Are you willing?

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

does anyone find the initial story in this topic somewhat fishy?

publicity stunt.
note found months later in backpack(assuming school bag).
1 other concern by another parent.
a loss for words.
biased opinions.
note looks like it was written by an adult, made to look like a child's.
teacher says she had nothing to do with it.
and more...

[Armistead]

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.
My rights are to make me safer, not to make you feel safer. Plus, it doesn't and hasn't ever worked where tried.

I can see the future, we carry our ID papers, can be stopped on demand without cause, no firearms....geesh, what has history taught us.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I'm shocked anyone would give up any constitutional right to FEEL safer.
My rights are to make me safer, not to make you feel safer. Plus, it doesn't and hasn't ever worked where tried.

I can see the future, we carry our ID papers, can be stopped on demand without cause, no firearms....geesh, what has history taught us.

You are a candidate to read Hoppe, believe me.

BTW, rights never make somebody safer, felt or in real. Only the ability to enforce said rights, or to defend yourself.

The state is the monopolist who can make laws (that regulate taxes and define the service he provides), and who can rob said taxes. Like any monopolist, this one also tries to raise the prices while delivering less service in return.

Hoppe would argue that instead of a government it is better to have a network of insurance companies providing you with security services and legal mediation for a fee. Said insurer'S best own interest would be to be able to provide that (police and legal mediation) service for sure, else they lose customers who lose their trust, and to provide measures and means that make environments safer (to reduce damages they have to compensate for), also they would want to cooperate with other insurers to collectively reduce conflicts and costs (from compensations), and to reduce fees they must demand from their customers (price competition). You would get - in this idealised situation - better protection with less centralised power and a lower impact on your private finances - becasue it is in the very own best interest of the insurers as well (whereas one could argue it is in govenrment'S interst to have a socially unstable, critical and unsafe situation so to gain their self-legitimation for their own existence from hinting at that and say: that is what you need us for to protect you from!). A lawmaking (self-legalising) state/government (power monopolist) taking your taxes (blackmailing for protection money), is not needed in that.

Insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves. Nevertheless they must be powerful enough - both in policing and military force and financial power - to provide their services where being challenged - even against military attacks from other parts of the world. If they are allowed to form cartels and monopoles, they just turn into a new centralized government like the ones they have replaced.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are a candidate to read Hoppe, believe me.

BTW, rights never make somebody safer, felt or in real. Only the ability to enforce said rights, or to defend yourself.

The state is the monopolist who can make laws (that regulate taxes and define the service he provides), and who can rob said taxes. Like any monopolist, this one also tries to raise the prices while delivering less service in return.

Hoppe would argue that instead of a government it is better to have a network of insurance companies providing you with security services and legal mediation for a fee. Said insurer'S best own interest would be to be able to provide that (police and legal mediation) service for sure, else they lose customers who lose their trust, and to provide measures and means that make environments safer (to reduce damages they have to compensate for), also they would want to cooperate with other insurers to collectively reduce conflicts and costs (from compensations), and to reduce fees they must demand from their customers (price competition). You would get - in this idealised situation - better protection with less centralised power and a lower impact on your private finances - becasue it is in the very own best interest of the insurers as well (whereas one could argue it is in govenrment'S interst to have a socially unstable, critical and unsafe situation so to gain their self-legitimation for their own existence from hinting at that and say: that is what you need us for to protect you from!). A lawmaking (self-legalising) state/government (power monopolist) taking your taxes (blackmailing for protection money), is not needed in that.

Insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves. Nevertheless they must be powerful enough - both in policing and military force and financial power - to provide their services where being challenged - even against military attacks from other parts of the world. If they are allowed to form cartels and monopoles, they just turn into a new centralized government like the ones they have replaced.

insurers just must be prevented from being able to form monopoles or cartels themselves.

IOW they would have to be govt. controlled with regulation, thus turning them into another special interest group.

No, I don't need to read Hoppe, in fact, he can kiss my ass.