Hello friends. Today I decided to share a conversation I had on facebook with you all. Hopefully this proves to be somewhat illuminating. I have changed the names of the participants other than myself to colors so as not to embarrass anyone. I really enjoy conversations like this.

Purple (Original Post):

 

Big news.

A federal judge has struck down Alabama laws banning gay marriage. U.S. District Callie V.S. Granade ruled Friday in favor of two Mobile women who sued to challenge Alabama’s refusal to recognize their marriage performed in California. Plaintiffs Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand said…
abcnews.go.com|By ABC News
(Comments Begin)
Blue: it’s sad that we need to go to the court for this.
Winter: Actually, I don’t think I like this. I don’t like that the federal government can tell the states what laws they can or cannot have.
Blue: It is a duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the people. Even if their state is the one that is doing it.
Gray: Some are wise in their own eyes.
Purple: I would prefer that people start demanding gov. Stay out of it, but it’s baby steps…
Gray: Gay rights n shariah law – a paradox.
Winter: I’d much rather have people protect their own rights than to hand that responsibility off to a third-party.
Purple: What do you mean? In spite of laws or in lieu?
Winter: Laws don’t rule. Men rule- and subjectively at that. You shouldn’t trust your personal safety and security to another person who might decide that the law which you think says one thing actually says another.
Purple: Tell that to the hospital where they don’t recognize two men as married and won’t let them see their loved one or give them updated unless they’re “family”
Winter: Are you comfortable with a government telling a business what it can and cannot do? I’m not. When private companies behave badly, there’s the public backlash that happens. Protests and boycotts, left to work on their own, without police intervention, have a way of changing the market. Such tactics might not change the homophobic hospital, but it will make other hospitals aware that there’s a chance to make money by being more accepting. Thus, businesses which behave badly are punished in the form of decreased revenue. The businesses who are truly committed to long-term growth and sustainability soon discover that it’s in their best interest not to piss anybody off, lest they too come under public scrutiny. None of this requires any law, or any enforcer of a law.
Blue: Winter, its becomes a fine line as to what is defending your rights, or what violated the NAP ect. Say for example a property dispute between 2 people. Should they just fight over it?
Winter: Ryan, in that example, there’s always the option of a third-party negotiator. Assuming that both parties are committed to non-violence, then no law will be needed to tell them how to treat their neighbors. If they are not committed to non-violence, if they believe violence is a method to solve their problems, then the only thing stopping them from doing so is the intimidation the law presses upon them by promising punishment for a breach of the peace. This is not guiding individuals towards good behavior, nor getting them to consider new ideas. It’s just nullifying would they would do under natural conditions. This means that, in the absence of police, in a situation where no punishment is expected to occur, they will revert to their instinctual behavior.
Blue: Ah, so we come to the conclusion that a 3rd party is necessary. This is the role of the court. I suppose a private arbitration company could assume this role, but only if both parties recognize it as valid. I believe absent a penalty for executing certain behaviors, many people would act primitively. Even with the force of law being in place in my city, vandals and thugs come out, and shoot each other because they are in different gangs. No one can stop that.The law is [supposed to be] an incentive to avoid doing things that would infringe on the rights of others. It a lawless world (AnCap) it would be best to simply kill your neighbor in secret, and acquire the land in question.

Purple: I lean classical liberal… I do believe in anarchy in the minimal sense, Winter. I still believe there is a need for government to protect my property rights… in this case, I think there needs to be more people stepping up and demanding the gov. stay out, federally speaking. I think the ruling is a product of the whole licensing issue. the 3rd party is good idea, regarding a marital contract. I disagree with Paul on the gov. “defining” marriage.
Blue: There are just too many issues with anarchist ideology for me to accept it as a reasonable solution to our problems. Yes, government does convolute many things, which is why it is best to use it at it’s minimalist form–to protect the rights of the citizens from external or internal attacks. Ancaps promote the idea of everything being privatized, and for-profit to reduce bureaucracy. It’s a concept of good faith, but the NAP, prisons (who’s gonna pay for those?) storage and deployment of nuclear weapons, dealing with another nation declaring war on us, copyrights and patents, ect.. Sometimes force must be initiated to protect the rights and lives of others. That’s what the government does. It initiates force on behalf of the people seeking to protect their liberties.
Winter: I think that whenever a problem (demand) arises, the market will act to fulfill that demand. There’s no reason to presume that without government there would not be police, since, as you say, police provide a benefit of stopping criminals from acting criminally. But I don’t see that privatizing public services necessarily means that some people will have coverage while others will not.For example, one thing that could happen would be that police department, fire departments, and the like, hold annual or semi-annual fundraising events, just as public libraries do. If they are able to cover their operating expenses for the year, they can service an entire county, or municipality. If the police get out of hand, then people will just cut off their budget. Out-of-control asset forfeiture will be a thing of the past. Moreover, free market conditions tend to lead to better products at lower prices. This is how we’ve gone from a hardback book (25 dollars) to a paperback book (8 dollars) to an e-book (3 dollars). I see no reason why public services, performed by private agencies, will be exempt from this pattern.

Indeed, in a society wherein compulsion and coercion are greatly reduced by means of abolishing the government, there’s every reason to suspect that people will start taking responsibility for themselves, even if that means forming neighborhood watches, local militias, etc. This principle of self-ownership is demonstrated every day when people go into work for a paycheck rather than trying to defraud the government out of welfare money. I don’t think anarchy is quite as bad as you say, but neither will it be a bed of roses. It will present a number of new challenges which each individual will have to deal with on their own time, in their own way.

Blue: In an anarchist world, you only own what you can defend. The children, the elderly, and the disabled would have to be taken care of by their families. If their families decide not to feed the kids, the elderly, or the disabled, the community would have to do that for them. If the community says “Yeah, i’m not pitching in any of my money to help old man richards survive.” Well then, I suppose he kicks the bucket.
Winter: I think when the danger of poverty in retirement looms, people will start to delay their gratification more, to save up for the future, to figure out investing, and how to make passive income. When there’s no safety net, people act a lot more carefully.
Blue: We have to address the fact that not everyone is intelligent. I agree with your point, it is prudent to prepare for the future. However, underlying factors can complicate this. Say for instance, a very expensive illness. Insurance is another topic entirely, but let’s assume they get cleaned out by stage 2 esophageal cancer. Tough road ahead.
Winter: I could make the point that cancer, in a free market, will be as dangerous as a cold- but that’s semantics. Instead of welfare systems that generally exist to enrich the select few in power while passing crumbs along to the disadvantaged, I think instead you could have systems such as non-profit thrift stores which make millions of dollars every year while turning over their profit to churches and food banks. Turn off the welfare system, and the compassionate donors will become more invested in caring for the poor. They’ll also be able to pursue their goals in the most effeicent, effective way- instead of being tied down to a number of regulations that prohibit them from actually doing good.This is how the elderly and the disadvantaged will be cared for- by the discretionary income of the people who are making enough to cover themselves. That people send X number of dollars in taxes every year proves that it can work- you’d just be cutting out the administrators, bureaucrats, and shysters.

Blue: I would hope your reasoning proves to be correct. Otherwise, we don’t have a plan to catch them. The part about cancer being as threatening as a cold…the industries that profit from cancer drugs, would not like to soon see a cure. All of this funding, in the hundreds of billions, all of these “race for a cure!” programs, they’re all pure shite. If a cure came out tonight, they would lose more profit than they could imagine. Capitalism is all about profiting. You certainly don’t want to vaporize a lot of your profit base by suddenly curing them of the condition that makes you so much money.
Winter: If you abolish the government, you also abolish intellectual property laws. This means that, for example, someone who cooked up a cure for anything in a chemistry lab in his garage can sell that cure to a company, who can then undersell the market price in order to drive out the competition. Medicine is expensive now precisely because of patents and copyrights preventing duplication; this principle can be observed in how generic drugs are cheaper than name-brand drugs.Thus, in a free market, medical care will become much more effective will at the same time becoming less costly.

Blue: Where will be the incentive to create new ideas and profit from them, when your neighbor can simply copy your idea and claim it as his own? Sounds more like a collectivized idea trust where no one can profit from the fruits of his clever creation.
Purple: ahhh. these are the modern day federalist papers, aren’t they? Should there be a governing power? what is the least intrusive? I think it’s fantastic that these discussions continue, however, the reality is present. We have a very big gov. What are we going to do to make it better today, tomorrow, and in the future?