[Phred]

Do you really see no possibility of an organization creating and enforcing rules without the threat of force?

Creating? No. Enforcing? Certainly. For proof, I point to the roughly five millennia of human history.

It's done every single day in every single organization.

Not the same thing. Not even close. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious, but it appears I do, so here are a couple of points for you to chew on:

- These organizations exist and operate within the overarching ecosystem of a society with government. As such, the rules of an organization in question may not be in violation of these overarching rules or government steps in. Therefore the ability of an organization to "create and enforce" its own rules is severely constrained from the outset.

- These organizations exist and operate within the overarching ecosystem of a society with government. As such, they need not apply force to enforce the rules, since they have access to the group that will - government. For example, if a member of an organization breaks the organization's rule of not stealing stuff from the organization, then the organization will merely call the cops.

As far as this applying on a community-wide scale there are residential areas that operate exactly like this. A homeowner's association create rules that all residents must follow. These rules are created and enforced.

Enforced by whom? Ultimately, not by the neighborhood association, but by the courts with jurisdiction over that neighborhood.

I can't believe you chose neighborhood associations as a supporting argument. The papers are full of stories of battles between residents and their neighborhood associations. It is very common for these things to end up in court. Sometimes the courts rule in favor of the resident, sometimes in favor of the association. Take some time to think through the implications of this fact (court rulings) --

- it is not the organization even doing the deciding here, much less the enforcing, but government.
- if the government rules the resident is in the right, then clearly at least one of the "rules" that organization "created" is thrown out the window. So much for the validity of an organization creating its own rules.
- if the government rules the neighborhood association is in the right, then the resident must make restitution to the neighborhood association - under the credible implied use of force. So much for a rule being enforced "without the threat of force".

You are using the word government as a synonym for state, but there are other ways to use the word. A government is an organization that governs people. To govern a people is to control and direct their actions to some extent. A homeowner's does exactly this, but it does not use force to do it. It is based solely on the concept of volunteerism.

Two points here - first of all, I have shown that even on issues as relatively inconsequential as whether or not a resident may fly his country's flag on his own property (against the rules set by the neighborhood association) it is not unusual in the slightest for government to have to step in. Second, the fact that a small group of like-minded people operating under the umbrella protection of an objective body of law may voluntarily agree to further restrict themselves in some small and tightly-circumscribed set of actions (not parking cars on their front lawns, locating propane barbecues in the back yard out of sight, not painting their house pink with turquoise polka dots) does nothing to address the much more consequential problem of human predators. How does the neighborhood association handle people who not only fail to keep their front lawns cut to shorter than three inches, but also break and enter the homes of other residents when their houses are unoccupied?




Phred

[copaceticmind]

Government involvement in the regulations of a homeowner's association does not disqualify the example. It actually helps to prove the point I am trying to make. If a resident has made an agreement not to fly the flag of the country in which he resides in his front yard then he should not do it, and he should submit himself to the consequences outlined in the contract. IMO, the government does not have the right to step in and say, "It was wrong for him to agree to that provision in the first place, so he has the right to go back on his word without penalties."

It is not just any force that goes against the principle of non-aggression - it is the initiation of force. It is the legal monopoly of the use of the initiation of force that defines the state. I think this is the foundation of our disagreement. I do not consider it an initiation of force when I agreed to submit myself to the force being applied. I do not believe that the one who applies this force is or requires a state, and I don't believe that applying the force needed to enforce contracts willfully entered into is what defines a state. What do you think?

[Phred]

Government involvement in the regulations of a homeowner's association does not disqualify the example.

Yes, it most certainly does.

It actually helps to prove the point I am trying to make.

No, it most certainly doesn't.

Look, you are not thinking this through. You can't see the forest for the trees. I really don't know how I can explain it much more clearly than I have already without just repeating what I have already said, but here goes:

The kind of "rules" a neighborhood association dreams up are trivial in comparison to the overarching legal system which has jurisdiction over the neighborhood in which the association operates. In actual fact, the only reason the neighborhood association even dares to dream up these petty restrictions in the first place is that - if their rule fits within the overarching framework of the government-enforced legal code - the neighborhood association can count on government to do the heavy lifting. Without government around, they (the association) wouldn't dare to come up with some of the petty shit they do. As a matter of fact, without government around, there wouldn't even be a neighborhood association - there'd be a bunch of slaves sitting around their gruel just before lights out bitching about how bad life has become since the slavemasters invaded and conquered them.

If a resident has made an agreement not to fly the flag of the country in which he resides in his front yard then he should not do it, and he should submit himself to the consequences outlined in the contract.

Of course he should! But that's almost certainly not what happened. What happened is that more of the people who could be bothered to take the time to attend the meetings of this busybody organization and put up with all its endless jabber and puerile nitpickery voted to ban flags in their little patch than voted against it. Does that mean that the people who voted against the new flag "rule" no longer have the right to fly a flag on their property? Why no... no, it doesn't. The "rulebreaker" didn't sign any contract agreeing not to fly a flag. Quite the reverse - he stood up in the meeting and did his utmost to convince the attendees what a bad idea this new rule was.

And again, I will point out your continued tendency to focus on the most trivial aspects of this iisue while completely ignoring the much more consequential fundamentals - human predators, either foreign or domestic.

IMO, the government does not have the right to step in and say, "It was wrong for him to agree to that provision in the first place, so he has the right to go back on his word without penalties."

Assumes "facts" not in evidence - that the plaintiff agreed to the provision in the first place.

I do not consider it an initiation of force when I agreed to submit myself to the force being applied.

Again, reconcile this belief of yours with the resident of the neighborhood who did everything in his power to keep the association from voting to abrogate his rights.

I do not believe that the one who applies this force is or requires a state...

Rightfully directed retaliatory force? No, of course not. If someone has broken into your house and is raping your daughter at gunpoint, you are not morally obligated to call the police, then stand by until they arrive. It is completely ethical for you to shoot the guy dead, then call the police to come and collect his corpse.

...and I don't believe that applying the force needed to enforce contracts willfully entered into is what defines a state.

Not all that defines a state, no, of course not. The state also handles the much, much more important task of dealing with human predators, foreign and domestic.





Phred

[Melodramatic]

Yes, they are.

No they are not.

also were are you quoting me form?

I left a state (Canada) without having any of my property stolen.

I did not mean the act of physically leaving a state's territory, but leaving its jurisdiction.

You cannot leave a state's legal jurisdiction without having your property stolen. if your property is inside its imagined and arbitrary borders it is under its jurisdiction and the same goes for your labor and self. The state's rule is forced on you, and forces you to move, probably stealing what is yours on the way, if you wish to leave.

The only time the State stole my property was when I lived there - more than half my income was confiscated from me every working year of my life. Sometimes considerably more.

That is also something no community has the right to do. There is no "its the law" involved. If it does not suite you it can't be forced on you.

But if true, how does this differentiate them from the government?

It differs for the state where if you declare yourself a non-member you will be violently coerced into leaving.

Here's your mission, son. List for the audience the differences between The State and The Government.

I shall not such sounds tedious and I have already listed a critical difference. To be frank, you don't seem worth it.

I admire greatly you non-native english speakers for participating in an english-only forum (I certainly wouldn't want to try to engage in this level of debate in a Spanish-only forum) but if you are going to get your point across properly you might do well to enlist the aid of a friend who is a native English speaker.

Did anyone else have trouble reading my post? I would truly like to know, I am indeed a non-native English speaker and much more importantly dysgraphic (writing-only dyslexia), although I have only been told to have bad grammar in hebrew...

Forgive me phred, but I would prefer a second opinion...

start by telling us what The Government can do that The State can't.

Government is a tool used by the state to handle the masses, the state being an establishment of the ruling class, so that is a meaningless question.