Ville et anarki ha fungert i Norge?

[jjkoggan]

So, we've gone full circle from a very powerful person to a pennyless bum?

 

Nope a dangerous person who preys on weak people and no reasonable way to stop it. The weak people can't defend themselves and others don't want to deal with the dangerous person unless they are affected. The power comes from being dangerous , not wealth.

 

Some people in an anarchy will likely learn to gather forces towards criminal means, and with easy access to weapons and no powerful police force to impede them, it will be much easier to terrorize others.

[Skatteflyktning]

Still this dangerous person has enough money (house, weapons, boobytraps) to make bagging her worth while, and if her friends want to end up in the bag too it will be all the more worth while.Hence, others will want to "bother about it" because there is money to be made.

 

This is already operative in your home country:

http://people.howstu...unting.htm

 

Guess you consider $500-$1000 to bag someone as excessively expensive, and apparently your "powerful person" isn't worth this, despite having a house, weapons and boobytraps? We're back to the penniless bum, living under a bridge (house), with a dull knife (weapons), and some empty beer cans stacked up to detect you coming (booby trap), even so he would be worth bagging.

Endret 20. mars 2013 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

Still this dangerous person has enough money (house, weapons, boobytraps) to make bagging her worth while, and if her friends want to end up in the bag too it will be all the more worth while.Hence, others will want to "bother about it" because there is money to be made.

 

not if there is a high probablity that they will be killed. in the process.

[Skatteflyktning]

not if there is a high probablity that they will be killed. in the process.

It is, part of the bounty:

The real reward, he says, is the adrenaline rush that comes from making an arrest. Burton refers to it as "adrenadollars" -- "For every buck we make arresting someone, we make $1,000 in adrenadollars."

http://people.howstuffworks.com/bounty-hunting.htm

[jjkoggan]

It is, part of the bounty:http://people.howstuffworks.com/bounty-hunting.htm

 

You can't collect money if you are dead.

[Skatteflyktning]

You can't collect money if you are dead.

 

True, but some live for the thrill. Don't seem to be any lack of operators in the US despite the risks.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

True, but some live for the thrill. Don't seem to be any lack of operators in the US despite the risks.

 

Very few would risk their lives for little reward of a little money.

[Skatteflyktning]

Number of people in risky professions says otherwise

[jjkoggan]

Number of people in risky professions says otherwise

 

Number diminishes in proportion to level of risk. High risk low reward even fewer

Endret 21. mars 2013 av jjkoggan

[Skatteflyktning]

Number diminishes in proportion to level of risk. High risk low reward even fewer

As the bounty hunter quoted above (#424) makes clear, the risk is part of the reward Endret 21. mars 2013 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

As the bounty hunter quoted above (#424) makes clear, the risk is part of the reward

 

A few people are wired that way but not many

[Skatteflyktning]

Fact is that you, in the US, do today have plenty of people that do this job in a manner similar to what is likely to be the case in a free society.

 

Others that carry out similar jobs (with similar risks) are today employed by the government (military, police), and even if their employer disappears the people with the profile do not.

 

Your claim of a lack of bountyhunters in a free society are not based on observed facts, nor reason. A temporary lack of bountyhunters would only push up the price of their services in a free market, until the supply and demand equalizes.

[Weyoun]

A few people are wired that way but not many

Agreed.

 

Using regression analysis on wages across industries, we can show this quantitatively.

While econometrics is notoriously problematic scientific tool, it has certain uses. It is pretty uncontroversial to establish a positive corrolation between exposure to risk, and a corresponding degree of risk compensation element in their salary. - In thrillseekers were the norm, the safest jobs would fetch the highest salaries.

[Weyoun]

Your claim of a lack of bountyhunters in a free society are not based on observed facts, nor reason.

 

Right. If our labor market tells us anything, it's that people are willing to take on virtually any job, for the right price. Just look at the patent attorneys or lobbyists! hehe

[Weyoun]

Number diminishes in proportion to level of risk. High risk low reward even fewer

 

So you DO have some sense of economic equilibrium!

 

Mind if I ask, how do you view a FREE AND UNREGULATED market, as opposed to our current system of tariffs, taxes and licenses, would fare when it comes to resource allocation and efficiency?

[Weyoun]

You have no idea what kind of knowledge I have regarding our founding fathers and their political philosophies.

 

 

I did not make any statements about you. I simply buildt an argument upon your premise. - While I fully respect your experience in these matters, that does not exhempt you from providing a counterargument.

We could get into a debate about how the founding fathers would view the social justice of the welfare economics, but it would be quite a unnecessary diversion

 

 

On the contrary, I suspect that a proper comparison between the USA of the founders, vs. USA today, might shock you out of your denial, but let's leave that argument for another time.

My larger point was that John Adams was worried about law and order and the greedy side of human nature.

 

 

Alright. No argument there.

 

 

But why do you bring that up? Why does John Adam's opinion matter? I take it from your

statement, that you do in fact, hold the IDEALS of the founding fathers in a special regard, and that their views on just and proper governance matters.

 

So I wonder: Did John Adams warn us of other future dangers?

 

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780)

 

 

Did others share this concern?

 

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.

- George Washington, Farewell address

 

 

Many founding fathers were worried that the USA might turn into the "anarchy" like the french revolution where mob rule, violence and terror reigned (in their minds)

 

Apparently one concern among many. And it seems the stage has been set.

 

Unclear what you are referring to.

 

Your unwillingness to address WHY l reject the inevitability of chaos, and to continue debating, as if this is an established axiomatic truth. It is clearly our key point of contention.

 

Absolutely, it is the foundation of a liberal democracy that the vast majority is civil and respectful. I'm not worried about the vast majority, I am concerned about the small minority.

 

 

So if the vast majority of people can be trusted, but a small minority can't, doesn't it seem somewhat unwise, to submit all power, to the very minority group that fights for it most fiercly....?

 

Seriously. I'd like to hear you answer that.

 

 

Wikipedia has oversight due to vandalism of a small minority, you are incorrect.

 

 

If you were female, native american, slave or not a property owner you did not fluorish in Adam's time. Adams would have a hard time thinking of a black man as president.

 

 

Come on, we were having a nice discussion here. Both these arguments are obviously flawed, and you're just cheapening the arguing with a dishonest attempt at confusion, rather than elect to seek knowledge.

 

1: Wikipedia's "oversight" is voluntary control mechanisms, and an inherent part of the service. - A rather far-fetched comparison to the "oversight" implied in your government, no?

 

Self-appointed right to assassinate anyone they see fit, using remote drone strikes, anytime, anywhere, without due process..... Versus..... Reverting vandalism on biography pages!!

 

2: So because their society was not perfect, we should disregard the fantastic progress that occured, on virtually every area? You sir, are attempting to commit "Chronological Snobbery"!

 

 

 

I tend not to trust those who believe they have a lock on reality, humility is the key to great knowledge.

 

Who says they have a lock on reality? I certainly don't. But some things are demonstrably true, and some are demonstrably false.

In matters of economics and politics, your views are demonstrably false.

 

 

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

- Carl Sagan

 

The "value" of humility, is your ensnarement by your overlords. Having you assert yourself would be inconvenient. It's a control mechanism, nothing more.

Endret 21. mars 2013 av Weyoun

[jjkoggan]

I did not make any statements about you. I simply buildt an argument upon your premise. - While I fully respect your experience in these matters, that does not exhempt you from providing a counterargument.

 

You presumed that I "failed to realize" something with no basis to do so. This implies a lack of knowledge in an area without evidence to substantiate this claim.

 

On the contrary, I suspect that a proper comparison between the USA of the founders, vs. USA today, might shock you out of your denial, but let's leave that argument for another time.

I am quite aware of the founding father's ideas and to presume that I am unaware is quite arrogant. I am well versed in the perspectives of the day, and yes they would generally be considered quite radical today. All students of early american history are aware of this. Their ideas of individualism and fears of governmental tyranny still resonate in the american mind and differentiate us from the welfare states of Europe.

 

This was not my point though because at the same time that they worried about abuse of power, they also worried about mob rule and anarchy. They sought a balance between the two. Adams especially worried about too much power in any governmental body because he generally thought that power is corrupting and would lead to abuse. I share this view of human nature, that there is a dark side that we must guard against with a counterveiling force. Yes he would likely reject a welfare state and governmental overreach, but he would also likely reject the idea of no counterveiling force to lawlessness and mob rule.

[jjkoggan]

Fact is that you, in the US, do today have plenty of people that do this job in a manner similar to what is likely to be the case in a free society.

 

Others that carry out similar jobs (with similar risks) are today employed by the government (military, police), and even if their employer disappears the people with the profile do not.

 

Your claim of a lack of bountyhunters in a free society are not based on observed facts, nor reason. A temporary lack of bountyhunters would only push up the price of their services in a free market, until the supply and demand equalizes.

 

The sad thing is that there would be little motivation to rectify penniless people killing penniless people in your scenario, since no material gain is to be had. Furthermore one must use more resources to invest in self defense and the weak will become even more vulnerable than they are today.

 

Warlordism is a more likely outcome, and once one warlord becomes somewhat successfull more will come to counteract. THese are the realities in most areas of the world with no functioning central government. I see no reason this would change.

[Skatteflyktning]

The sad thing is that there would be little motivation to rectify penniless people killing penniless people  in your scenario, since no material gain is to be had.

Finally we came full circle from the rich and powerful to the poor and penniless.Why do you not think I can make money on the penniless murderers?  

Furthermore one must use more resources to invest in self defense and the weak will become even more vulnerable than they are today.

Incorrect, ome MUST not, it would be entirely up to you how much to invest in security instead of in your car or education.

 

Warlordism is a more likely outcome, and once one warlord becomes somewhat successfull more will come to counteract.  THese are the realities in most areas of the world with no functioning central government.  I see no reason this would change.

Warlordism is just another word for government.

[jjkoggan]

Finally we came full circle from the rich and powerful to the poor and penniless.

Can't extract money from the penniless

  Incorrect, ome MUST not, it would be entirely up to you how much to invest in security instead of in your car or education.

Education will be too expensive for many and one can't educate oneself when one is vulnerable and unsafe

 

Warlordism is just another word for government.

 

A meaningless platitude that ignores the question at hand. Every afghan and Somali I have met much prefers the safer warlordism(according to you) offered in Ohio to their constant fear of being captured and killed in their homelands