Where I live, a year ago, the County Commission voted to get rid of the evil Wetlands Division of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. I was of course in support of this; I even commandeered their Domain Name: http://epchc.com/ (please see this one!)
Well, before the bill took effect, a HUGE opposition rose up and DEMOCRATICALLY intimidated the Commissioners, who backed down. The exact same thing, via different mechanisms but the same result, will occur in AnCap. All those little old ladies who want to outlaw Lap Dancing will still have the same power that they have now, if they are not prevented by Force from imposing their preferences upon the Weak Minority (me). --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Zack Bass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Competing Agencies for all sorts of things is a great idea, including > Law Enforcement. But the Law itself ought not to be on the table; > non-NAP Justice Agencies are almost certain to be more powerful than a > NAP Agency, since there is huge profit in getting over on Victims by > Initiating Force. You can see proof oof this all around: Every > system that started out more or less fresh soon degenerated into Laws > that punish Victimless Acts. Such Laws are VERY popular! ALl your > neighbors just LOVE telling their neighbors how to live their lives, > and that will not change if you get rid of "Government" and replace > its Force with competing Agencies that now do the same things people > wanted Government to do for them. > Anarchists like to think in terms of some Government shoving shit down > the throats of a poor oppressed innocent populace. That is hardly > ever the case (ignore the Bailout). The most common scenario in > Western Democracies is that the shitheads, who comprise 99.999% of you > neighbors, want The Government (or an Agency, in AnCap) to punish > anyone who, say, declines to clothe himself or who uses heroin in > public. Government, especially State & Local Government, is doing > exactly what the Vast Majority WANT it to do; they are very well > served by the current Government; they are not Oppressed. It is only > a teeny Minority that is Oppressed by any particular Law. YThis will > not change by switching to AnCap. > If, like some AnCaps, you want to say that AnCap will be more NAP if > everyone involved is Libertarian, well yeah but then so would > Democracy. If people are Real People, they will act like the > shitheads they are whether you give them Democracy or AnCap - unless > my NAP Justice Agency is set up from the get-go as powerful enough to > stand against any Agency or other Apparatus that threatens Initiation > Of Force. If you leave the evolution of Justice Agencies to market > forces, you will get what you have gotten already, right here, from > The Vast Shithead Majority. > > Everything else, yeah let The Market decide. > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > <gfyork@> wrote: > > > > I remain fond of the concept of numerous competing justice agencies ala > > David Friedman's, "The Machinery of Freedom." (Yes, Milton's son.) > > > > I first realized I was a libertarian when I read Murray Rothbard's, > "For > > a New Liberty." Worth a read. So is his, "Man, Economy, and the > > State." Well, actually, damn near anything he wrote is worth a good > read. > > > > G. > > > > Zack Bass wrote: > > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > > > <gfyork@> wrote: > > > > > >> I believe that anyone who truly embraces NAP _must_ be > > >> or become an AnCap. > > >> It's a logical consequence, don'tca know? (Guess not.) > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ONLY if there exists a Justice Agency powerful enough to stand against > > > any other Agency within its chartered realm, which is that it enforces > > > NAP (which implies that it never violates NAP). > > > Many AnCaps look at that and cry "Government" and the deal's off. > > > > > > There are LOTS of scenarios for AnCap. NONE of them will _naturally_ > > > lead to a place where NAP is enforced, but if such Enforcement is > > > built in from the beginning then fine. > > > Or something that is NOT AnCap, that is unabashedly Government at its > > > inception, can also be perfectly libertarian and enforce NAP. > > > I don't care how it comes about, as long as NAP is ENRORCED; otherwise > > > I don't care to live there. > > > > > > Oh, and I might as well mention that there are a lot of AnCaps who > > > claim that Enforcing NAP by Force is a Violation of NAP. HAHAHAHAHA > > > Obviously these people are just Pacifists who oppose all Violence, or > > > the weirdos who allow it only in Defense and claim that any > > > non-Defensive use of Force violates NAP. Pity. NAP shouldn't be that > > > hard to grasp. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
