[ExI] Social right to have a living

[Samantha Atkins]

On 07/05/2011 09:46 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Samantha Atkins<sjatkins at mac.com>  wrote:
>> Human stupidity is rampant and increases when you make it supposedly "safe"
>> to be stupid.  So?
>>
>> I can't protect idiots from their idiocy and I refuse to bind free and
>> honest people to attempt to do so.
> Ok, Samantha, I'm going to give you the opportunity to try and convert
> me into an Anarchist/Capitalist. First, I buy the idea that the less
> government, the better.
>
> You state that an A/C state would have a private legal system. I agree
> that there is a need for some kind of legal system, but when you have
> one body (call it government or not) without a balance of power, does
> it not make sense that the unbalanced power, in this case the
> judicial, would become all powerful? How does your proposed system
> prevent this NGO legal system from becoming the most powerful element
> of society?
>

Who said it was unbalanced?  Not I.  Just DRO organizations are mostly 
just private businesses for settling disputes.   If a DRO gets out of 
line too much it loses business or is censured by its peers.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
http://www.amazon.com/New-Liberty-Libertarian-Manifesto/dp/0930073029

> Also, since stupidity is so common and rampant, (also agreed) how do
> we protect the smart from mobs of hungry stupid people? Do we have a
> non-governmental police force/army? How do you keep that system from
> becoming the most powerful element of society? How do you keep them
> from accepting bribes and thus corrupting the system.
>

People largely defend themselves.  Crime goes down when the possible 
victims are or are thought to be armed.  Your question also assumes that 
the less capable will be less well off which is an unwarranted 
assumption.   And yes, there are also private security forces but not a 
monopolistic centralized police force and especially not a para-military 
one with weapons that most people cannot own.   Here again you are 
presuming a problem in something you thought up which was not advocated 
by me.

> Corruption is at least as common as stupidity.

Don't put near unanswerable power in a group with a monopoly on the 
initiation of aggression (definitive of government).  There is then a 
lot less convenient, overly tempting, legalized force backed power to 
buy.   Can you corrupt a DRO?  Sure.  And it, unlike the government, can 
fully be brought to trial and sued into oblivion is corruption is proven.

> Finally, how do we protect the environment such that everyone has the
> same ability to exploit nature without destroying it at the expense of
> everyone else?

Rothbard word extensively about this in For a New Liberty and other 
works.  Best to refer there.


> To me, this is one area where the early USA did not
> live up to the zeitgeist of today, and I don't want to go back.

Actually, the zietgeist of today is seriously warped on environmental 
and many other issues and I would happily "go back".

>   I
> don't want environmentalist terrorism or dictatorship, but I do want
> to protect the environment so that we don't get strip mines everywhere
> leaking heavy metals into the water sources.

This is direct property damage and damage to health of your neighbors 
and would be an offense in a anachist society as well.  What makes you 
think it would not or that you need all the machinery of government to 
successfully prosecute such cases?

> This was pretty common in
> the early western united states and I don't want to go back to that
> sort of anarchy.

You are confusing anarchy with lack of rational law which is a classic 
mistake.

> Also, how do you strike a balance in protecting children from their
> parents, and parental rights? Who does this if there is no government?

Government doesn't do this well today.  Children in an anarchist society 
as well as other interested adults can charge parents if there is 
evidence of abuse.

> The closest thing we have in history to anarchy/capitalism is the wild
> west, no? It did not seem to be the best system in history to me.


Nope.  Not in the least.  Read Rothbard and get back to me.

> I am sincere in that if you can answer my questions, I'm more than
> willing to give up my psychological crutch of the necessity of
> government.
>

Cool.  I think you will enjoy the reading.

- samantha