often only interact when the State brings its force to bear and threatens the citizens with violence if they don't cooperate in certain ways. The expansion of this practice by the State has eroded our imagination when it comes to interacting voluntarily on a large scale.

AA...thank you for the explanation. It seems to me this way of life would only work if people were not inherently flawed...a utopia if you will. I DO agree that the gov't does way more charity work than it should and has gotten the society into the thought process of non-volunteerism, because why give to someone else when the gov't is already doing so on my behalf (some, most of the time without my consent.).

But there will always be people who will steal, cheat, lie and be a glutton for power and greed. This "society" would only work if EVERYone becomes "moral" for lack of a better word. To me, it is just a different side of the same coin...what about people that made a ton of money? What if they didn't feel the need to participate in these volunteer opportunities that the rest of the community wanted to participate in? Don't you think the others would "ride him out on a rail"?

I dunno...it's an interesting thought. We agree that gov't needs to be way more limited than it is...but I think you are way more trusting of the human soul than I am...or maybe not.

Sort of off topic but on FB the other day, my friend who is currently living in Holland with her family due to her husband's job was mentioning how much tax they have to pay on their dogs...like $800. She was just saying how they tax you for everything over there and how grateful she is that she is not going to be there forever etc.

I, of course, chimed in...don't get too excited. By the time you get back here, it may not be too much different.

And then this genius wrote this on the thread..."I would gladly pay more taxes if I got to live in a country that provided services like Holland. America is falling apart because people don't wanna pay their taxes."

I didn't respond because it was one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen, and it wasn't MY thread, so I didn't want to get my friends thread all heated, but here are the three things I WANTED to say (in order of favorites).

1. Yeah, and most of those not wanting to pay taxes are working for the government now.
2. No ones stopping you..why don't you move to Holland? I'm sure there are boatloads of Americans trying to move over there right now...maybe you could catch one.
3. America is not falling apart because people won't pay their taxes..it's falling apart because the more you make and contribute to society, the more you're taxed. The less you work and are a drain on the economy, the less you're taxed.

i thought this was going to be about Australia...lol

Georgia.

AA...thank you for the explanation. It seems to me this way of life would only work if people were not inherently flawed...a utopia if you will.

But government cannot solve these problems through its monopoly on force and society still manages to function. The threat and use of force by government against citizens doesn't actually reform the flaws of people.

I DO agree that the gov't does way more charity work than it should and has gotten the society into the thought process of non-volunteerism, because why give to someone else when the gov't is already doing so on my behalf (some, most of the time without my consent.).

Absolutely.

But there will always be people who will steal, cheat, lie and be a glutton for power and greed. This "society" would only work if EVERYone becomes "moral" for lack of a better word. To me, it is just a different side of the same coin...what about people that made a ton of money? What if they didn't feel the need to participate in these volunteer opportunities that the rest of the community wanted to participate in? Don't you think the others would "ride him out on a rail"?

There would be recourse for the violation of rights even without the State. We will never reach a place where everyone becomes moral. Ostracism is the traditional risk for those who choose to live in a community that they refuse to participate in, which is the equivalent of riding them out of town on a rail. Of course, it doesn't have to be the physical expulsion of the person from the community, but rather can be as simple as the community withdrawing their resources from the person's business, etc.

I dunno...it's an interesting thought. We agree that gov't needs to be way more limited than it is...but I think you are way more trusting of the human soul than I am...or maybe not.

Not at all. I don't trust anyone at all. That's actually one of the big reasons why the State simply cannot be trusted at all. Not only does the State employ imperfect human beings to enforce the "laws", but the State ALSO enjoys a monopoly on force and a spate of privileges whereby the State's crimes are legally adjudged to be non-crimes. In my ideal world anyone taking it upon themselves to enforce the natural laws of society would put themselves at risk of being held accountable if they run afoul of people's rights.

Sort of off topic but on FB the other day, my friend who is currently living in Holland with her family due to her husband's job was mentioning how much tax they have to pay on their dogs...like $800. She was just saying how they tax you for everything over there and how grateful she is that she is not going to be there forever etc.

I, of course, chimed in...don't get too excited. By the time you get back here, it may not be too much different.

And then this genius wrote this on the thread..."I would gladly pay more taxes if I got to live in a country that provided services like Holland. America is falling apart because people don't wanna pay their taxes."

I didn't respond because it was one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen, and it wasn't MY thread, so I didn't want to get my friends thread all heated, but here are the three things I WANTED to say (in order of favorites).

1. Yeah, and most of those not wanting to pay taxes are working for the government now.
2. No ones stopping you..why don't you move to Holland? I'm sure there are boatloads of Americans trying to move over there right now...maybe you could catch one.
3. America is not falling apart because people won't pay their taxes..it's falling apart because the more you make and contribute to society, the more you're taxed. The less you work and are a drain on the economy, the less you're taxed.

LOL nice. Taxes are just extortion. Supporting them is the equivalent of supporting the mafia's protection racket in your neighborhood.