I am indeed advocating getting rid of public education because of people who I find “useless” – if I live in a public school district that either does a poor job with education, or where the students are not even safe, the public educators are “useless” to me. I should be able to take all my money away from this school and pay for another school somewhere else that is good and safe. Currently, I cannot do this – I am forced to financially support my local public school no matter what they do to me. In my opinion, this is evil. In my ideal world, everyone could choose what kind of education to buy – just because some people want to keep the same public education system is irrelevant. Some people wanted to keep slavery, but it’s wrong whether it’s legal or not. Public education is more like slavery than you are prepared to admit.

As to your other points – yes, if I should have chosen to purchase security, but didn’t, and someone takes my property, I bear some of that responsibility for choosing poorly. Currently, I am forced to pay for a police force who is not legally responsible for protecting me (numerous court cases have stated this). Surely we could do better in a free market.

Dave, “People who find each other useful (for whatever reason) would all choose to live together. The government wouldn’t own any property, and so, there would be unclaimed tracts of land where no one lived…” The obvious question, what happens to the “useless” people that are shunned from society?

Andy, “We already tried separate but equal, and it failed.”
The outcasts develop land, making it more attractive to outsiders, and are further banished into more and more undesirable tracts of land.

Dave, “Explain to me why I have to be around someone who isn’t useful to me?”

Andy, “You don’t have to be around anyone that isn’t useful to you. Stay home.”
Rather than require the people that you dislike to leave. Good luck with that. You won’t get their compliance or the governments on those grounds alone.

Dave, “Actually, I have to be around people I may not like. For example, the state takes my (or my parents’) money and forces me to go to public schools.”

Why do you think I have gotten carried away with “useless” people? I don’t know exactly what you mean by “useless people”. What does public school have to do with who you do or don’t like? If you choose to go to the private school of your choice and opt out of paying for public school, then it isn’t public education anymore.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be justifying the abolition of public education on the grounds that people don’t like each other, which totally disregards the fact that many people want public education.

“…but the property owner should be able to keep anyone off his or her property for any reason.” They can, and they do. Until you reason or otherwise change the state’s entitlement to emminent domain, it remains their property. Simple.

The gang of thieves in my previous illustration have exercised eminent domain against your property. Until you are able, or until someone else is willing to help you, it remains their property. According to your ideal world, the government owns no property. What incentive is there to protect your rights? If I pay to evict the undesirables, I am going to expect something in return from you, perhaps a xat payment?

Why, for the sake of protecting my own property, would I allow you to return? You have proven yourself lacking in foresight because you didn’t purchase security. Or, you don’t have the financial ability or skill to adequately secure your property from people that subsequently become a greater threat to me. Either way, you are useless to me as a neighbor if my goal is living in a safe neighborhood.

I’m not asking for it both ways. I pointed out several ways that the state, rather than protecting my property rights, steals property from me – especially if I don’t go along with what they want me to do (example, public schools).

I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying, but I have no problem with some collective activities as long as they are voluntary. If you and I are neighbors, it may behoove us to both hire the same security company – or, it may not. With the state police, that was chosen for both of us, and we are presented with the bill, whether we would have hired the state police or not. See the difference?

Again, in terms business dealings, it may be beneficial for us both to frequent the same business, etc., even if one of us doesn’t like the other. This is still voluntary, if it is unpleasant. With the state in the way, this process becomes more challenging because they use taxation and regulations to favor certain industries over others, giving us, the people, fewer, more expensive options.

I think you may have gotten carried away with my comments about “useful” people. Maybe this will clarify it? I can”t deny others access to someone else’s property – but the property owner should be able to keep anyone off his or her property for any reason.

“In terms of the state enforcing property rights for me – that’s the idea, I agree….”
“However, I want to keep all of my income…”

You want the benefits, but you don’t want to pay for it? There is a cost to enforcing property rights whether it is done publically or privately. You don’t want to pay taxes for it, but as your neighbor, I have to rely on you to pay a private firm to protect our mutual interest in securing the community we share?”

If your home is taken over by a gang of thieves (because your security company sucks or you got a BMW instead of security), I let it happen or pay my security company extra to vacate the premises for someone more desirable (not necessarily you if I pay for the service)? Or you pay another company to get your property back, which may be in direct conflict with me, your neighbor, if I have already replaced you with someone that I find more useful?

The condo argument above is suggesting that this is a more desirable arrangement than giving everyone in a specific territorial jurisdiction protection, regardless of ability or willingness to pay. I am arguing that some degree of collectivism is necessary for security and efficiency. What are you arguing? Do you want public or private protection for your property? You have made a claim for both.

The original argument was about you keeping people from living where you chose to live based on your subjective valuation of their worth to you… “Explain to me why I have to be around someone who isn’t useful to me?”

I assume that includes where you go to school and the businesses you frequent and own. “I want to eat here, I find you useless so”…So what? My suggestion is that you stay home. What do you think should happen? I go to my second choice and let you enjoy OUR first choice? I say no, fuck you, and what are you going to do about it? I don’t want to hold hands and sing songs, I want to go where I want to go just like you.

Assuming that you always seek out the most desirable places to be, Dave, everyone that you dislike and effectively deny access to said places will be second class to you and everyone that agrees with your assessment of usefulness. Eventually, if there are enough people like you, there will be a minority group and a majority group. The universe always strives for equilibrium.

Actually, I have to be around people I may not like. For example, the state takes my (or my parents’) money and forces me to go to public schools. Why not just go to a private school of my choice? Fine, but I still have to pay for the public schools. So, tell me how it’s my choice here? The state is saying either, do what we tell you, or we will steal from you. Think about this for all aspects of life where the state takes money from us and limits our choices. So much for liberty…..

In terms of the state enforcing property rights for me – that’s the idea, I agree…. However, I want to keep all of my income – sorry, the tax laws say I will go to jail. I want to keep my property – sorry, eminent domain laws, the state will take my property….. You get the idea…..

(sorry – this was suppose to be with the posts below…..)

Right now the USA has a higher percentage of people involved in the justice system then is conceivable. Right now 3-4 in 100 Americans are ‘criminals’ being processed by the justice system. About 1 in 100 are currently incarcerated in jail or prison.

It’s a racket. It’s not about reforming people or even protecting the public. It’s about government corruption and individuals and groups are profiting directly on getting as many people convicted and put in prison for as long as possible. 3 strike rules, drug wars, all of it… it is not about keeping you safe, it’s about profits.

We are #1 in terms of prisons. We have 5% of the population of the planet, but have 23% of the prison population. We went from about 0.20% of the population in prison in the late 70′s/early 80′s up to around 0.80% or so now. Something like a 400% in terms of percentage of population in 30 years. How does that make sense?

Whatever we are doing… we are doing it wrong.

How does it makes sense that the ‘freest country in the world’ has one of the most draconian, violent, and punitive justice system in the world? Your being lied to by the same groups of people that profit from the system.

We are turning from a open and free society to one that is nothing but frightened people hiding in their homes. Half of the population is scared of the other half, while the other half is scared of the police state.

Oxycontin and alcohol are both legal. Why do people still steal it at gun point, and sometimes murder the asshole that works behind the counter?

“The fact of the matter is, in the USA, those who are productive and take nothing (or little) from the state are becoming a smaller group. We have more and more takers and less and less producers”. This statement is slightly ambiguous. Who are the takers and who are the producers?

The property owners, which are ultimately the one’s with the balls to make it so, have given us comparatively liberal property rights. You can keep anyone out of your house that you wish to keep out, and the state will help you to do so. They will help you keep intruders outside of the artificial boundaries created by property deeds and titles and security fencing. They will take stolen property that belongs to you forcibly from the criminals home that violated your property.

In exchange, if you decide to go into business for yourself, you must allow anyone with legal tender into your business provided that they do not violate your person or property as per se statutory regulation.

You don’t have to be around anyone that isn’t useful to you. Stay home. You just have to be able to separate yourself from anyone that you do not wish to be around.

It isn’t forcing you to do anything. It’s more like you being unable to force other’s that you dislike from doing what you both desire. Kumbayah, my friend.

What makes you so unique that everyone has to deal with YOUR dislike of them? If you don’t like someone, that is YOUR problem to deal with, not theirs.

It just doesn’t seem fair, but me and Bill are on very equal ground when it comes to state run prison time for negligent homicide. Unless of course I get jail time and he makes restitution instead. (even more likely than YOUR even more likely) I believe, if given the chance, our families would rather us not die in the first place and would favor regulation that may prevent negligence from becoming homicide at all.

Wealth disparity and income inequality will always exist. They are increased by the presence of the state, with its regulations and taxation that favor one group over another. In the libertarian method, those who work hard and are innovative will do better than those who are neither – as it should be.

“What is it that will keep the state from re-emerging again and again?” Of course, this is the obvious question with no good answer, as recent (the past few hundred years) history shows.

We already tried separate but equal, and it failed.

Why would I respect the property rights of someone that I felt necessary to eject from society? The banishment wouldn’t stop until they were shunned onto land that no one else wanted, presumably because it doesn’t have recognizable value for the moment that it is occupied by the rejects. The imposed scarcity would make political means more valuable than economic means.

It may be in my best interest to join the bands of pilaging social outcasts, if I am unable to use economic means to attain the protection of a private security company. The cheapest deal in town may not be adequate protection and I don’t get a choice other than becoming part of the new, growing state. My lack of security becomes your breached security by simple proximity.

Wealth disparity and income inequality are inherent with Capitalism. Political means are chosen over economic means if you expect to gain more politically. What is it that will keep the state from re-emerging again and again? Take away more and more economic means and you are left with more attractive and sensible political means for a rational person to take.

The Libertarian method seems to be labeling someone a slave to the overlords while disregarding understandable concerns about perceived, if not actual, inequities. You may not be aware, “but they have televisions” argument comes across as “let them eat cake.” (Don’t care if she didn’t actually say it)

Regarding that “permeable membrane”.

During the time of Soviet occupation and the reign of Communist government in Hungary there was a saying that translates as, “There are three types of people; those in jail, those who were in jail but have now been released (for the time being) and those who are going to go to jail.”

Amazing to see how other parts of the “free world” are approaching that ideal.

Sione

But the Japanese were bad people. They attacked Pearl Harbor.
And as we all know there are genes and heritage and a collective spirit… so that means Japanese Americans had to be bad people themselves. They could have taken over!!!!!

To see the moral authority of a democracy in action is concerning. (Ask any American about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, The Indian Wars, suspension of Habeus Corpus, killing of non military civilians by Lincoln (anything about Lincoln), internment of Japanese Americans in California.) The responses are startling.

As Mises, and others, pointed out, human action is the result of humans needing to remove some uneasiness. He also noted that to remove that uneasiness, humans would take the path of least resistance, and that man’s ultimate aim is to achieve the greatest result with the least amount of effort.

It also does not need to be explained (only observed) that some people are bigger or stronger than others. Some of those who are more powerful would subconsciously (and logically) conclude that the most they can obtain for the least amount of effort is by taking what others have already produced, especially the weak. Of course, being bigger or stronger does not guarantee that this will take place, even if it is a logical thought.

On a group or societal level, we would naturally see the same result. A bigger, stronger family, tribe, or town might naturally conclude that they obtain the highest reward/effort ratio simply by taking from those who are weaker. This is what we might refer to as the “mob mentality”.

In addition to the above scenarios, we may also observe that some individuals find the highest mental reward/effort ratio can be achieved simply by listening to others. This is why, throughout history, leaders have naturally sprung up no matter where you look… whether it be the smallest tribe, or the largest empire. (Of course, some take this position by force, which goes back to my previous points.)

As a result of the above examples of basic human nature, a government (i.e. familial, tribal, etc.) is necessary, and for the survival of the people it represents, it must be at least as strong, if not stronger, than those who might decide to loot from it or to take it over. In the very least, you would need a government of some sort to maintain alliances with other governments, so that you can help defend each other from would-be oppressors.