The Eclectic Rambler

The Creation Museum in Kentucky

2011-10-18T11:35:00.000+01:00

On my recent road trip around the USA I visited the Creation Musuem and here are my thoughts.

Firstly it is technically impressive. The animatronic exhibits are excellent and the feel of the entire place is one of quality; they’ve clearly spent a lot of money on the place. They also have many audio visual exhibits which cuts down on the amount of reading required; I really dislike museums that have walls and walls of text to read. The videos they play are normally rather short so you are constantly moving rather than stuck watching a video for half an hour. As an aside the more explicitly sciencey short videos were the most interesting item there. They also had some lovely gardens and a zoo but we didn’t see much of them due to time constraints.

The aim, as I understood it, was to show that everyone looks at the world with a particular lense which is non-neutral- the examples used were atheism and Christian theism- but with a greater emphasis on the Biblical narrative making sense of the universe particularly 6 Day Creation, Fall, the Flood, Babel and finally Christ. Consequently the amount of science content was proportional low; most of it was focused around geology which was quite informative.

It did not though succeed even on its own terms: the worldview analysis was rather shallow and misleading at times- it was hardly assumption quaking; the Biblical narrative exposition was good although it felt as it was focused towards Christians rather convincing others of it i.e. far too little of actual creation evolution debate (and anthropology). It took me a while to figure out the purpose of the museum.

If you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist of any stripe it doesn’t provide enough science to get your teeth into. If you are a non-Christian it won’t convince you of the Biblical narrative since it doesn’t adequately engage with non-Christian narratives.

All in all, a missed opportunity and an expensive one at that- not cheap especially if you took a family (it’s deliberately kid friendly but there are clearly adult exhibits). So if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist I’d say go to some botanic gardens and read some books on the subjects.

Taxonomy of Equality

2011-10-11T11:59:00.002+01:00

With the Left Libertarians being a little less vocal at the moment this little piece may seem ill timed however as the word is forever being bandied about this taxonomy of consistent conceptions of equality should be useful.

Monism – simply the most hard line definition for equality imaginable: all is one and since all is one all are equal. As is obvious, I am not you so this is rather silly. As an aside it is rather interesting to note that Hinduism, a monistic religion, is one of the most hierarchical civilisations.

Peoplekind – the way feminists seem to think the world should be: a mass of biological, cultural and intellectual androgyny. Biology though is again discriminatory: men can’t get pregnant. As such men and women cannot be perfectly substitutable. Further different races aren’t substitutable: hence the reason why we aren’t all beige and why white men never win 100m Olympic Gold medals.

Retardnation –every perpeople (person is patriarchal) has equal abilities beyond the shackles of biology. Well beyond the lunatic asylums and universities, you have the New York Times reader and the Mises.org reader. Empirical reality again smashes the Retardnation idea though the Public schools are attempting you rebuild the glass totem.

Imagine – the John Lennon idea: despite the fact that men aren’t women, blacks aren’t whites and idiots aren’t clever we should all hold hands and be one big family, treating everyone the same. Well you can’t even treat everyone in your own family the same – that’s the reason you only visit when you HAVE to like Christmas. Further would it be right to treat your wife the same as you treat a redneck in the next state: “Sorry love no flowers for the next 150 years as I need to buy beer for Chuck this time and then there’s Li san Chan the year after…..” Leaving aside moral implications it is an empirical impossibility to treat everyone equally since no-one has even met everyone.

Socialism – everyone earns equally little. As Nozick observed this is another empirical impossibility since even if we begin with equal wealth distribution unless everyone has identical preferences some will earn more than others: if watching opera is more popular the NASCAR then Andrea Boccelli could afford a Cruft’s winning guide dog whilst NASCAR will begin using 1960s lawnmower engines from David Lynch’s the Straight Story. If you abolish money and even trade itself, these inequalities and would arise: some will acquire more goods in an autarkic existence than others.

The Limp Iron Wrist – Bosses have regular power cuts whilst the great unwashed attach the crocodile clips to the grid. Unfortunately unlike electricity, power cannot be measured as it has different effects on different people: watching Hitler’s speeches entertains me as he is a great orator but it doesn’t make me want to join the CIA;)

Individual Liberty – each individual can do as he pleases as long as he does not violate the non-aggression principle (it matters not how we arrive at this position). But if we take this position then the whole edifice of the left aspect of libertarianism is well, left. The only aspects of individual liberty that could be considered as a part of the left we have left would be those stemming from aggression: monopolies causing a reduction in the free market price of labour (see Mera’s article), subsidies to transport firms and the old thorny issue of limited liability. Thus cultural package of leftism has been parked in the liberal’s favourite place: the middle of the road with the dead skunk.

Libertarianism and the Arts

2011-10-04T11:33:00.000+01:00

The arts are one area in which I think libertarians need to engage in more. Firstly we need to appreciate there importance, especially narrative art (stories in any form) which I will be focusing on.

When we look at book sales it is clear that fiction far out sells non-fiction, but why? My contention is that stories are far more akin to real life human experience than non-fiction: they have a real sequential element. All humans exist and act in time and thus a story being a condensed version of human life is far more appealing than non-fiction which in essence is timeless: empirical science, economics, philosophy et al; history would be an exception but a lot of that is done rather impersonally and you really need a pre-existing interest in the period itself to read it. One of the great strengths of narrative is that you can create emotions and realistic characters which you can’t do timelessly. Herein lies the appeal and the power of narrative.

With stories you can create ideals to aspire for and systems to denigrate. This can be powerfully demonstrated by human cost or achievement to a character you already have an emotionally investment. We therefore need a libertarian saga, or meta-narrative, which libertarian novelists and filmmakers can feed from. A saga which shows the world before the state to the descent to it and finally its obliteration, whilst demonstrating the dignity of the individual person and the virtue of liberty. So essentially we need our own version of the Marxist theory of history. Now one of the main obstacles to this raises its ugly head which is due to libertarianism being such a broad church (here a libertarian is defined as one who adheres to the NAP): we all agree on the pre and post statist world but disagree on how the state came into being and how it will collapse. For example I see the state as the ultimate rejection of God since becoming a state is the closest thing to God you can get. Thus it fits in well with my Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall and redemption. Others would see it as the outworking of an authority based life view and that a non-statist world would be rather egalitarian. I do not intend to discuss the validity of these competing views here but to illustrate their existence.

Consequently more work needs to be done on the origin and rise of the state. Even though some sides are unlikely to come to agreement this it will help to articulate more precisely different libertarians sagas. From this framework the evils of statism can be exposed and the virtue of freedom lauded. However it needs to be understood however that stories do not convince people of certain ideologies: they merely sensitise people towards them. To use stories as propaganda is hokey and makes for bad stories. At present statist films sensitise people to the idea that business is sleazy and evil so they want to here logical arguments as to why it is and the state is better (having said that a lot of films essentially are propaganda but we shouldn’t stoop that low). This is why we always get the question: what should the government do? One of the main tasks for the libertarian story teller is to sensitise people to the goodness of liberty. Today most people want a cushy life without responsibility. We need to change that.

So the task for the libertarian story teller is to create stories with real characters, we should not do the opposite of the socialists and make every government official a bogeyman, and compelling plots within a libertarian meta-narrative.

As an addendum can any body recommend any decent libertarian films or literature? I obviously know of Rand but I get the impression her work tends towards propaganda. I’ve read the first of the Sword of Truth series, the Wizard’s First Rule, by the Objectivist Terry Goodkind which was actually very good but I hear the rest of the books get worse. As for my own recommendations I can go no further than recommend the TV series the Prisoner starring Patrick McGoohan. I’m not sure the show is a show case for libertarianism as Chris Tame argued but for a show championing the individual it’s brilliant.

Why isn't the Truth More Mainstream

2011-09-27T11:43:00.001+01:00

Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.

The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.

The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.

The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.

In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.

This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.

Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.

The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?

Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.

In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

Toy Story 3: An Anti-Communist Film (warning spoilers)

2011-09-20T11:29:00.003+01:00

(Penned a while ago)

After being stuck in horrendous traffic last night we missed Inception, although will catch it next week, so my wife and I watched Toy Story 3 in 2D (because 3D is overated and more expensive). It is a really great film and possibly even better than the first although I haven't seen it for a while. Funny, poignant and exciting: this is far more than a kid's film.

The premise is that Andy ages to become 17 and will leave for college on Friday, and the question arises what will he do with his old toys- we learn that a lot of his toys have been sold or donated. He decides to take Woody with him to college and to put the rest in the attic. His mum mistakes them for the rubbish and puts them outside. Thinking they were to be thrown away they jump into Andy's mum's car to be donated to Sunnyside day care centre along with some of Molly's toys. And then the story really begins.

At Sunnyside we learn that after an initial glorious preview that it is run by a tyrannical bear called Lotso who assigns the room with the older, gentler children, to those who have proved their loyalty to him and puts the rest of the toys with the toddlers who abuse the toys. Of particular note he attempts to break up Andy's family of toys to re-allign their allegience to him. Further he utters the line, no owners means no heart break. His paradise is seemingly a psudeo communist one at day care where the children come and go but the toys remains forever, albeit under his control.

This is contrasted with a new family of toys owned by a girl from the day centre (I can't remember her name) who have a wonderful life in her bedroom where they are loved and cared for by her owner. To reinforce this point at the end Andy decides, with a little help from Woody, to donate them not to daycare but to the girl.

So it seems clear that one of the main points is that ownership is better than non-ownership; the toddlers display the tragedy of the commons. Further that ownership is related to being a family which is seen as natural rather than the imposed communist regime. Also if you see the child toy owners as God you could view the film in a sort of feudalist film as whenever the toys deviate from God's appointed king Woody's orders they stray from their masters will and are thus not where they will flourish. Now since there are many child owners it's a sort of polytheistic feudalism.

There are a few points that could be made against this reading. The first arises from the original in which Sid could be seen as a devil vs god (Andy) and as such not all child owners are benevolent. Having said that it could just be an attack on the abuse of power. Secondly and more pertinently, Barbie, in the latest film, spouts that power only derives from the consent of the governed. Now it supposed to be an amusing line but it's backed up later when the Aliens from Pizza Planet eventually control the claw at the end and become co-equals; throughout they reverence the claw- "the claw is our master, he decides who will go and who will stay". And finally in the credits we see Sunnyside as a paradise run by Barbie and Ken showing that if you get the right leader daycare can be really great.

However the main thrust of the film is that ownership is superior to none ownership even if neo-fedualist elements are balanced out by democratic arguments.

Why I am not Necessarily Wrong

2010-10-27T14:20:00.004+01:00

An argument for free will (or more precisely libertarian free will)

Libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilism) is defined as the ability to choose A or non-A.

Is libertarian free will (LFW) true?

It is necessarily true since otherwise one couldn't evaluate the truth value of the question "Is LFW true?" because you could only conclude what you were determined to do which gives no foundation for truth

There is one exception which would be if one were epistemologically infallible. This would then give a solid foundation for truth under determinism.

Yet this is obviously false since it is possible for me to argue, and believe to be true, that 2+2=3 which demonstrates that I must have varying degrees of determined fallibility (assuming determinism). And since fallible determinism gives no foundation for truth we must again reject determinism.

Therefore LFW is true.

What does this imply? (Or how can we metaphysically justify the existence of LFW)

We cannot be purely material beings since we would be determined by our neurological pathways or other laws of nature.

If we were then you are either stuck with cast iron laws of nature which results in cast ironly determined "choices", or accept quantum randomness which implies a complete scatter gun type "choice".

And as above this gives no foundation for truth and therefore must be rejected.

This implies then a substance dualism (trichotomy or more) of man since can provide a foundation for real choices as it can be neither random nor subject cast iron laws. At present I can't elaborate on what this non-material substance is apart from the fact it provides the necessary metaphysical foundation for LFW.

Finally it implies that the will is basic and as such causes itself.

How Children Learn In Bite Size Pieces (1/6)

2010-08-21T16:39:00.004+01:00

First up in my Educating Education project is John Holt's 1967 work, How Children Learn.

Foreword

Holt sets out his thesis clearly: young children tend to learn better than adults (and they themselves when they are older) since they use their minds in a special way. Holt’s contention is that most parenting and schooling trains out this natural method. The results are only a few become good at learning, but most are humiliated and discouraged; the children are more limited than what they could have become. If we better understand how children really learn then school may become a place where all children can grow.

This book attempts to chart how children do learn rather than analysing the brain to create a child psychology theory; the children contained herein are mostly of pre-school age. The human mind is a mystery and as such should be modest and tentative about any conclusions drawn. That said teachers and learners have known for some time that vivid and pleasurable experiences are easiest to remember and memory works best when unforced.

Chapter 1: Games and Experiments

One of the themes is that children love to create, for example their own songs: they are normally a mix of sense and nonsense, but creating new variations of words and music is a strain on an adult’s imagination so much so their efforts are rarely better than a child’s. Yet most schools concentrate on teaching songs for children to get “right” rather than creating anything, it’s merely compulsory fun, thus alienates many children and they become non-singers. Carl Orff’s method suggests that when a child is given many opportunities to make up their own chants and tunes their musical and verbal growth can be very rapid.

Further they have an “Instinct of Workmanship”. Lisa, two years old, started to copy Holt’s clapping in time with the music and then his more complex movements such as tapping his hand with one hand and his stomach with the other. She didn’t get it right first time, and note well she felt she didn’t need to, but was always checking back and forth to improve until it was a pretty accurate copy (Holt muses that children would learn a great deal by asking questions and imitating real people doing real work such as craftsmen). She started by doing something and thinking how to fix it. We often miss this because children are unskilful and use crude materials; watch the loving care with which a child smoothes off a sandcastle. They want to make it as well as they can, not to please someone else, but to satisfy themselves.

Another example was when Lisa found a ballpoint and took it apart. Holt started to put it together but she said no and began to put its four pieces together. She took twenty minutes to reassemble the pen; she came close but didn’t have the dexterity to achieve it, but she never became angry or discouraged. Holt then reflected on why so many four year olds in nursery schools become tearful or angry when the couldn’t complete a puzzle; he suspects that it’s because they are in a status-conscious situation all struggling for the approval of the teacher or each other. Lisa though is only putting the pen together as an end in itself.

Holt also believes that children are natural learners. They though learn not like scientists, asking a question then cutting out all unnecessary data, but by amassing as much data as possible until they know which questions to ask- they grown up in a strange world and understand a tiny amount of what happens. This explains why children are more likely to try new things, such as play a cello, than would an adult; the latter find it difficult to work in the noise. Furthermore the child is much less likely to draw hard and fast conclusions than an adult from little data. These vital skills of thought, which in our hurry to get him thinking, may very well stunt or destroy in the process of “educating” him.

An interesting example is a little boy who is “noticing (and) quick” yet hates to be taught. He loves though to learn and stores objects up for future use; he also uses his spade and hammer with great care and loves helping his parents in the garden. However when we try to teach the ABCs he becomes furious and frustrated probably because he sees no meaning in it, states Holt. Lisa, now five, on the other hand is a serious student and worries about her grades despite receiving straight As yet she deeply dislikes school.

Children can learn some cause-and-effect games when they are very young. Holt accidentally bumped heads with a girl no more than 7 months old gently whilst carrying her. He said, “Bump”. She seemed to enjoy it so I said “Bump” again and bumped his forehead against hers. After a few goes she soon learnt the game and when I said “Bump” she would “Bump” her head against mine. Sometimes however it takes a while for a child to learn that a particular event A will lead to another event B with regularity. In general acquainting a child with a mechanical device that he can work and fix, aids the understanding of causal laws since he learns that not only do many actions have predictable effects but also that the world is a sensible and trustworthy place.

The best games with little children, though, flow naturally from the situation of the moment. However if the child isn’t enjoying the game, it’s tempting think that if we just play it a little more he will enjoy it but he won’t, and we won’t.

Another major idea is the intrinsic independence of the child. Lisa finds it impossible to see why she should not touch items that everyone else does. Every day she hears, “Don’t touch that, it’s too hot, too sharp etc” and each time she feels that we are attacking her right to investigate the world around her which is how she makes sense of it. This can destroy a child’s curiosity and make her feel that the world is full of hidden danger and ways of getting in trouble rather than being somewhere to explore and think about. Holt argues that we should keep every object that we do not want a child to touch out of reach and even out of sight. At the same time we should keep many cheap durable objects around that they could use, for example an eggbeater and a torch.

Danny whilst being very good at jigsaw puzzles would sometimes deliberately do them wrong just because it was funny. Further when looking at a book he would say “Tractor” when he knew it was a combine. Holt pondered this and concluded that symbols are ours to use as we wish. We can use them correctly or use them incorrectly as a joke. We are in charge, not symbols.

Children instinctively only fear a few things such as loud noises and loss of support. It looks like children catch most of their fears from their elders. Lisa was never afraid of any bugs, in fact she wanted to pick them up and look at them. However one day a twelve year-old girl, friend of her older sister, saw a spider in a room in which Lisa was residing and screamed hysterically until someone killed the spider. Thenceforth Lisa has been scared of all bugs. A part of her curiosity about the world has been shut off and who can tell when it will turn on again?

Lisa went to an amusement park and saw a little train. She looked interested but also a little frightened. Perhaps it was too big and too noisy. She said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. After going on some different rides she declared, “I need to ride that train right now”. Holt thought she should have a chance to conquer her fear. However when she saw it just as big as before she said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. It is easy to say why we fear things but not so easy to say where the drive comes from to overcome them particularly in a little child. Some kinds of courage are learned, but there is surely also an instinct of courage which we should nurture as best we can.

Holt was round at a house where he knew the children very well and he entered into an argument about politics. Whilst the argument was friendly it was too much for the children who circled around and moved in a conciliatory fashion to take the adults' minds off it and restore the cheerful and happy atmosphere. They are no doubt cruel to each other but near a child who is badly hurt or very unhappy children soon become distressed. It is a rare a child is capable of the sustained deliberate cruelty so often shown by adults. Sometimes though children hit each other not out of malice but what can only be described as an overwhelming urge to see what would happen. Holt was playing in the park with a friend, they were both aged three, and out of the blue he hit Holt with his toy shovel. They had been playing peacefully and Holt never understood why he did it.

In conclusion Holt argues that children are natural learners but rather than starting with an abstract concept their natural method is trial and error to comprehend the empirical world. They are also creative, independent, brave and persistent.

Educating Education

2010-08-21T14:46:00.005+01:00

Hello Cyberspace. I'm back.

At present my primary area of interest at present is educational and parenting theory, mainly because I recently married and intend to have children in the medium term. As such I want to be clear in my mind, and my wife’s of course, how we ought to bring up and educate our children. I am also interested in the area due to its titanic effects on the minds of the nation whether for good or ill and I soon may be a cause of such effects in a formal capacity. Therefore I have a reading list of about eleven books ranging from Dewey’s Democracy and Education to Plato’s discussion of education in The Republic, for which I will endeavour to write chapter summaries, so you can make up your own mind about the concepts, and then a review at the end.

The CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen Part 3- Find a Wife

2009-01-16T19:30:00.001Z

Having decided that you ought to be married you need to consider whether or not you are ready for marriage. The question should not be can I fulfill the role as a husband or a wife but rather can I grow into the role. You can't play at being married so whatever preparation you do, and I'm certainly not against it, it won't fully brief you for married life- before anyone asks I'm using second hand info here. Further, marriage is the perfect structure for spiritual formation- you have two people who love each other who will tell each other if they're sinning and then will deal with it. I'm not saying marriage will sort out your problems but it should make you more holy. So to the men, do you think you can lead, teach and provide for your potential wife? If not work on your personal holiness and giftings to the point you are. To women, do you think you can love, submit to your husband and love your children? If not work on your character until you're able. If you are answering yes, keep reading.

The modern trend is for people to get married at a later and later age. The median age for first time marriages in 2005 was 30.7 for grooms and 28.5 for brides. (ONS data for the UK). Back in 1851 the figures were 25.9 for grooms and 24.7 for brides. The lowest ages were in the late 60s early 70s when brides were 22.5 and grooms 24.5. From a purely biological view the age rising for women is problematic when you consider that the peak fertility of a woman is between the ages of 19-25. Further levels of fertility fall quite drastically after the age of 30. This seems to indicate the nature thinks we get married too late. One of the reasons for the increase in the marriage ages can be put down to the modern education system which keeps a lot of people in full time education until they're 21 and even longer when doing postgraduate degrees which are becoming more popular by the year. This leads to people being put on the shelf only after their best before date. Culture also tells us that you need to wait till you're older and have a lot of different experiences to know what you really want before you are ready to commit to marrying. This underlies a commitmentless, self centred culture where you put off making a decision and justify it by arguing you just need that bit more information, which you'll keep doing in perpetuity. This is mainly the fault of the men who refuse to take on responsibility because they want all the perks of marriage without the sacrificing themselves to their women.

So you know you should be married what do you do next? Well, the ball is in your court lads:

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing And obtains favour from the LORD." Proverbs 18:22

NB. A good wife must be a Christian. How can you possibly marry a God hater? 2 Corinthians 6:14 states that you should not be unequally yoked- pulling in different directions ain't going to work. In keeping with male leadership it is the role of the man to go and find a wife. Remember English at school, find is a verb, a doing word, which means you'll have to put some effort into it and not wait for a wife to appear deus ex machina. Now lads, where would you find lots of Christian girls who would make potential wives? The Christian Union. This is not to say that you should go there solely for this reason- it's main purpose is to build up students to live and speak for Christ. However there is probably never going to be another time in your life in which they will be such a wide choice of girls to choose from. In the future you may well be in churches in which there are only a handful of potential wives. And if you should have a wife, why not start in the best place? During my time at university there were many godly girls who'd make good wives but weren't attached or seemingly had little interest- I have eyes everywhere! It is a genuinely good place to find a good wife- that is why the CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen- bdum tschhh! So lads attune your radar and get going. If you think there is potential, man up and ask the girl out. This makes things a lot easier. If she doesn't like you it makes it easier for her to say no rather than trying to give not interested signals which you probably won't read. It also gives proper direction because you go out with a purpose of marriage rather than hanging around with them a lot, not sure where it's going. Finally lads, if you can't take the risk of being rejected by a girl you are the ultimate example of emasculation and I pity you.

But, all my adoring female readers cry, what can we do? Make cake. Seriously. Try and single your favoured man out for attention. Find out what he's interested in and find things out about it. If he's reading a book then get a copy yourself and read it so you have something to talk about with him. Ultimately however, if a guy is worth your interest he'll initiate things properly. If he can't even dare to ask you out how'll he do leading you and your children.

For more information about these issues look at www.boundless.org and listen to the mini-series' on Biblical Manhood, Biblical Womanhood and children in Mark Driscoll's Proverbs series.

My Films of 2008

2009-01-09T21:34:00.007Z

Well what I mean is the ones I saw at the cinema last year. It's a bit late but here they are in reverse order:

8) Vantage Point- absolutely shocking. It allegedly looks at a terrorist bombing from different characters perspectives, though merely uses their stories to advance the plot than really engage with their point of view. For a film that does this properly watch Kurosawa's Rashomon.

7) Gomorrah- Unjustifiably praised. There really isn't a story per say and more like a docudrama. That said it is the most realistic film I've seen, for example the only incidental music is the music played by the characters in the scene, especially for the portrayal of a criminal family. Warning- the first five minutes is the most homoerotic I've ever seen.

6) Inkspleen (sorry, heart)- Like Gomorrah was Mark Kermode's Film of the week. A story about a book of the same title. The protagonist can read people in and out of actual stories. Due to this I expected jumping between the real world and lots of fictional worlds but they only read people from stories into the real world. Uninspiring and lame existential under current.

5) No Country For Old Men- possibly the most over rated film I've seen since Raging Bull. How it won the Best Film Oscar I'll never no. The main body of the plot revolves around one bloke trying to kill another for no particular reason. Flirts with ideas of free will and determinism but not in great depth. Javier Bardem is great though, as the personification of death.

4) The Dark Knight- not as good as Begins. I wrote a huge review of this- see here.

3) Iron Man- surprisingly good. Robert Downey Jr is great as the charismatic playboy billionaire. Good characterisation with an entertaining story. A nice little critique of American foreign policy to boot too.

2) Hellboy 2- better than Pan's Labyrinth. The story is generic and telegraphed a mile off. Yet the characters are brilliant, better than most films I've seen, and the visuals are so inventive; it also very funny too. What also marks it out is the strong thematic element of the film- through death comes life in a paganised Christianity way. Hence it actually meant something.

1) There Will Be Blood- absolutely fantastic. It went straight into my all time Top Ten films. A profound portrayal of an obsessed man dealing with themes of religion and greed. Daniel Day-Lewis rightly got the Best Actor Oscar but don't forget Paul Dano as the charasmatic Church leader. Some fantastic direction and cinemtography. The scene way the oil rig blows up is one of the beautiful I've seen.

The CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen Part 2- What is Marriage?

2009-01-09T20:35:00.003Z

Given the fact you're not called to celibacy you should pursue marriage. In the same way you pursue a call to the ministry or overseas mission. And this is where the CU comes in. Let us though first consider what is marriage. As mentioned above it is a pre-fall institution. The most important aspect of the marriage is becoming one flesh. Man and Woman are no longer two but now are one. (Genesis 2:24) This means that their lives are totally integrated for life- One house, one bed, one bank account (Divorce and Re-marriage are beyond the scope of this paper). A man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Both parties are no longer under the authority of their father but have started a new family unit under the headship of the husband. The fact that the parties become one flesh after consummating marriage makes the complementary roles of husband and wife easier to understand. Getting two people drive a car at the same time ain't going to work, however one driving and one navigating makes perfect sense- that's why men should marry Sat Navs not women!!!!

God makes Eve to be a helper for Adam (Genesis 2:18). It is clear from the outset that Adam and Eve are to perform complementary functions otherwise why would the word helper be used? Eve is help Adam with his cultural mandate to fill the Earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:28); it would have been rather hard work to fill the Earth without any means of reproduction! Yet Eve's role is of equal worth as can be seen from the fact she is made from the rib of Adam- not from the head to be above him, nor his feet to be under him but from his rib to be his equal. If anyone thinks that being a helper is demeaning obviously doesn't know their Bible very well. The Hebrew word used for help in Genesis 2 is ezer. It is used 21 times in the Old Testament and 13 times it is in direct reference to God as a helper for his people.

This obvious pre-fall Biblical example has come under fire from "feminists" from outside and inside the church. It is an unfortunate name since it indicates that a feminist is one whom supports the feminine whereas feminists seem to support the idea in the Gospel of Thomas in which it says that the only way women can go to heaven is to become men; don't worry ladies, Jesus is gracious. This rank falsehood is not only blatantly wrong- Biology is obviously sexist since men can't bear children- but anti-Biblical.

The most clear passage delineating different roles is Ephesians 5. All believers are to submit to Christ (verse 21). Following from this comes:

" Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Saviour of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything". (v22-24)

It couldn't be more abundantly clear. Paul states that a marriage is analogous to the relationship between Christ and the Church. So as the church submits to Christ, wives submit to their husbands- note it is only their husbands not men in general. There is no way this statement can be taken as purely cultural unless you wish to argue that disobeying Christ is the way forward when it suits you! Even if you argue that head purely means source, not symbolising authority, then the husband is still head of the wife for the same reason Christ is head of the Church, thus they still have the same roles. Further submission does not mean agreement, that's agreement. Submission is where you believe a command is wrong but follow it in respect of the office the person holds. However wives aren't to submit to all decisions of their husbands: if they ask them to do unscriptural acts such as theft or murder then they should disobey. The hierarchy is simple: God followed by husbands, then wives, then children. If anyone in these offices acts ultra vires, beyond the powers, then do not submit to them. Even if you think this passage is unfair against women I'd actually argue that it's the men who get the raw deal: "Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH AND GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER" (v25, emphasis added). Husbands are to lead sacrificially as the suffering servant did for the church! They also have the responsibility to present their wives as "holy and blameless" (v27) by the "washing of water with the word" (v26). Husbands, you have the primary responsibility of teaching your wife the word and to make her pure. Not a particularly misogynistic job description! One of the reasons for the fall was that Adam failed in his teaching role. God said "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (Genesis 2:17-18). Now when Eve was confronted with the serpent she said " From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it OR TOUCH IT, or you will die" (Genesis 3:2-3, emphasis added). Adam's failure to accurately communicate God's word to his wife allowed Satan an opening to deceive Eve and also Adam; he ate the fruit in Genesis 3:6 as well as Eve. Due to Adam's failure as head, God brings him to book before Eve and he even has the cheek to blame his wife even when he's stood next to her whilst Satan uses his silver tongue.

Our culture believes that submission to any authority is de facto bad. This is a result of the historical abuse of power of those in authority- husbands, the church and governments. This view started to gain ground from the 60s onwards with destruction of the deferential society of the 50s and before. This was partly due to the demonstration by the media that these "moral pillars of society" were no less moral than the general public. This led to a leveling of the social order which can be seen in the replacement of major cultural figures from politicians and clergy to rockstars and sportstars. Then in the 70s feminism came to the fore. Along with the help from the social security system has led to today's very egalitarian society (more properly anti-male society). Our society sounds just like Israel in Isaiah 3:12 "O My people! Their oppressors are children and women rule over them"

Consequently the idea that men and women had different roles is considered objectionable since difference denotes superiority or inferiority. This clear error can be seen in the light of the Trinity: all persons of God are equal in value but perform different functions. The Father orchestrates, the Son creates and sustains whereas the Holy Spirit is the comforter and convicts sin. From eternity to eternity the Son has submitted to the Father. The most profound example of this is when Jesus says, is in the Garden of Gethsemane before his betrayal and crucifixion, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; YET NOT MY WILL, BUT YOURS BE DONE" (emphasis added) He was then comforted by an angel and being in agony his sweat became like drops of blood. (Luke 22:42-44) Even though the Father was going to pour his wrath out for all sin on Christ, Jesus said "if it be your will, so be it." Never has there been an act of submission so great, though never has there been so great a victory. Submission can be a beautiful thing through mutual love and submission- The Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Son, God is one. Interestingly the word used in for one in Genesis 2:24 when Adam and Eve become one flesh is the same word used of the oneness of God; it is the Hebrew word echad which means united.

The clear role of the husband is lead and teach his wife as Christ did for the church (he should also provide for her, see below). But what of the wife? Scripture has few verses directly relating to this, the most explicit being:

"...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonoured." Titus 2:4-5

Wives are firstly to love their husbands, pretty obvious but fundamental. It is clear here that wives are to have a home orientation. People may argue that this is again purely cultural however given the fact that we've seen that husbands and wives are to complement each other such a differently orientated role is unsurprising. So a wife's main domain is the home although this does not mean that she cannot have a job outside the home just that it should be her main focus. This essentially means everything thing which makes the home run. The areas listed in Proverbs 31 are food and clothing provision, investment, household finances and teaching. The "excellent wife" in Proverbs 31 "considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard." She knows the real estate market and invests wisely. Finding good investments be it stock markets, commodities or precious metals are well within the home domain. This is along with normal household budgeting. How many households have been crippled due to imprudent spending? Credit Crunch anyone?!! Further most of the lack of nutrition and increase in obesity in children can be put down to the fact that their mothers don't cook them good meals any more; they instead rely on microwavable meals or takeaways.

This brings me nicely onto the subject of children in general. Children are an integral part of marriage. It's part of the package along with life long commitment and sex. Today's culture doesn't value children particularly highly which can be seen in the slowing birth rate, rising abortion rates and the long march towards the abolition of childhood- or life long adolescence. In the Bible being childless was than liberating to put it mildly. This is unsurprising when the command in Genesis was to fill the Earth. So if you're married you should have or had children. If you don't have the intention of having any then that would concerning; if though your husband or wife is physically or mentally incapacitated then this would be a legitimate exception. If don't want kids, don't get married. If you can't have your own children biologically then you should adopt. There are many children needing a stable home and where better in a home where both parents love Jesus. As to how many kids you should have, do the maths on how mankind can "multiply".

Given the fact you will or have children the responsibility to bring up the children is the parents; the Bible has no conception of state responsibility in this area. The parents have the primary role in educating them- the book of Proverbs is written for children. This doesn't mean they have to formally educate the children themselves but to really think where and what type of school or otherwise is best for their child. Further they should teach them in their day to day lives when suitable situations arise- Education is far more than school. The parent to do most of this is the child's mother- "And do not forsake the teaching of your mother; Bind them continually on your heart; Tie them around your neck." Proverbs 6:20-21

This brings me back to the wife's homeward orientation and for her love her children as in Titus, above. Women are hard wired to be helpful and to be motherly. As Mark Driscoll says "If women don't mother children they'll end up mothering something else- Cat women anyone?!!!!!" Further raising children is the most important task anyone can undertake. If done righteously the next generation will be saints. On the other hand done badly they'll be demons, as they are today. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of a good upbringing- a stable home with mum and dad loving and nurturing the children. This is opposed cultures view which seems to say to get kids into child care as soon as and for as long as possible so I can do what I want. I love child care, a good day is when the kids aren't killing each other- not a great place to be educated. Due to this homeward orientation it follows that her husband should also be the main earner in the household. Yet people claim that they need child care because they can't afford to live on one income. But if you factor in all the additional expenditure for travel and clothes, child care, as well as tax you need to earn a serious amount of money to increase the real income of the house. Sources cited by Mark Driscoll reckoned it need to be $60,000 or £40,000 pa.

If the above has been a bit long and heavy there's one aspect of marriage I've left out- sex!!! The Bible says sex is a great thing within marriage. The indication in 1 Corinthians 7:5 is that husbands and wives should be having sex regularly since they should only stop if there is a particularly serious issue that needs prayer and fasting else Satan might come between them. The Bible says sex is fun:

"Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love." Proverbs 5:18-19

Shock horror. The Bible refers to breasts as bouncy little things that you want to pet. The fact you probably haven't realised things like this were in the Bible is that a lot of Christians are prudes. So much so, some theologians, such as Matthew Henry, allegoricalise the entirety of the Song of Solomon- the two breasts are the Old and the New Covenant and the incense in the middle is Christ, yeah right. To be fair though, I don't he was thinking of that when he.....

For a great sermon series on Song of Solomon listen to Mark Driscoll's Peasant Princess series.

The CU is not a Meat Market, it's a Delicatessen Part 1- Why You Should Marry

2008-12-29T00:28:00.000Z

Many CUs are at pains to point out that they're not a meat market or have an atmosphere akin to that view. Whilst having good intentions this view is damaging.

The most of major Biblical characters were married: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon; I could continue. Significant exceptions to this would obviously be Jesus and Paul. Even given these notable exceptions the Bible is laced with familial language- Israel as Mother, the Church as Christ's Bride (marriage is a picture of Christ's love for the Church), God the Father and God the Son. Further, before the fall God says "it is not good for the man to be alone" (Genesis 2:18) indicating for marriage to be the norm. If it wasn't the norm then this would contradict God's command to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28)

But what about 1 Corinthians 7? Doesn't Paul say that it is better to be single than married? Well, firstly we need to consider the context of the 1 Corinthians. The Corinthian church was in a pagan society similar to contemporary Britain. More importantly though the church was immature and fleshly- "And I brethren, could not speak to you as spiritual men, but as to men of the flesh, as infants in Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:3). There also seems to be a particular problem of sexual immorality with someone taking his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1). It's not clear whether he's married her or she's his concubine/girlfriend but it makes little difference. Later in 1 Corinthians 6 Paul states that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and to commit sexual immorality defiles it. (NB you can't use this verse as stick to beat smoking, drinking and any other pleasurable activity that may damage your health for to do so completely ignores the context)

Now to 1 Corinthians 7. Paul does say in verse 7 he wished "that all men even as I myself" i.e. celibate- we don't know whether he was married before he was converted though it matters little. He goes onto to say "But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided." (verses 32-34a)

The latter only demonstrates that one's spouse can become essentially an idol which doesn't happen to single people. The most important part however of this passage is the latter part of verse 7: "However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and in another that." What it comes down to is are you gifted for marriage or for celibacy? The criterion is laid out in verse 9: "But if they (the unmarried and widows) do not have self control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." The way Paul puts it may seem pejorative but it is merely a true stark phrase- if you have the desire for sexual union and or the other aspects of married life then marry. The reason, I believe, for this stark language is "in view of the present distress" (verse 26) viz. the rank sexual immorality in the church and their consequent need for self control (edit- I recently heard that the "distress" was either financial or impending major persecution, a la Nero, and the point was how to make decisions given such circumstances. I'd have to do a lot more study to comment further).

Thus the overwhelming evidence from the Bible indicates that in this context most people do not have self control. Lads, have you ever had a persistent problem with porn? Or lust issues in general? Girls, have you the desire to raise a family? Or lust for romantic liaisons? The chances are you're not called to celibacy. This isn't to say however those called to celibacy would not be tempted in theses areas since it would make Hebrews 4:15 redundant: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathise with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Though I'd expect those called to celibacy to have a natural resistance in this area in the same way that some are naturally gifted to teach.

Abolish the BBFC

2008-09-01T14:30:00.003+01:00

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) is an immoral and useless organisation. It is immoral since it is part of the machinery of censorship. It is true though that over recent years they have moved towards classification rather than censorship but as evidenced by their banning of Manhunt 2 they still will censor films or games if they so wish. This is not to say, though, that the current BBFC is trigger happy with cutting films. They have become ever more lax with their classifications, especially over the last ten years. Yet the principle behind the BBFC is wrong. If I create a film why I can't I just release it without the BBFC getting their hands over it? If people don't like what I make then don't watch it. Then there is the problem of the censorship machinery. It may presently manned by liberal types but it is at least conceivable that more authoritarian individuals may take over. Now given the persistent attacks on our liberties such 42 Day Detention without charge and the British version of the enabling act (The Civil Contingencies Bill) I can see political censorship returning in the medium term.

Not only is the BBFC is immoral its also rubbish at its job. I thought the idea regarding film classification was that it gave you a good idea of the content of the film. Yet the continuous change in what is suitable for a certain classification makes this redundant. For example up and till a few years ago the Godfather was given an 18 certificate however on the digitally remastered boxset it was re-rated 15. Even the controversially 12 rated Spiderman was nothing compared to the recent Dark Knight.

Not only are the ratings watered down but they are inconsistent. How There Will Be Blood (TWBB) got a 15 and the Dark Knight didn't I'll never know (But the fact is I do. TWBB wasn't a blockbuster and so didn't have the marketing men laying on the pressure). Both films hardly have a positive worldview. There is one scene of violence in TWBB in which Daniel Day-Lewis bludgeons to death Paul Dano with a bowling pin. Though it's relatively graphic and unpleasant, the scene where the Joker holds the knife to that guy's throat for ages is far more affecting. The reason for the this is the general tone of the film which the rating doesn't adequately take account of. To give the BBFC some credit they do provide more detailed reasons why they rate films than they used to.

What the is the root cause of the BBFC's uselessness? They're a monopoly: everyone has to take their films to the BBFC for rating. They can't go to Dobson's ratings or anywhere else. Consequently the universal result of monopoly kicks in- the quality of the product or service falls and its price rises. Therefore any attempt to reform the BBFC will fail. The only solution is abolish it and allow free competition in film and computer games ratings.

Free competition will allow different ratings agencies to arise. They could use the same criteria although they'd probably differ. And as with all market activities the one that satisfies the customers best will win. If the quality of the rating of one organisation falls people can simply move and use another agency. This is legally precluded at present. But what incentive does the film-maker have in presenting his film for rating? Advertising. In the USA it is possible to release films unrated but the takings of the films are a lot lower. Now that may well be due to the fact that the films only have a small target audience. Yet if you were a parent or conscientious adult would you be more or less likely to see a film not knowing what the content of the film would likely contain? Having a film rated by a respected agency will increase its marketability. Won't this mean that there will be loads of different ratings for films which would confuse the customer? Well, possibly though it would be highly unlikely. I'd expect for an area of similar moral views a dominant rating agency to emerge. Anyway a cinema may just advertise the rating of one agency so at the point of purchase there is still only one rating to view.

Wouldn't my proposal allow children to see anything since there is no legal restriction on anything? Yes. However this would be a good thing as parents would actually have to take more responsibility for their child instead of relying on a monopoly body endorsed by the state. Anyway cinemas are at liberty to refuse children entry on grounds of age so I can't seeing it being a huge problem. But suppose Dobson cinemas allow an eight year old to see the new Rambo film I don't think it beyond the realms of possibility that a lot of parents might boycott me and go else where.

To sum up. The BBFC is rubbish and the market better and more moral.

A Dark Knight Review Essay

2008-08-06T14:09:00.011+01:00

Warning: Spoilers.

On Monday I saw the most hyped film of year: The Dark Knight. Unfortunately, as well as rather predictable, it didn't live up to the billing. That said it's a perfectly competent film, but nothing more. Everyone has been rightly raving about Heath Ledger. He puts in a fantastically disturbing performance as the nihilistic Joker. However, possibly the best performance comes from Gary Oldman as Lt James Gordon. He is just incredibly believable as the good cop stuck in an evil world.

The script is laced with black humour through out. The best line being delivered by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman):

"Let me get this straight: You think that your client, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world, is secretly a vigilante who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands. And your plan is to blackmail this person? Good luck."

Pure genius.

The cinematography coupled with some excellent direction creates a sinister atmosphere throughout the film. Consequently the violence is some of the most disturbing I've seen since Battle Royale. It’s not though explicit. Nolan eschews modern convention of always showing the gory details and cuts away allowing you imagination to do the work. Particularly notable is the scene where the Joker has the knife to that guy's neck for an inordinate length of time and cuts away when the inevitable happens. Tim Burton would have been wise to take heed of this style when making Sweeney Todd.

This brings me neatly on to the rating of 12A by the BBFC. Those guys are absolute jokers (pun intended). The relentless violence and hopeless undertone make it wholly unsuitable for even 12 year olds; note with the 12A rating a child of any age can view it with an adult. If my sister, who is 11, would have seen it she would have been traumatised for days afterwards. This demonstrates that the BBFC's main rating categories of sex, violence and swearing are insufficient to rate a film properly. To their credit, breaking down the ratings into these categories was a step forward.

Back to the film- The frequent action sequences are suitably spectacular though nothing out of the ordinary for a film with a huge budget. Hans Zimmer soundtrack lacks the sparkle of his best work, Gladiator and Pirates of the Caribbean for example, and just sounds as if he's going through the motions.

The main problem with the film is the crucial aspect of all narrative art: the writing. Contrary to most expectations it is not a Batman versus the Joker film. They merely provide the frame for the centrepiece- District Attorney (DA) Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). The major themes throughout the film are summed up with Dent's own line:

‘You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

And the Joker's:

"I took Gotham's white knight, and brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Y'see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little...push."

Harvey Dent's character embodies these two lines. He is the clean cut DA determined to clean the filth from the streets by any means who then turns into an amoral two-faced individual after being pushed. Batman and the Joker provide the moral framework of the story. Batman is the principled (well, essentially) crime fighter. The Joker, the Devil. With these glasses we chart the demise of Dent.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this story structure but it doesn't pull it off. The main reason for this is that there are too many significant characters in the film. It is firstly cluttered by Lt Gordon and perversely, Batman himself. The only purpose Batman serves in the whole film is to prompt the escalation of violence from the Mafia. However, for whatever reason (probably to satisfy the producer), they give Batman a bit of a run around just to say- this is a BATMAN film and this is who you paid to see. Hence the entirely pointless escapade in Hong Kong. With the screen time divided up so much there is a lack of emotionally engagement with the characters; something which wasn't a problem in Batman Begins. If the Batman and Gordon would have been sufficiently sidelined to focus more on Dent the emotional impact of the death of Rachel Dawes, for example, would have been far greater. Apart from Dent, Dawes is just another in the long line of wet female characters who's sole purpose is window dressing.

This again demonstrates my contention that ensemble casts are in general a bad idea. The best example of them working is in Paul Thomas Anderson's excellent Magnolia. The reason this works is that you have characters with parallel experiences which compares and contrasts their reactions to them. It also helps that it is 3 hours long. This could have been possible with the Dark Knight but would have required the rewriting of the Joker. Instead of being an immutable pillar of evil, one would have had to flesh out his background, in particular his childhood, to chart his development into the man he is today. This would have provided a character foil for Dent. A similar change of writing could have done the same for Batman and Lt Gordon.

Now having said all that, Christopher Nolan should be credited for making a mainstream blockbuster film which is essence is an ideas film. And this is where the Joker becomes more than creepy. Ostensibly all he does is cause wanton destruction. The interesting part is his reason why. He says at one point,

"I believe that whatever doesn’t kill you, simply makes you…stranger."

which is a corruption of Friedrich Nietzsche's phrase "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Keeping Nietzsche in mind he also says this:

"It's a schemer who put you where you are. You were a schemer. You had plans. Look where it got you. I just did what I do best-I took your plan and turned it on itself. Look what I have done to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple bullets. Nobody panics when the expected people get killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plans are horrifying. If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will get blown up, nobody panics. But when I say one little old mayor will die, everyone loses their minds! Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I am an agent of chaos. And you know the thing about chaos, Harvey? It's fair."

The whole point of the Joker is that he undermines people’s beliefs, especially those in people. This is the reason he sought to give Dent a little push- to show that all men are evil, given time, and thus cannot be believed in. Notice the irony with the campaign badge which states "I believe in Harvey Dent”. This provides interesting comment on the disciples of Barack Obama who herald banners declaring "Change we can Believe In ", which in fact means "We believe in Obama". The Joker also usurps the principles of Batman (the surveillance system at the end), thus demoting him of hero status, and indirectly Lt Gordon's by causing the employment of Maroni's (Eric Roberts) men inside his department.

Belief in law enforcement to keep society safe is certainly undermined. All Batman’s crusade results in is an escalation in the retaliation of the Mafia. However, unlike Batman Begins which gives hope that Batman can redeem the streets of Gotham The Dark Knight provides no such hope. The film merely raises problems and asks questions but never solves or answers any of them. Annoyingly the character of Batman himself has the seeds to the answer to crime. He is a response to the utter failure of the police and legal services. Batman succeeds where the police fail. Why? Because Batman is a form of private law enforcement contra the monopolistic provision of the government. Due to the enforced lack of competition the government’s price of justice rises and the quality of it falls. Higher price and lower quality are the universal results of the monopoly.

The reason for seemingly immovable Mafia the film has even less of a clue. The truth is that they can only thrive under prohibition of victimless crimes. It used to be alcohol. Now it’s drugs and prostitution. If these freely consented to acts were legal then most of their funds would dry up; thus removing their teeth and the problem. See my Economic and Social Costs of Drugs Prohibition.

One of Nietzsche's major critiques of society was its herd mentality. People don't think about what's right and wrong but follow what someone else believes. This belief system originated with the master-slave relationship which he repudiated. And since God is the ultimate master it is the case that "God is dead, we have killed him." For a replacement for God, the ultimate basis of all previous moral systems, Nietzsche substituted the ubermensch- the superman: any individual who created his own moral and ethical framework. This was to be each man’s goal. (NB Nowhere in Nietzsche's writings is the plural ubermenschen used. The Nazi interpretation of Nietzsche is not accurate and was done solely to serve political means).

A great critique of the herd mentality was the absurd voting scene. The Joker claimed that the two boats would be blown up at 12am but if one boat had the moral fortitude to blow the other up he’d spare the other; he provided detonators for both boats. On one boat the passengers voted on whether they should destroy the other which was almost comical. This is further reinforced by the lack of will power of any passenger to actually take the decisive step to push the detonation switch after the “people” had decided to. Perhaps this is also a comment on those things people vote for but would not do themselves.

Further reinforcing the herd point was the Joker’s perfectly accurate line that if he killed the Mayor Gotham would descend into chaos. People don’t take responsibility for themselves and palm it off on to those in political leadership. Therefore when a leader is removed people panic and chaos ensues until a new leader emerges.

The most cutting part of Nietzsche's philosophy is alluded to by Two-Face's line:

“Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.”

As Harvey Dent his coin had two heads on it demonstrating his belief that there was something out there he could hope in which he could in someway bring about. As Two-Face he sees the world as it really (sic) is: meaningless. Since there is no meaning the ubermensch is necessary to confer meaning. With meaning and morality dispensed with the film endorses forms of utilitarianism: Batman’s use of the surveillance system to catch the Joker and Gordon’s employment of Maroni’s men to bring him down. It is most clearly endorsed when Dent makes the statement that Caesar would have been a hero if he had died soon enough. The idea seems to be that authoritarian government is sometimes necessary but needs to be curtailed afterwards. Enabling Act anyone?!

This worldview explains why the film is so depressing. It believes there is no meaning. The last film I saw this depressing was Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whisper’s. If you’re ever slightly down don’t watch it or you’ll probably end up slitting your wrists. Yet there is a ray of hope thrown in the Dark Knight unlike Cries and Whispers. On one of the boats with the big mean looking black prisoner is the only one to have any courage and takes the detonator. But he throws it out of the window declaring no-one has a right to blow up the boat and sits with his fellow prisoners and seems to pray. This comes deus ex machina with absolutely no justification. My contention is that unlike Bergman, Nolan cannot make a film consistent with his belief system. He intuitively believes there is hope but cannot justify it. So just throws it in there.

This is the reason that Godless worldviews always come running back to Daddy. All atheistic creeds are ultimately unliveable. If you did hold them consistently you’d probably have committed suicide by now. Hope for a better future is engrained in the heart of man. The question is how do you justify this while dealing with the evil in the world which The Dark Knight profoundly demonstrates? The Light Knight. He suffered all the trials and tribulations of our lives. In the Joker’s words he was pushed, but never fell. Most gloriously he died taking the just wrathful punishment for man’s evil, allowing us to be reconciled to God. The Light Knight is a man to believe in. In him there is new life and hope. Yet for those outside him just retribution is suffered.

The Dark Knight’s dark world needs the Light Knight- Jesus Christ.

Postmodernism and Democracy

2008-06-18T10:54:00.002+01:00

The essence of postmodernism is that you can literally know nothing- truth does not exist. Therefore everything is just peoples' subjective opinions; nothing more. So we just engage in never ending conversations in which all views are equally valid (or "true") and we never get closer to the "truth".

Now what political system would naturally develop from this view? Firstly it must be egalitarian- everyone is equal. Not in the sense of each person having an intrinsic moral worth but that there is no-one better than anyone at anything; everyone can do everything equally as well if they are given equal opportunity. If someone is better at something it is due to privilege or chauvinistic attitudes. Secondly it must institutionalise the never ending conversation. The conversation needs a legitimate public face which can direct social change.

The perfect political system for this is today's most sacred cow: mass democracy. Every man is given one vote irrespective of how intelligent or wise he is- the vote of King Solomon would be worth as much as Jade Goody's. Attempts at increasing voting franchise have continued ever since the Reform Act of 1832: recently there has been a movement to give sixteen year olds the vote along with criminals too. This will not stop until it reaches its logical conclusion- all people who can engage in any form of conversation can vote. We can then look forward to the Children's Party who demand subsidies to Cadbury to keep Dairy Milk at a fair price. Democracy also allows all laws to be subject to revision- More (less) laws and regulations can be imposed depending on how the conversation is going. This can be seen by the endless telephone book sized pieces of legislation introduced every year which further blurs the distinction between right and wrong; and reduces investment by business due to the huge legal uncertainty generated.

As you might have realised though, any system supported by postmodernism must contradict their worldview since it is making a truth claim. However postmodernism itself is internally contradictory since it denies any form of truth but in denying truth they are actually making a truth claim. So democracy is the logical outworking of postmodernism given the fact that it is absolutely true. This devotion to postmodernism can be seen in the scourge of tolerance which has become an axiom of current politics. It used to mean allowing people to do things you thought were wrong or you didn't like. So I would allow Pikey's to dress abominably and drink White Lightening while arguing they shouldn't do it. Today though it has changed its meaning to agreement. No longer can I abuse Pikeys and attempt to enlighten them but actually agree that their lifestyle is good. The classic touch stone issue is homosexuality- saying it is morally wrong but allowing consenting adults to do as they please generates cries of intolerance.

Historically democracy had been considered a means to an end. Some ancient democratic states such as the city states of Greece thought the same and had nothing approaching universal franchise. Also the classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill supported democracy as means to preserve liberty. Today however democracy has become an end in itself. This has been immortalised by Wilson's words "making the world safe for democracy". Not freedom, not liberty, not justice but democracy.

So although democracy does not necessitate postmodernism, postmodernism necessitates its natural demon child of mass (true) democracy.

All Your Questions About Anarchy Answered

2008-05-01T18:57:00.002+01:00

Below is a transcript of a debate I had on www.theologyweb.com.

It covers every conceivable practical questions about anarchy; if it misses some out comment with the question and I'll do my best to answer it. It does this though presupposing a libertarian political theory- for a justification see my previous blog entry Anarchy is Not Chaos.

Mr Arkadin (That's Me): Now to Joel, firstly a question- what is law? As it is abundantly clear even today there is no such thing as a single monolith of law. You decide to into my theme park and I lay down some laws on what you can and can't do different from the state statutes. You enter my bar, my house, my school, my church or any other piece of my property and you will be subject to different laws. The state itself is subject to different laws than ourselves- I steal a car I get banged away, in theory anyway, the state does it and it is a laudable action of tax for the public good. The rule of one objective law is a complete and utter myth.

Further all law needs enacting by people, the constitution does not just sit there and enforce itself. You just need to look at Britain for an unwritten constitution. So the question is what system supplies the best incentive structure for the lawmakers- is it monopoly with the power of force or the market mechanism?

You'll then probably appeal to the final arbiter- even though he does not exist. Who arbitrates between the UK and USA. What law binds them vis a vis each other? What you really want is one world government but even then you have no final arbiter because those who work for the government have no higher authority to arbitrate between each other. And even if you weren't in the government you could press for the worlds laws to be change and be released retrospectively. There is no such thing as an ultimate final arbiter bar one: God and he will judge absolutely on judgement day.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin

Now to Joel, firstly a question- what is law?

In what I wrote above, I was using it to mean "a set of rules that an individual or group enforces by means of violence or the threat of it."

The rule of one objective law is a complete and utter myth.

Hopefully my more recent posts above clarify this point. If not, please clarify your objection.

Further all law needs enacting by people, the constitution does not just sit there and enforce itself. You just need to look at Britain for an unwritten constitution. So the question is what system supplies the best incentive structure for the lawmakers- is it monopoly with the power of force or the market mechanism?

But the situation changes if there is more than one set of lawmakers with the same jurisdiction. So the incentive structure is not the only relevant question, if some incentive structures involve having more that one set of lawmakers with the same jurisdiction.

You'll then probably appeal to the final arbiter- even though he does not exist. Who arbitrates between the UK and USA.

That's not a relevant example. They have jurisdiction over different geographical areas. (War is the result when neighboring countries decide to change that fact.)

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
I
That's not a relevant example. They have jurisdiction over different geographical areas. (War is the result when neighboring countries decide to change that fact.)

All I am proposing is that each individual has jurisdiction over their own private land on which all other property must rest. Now since these are different geographical areas be definition you will surely have no problem with this for the situation is the same between the USA and the UK. If private property owners have a dispute they could go to war. The question is which set of incentives will reduce violence?

Your previous point about a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for a functioning market is true. However one needs a functioning market economy to produce sufficient wealth for the state to develop and live at the expense of others. This would lead one to believe that a functioning legal system will evolve concurrently, and naturally, with the market.

I believe you'll find this article interesting.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
All I am proposing is that each individual has jurisdiction over their own private land on which all other property must rest. Now since these are different geographical areas be definition you will surely have no problem with this for the situation is the same between the USA and the UK.

So, if person A murders person B on person C's property, then it is up to person C to prosecute? If, after the fact, A travels to person D's property, then C will have to request extradition for the carrying out of C's law upon A? What if A kidnaps B on C's property, takes B to D's property where A kills B, then A travels to E's property?

What if A simply stays on his own property where A owns and uses lots of slaves? The neighbors would have to declare war to stop the injustice? Or do you view it as inappropriate for a "nation" to police another nation like that?

Each individual is free to make treaties and declare war with other nations?
It seems likely that groups of neighboring individuals would agree together to create some kind of federal government over their set of properties.

Your previous point about a functioning legal system is a prerequisite for a functioning market is true. However one needs a functioning market economy to produce sufficient wealth for the state to develop and live at the expense of others. This would lead one to believe that a functioning legal system will evolve concurrently, and naturally, with the market.

I don't know if "naturally" is the right word.

I believe you'll find this article interesting.

Interesting article, with some good points.
Here are some comments:

In both Market Anarchism and limited government, then, the working of the system will involve different parties trying to enact their several conceptions of justice. The best system is not one that eliminates such conflict...

Ah, but the word "enact" means something different in the two cases. Under the limited government, there is a single executive branch. The divided powers aren't all enforcing their own conception of justice. Only the one branch is. Under Market Anarchism, each firm is enforcing their own conception of justice.

But suppose that, under Market Anarchism, when you get your monthly bill from Acme Security Company, you see that you’re paying $X for “basic service” (protection against force and fraud) and $Y for “premium service” (snooping on your neighbours to make sure that they’re not taking drugs or having abortions or playing violent video games).

Well I see Mr. Long is pro-choice. Others believe that preventing abortion falls under the category of "protection against force and fraud", and will support firms that agree.

And the few fanatics who are willing to put their money where their mouth is would be easier to deal with under anarchy; you can’t arrest people who lobby for government-imposed aggression, but you can arrest people who aggress.

Right. Presumably, Mr. Long's firm will see the pro-choice firms' actions (and their clients) as aggressors and start to use force against them (e.g., arresting them). The pro-choice firms (and their clients) will see that as an act of aggression. Etc.

It’s true that people living under anarchy might disagree about the definition of aggression. But if two security agencies disagree about how exactly to define property rights in some particular case, they can fight it out – thus sending their costs through the roof and their customers to the nearest competitor – or they can resolve their dispute through peaceful arbitration, thus keeping their costs low and their customers happy.

But we aren't talking about a disagreement on some particular case. The problem is when there a different definition of aggression, as a principle. If two sides disagree on whether a particular instance qualifies as, e.g., slavery, then that may be able to be worked out. But if they disagree in principle on whether slavery (or abortion or whatever) is aggression, then each side will see their position as based on principles of justice, and that any compromise is a surrender of basic principles, and therefore evil wins, even if one of the sides was right. When there is an attempted compromise between justice and injustice, the result is an injustice.

Governments resort to force far more often, since they don’t have to worry so much about losing customers.

But what about when the majority (or consumer demand) is wrong? It may be necessary for something to be done to fight an injustice, even if it is not the popular opinion. In that case, you need an enforcing body that cannot lose customers (e.g., a government).

since aggression is costlier than non-aggression, the dispute-resolution will tend to favour laws with a broadly libertarian content.

It can also work the wrong way. What about when preventing aggression against "others" (protecting individual rights) is costlier than not? Suppose again, we were back before the abolition. Probably most people who are opposed to slavery would opt to pay the lower fee for the "basic service" that does not include the higher cost of fighting slavery. Enforcing equal protection of the law (e.g., protecting others who are unable to protect themselves) is costlier than not, so the dispute-resolution will tend to disfavour it, resulting in non-libertarian content of the law. (Not to mention that the wealthy slave-traders who have a vested interest in it, are certain to put their money in support of their trade.)

First, the common framework need not be imposed by force; it may come about simply because agencies whose policies are incompatible with the majority system will lose customers, going the way of Betamax.

The majority system could be wrong. It's interesting he uses the example of Betamax, which was superior to the dominant VHS.
In the case of goods like that, we can say, so what? But in the case of injustice, it would be immoral to say, "so what?"

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
So, if person A murders person B on person C's property, then it is up to person C to prosecute? If, after the fact, A travels to person D's property, then C will have to request extradition for the carrying out of C's law upon A? What if A kidnaps B on C's property, takes B to D's property where A kills B, then A travels to E's property?

Firstly do you still maintain this situation is different than the relationship between the USA and the UK?

1st point. As for your points it depend firstly if trespass is taking place. If A is trespassing on C's property C can prosecute for trespass. The right to prosecute for the murder would devolve to the next of kin who would homestead the right.

2nd point. The next of kin would have to negotiate with D to apprehend A; however harbouring a known criminal is hardly going to be without societal sanction. Now having said that D could be then deemed to be an accomplice to the murder and so the forceful apprehension of him on his property justified.

3rd point. Depends whether C allowed the kidnap or A was trespassing. If the former he is an accomplice to a crime; if the latter prosecute for trespass. If D allowed murder on his property, he is an accomplice yet again. Same points apply for E. Again rights holders to prosecute A.

NB. I am assuming here that B did not consent to being murdered or kidnapped on C's property which would be a legitimate contract. Also that the rights holder can sell this right or delegate it to another party for its execution.

Originally posted by joel
What if A simply stays on his own property where A owns and uses lots of slaves? The neighbors would have to declare war to stop the injustice? Or do you view it as inappropriate for a "nation" to police another nation like that?

Assuming they are truly there against their will then people could boycott deals with him and impose sanctions. I believe also that if we are to truely free them, not replace one state with another, then one could legitimately claim that they are invading on the behalf of the slaves and bring A to justice. It must be pointed out here that economic advancement renders slavery less profitable since the productivity of the worker is much lower than a waged one.

Originally posted by joel
Each individual is free to make treaties and declare war with other nations?

Yes.

Originally posted by joel
It seems likely that groups of neighboring individuals would agree together to create some kind of federal government over their set of properties.

Standards of dealing would be established as Merchant Law was although this need not initiatory coercive power of anyone. If you are saying though tthat the state is inevitable then why do we not have a world government presently?

Originally posted by joel
I don't know if "naturally" is the right word.

So the economy is a creation of the state as well as the legal system. Why don't we let them run everything then?

Originally posted by joel

In both Market Anarchism and limited government, then, the working of the system will involve different parties trying to enact their several conceptions of justice. The best system is not one that eliminates such conflict...

Ah, but the word "enact" means something different in the two cases. Under the limited government, there is a single executive branch. The divided powers aren't all enforcing their own conception of justice. Only the one branch is. Under Market Anarchism, each firm is enforcing their own conception of justice.

But they are. What the judges think should go differs from the politicians? Ever heard of the public outcry over judicial decisions? Or the way in which a judge can use fictitious nuances to over turn a precedent. I highly recommend the article "The Myth of the Rule of Law" I don't know if it is online. Further what are you meaning by enforcing? By enacting a statute you are enforcing you conception of justice since you believe it to be right whereas others do not who voted against it. You also negate the existence of competing courts in the medieval period such as the ecclesiastical, the local, secular etc Also what about different branches of the judiciary giving different sentences for the exact same crime by the same person?

Originally posted by joel

But suppose that, under Market Anarchism, when you get your monthly bill from Acme Security Company, you see that you’re paying $X for “basic service” (protection against force and fraud) and $Y for “premium service” (snooping on your neighbours to make sure that they’re not taking drugs or having abortions or playing violent video games).

Well I see Mr. Long is pro-choice. Others believe that preventing abortion falls under the category of "protection against force and fraud", and will support firms that agree.

Some firms will as you say however will their clients really wish to pay for expensive violent activity? They could pay for the right to bring up the child and compensation for the woman to carry it which would be cheaper than fighting. As I have argued before unwanted babies would be much less prevalent than today due to the absence of the welfare state. The problem of what to do with children palgues all political philosophies.

Originally posted by joel

And the few fanatics who are willing to put their money where their mouth is would be easier to deal with under anarchy; you can’t arrest people who lobby for government-imposed aggression, but you can arrest people who aggress.

Right. Presumably, Mr. Long's firm will see the pro-choice firms' actions (and their clients) as aggressors and start to use force against them (e.g., arresting them). The pro-choice firms (and their clients) will see that as an act of aggression. Etc.

See above for a non-violent reconciliation. Even today though people fight for what they believe to be right. ie the state enslaving their subjects. The question is what incentive structure is best given the fallen world- monopoly or market forces.

Originally posted by joel

It’s true that people living under anarchy might disagree about the definition of aggression. But if two security agencies disagree about how exactly to define property rights in some particular case, they can fight it out – thus sending their costs through the roof and their customers to the nearest competitor – or they can resolve their dispute through peaceful arbitration, thus keeping their costs low and their customers happy.

But we aren't talking about a disagreement on some particular case. The problem is when there a different definition of aggression, as a principle. If two sides disagree on whether a particular instance qualifies as, e.g., slavery, then that may be able to be worked out. But if they disagree in principle on whether slavery (or abortion or whatever) is aggression, then each side will see their position as based on principles of justice, and that any compromise is a surrender of basic principles, and therefore evil wins, even if one of the sides was right. When there is an attempted compromise between justice and injustice, the result is an injustice.

But as Long said this is going to be very costly indeed when you can't devolve the costs on others. Further comprise would still leave injustice, for either side, but it would be less unjust than the alternative from both sides view. We live in a fallen world and perfect justice is only going to be meted out by the man upstairs- all we can do is is to create a system where more justice than not takes place.

Originally posted by joel

Governments resort to force far more often, since they don’t have to worry so much about losing customers.

But what about when the majority (or consumer demand) is wrong? It may be necessary for something to be done to fight an injustice, even if it is not the popular opinion. In that case, you need an enforcing body that cannot lose customers (e.g., a government).

Do you though deny his assertion that the state will be more aggressive than a private security firm? You are thinking of the state as a rather saintly body aren't you? Furthermore all government rests on the implicit consent of the governed as Hume said- ultimately the people get the government they deserve in a perverse kind of way.

Originally posted by joel

since aggression is costlier than non-aggression, the dispute-resolution will tend to favour laws with a broadly libertarian content.

It can also work the wrong way. What about when preventing aggression against "others" (protecting individual rights) is costlier than not? Suppose again, we were back before the abolition. Probably most people who are opposed to slavery would opt to pay the lower fee for the "basic service" that does not include the higher cost of fighting slavery. Enforcing equal protection of the law (e.g., protecting others who are unable to protect themselves) is costlier than not, so the dispute-resolution will tend to disfavour it, resulting in non-libertarian content of the law. (Not to mention that the wealthy slave-traders who have a vested interest in it, are certain to put their money in support of their trade.)

I don't deny this. Any thing can happen. But will the general trend be toward libertarian dispute resolution? See note above about productivity and slavery. Further it is highly unlikely in the first place that slavery would have become so institutionalised if it weren't for the state making it cheaper. See here.

Originally posted by joel

First, the common framework need not be imposed by force; it may come about simply because agencies whose policies are incompatible with the majority system will lose customers, going the way of Betamax.

The majority system could be wrong. It's interesting he uses the example of Betamax, which was superior to the dominant VHS.
In the case of goods like that, we can say, so what? But in the case of injustice, it would be immoral to say, "so what?"

Supposing that Betamax was technically better than VHS (I don't know). It does not follow that should be in use since one has to see what those resources could be used for. The same with justice- if spent all resources on justice no doubt more justice would exist but more people would starve because less was put into justice rather than food production.

We live in a world of scarcity and evil. We cannot have heaven on earth; we must choose. All the problematic examples you cite can and do happen under a statist regime. There is no perfect system. All we can produce is a system which will minimise evil and maximise good. And this question revolves around incentives and boils down to this- does initiatory coercive of some, who can devolve costs on to others, better than one where everyone must pay the full costs of their actions (this is talking exclusively constitutionally)

An anarchistic system will be by no means perfect- rape, murder, theft, robbery, child abuse, perversions, family breakdown, wife beating etc- it will however be better than the current statist one.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin

But they are. What the judges think should go differs from the politicians?

Sure, I have heard of instances where the U.S. executive branch refused to enforce a Supreme Court ruling. The S.C. is powerless if the executive branch does not comply.

Further what are you meaning by enforcing? By enacting a statute you are enforcing you conception of justice since you believe it to be right whereas others do not who voted against it.

I mean using force. It is conceivable that the legislature enacts a law and the executive branch ignores it and does not enforce it. or enforces things that aren't enacted laws. (Of course, the legislature can pull the executive branch's funding...)

Some firms will as you say however will their clients really wish to pay for expensive violent activity?

I would. Though you are probably right, and most people would not pay to fight injustice. But that's just another problem with Market Anarchy.

I don't deny this. Any thing can happen. But will the general trend be toward libertarian dispute resolution?

No, I think the general trend likely would be to not fight injustice, because it is more costly than not. I'm concerned about protecting those who can't protect themselves.

...and boils down to this- does initiatory coercive of some, who can devolve costs on to others, better than one where everyone must pay the full costs of their actions (this is talking exclusively constitutionally)

Voluntary funding of protection of individual rights is a separate question from that of whether to have a monopoly. We could have a voluntarily funded monopoly.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
No, I think the general trend likely would be to not fight injustice, because it is more costly than not. I'm concerned about protecting those who can't protect themselves.

Oh so the state can eliminate all injustice? I'm concerned about people who can't eat; therefore the state should control food production. You have completed ignored my comments above about how we are never going to have perfect justice on earth and the relative cost of pursuing a marginal unit of justice.

Originally posted by joel
Voluntary funding of protection of individual rights is a separate question from that of whether to have a monopoly. We could have a voluntarily funded monopoly.

As I have said before I am using monopoly in the Rothbardian sense. There is no non arbitrary way of distinguished between the competitive price and the market price. The only non-arbitrary way is between the interventionist and the free market price because the price formation process is qualitatively different in both situations. Please read, before we get bogged down, this. There is a lot here but finding the relevant part won't be difficult.

Finally before I respond to you again please tell me why market anarchism is any different than the relationship between the USA and UK and also the points you ignored in my previous post.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Oh so the state can eliminate all injustice? I'm concerned about people who can't eat; therefore the state should control food production. You have completed ignored my comments above about how we are never going to have perfect justice on earth and the relative cost of pursuing a marginal unit of justice.

That may be a good point in favor of a market executive. But it still seems clear to me that there's got to be a state legislature. If there is a workable way to have a state legislature in combination with a market executive...

There is no non arbitrary way of distinguished between the competitive price and the market price.

But if it is voluntarily funded, then it is the market price.

Finally before I respond to you again please tell me why market anarchism is any different than the relationship between the USA and UK and also the points you ignored in my previous post.

I posted responses to those points to which I felt I had something interesting to say. If I missed points you feel are particularly relevant, then please reemphasize them.

As for how Market Anarchy is different than than USA/UK...
I think that each individual land owner being the government of their own sovereign nation (with non-land-owners being citizens of no country) is impractical. For one thing, it would make everyone have to be a statesman, limiting the potential for division of labor. For another thing, one can live and move and have their being in one of USA/UK, with jurisdiction issues arising only as people travel between them. In Market Anarchy, jurisdiction issues would be way too common, since an average person will travel through many "nations" in their daily activities. So you'd have to be familiar with all the law in all these different nations, as well as the problems that will arise as the laws come in conflict. At that fine of a scope, these issues will become greater of a problem. I'm guessing that there tends to be an optimal point with regards to scope, somewhere greater than that, but less than one-world government.

And as I said before, it seems likely that they would start grouping together into federations for common defense. (And those "states" into larger federations, in some kind of hierarchy).

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
But if it is voluntarily funded, then it is the market price.

Well yes.

Originally posted by joel
As for how Market Anarchy is different than than USA/UK...
I think that each individual land owner being the government of their own sovereign nation (with non-land-owners being citizens of no country) is impractical. For one thing, it would make everyone have to be a statesman, limiting the potential for division of labor. For another thing, one can live and move and have their being in one of USA/UK, with jurisdiction issues arising only as people travel between them. In Market Anarchy, jurisdiction issues would be way too common, since an average person will travel through many "nations" in their daily activities. So you'd have to be familiar with all the law in all these different nations, as well as the problems that will arise as the laws come in conflict. At that fine of a scope, these issues will become greater of a problem. I'm guessing that there tends to be an optimal point with regards to scope, somewhere greater than that, but less than one-world government.

And as I said before, it seems likely that they would start grouping together into federations for common defense. (And those "states" into larger federations, in some kind of hierarchy).

Being sovereign owner of one's own land does not mean one needs to be a statesmen; merely a businessmen able to strike deals. If these deals are beneficial they will take place and the division of labour will take place as normal; and even better than normal. You rightly point out that many different legal codes will cause problems so what we'd expect is a standardisation of legal codes in the same way in which money arises. This can be seen historically with merchant law which solved this very problem. But within this standardisation of law one will still have variety within it with those who contracted to the same law ie. canon or sharia- but when dealing with outsiders they'll revert to the standard law.

People grouping together for defence is a natural process and can be undertaken by insurance companies since they can lower the risks by pooling lots of resources but need not be territoriality bound, which is great since it would be very difficult to wipe them out by competing firms because you won't be able to defeat them by just taking over their offices in New York. Again though it must be emphasised that this grouping and hierarchy need not be states. As Hoppe rightly points out in another of his work is that a natural elite would arise who would be leaders of society but would not be coercive.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Being sovereign owner of one's own land does not mean one needs to be a statesmen; merely a businessmen able to strike deals.

But you'd have the monopoly on the use of force in your land, no?

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
But you'd have the monopoly on the use of force in your land, no?

Please will tell me what you are meaning by monopoly?

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Please will tell me what you are meaning by monopoly?

Exclusive control or right.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Exclusive control or right.

So am I a monopolist since I have exclusive right and control over my body? If so at least you're being consistent but using the word that way just isn't useful since under it everyone is a monopolist. It seems you can't accept the difference between a legal privilege (a true monopoly) and a case where a person or firm controls most, or all, the business in an industry because the population deem him best. So me having sole right over my land does not make me a state.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
So am I a monopolist since I have exclusive right and control over my body? If so at least you're being consistent but using the word that way just isn't useful since under it everyone is a monopolist.

The term, of course, is relative to what one has a monopoly on.
The word is still useful--you just have to specify the context. When I used it above, I specifically said "monopoly on the use of force".

Yes, assuming your rights are protected, you have a monopoly on your body. For example, no one else can sell the services of your labor. However, if you were a slave, then you would not have a monopoly on your body. Note, therefore, that force must be used to enforce your monopoly over your body. However, this is a proper use of force because the monopoly is yours by right.

It seems you can't accept the difference between a legal privilege (a true monopoly) and a case where a person or firm controls most, or all, the business in an industry because the population deem him best.

I would call both a monopoly. I do, however, recognize that the former is maintained by force, and the latter is not. But from the above example, we can see that a "monopoly maintained by the use of force" is not inherently a bad thing.

So me having sole right over my land does not make me a state.

True. Only if your sole control over the use of force in your land is enforced does it make you a state. Of course, if you don't enforce your exclusive control of the use of force in your land, then you don't have a monopoly on it, and you are not a state, but that also means that you are subject to (and at the mercy of) others who use force.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
I would call both a monopoly. I do, however, recognize that the former is maintained by force, and the latter is not. But from the above example, we can see that a "monopoly maintained by the use of force" is not inherently a bad thing.

Which is silly because the latter is based on, in principle, inviolate property rights. And leads you to this strange conclusion:

Originally posted by joel
True. Only if your sole control over the use of force in your land is enforced does it make you a state. Of course, if you don't enforce your exclusive control of the use of force in your land, then you don't have a monopoly on it, and you are not a state, but that also means that you are subject to (and at the mercy of) others who use force.

In principle my land is owned originally via homesteading and came to me via legitimate title transfer. So the forceful defence of this land is implied in ownership. There is no monopoly since there is no legal impediment stopping the sale of the land; if such a transaction would be mutually beneficial it would take place. If there is no monopoly there is no state. There is only monopoly if initiatory force is used over others land or property.

Your continuing attempts to make it look like I am justifying individual states and you are advocating larger ones so the issue is not statism versus anarchy but a continuum between different sized states will not wash.

Joel:

I'm confused by most of your post. You'll have to help me out. Let's take it bit by bit:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Which is silly because the latter is based on, in principle, inviolate property rights.

I'm not sure why the "because" in your statement is justified. I'm not sure what the last part of your statement has to do with what I said, or how it makes what I said "silly".

In principle my land is owned originally via homesteading and came to me via legitimate title transfer.

Agreed.

There is no monopoly since there is no legal impediment stopping the sale of the land;

I don't understand. Of course you have a monopoly on your land, because only you can sell (all or parts of) the land. No one else can sell it or rent it or whatever, without your consent. And, indeed, this monopoly will continue to exist only if your property rights are protected--that is, only if your monopoly on that land is maintained by the use of force. But it is right to forcefully maintain this monopoly, because it is your right.

if such a transaction would be mutually beneficial it would take place.

Agreed. (Assuming rights are protected.)
And if someone purchased your land from you, then they would now be the rightful monopolists of it. (Just as is the case regarding the sale of any monopoly.)

If there is no monopoly there is no state.

Agreed.

There is only monopoly if initiatory force is used over others land or property.

I don't see why. If we supposed that no one ever used force--no one ever infringed on anyone else's rights, then I would still have a monopoly on my own property, because I would have exclusive control of my own property. No initiatory force having been used.

But some people do violate the rights of others. Therefore it may become necessary to protect my property rights (maintain my rightful monopoly) by force, against an aggressor. But that is not initiatory force. The monopoly is being maintained by force, but not initiatory force.

Your continuing attempts to make it look like I am justifying individual states and you are advocating larger ones so the issue is not statism versus anarchy but a continuum between different sized states will not wash.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who first made the comparison. I said I had no problem with U.S. and U.K. being separate countries, and you suggested that, then, I should have no problem with Market Anarchy, since it's the same case with individual land owners. You challenged me to say how they are different.

It seems you have changed your position on that matter. So, you tell me. What is the difference? How is your maintaining exclusive control of the use of force in your own land not the same thing? Or is that not what you mean by anarchy?

Btw how do propose to keep a theoretical "minimal" government minimal?

How do you propose to keep Market Anarchist protection firms minimal? That is, how do you keep them from infringing on rights? Because they will lose customers and thus funding? What does the firm care--it can start stealing the funding it needs. Thus, ultimately, the only way to keep them from infringing on rights is the use of force by others to protect rights. This will only happen with a well-educated, wise, and well-armed citizenry. But if that is the case, they'll keep a government minimal.

What I'm trying to say is that any problem of inability to keep a minimal government minimal will also be present at least as greatly in the case of Market Anarchy.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
I don't understand. Of course you have a monopoly on your land, because only you can sell (all or parts of) the land. No one else can sell it or rent it or whatever, without your consent. And, indeed, this monopoly will continue to exist only if your property rights are protected--that is, only if your monopoly on that land is maintained by the use of force. But it is right to forcefully maintain this monopoly, because it is your right.

This isn't monopoly it is called ownership- the unilateral right to use your property in any way you so wish if it doesn't affect the physical integrity of other people's property. You may call this monopoly but it, as said time and again, removes its proper meaning.

Originally posted by joel
Agreed. (Assuming rights are protected.)
And if someone purchased your land from you, then they would now be the rightful monopolists of it. (Just as is the case regarding the sale of any monopoly.)

No they would be the owners.

Originally posted by joel
I don't see why. If we supposed that no one ever used force--no one ever infringed on anyone else's rights, then I would still have a monopoly on my own property, because I would have exclusive control of my own property. No initiatory force having been used.

Again your making ownership= monopoly.

Originally posted by joel
But some people do violate the rights of others. Therefore it may become necessary to protect my property rights (maintain my rightful monopoly) by force, against an aggressor. But that is not initiatory force. The monopoly is being maintained by force, but not initiatory force.

The property is being protected by force.

Originally posted by joel
I'm sorry, but you are the one who first made the comparison. I said I had no problem with U.S. and U.K. being separate countries, and you suggested that, then, I should have no problem with Market Anarchy, since it's the same case with individual land owners. You challenged me to say how they are different.

My point was the absence of a final arbiter between them existed between states as well as individual land owners not that individual land owners were states.

Originally posted by joel
It seems you have changed your position on that matter. So, you tell me. What is the difference? How is your maintaining exclusive control of the use of force in your own land not the same thing? Or is that not what you mean by anarchy?

This will hopefully clear this up- Market Anarchism exists where there is the absence of a territorial monopolist of arbitration. Monopoly defined as legally privilege which implies that body can do things qualitatively different than other property owners. Therefore since all property owners can protect their property then there is no monopoly. This only exists when there is an institutional structure, which must be deemed legitimate or people would treat them as common criminals, which extends their jurisdiction over other peoples property. This would rule out competing law providers in the area of their illegitimate jurisdiction.

Originally posted by joel
How do you propose to keep Market Anarchist protection firms minimal? That is, how do you keep them from infringing on rights? Because they will lose customers and thus funding? What does the firm care--it can start stealing the funding it needs. Thus, ultimately, the only way to keep them from infringing on rights is the use of force by others to protect rights. This will only happen with a well-educated, wise, and well-armed citizenry. But if that is the case, they'll keep a government minimal.
What I'm trying to say is that any problem of inability to keep a minimal government minimal will also be present at least as greatly in the case of Market Anarchy.

You keep them minimal by having real competition rather than monopoly (my definition as above) which is necessitated by an anti statist mindset of the population. As for a more precise answer how it would work it is most probable that security firms would be paid for via insurance companies. And since violence is expensive this type of activity would be more expensive than under a state since you can't devolve the costs onto people not your customers. Further with insurance providing the services they will give discounts to those who take certain precautions such as alarms, security lights etc so it is perfectly conceivable they would give discounts to gun owners which will help to foster a well armed militia. This developed in more detail by Hoppe, again, here Start reading from page 345 of the PDF not the book pages.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Again your making ownership= monopoly.

Actually, no I'm not. I said I won't use the word "monopoly" any more, so, if I substitute, you are suggesting that I am making ownership = exclusive control. I'm not. Aggressors can take away your exclusive control, but not your ownership. (For example, if someone steals something of yours, then you still own it, but the thief happens to have possession of your property.)

The property is being protected by force.

Not necessarily. The property itself may be in no danger. In general, you are protecting (by force) your (exclusive) ability to use the property as you wish.

My point was the absence of a final arbiter between them existed between states as well as individual land owners not that individual land owners were states.

Okay, point taken.

Therefore since all property owners can protect their property then there is no monopoly. This only exists when there is an institutional structure, which must be deemed legitimate or people would treat them as common criminals, which extends their jurisdiction over other peoples property. This would rule out competing law providers in the area of their illegitimate jurisdiction.

Exactly. My prior complaint was having multiple legislators in one geographical area, both having jurisdiction over the same things.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Suppose there is a wealthy land-owner Alice. She owns a large piece of land on which many other people live. These people work for Alice, are paid a wage (minus the price for rent). Under Market Anarchy, do you see Alice having sole jurisdiction of the use of force in her land or do you wish to see competing legislators over this same land?

You keep them minimal by having real competition rather than monopoly (my definition as above)

I think you missed my point, which is that market competition is insufficient to keep them minimal. You can't (and must not try to) deal with the aggressor company (which steals its funding) by market competition. Rather, the other companies or individuals have to use force against them. But that's the same way you keep a government minimal--an armed citizenry who threaten the use of force against a non-minimal government.

As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

My main point here is that it is only force, not market competition, that can stop injustice.

One difference is that in the case of government, the people only have to worry about keeping one arbitration-provider in check, instead of many.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Actually, no I'm not. I said I won't use the word "monopoly" any more, so, if I substitute, you are suggesting that I am making ownership = exclusive control. I'm not.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Originally posted by joel
Aggressors can take away your exclusive control, but not your ownership. (For example, if someone steals something of yours, then you still own it, but the thief happens to have possession of your property.)

Agreed.

Originally posted by joel
Not necessarily. The property itself may be in no danger. In general, you are protecting (by force) your (exclusive) ability to use the property as you wish.

We maybe getting into semantics but IMO the right of self defence is built into the concept of ownership- defence isn't extrinsic to ownership but intrinsic.

Originally posted by joel
Okay, point taken.

I'm getting somewhere. Yay!!

Originally posted by joel
Exactly. My prior complaint was having multiple legislators in one geographical area, both having jurisdiction over the same things.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Suppose there is a wealthy land-owner Alice. She owns a large piece of land on which many other people live. These people work for Alice, are paid a wage (minus the price for rent). Under Market Anarchy, do you see Alice having sole jurisdiction of the use of force in her land or do you wish to see competing legislators over this same land?

Alice does have sole rights of jurisdiction in this area since she owns it. However suppose within this land there is a significant population of Jews and Muslims she could therefore give a choice of judicial functions Talmud or Sharia to keep the population happy. If there was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim she could allow the the Talmudic courts to come to a compromise deal with the Sharia court. She could allow as many different providers she wished to allow.

The deals between different different land owners will be analogous to that of the USA and UK and common laws will arise naturally.

Originally posted by joel
I think you missed my point, which is that market competition is insufficient to keep them minimal. You can't (and must not try to) deal with the aggressor company (which steals its funding) by market competition. Rather, the other companies or individuals have to use force against them. But that's the same way you keep a government minimal--an armed citizenry who threaten the use of force against a non-minimal government.

Self defence is a market function since it attempts to uphold property rights. The difference though between the state and private firms is ideological- people perceive the state to be legitimate monopolist otherwise it would just be an outlaw firm. And being a monopolist the cost of justice will rise or the quality will decrease. Further the ability to tax allows the costs of an action to be passed onto other people. With an outlaw defence provider the costs of funding the provider will rise, since aggression is expensive, and will lose customers who will not pay for their behaviour. This is completely absence with a state and there is no market competition. This financial restraint along with other properly trained mercenaries will keep outlaw firms in check better than one with a solely general militia and no financial restraint.

Originally posted by joel
As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

The fact is America continually enacts unjust laws and has perpetually especially since the illegitimate constitution. Further due the ideological acceptance of even a minimal amount of aggression the question is no longer aggression vs non-aggression but how much aggression. You have therefore entered the slippery slope which leads the government to perpetually grow to inflict ever more aggression.

Originally posted by joel
One difference is that in the case of government, the people only have to worry about keeping one arbitration-provider in check, instead of many.

You miss the fact that these other arbitration agencies keep each other in check and have the financial restraint the state does not have.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
We maybe getting into semantics but IMO the right of self defence is built into the concept of ownership- defence isn't extrinsic to ownership but intrinsic.

I agree. Also, just to clarify, your right to use your property as you wish is intrinsic to ownership. But your ability to use your property as you wish is not. Your ability must be protected from aggressors. But since you have the right to use it as you wish, then you have an intrinsic right to protect your ability. (In turn, your ability to protect it is not intrinsic, etc.)

Alice does have sole rights of jurisdiction in this area since she owns it. However suppose within this land there is a significant population of Jews and Muslims she could therefore give a choice of judicial functions Talmud or Sharia to keep the population happy. If there was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim she could allow the the Talmudic courts to come to a compromise deal with the Sharia court. She could allow as many different providers she wished to allow.

But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?

You miss the fact that these other arbitration agencies keep each other in check and have the financial restraint the state does not have.

As for the financial restraint, I don't disagree with making the government voluntarily funded, as I said before, so that argument won't work here.

As for keeping each other in check: Again, I must emphasize that it is not market competitors that will keep outlaws in check. Rather, it is individuals and groups using force. You don't need rival market competitors you need militia groups, or perhaps just The Militia (the armed body of citizens). If these other groups will keep all outlaw firms in check, then why would they not also keep a single organization (such as a government) in check?

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
I agree. Also, just to clarify, your right to use your property as you wish is intrinsic to ownership. But your ability to use your property as you wish is not. Your ability must be protected from aggressors. But since you have the right to use it as you wish, then you have an intrinsic right to protect your ability. (In turn, your ability to protect it is not intrinsic, etc.)

Sounds fine.

Originally posted by joel
But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?

Of course.

Originally posted by joel
As for the financial restraint, I don't disagree with making the government voluntarily funded, as I said before, so that argument won't work here.

How do you propose to fund the government voluntarily? Suppose I am within a statist jurisdiction and will not fund them because they're immoral. What happens if I need to go to arbitration- I can't go else where, because it is legally barred, so I must pay a unilateral fee or otherwise justice is denied. That is pretty much theft.

Originally posted by joel
As for keeping each other in check: Again, I must emphasize that it is not market competitors that will keep outlaws in check. Rather, it is individuals and groups using force. You don't need rival market competitors you need militia groups, or perhaps just The Militia (the armed body of citizens). If these other groups will keep all outlaw firms in check, then why would they not also keep a single organization (such as a government) in check?
[/edited to add]

Well considering you accept there will be a financial restraint in your ultra-minarchist state (which I don't believe but anyway) then it must be there in market anarchy. Further even if you think it won't be empirically large you can't deny its existence. Militia's are good don't get me wrong; they will actually be promoted in market anarchy as the Hoppe article I cited a few posts ago shows.

There is one huge difference between the state and an outlaw firm- its ideological. With the outlaw firm the distinction made by the population is aggression vs non-aggression as well as free competition and monopoly. With the state it is varying degrees of aggression and acceptance of monopoly. And since it is decided that the state is legitimate doling out aggression there is no non arbitrary stopping point for its aggression and its monopoly.

Contrary to what you wrote above inviolate property rights and free competition in goods is the optimal position in this fallen world.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
There is one huge difference between the state and an outlaw firm- its ideological. With the outlaw firm the distinction made by the population is aggression vs non-aggression as well as free competition and monopoly. With the state it is varying degrees of aggression and acceptance of monopoly. And since it is decided that the state is legitimate doling out aggression there is no non arbitrary stopping point for its aggression and its monopoly.

So you are saying that the difference (between an aggressive state and an outlaw firm) is one of perception, not an intrinsic difference?

Originally posted by joel
But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?
Of course.

But how is that different than a state/government?

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
How do you propose to fund the government voluntarily? Suppose I am within a statist jurisdiction and will not fund them because they're immoral. What happens if I need to go to arbitration- I can't go else where, because it is legally barred, so I must pay a unilateral fee or otherwise justice is denied. That is pretty much theft.

Yes, one possibility, as you suggest, is that aggression against you (not committed by the government) will not be prosecuted by the government, if you do not voluntarily pay. You could hire a private protection company, but it would be subject to the law of the land. (That is, no other individuals or groups can execute punishments however they want, unlike under anarchy.)

Alternatively, whether you pay the (flat) fee could merely determine whether you get to vote, run for office, etc.

Other possibilities:

- There could be a trust fund, and the government operates from the proceedings of the fund. The fund could be created from the proceeds of the current government selling off all its property.

- Most of the cost can be paid by those who incur the cost. For example, convicted criminals should be forced to pay the cost of catching/prosecuting/punishing them.

- Donations

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
So you are saying that the difference (between an aggressive state and an outlaw firm) is one of perception, not an intrinsic difference?

The ideological perception leads to an intrinsic difference in behaviour. For example if people thought it was wrong for me to kill people the costs of engaging in it would be higher, due to boycotts or violence, than if they thought it was legitimate in which case they'd do nothing.

Originally posted by joel
But how is that different than a state/government?

Her land is legitimately owned; the state owns nothing since it merely steals. This difference leads a great difference in incentives.

Originally posted by joel
Yes, one possibility, as you suggest, is that aggression against you (not committed by the government) will not be prosecuted by the government, if you do not voluntarily pay. You could hire a private protection company, but it would be subject to the law of the land. (That is, no other individuals or groups can execute punishments however they want, unlike under anarchy.)

What I didn't make clear is that restricting the type of law you can have is aggressive since it stops one using his property in all non-aggressive ways. Further due to the fact that the arbiters will be statist ones the security firm will still have to pay a unilateral fee on the behalf of the client which again amounts to a tax.

Originally posted by joel
Alternatively, whether you pay the (flat) fee could merely determine whether you get to vote, run for office, etc.

I severely doubt that would work since if you are using state services you'd be expected to pay them.

Originally posted by joel
- There could be a trust fund, and the government operates from the proceedings of the fund. The fund could be created from the proceeds of the current government selling off all its property.

The government doesn't own any property whatsoever.

Originally posted by joel
- Most of the cost can be paid by those who incur the cost. For example, convicted criminals should be forced to pay the cost of catching/prosecuting/punishing them.

Agreed but they surely can't be charged the cost of the standing judiciary.

Originally posted by joel
- Donations

To a coercive organisation? Mmmmmm.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
What I didn't make clear is that restricting the type of law you can have is aggressive since it stops one using his property in all non-aggressive ways.

Not if the one Law you are restricted to is the non-aggression principle. Then, for you to seek another "type of law" would necessarily be aggression.

Further due to the fact that the arbiters will be statist ones the security firm will still have to pay a unilateral fee on the behalf of the client which again amounts to a tax.

Only if the client is convicted of an crime, in which case it is not a tax, but restitution.

I severely doubt that would work since if you are using state services you'd be expected to pay them.

In real life, lots of people use state services without being expected to pay for them.

The government doesn't own any property whatsoever.

I does. I understand that you think that is wrong, though.

Agreed but they surely can't be charged the cost of the standing judiciary.

That remaining cost is not going to be that big--only a tiny fraction of the current cost of government. Surely it can be funded by voluntary means.

To a coercive organisation? Mmmmmm.

[/quote]
I think you're begging the question with this objection.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Not if the one Law you are restricted to is the non-aggression principle. Then, for you to seek another "type of law" would necessarily be aggression.

It doesn't stick to it though because it extends its jurisdiction over lands it does not own- that is rights violating. If it does not do this it is not a state; if this is what you are arguing for, a voluntary collective of people presiding over those who wish to be presided over you are an anarchist.

Augustine 2004:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
It doesn't stick to it though because it extends its jurisdiction over lands it does not own- that is rights violating. If it does not do this it is not a state; if this is what you are arguing for, a voluntary collective of people presiding over those who wish to be presided over you are an anarchist.

You asserted that the State does not own property. However that then opens the question of who is the owner. For example, a park near my house was formed from land that was donated to the city government.

You appear to be saying that unless a collective is continually trying to expand its rights-violating domination over its subjects and other peoples, it’s not a state.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by Augustine2004
You asserted that the State does not own property. However that then opens the question of who is the owner. For example, a park near my house was formed from land that was donated to the city government.

That's a difficult question. Taking the general case, and an omniscient perspective, it should be given back to those who homesteaded the property or recieved it by legitmate title transfer. Now in most cases this is going to be nigh impossible due to a lot of resources coming from different resources to build things. Now in the case of eminent domain it is quite easy to return to its original owners. In the other cases one could see the land as unowned and thus ripe for homesteading. I reject this on the grounds that if a master criminal stole various bits of people's property and as such couldn't figure out who owned what of the criminal's property allowing any person to take it from him would be immoral. Further much of the government land could be seen to be homesteaded all the time, for example road improvements. The workers could claim they have homesteaded it whereas those before could say the same etc etc. I propose therefore to attempt to workout the net tax returns of individuals and then give them shares in a local privatised properties, for example the local roads, to that value which would then be freely tradable. This could be executed by private law firms and agencies if later disputes arose. This is not a perfect solution, it is arbitrary, however I believe it to be better than the alternative. And also those virgin lands, which the state claims ownership, should be ripe for homesteading unless various people can claim that they performed that function previously in a certain capacity such as building a hunting lodge.

As to the land donated to the government it should go to the owner but he does not exist. I suggest though it be subject to the same share scheme since improvements will have taken place on it and the donator really wished to give it to the public and in this way we are fufilling that.

Originally posted by Augustine2004
You appear to be saying that unless a collective is continually trying to expand its rights-violating domination over its subjects and other peoples, it’s not a state.

Not precisely. I have always defined a state as a territorial monopolist over arbitrartion. The passage you cite above was to show the difference between a legitimate owner of the land using his right of ownership and the state who extends his control over property which is not his.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
It doesn't stick to it though because it extends its jurisdiction over lands it does not own- that is rights violating.

It seems to me that what you are saying is that it is a violation of individual rights to protect someone's individual rights in a land you do not own. I don't believe that. (E.g., suppose Alice invites Bob onto her land (or Bob is living on Alice's land, or whatever). Then Alice aggresses against Bob by locking him in a cage and won't let him leave. It would be just (not rights-violating) for someone else (not the land owner) to free Bob and punish Alice.)

if this is what you are arguing for, a voluntary collective of people presiding over those who wish to be presided over you are an anarchist.

Given that definition of "anarchy", then so were the founding fathers of the U.S.: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
It seems to me that what you are saying is that it is a violation of individual rights to protect someone's individual rights in a land you do not own. I don't believe that. (E.g., suppose Alice invites Bob onto her land (or Bob is living on Alice's land, or whatever). Then Alice aggresses against Bob by locking him in a cage and won't let him leave. It would be just (not rights-violating) for someone else (not the land owner) to free Bob and punish Alice.)

If a rights violation has taken place then it would be legitimate to intervene. However to do this peremptorily constitutes a rights violation and this is what you are advocating.

Originally posted by joel
Given that definition of "anarchy", then so were the founding fathers of the U.S.: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Not precisely since not all consenting adults signed it and is therefore illegitimate.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
If a rights violation has taken place then it would be legitimate to intervene. However to do this peremptorily constitutes a rights violation and this is what you are advocating.

I absolutely am not. The government's job is retributive force--to punish or intervene when a rights violation has taken place or is taking place.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
I absolutely am not. The government's job is retributive force--to punish or intervene when a rights violation has taken place or is taking place.

But you are by not allowing competing legal systems- people cannot sign to the form of law they wish even if it directly harms anyone else.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
But you are by not allowing competing legal systems- people cannot sign to the form of law they wish even if it directly harms anyone else.

But, as I already pointed out, any other law would be aggression. There is no other law that does not harm others.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
But, as I already pointed out, any other law would be aggression. There is no other law that does not harm others.

Well since the state is aggression then you must be advocating market anarchism. Suppose two companies provided the same legal code but one was much more efficient in its workings than the other. Are you then proposing still to have a monopoly?

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Well since the state is aggression then you must be advocating market anarchism.

You are begging the question by assuming that those are the only two possible choices.

Suppose two companies provided the same legal code but one was much more efficient in its workings than the other. Are you then proposing still to have a monopoly?

I suppose that in that hypothetical situaiton, I'd be fine with it.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
You are begging the question by assuming that those are the only two possible choices.

I'm not. I gave an example of a competing legal systems which you were with (below).

Originally posted by joel
I suppose that in that hypothetical situaiton, I'd be fine with it.

In that case then you cannot make an a priori case for statism because it would violate rights in this instance while performing the only function you deem necessary. This proves that the state is aggression.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
In that case then you cannot make an a priori case for statism because it would violate rights in this instance while performing the only function you deem necessary. This proves that the state is aggression.

Okay, fine, forming a government is aggressive until the conditions of the hypothetical situation are not actually true. Or put another way, it would be aggressive only if the hypothetical situation were actual.

(Also note that given Augustine's definition of "state", such that state is defined as aggressive, then I do not want a "state", but I still think government is a good idea.)

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Okay, fine, forming a government is aggressive until the conditions of the hypothetical situation are not actually true. Or put another way, it would be aggressive only if the hypothetical situation were actual.

(Also note that given Augustine's definition of "state", such that state is defined as aggressive, then I do not want a "state", but I still think government is a good idea.)

Now the question you have to ask now is how long will such a case last for? Then whether or not creating a government will impose more costs than benefits at its inception? And finally whether or not it will stay that way?

Joel:

Another thought:

Under Market Anarchy, it seems as though this is the scenario you guys are imagining:

1) Alice infringes against Bob's rights.
2) If
a) They are both customers of the same "protection agency", then that agency will settle the matter
or if
b) They are customers of different "protection agencies", then the two agencies will settle the matter together, hopefully according to some pre-arranged agreement between the two agencies, perhaps by using a pre-agreed-upon arbitrator.

However, after some more thought, I think this contains an inherent problem.
The problem is that any initiation of force is a threat to everyone, not just Bob. That means that not just the one or two agencies will have a judgement (that they will seek to impose by force (though no company will view their force as initiation of force, but as just)), but that every individual (and their agents) will have an interest in the matter. Thus arbitration will be needed not just between two parties but among an unlimited number of parties--theoretically, among everyone. (With the disagreement itself being over how force should be used in this matter.)

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Another thought:

Under Market Anarchy, it seems as though this is the scenario you guys are imagining:

1) Alice infringes against Bob's rights.
2) If
a) They are both customers of the same "protection agency", then that agency will settle the matter
or if
b) They are customers of different "protection agencies", then the two agencies will settle the matter together, hopefully according to some pre-arranged agreement between the two agencies, perhaps by using a pre-agreed-upon arbitrator.

Your learning. Great.

Originally posted by joel
However, after some more thought, I think this contains an inherent problem.
The problem is that any initiation of force is a threat to everyone, not just Bob. That means that not just the one or two agencies will have a judgement (that they will seek to impose by force (though no company will view their force as initiation of force, but as just)), but that every individual (and their agents) will have an interest in the matter. Thus arbitration will be needed not just between two parties but among an unlimited number of parties--theoretically, among everyone. (With the disagreement itself being over how force should be used in this matter.)

Well if you think that's such a huge problem we'll need a world arbiter to take account of the effect on all peoples. This kind of reasoning is what led to the decline of a restitutive justice system: the crime wasn't just against the individual but also the crown. When monarchs went out of fashion the crown was replaced with "society".

Augustine 2004:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Your learning. Great.

Well if you think that's such a huge problem we'll need a world arbiter to take account of the effect on all peoples.

Why not just an ordinary arbiter with a reputation for rendering fair and impartial decisions?

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by Augustine2004
Why not just an ordinary arbiter with a reputation for rendering fair and impartial decisions?

I agree but his reasoning implied that such an arbiter wouldn't do and not take account of the interests of the world.

Joel:

Originally posted by Augustine2004
I concede the point that unjust aggression/chicanery against even one individual affects everyone on earth. I’m baffled however why you think it destroys the case for market anarchy or makes government necessary.

Because force can be used in only one way in the given matter in reality. That is, we can't act the way we do regarding a matter and act other than the way we do regarding the matter. If people disagree on the matter, then someone won't get their way because reality cannot be both the way it is and other than the way it is. Thus, in the case of disagreement, it is possible that people (who weren't direct parties in the original crime) will get "forced", in the sense that they are prevented by force from taking the particular retributive action (or non-action) that they wish. But this is necessary--a fact of reality.

Free markets are good in areas other than the use of force because it is just individuals doing as they wish with their own property, etc. It would be wrong to have one "national" decision on how Bob's property should be used--because it's Bob's property.

But the response to initiation of force is different, as you agree above. In this case, we need one national decision on how force should be used in this matter--because it's everyone's matter. We need one decision regarding everyone's interests. That's government.

As for Arkadin's implication that this means one-world government, I think it only needs to be within a particular geographical area where the people have joined together for defense against outside aggression.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Because force can be used in only one way in the given matter in reality. That is, we can't act the way we do regarding a matter and act other than the way we do regarding the matter. If people disagree on the matter, then someone won't get their way because reality cannot be both the way it is and other than the way it is. Thus, in the case of disagreement, it is possible that people (who weren't direct parties in the original crime) will get "forced", in the sense that they are prevented by force from taking the particular retributive action (or non-action) that they wish. But this is necessary--a fact of reality.

So what? They have no claim on any crime which isn't against themselves. There are lots of other decisions which effect me, such as whether to build a road or set up a brothel in my area, so should these things be decided by government since my desired outcome is incompatible with someone elses? Further you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property.

Originally posted by joel
Free markets are good in areas other than the use of force because it is just individuals doing as they wish with their own property, etc. It would be wrong to have one "national" decision on how Bob's property should be used--because it's Bob's property.

Except of course having his own law which does not force, definition above, anyone else.

But the response to initiation of force is different, as you agree above. In this case, we need one national decision on how force should be used in this matter--because it's everyone's matter. We need one decision regarding everyone's interests. That's government.

This is frankly laughable. In every other instance you would say that the government didn't take into account people's real interest. But in the most important area you think they will. Mmmmmmm...

As for Arkadin's implication that this means one-world government, I think it only needs to be within a particular geographical area where the people have joined together for defense against outside aggression.

Well in that case why can't the geographical area be each person's private land. And again a voluntary association is not government..

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
So what? They have no claim on any crime which isn't against themselves.

Okay, there you are disagreeing with the premise of my argument. Augustine agreed with me on that point. They do have a claim on an initiation of force, even if they weren't a direct party.

Consider an example: Suppose I run a business and Alice is my supplier. If she voluntarily stops supplying me because Bob offers her a better price, then Bob has outcompeted me in the free market, and I have to live with it, and decide where to go from here. I do not have a valid claim in any kind of compensation from Alice, Bob, or anyone.

On the other hand, if the case is that Bob robs Alice, and for that reason she can't supply me, then Bob has directly aggressed against Alice, but indirectly aggressed against me. Further, there are all my customers who would have benefitted from my usual low prices, and thus all those people have now been indirectly robbed, etc. In effect, Bob has robbed from the wealth of the nation, not just Alice. Everyone in the nation has a valid claim on an initation of force.

There are lots of other decisions which effect me, such as whether to build a road or set up a brothel in my area, so should these things be decided by government since my desired outcome is incompatible with someone elses?

No, as I said, the difference is property rights.

In the free-market non-aggressive case above the (private) resources have been diverted voluntarily toward a more efficient and productive end. In the aggressive case, coercion has been used to divert resources, and thus coercion has been used against the wider economy.

Further you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property.

No, force is not "initiatory." Force can be just (e.g. defensive force). The initiation of force (aggression) is "initiatory".

This is frankly laughable. In every other instance you would say that the government didn't take into account people's real interest.

When did I say that? Or am I misunderstanding your complaint here?

Well in that case why can't the geographical area be each person's private land.

Fine, but I'd still call that a government.

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Consider an example: Suppose I run a business and Alice is my supplier. If she voluntarily stops supplying me because Bob offers her a better price, then Bob has outcompeted me in the free market, and I have to live with it, and decide where to go from here. I do not have a valid claim in any kind of compensation from Alice, Bob, or anyone.

On the other hand, if the case is that Bob robs Alice, and for that reason she can't supply me, then Bob has directly aggressed against Alice, but indirectly aggressed against me. Further, there are all my customers who would have benefitted from my usual low prices, and thus all those people have now been indirectly robbed, etc. In effect, Bob has robbed from the wealth of the nation, not just Alice. Everyone in the nation has a valid claim on an initation of force.

Even though it is clear that this will have caused Alice's customers trouble it cannot be said to be aggression since this act has not violated the property rights of any of them; merely changed where they'd spend their money.

Originally posted by joel
In the free-market non-aggressive case above the (private) resources have been diverted voluntarily toward a more efficient and productive end. In the aggressive case, coercion has been used to divert resources, and thus coercion has been used against the wider economy.

Again you are using coercion in a very louse sense- what is the wider economy?

Originally posted by joel
No, force is not "initiatory." Force can be just (e.g. defensive force). The initiation of force (aggression) is "initiatory".

I've never said anything to the contrary.

Originally posted by joel
When did I say that? Or am I misunderstanding your complaint here?

You give the impression that you are a hardcore mini-statist and as such rail against the state provision of everything except for legal services. I find this an amusing position.

Originally posted by joel
Fine, but I'd still call that a government.

Here we go again. What are you defining as a government?

NB. I have defined it in detail previously so just check back on my earlier posts for the definition.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
Even though it is clear that this will have caused Alice's customers trouble it cannot be said to be aggression since this act has not violated the property rights of any of them; merely changed where they'd spend their money.

In general, initiation of force prevents people from otherwise acting rationally (e.g., with their property). Infringement against Alice causes everyone who would have dealt rationally with Alice to have to deal with irrationality instead.

Again you are using coercion in a very louse sense- what is the wider economy?

Let's say, of the nation. Bob has stolen (via initiatory force) from the wealth of the nation.

I've never said anything to the contrary.

Okay. It sure sounded like you did. Maybe I misunderstood. Specifically, you said, "you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property."

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
In general, initiation of force prevents people from otherwise acting rationally (e.g., with their property). Infringement against Alice causes everyone who would have dealt rationally with Alice to have to deal with irrationality instead.

People being atheists means they use their resources irrationally. Aggression, the initiation of forces, attacks only the physical integrity of property. This is the only non-arbitrary position.

Originally posted by joel
Let's say, of the nation. Bob has stolen (via initiatory force) from the wealth of the nation.

The nation owns nothing so you can't steal from it. Further you can't steal that which does no yet exist.

Originally posted by joel
Okay. It sure sounded like you did. Maybe I misunderstood. Specifically, you said, "you are using force in a very loose sense- force is an initiatory act, or threat of such an act, against the physical integrity of a person's property."

I was being slightly imprecise- I was meaning illegitimate force otherwise known as aggression.

Originally posted by joel
I mean that if there is one body that decides how force will be used in response to matters of initiation of force within a geographical area (even if that's just one person's property) then that's government. (E.g., if Alice is the sole law over her land (and tenants and workers on her land) then Alice is the government.)

Do you consider government to be synonymous with the state? Also under that definition I wouldn't be an anarchist but a statist?

Joel:

The nation owns nothing so you can't steal from it. Further you can't steal that which does no yet exist.

?? For crying out loud. What word does not mean "Evil Coercive State" to you? I was not even referring to the government with the word "nation". The nation may have a government, or perhaps it might have anarchy. I meant "wealth of the nation" like Adam Smith defined it--having to do with what is readily available to consumers. It is the private resources available (to their owners) for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment.

Do you consider government to be synonymous with the state? Also under that definition I wouldn't be an anarchist but a statist?

Well, since we are defining "state" to be aggressive in this thread, then, no, government is not synonymous with "state". Also, by defining "state" to be aggressive, then anarchy and statism are not the only two options.

From what I understand, Ayn Rand rejected both statism and anarchy. Although the two, at first, seem to be opposite ends of a spectrum, they both end up being very similar."Statism is a class of political systems where power (be it economical or social) is concentrated in the hands of the state. Anarchy is a class of political systems where there is no formal political power, leaving might to determine the leaders of the society.

"While they seem very different...both represent the triumph of force over reason.
Statists believe that the government is entitled to use force against individuals in order to implement a common good. Anarchists believe that individuals are entitled to use force against other individuals in order to enforce their own ideals.

"Objectivism rejects both views and upholds that freedom, not force, must be the norm in human relations."
http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17330/588/5

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
?? For crying out loud. What word does not mean "Evil Coercive State" to you? I was not even referring to the government with the word "nation". The nation may have a government, or perhaps it might have anarchy. I meant "wealth of the nation" like Adam Smith defined it--having to do with what is readily available to consumers. It is the private resources available (to their owners) for all discretionary purposes - profound or frivolous - consumption or investment.

Chill. My point wasn't that the nation=state but that the nation, as an identifiable people group, do not own anything- only individuals do. So you can only steal off individuals not the nation.

Originally posted by joel
Well, since we are defining "state" to be aggressive in this thread, then, no, government is not synonymous with "state". Also, by defining "state" to be aggressive, then anarchy and statism are not the only two options.

From what I understand, Ayn Rand rejected both statism and anarchy. Although the two, at first, seem to be opposite ends of a spectrum, they both end up being very similar.
"Statism is a class of political systems where power (be it economical or social) is concentrated in the hands of the state. Anarchy is a class of political systems where there is no formal political power, leaving might to determine the leaders of the society.

"While they seem very different...both represent the triumph of force over reason.
Statists believe that the government is entitled to use force against individuals in order to implement a common good. Anarchists believe that individuals are entitled to use force against other individuals in order to enforce their own ideals.

"Objectivism rejects both views and upholds that freedom, not force, must be the norm in human relations."
http://www.suite101.com/lesson.cfm/17330/588/5

Rand was wrong, the government she proposed wasn't the form I propose (your definition- i still prefer to call it anarchy) but a state (I'm assuming from my limited knowledge of her that what you support is similar to her). Also her definitions of statism and, especially, anarchism are imprecise and pejorative.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
My point wasn't that the nation=state but that the nation, as an identifiable people group, do not own anything- only individuals do. So you can only steal off individuals not the nation.

Agreed. Bob did not steal merely from Alice, but indirectly from lots of individuals. It is in all these individuals' interests that Alice not be infringed against.

Another thought along these lines:
Earlier Augustine was trying to extend the term property to cover all individual rights--that even rights due to contractual obligations are a person's property. Thus everyone to whom Alice had a contractual obligation essentially had property via Alice. Thus an infringement against Alice is a direct infringement on the rights of those to whom she had a contractual obligation. And therefore anyone any of those people had a contractual obligation to was also infringed, etc.

Rand was wrong... Also her definitions of statism and, especially, anarchism are imprecise and pejorative.

As I recall, "statism" is defined as the government doing more than protecting individual rights. And anarchy as the government doing less than protecting individual rights (which would include government doing nothing--i.e. not existing at all).

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
Agreed. Bob did not steal merely from Alice, but indirectly from lots of individuals. It is in all these individuals' interests that Alice not be infringed against.

Another thought along these lines:
Earlier Augustine was trying to extend the term property to cover all individual rights--that even rights due to contractual obligations are a person's property. Thus everyone to whom Alice had a contractual obligation essentially had property via Alice. Thus an infringement against Alice is a direct infringement on the rights of those to whom she had a contractual obligation. And therefore anyone any of those people had a contractual obligation to was also infringed, etc.

If Alice fails to fulfil her contractual obligations her clients have a claim against her irrespective of whether it was due to a crime or a natural disaster because the title of ownership has not been transferred. It is then incumbent upon her to prosecute Bob for the theft and also loss of earnings directly associated with his theft. As I have said before it does effect other people but this does not amount to a legal claim. It is, as you have pointed out, better if the theft does not take place so it may be in the interests of Alice's clients to pay a higher fee to guarantee security or for Alice to have an opt out clause in this case.

Originally posted by joel
As I recall, "statism" is defined as the government doing more than protecting individual rights. And anarchy as the government doing less than protecting individual rights (which would include government doing nothing--i.e. not existing at all).

I was using my definitions not Rand's since her's are defective.

Joel:

Originally posted by Mr Arkadin
I was using my definitions not Rand's since her's are defective.

In what way?

Mr Arkadin:

Originally posted by joel
In what way?

Under Anarchism, according to Rand, nobodies individual rights are protected; this is not a priori true and can only be an empirical statement.

I have discussed at length my definition of statism (or government) and my anarchism is plain- nobody my infringe, via the initiation, or threat of initiation, of aggression upon the physical integrity of the property or infringe its unilateral use.

A Philosophical Defence of Open Theism

2008-02-07T16:47:00.000Z

It is clear from the Bible that God is in control of everything- Isaiah 46:10 “Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';”- and that man has responsibility for his actions- Romans 1:20-21 “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” The question is how to reconcile these to truths.

To be responsible for an action it must be possible to choose the contrary. So while I can choose to kill Caleb it must also be possible, at the same time, for me to choose not to choose Caleb. If I cannot choose not to kill Caleb then I cannot be considered responsible, for I could not have done otherwise. Suppose I created a robot which was programmed to kill Caleb on sight, would the robot be responsible Caleb's death? Well obviously not; the responsibility would fall upon his creator: myself. So if man cannot choose between killing and not killing then the responsibility would fall on his creator: God. It would follow that God was responsible for sin which is so obviously unbiblical that man must have free will in the sense I described above.

The traditional theistic position is that God is omniscient, which includes exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF)- God knows everything that will happen in the future and thus must come to pass. My contention is that this notion of omniscient is contrary free will: God has always known what will be; therefore before creation God knew all the actions individuals would commit. So EDF is temporally prior to actions of individuals, therefore actions become necessary, not contingent on the individual's will, and thus are determined; since we could not do otherwise because to do so would deny EDF. For example if God knew, before creation, that you would read this article you could not have done the contrary; if you hadn't read it God would have been wrong which is contrary to his nature, so he cannot have EDF.

This argument is responded to by saying that God is timeless, outside time. In this model God sees everything in “an unbounded now”, to use CS Lewis' words, and so only knows what I will do when I actually do it and is thus not determined; he is outside time so sees time as a line and has EDF. This is known as the B theory of time. However this theory has fundamental flaws: in this model of time all time exists concurrently. So me writing this now must have existed in the time of Moses since that was the future, relative to Moses; so conversely the time of Moses still exists. So it must follow that at the time I was in lectures today I am also writing this now. Thus I am in two places experiencing contradictory stimuli at the same time; this is obviously false. To put it in starker language I can be here now and also in hell at the same time. This raises further questions which of the mes is me. They have both had different experiences but will never eventually experience the same things since that atom of time is just replayed ad infinitum; so they are different people. The only way to avoid this is to say what the Calvinistic Philosopher Theologian Jonathan Edwards said, which was God determines who you are through this repeating time system and conducts instantaneous re-creation of time for yourself to give the appearance of going through time. However to determine who we are would also determine our actions and thus contradict my first premise that to be responsible to for an action you must be able to choose the contrary.

We must conclude therefore that the A theory of time- that only the present exists- is the only tenable theory. This requires God to be atemporal before creation and temporal thereafter; yet we can still say God is ageless since there is nowhere to start or end to age an atemporal being. This a far more intuitive and logical position. It does though necessitate, if man is free, that God does not have EDF; if we are not free EDF exists. So we need to modify the the traditional concept of omniscience to that of dynamic omniscience- so in regards the future he knows only all possibilities not what path we will actually choose; this is known as Open Theism.

Does this mean that prophecy in the Bible is pure guess work? Well no. In principle God only foretells those things he can bring to pass using his omnipotence. A good analogy was developed, I believe by Greg Boyd, in which throughout our lives we are playing everyone at chess including God. Since, though, God is the Master chess player he always wins; we, and we alone, move our own pieces- likewise God moves his pieces. This retains the free will of man and the sovereignty of God.

For anyone wishing to refute my thesis they will have to do the following: Coherently reformulate my conception of responsibility. If one cannot do this they will have to argue why the A theory of time is, at least, not necessary. If one cannot do this, assuming me deductions to be correct, my conclusions must be true.

To all those who believe I am over philosophising the Bible all I am doing is what you do implicitly. When you interpret a verse in the Bible you are using a theory, however basic, to understand it irrespective if you believe you are or not. I just do this explicitly and attempt to make my theory cogent.

Christianity and Film

2008-01-25T21:17:00.000Z

The release of The Golden Compass, based on Phillip Pullman’s Northern Lights from the His Dark Materials trilogy, caused predictable consternation in Christian camps; there is a Facebook group urging you not to see it which currently has around 99,000 members. Throughout the whole of the His Dark Material series, I am informed, as I have never read them, have a great anti-Christian sentiment and are rabidly atheistical. For example in the final book two of the characters kill God. This obviously a heinous thing to promote however refusing to go and see it purely on this basis is not the way forward.

Firstly we should remember that it is what comes from the heart which defiles a man not what he affects him outwardly as Jesus’ discourse with the Pharisees regarding ritual washings proves; this is not to say that things from without can affect the heart. Secondly, as Paul says, everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial. We should each know our own hearts to see those things which cause us to sin. Thirdly we are ambassadors of Christ and everything we do reflects on him: we are the only Bible most people will read. Finally there is no-one who is wrong on everything and no-one that it is right on everything; in short everything we do is still marred by the fall but almost everything retains something of us as image bearers of God.

How do we decide what to watch and not to? Firstly assess in your own hearts if there is anything within a film which is going to cause you to sin; do not deceive yourself because a film looks great. If you believe it will not, and the film looks technically good, then view it. However to not sit through the film passively: be alert throughout the film to what messages are being broadcast. This latter point is of most importance. In any film the director will be telling you how to think about various issues throughout the film and you must be aware of this. The most dangerous thing to do is to watch it and not engage with it. This is the problem: people don’t critically engage with art. Christians in particular will decide what they’ll watch, probably based on the amount of violence, sex and swearing, and sit passively through the film. This is incredibly dangerous. There are many anti-Christian messages through a lot of films, especially romantic comedies which, in general, portray adultery as attractive and a lot of Christians don’t bat an eyelid about watching them. There are though many virtuous messages promoted in films including those with heavy amounts of swearing, violence and sex/nudity.

An example of this would be American Gangster. It was a violent film, though not sadistic, with profuse swearing and frequent nudity, albeit not sexual. Yet one of the virtues heavily promoted throughout the film is integrity. Richie, the plain clothes cop, played by Russell Crowe, is the straightest copper you’ll ever see. In one scene he finds $1m in a car boot and turns it all in at the station. This however juxtaposed with his personal life in which he is a persistent philanderer. He later acknowledges the immorality of his actions and essentially repents of them.

At this point it must be emphasised that watching a film does not necessarily mean that you support what is promoted in it. This line of argument is rather strange since if I were to read the Communist Manifesto the only people claiming that I was supporting Communism would be in the lunatic asylums. A more sophisticated line of argument would be that you are lining the pockets of anti-Christian enterprises. However when you buy a product you have no control over where the retailer spends the money. Further the extra marginal revenue produced by your purchase will be so small as to make it insignificant.

In summary know your heart and consider the perception your action creates about yourself. After doing so, and are content, then watch what you like but critically engage with the film throughout. This is a rewarding experience as you attain a deeper understanding of the film and better understand the worldviews/ philosophies of the age- most people today arrive at morality by the media- thereby being better able to evangelise to them.

In Defense of Voluntary Immigration

2008-01-25T14:37:00.000Z

In a world with solely private property, to move from one piece of land to another you would need the permission from the landowner to move to it, or through it. Therefore all labour movements-immigration and emigration- would obviously be voluntary or invasionary. With all labour movements voluntary the market would provide the optimal amount of immigration. Some areas would allow people from many different cultures into their areas, such as cities, while others would attempt to maintain an ethno-cultural homogeneity.

Now with public land immigration is not voluntary; it becomes forced intergration since immigrants enter areas without consent by using public parks and especially public roads. They can thus skip from one place to the other and infringing on property rights. These "public" lands are not state owned but owned by the net taxpayers. So in essence the UK is a sort of forced residential golf club. Nobody else has any right to be there unless they are invited or buy one plot of the Golf club- buying real estate- and since they latter needs to parties to agree then this is invited immigration. In the former case however the immigrant would have signed in the guest book and because I was willing to take him in I would have to take responsibility of him for wages, housing and crime: if he smashed up the club house I would be responsible because I was the one who invited him in; this does not however preclude me then taking legal action against my guest.

With free trade both parties invite reciprocally the trade and bear the costs of their actions. With immigration this does not happen and the only way to make it comparable to it is to introduce the Hoppeian pass system: a current resident issues a pass to a foreigner without which they would not be allowed entrance; this would detail the length of stay and would guarantee that I the inviter would bear the full costs of the immigrant.

This would entail that any immigrant who could not acquire a pass from a resident would have to be deported to their country of origin. This is the only way, in the presence of public land, to make immigration voluntary. This is though a second best solution. The optimal solution is to give the public property back to the owners (probably via shares in a newly created firm) and return to a fully private property society where everything would be voluntary; where it is not sanctions would be imposed against the trespassers. This is in stark contrast to today where the state, an inherent rights violator (see Anarchy is Not Chaos post below) imposes sanctions on innocents who refuse to pay them tribute.

The Economic and Social Costs of Drug Prohibition

2008-01-15T11:10:00.001Z

Modern drug prohibition, in the USA, began with the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914 which banned the sale of opium, it derivatives, and cocaine. This was followed by further tightening with the tax and subsequent ban of cannabis, and the prohibition of the manufacture of heroin^¹; between 1920-33 prohibition of alcohol was in force. The passage of the Dangerous Drug Acts (DDA) in 1920 marked the start of prohibition of drugs in the UK which imposed severe restrictions on the use and sale of opium and the proscription of heroin, morphine and cocaine. The DDA amendment was passed in 1923 which toughened the sanctions on offenders and increased the police’s search powers.^² All current drug legislation in the UK and USA has its origins in these acts.

The rationale behind prohibition is paternal in nature: drugs are bad for one’s health and can subsequently harm others while under the influence of said drugs.^³ These two propositions are undeniably true. Heroin use can lead to collapsed veins, infection of the heart and liver disease^⁴; it was also linked to 842 deaths in England and Wales in 2005.^⁵ Cannabis increases the risk of heart attacks and bronchitis, as well as inducing short term memory loss making learning difficult. It also has an established link to schizophrenia and traces of cannabis have been found in 12% of road fatalities.^⁶ Ellinwood found that LSD led directly to murders committed by those who had killed under the influence of it (Inciardi, 1981 P111).

However it does not follow from the fact that drugs are harmful that they should be banned. If it did, why should tobacco or alcohol not be banned also? Further, why should the state not protect the individual’s mind as well as the body? The banning of “harmful” books, paintings and films surely follows. Notwithstanding the internally contradictory position of the prohibitionists, they also fail to see the costs involved of pursuing such a policy.

The aim of prohibition is to reduce supply, and subsequently consumption; indeed every time a large haul of cocaine, or other drug, is caught it does indeed reduce the supply. Yet assuming a stable and an inelastic demand curve this leads to an increase in the price of the drug and higher profit opportunities. When the profit opportunity is higher than the risk (capture, fines, jail etc) involved then more of the good is produced. Thus every time drug enforcers have a huge success it is actually like taking drugs: it feels good at the time but produces more problems in the future. It is a self defeating policy.

The ineffectiveness of the law can be shown in that drug use in the 20^th and 21^st centuries has been far higher than the 19^thcentury levels and is on the increase. In 1934, the first official statistic in the UK, the total number of addicts was only 300. In 1984 5,400 new addicts were registered.^⁷ It is clear that legislation has failed to reduce drug use since it has risen pretty much since it was introduced. There must therefore be a reason for the increase in drug use which is independent of legislative environment; this is, however, outside the scope of this paper.

Prohibition creates a black market- a mutual voluntary action which is prohibited by the state- which causes manifold problems. It lacks enforceability of contracts. Unlike buying a chocolate bar one cannot take one’s drug dealer to court if your cocaine contains washing powder or it is a radically different strength than marketed. This, in general, prohibits the creation of branding which successfully solved the problem of impure goods in the 19^th century; for example Cadbury and chocolate. Many deaths are caused by impure drugs.^⁸ Also people have died in Glasgow and Bristol because the heroin they injected was exceptionally pure by street standards and thus overdosed (Stevenson, 1994 P31).

Further the lack of contact enforceability also creates a mutual distrust between consumer and dealer whereby the dealer wishes to defraud the consumer with the least pure good he can while the consumer wants the opposite. This mutual distrust has been cited as the cause of much of the violence between user and dealer. A study of heroin addicts seeking treatment found that of those who had died two thirds of them had been murdered mostly during or as a result of a deal (Inciardi, 1981 P113). As is well documented organised crime funds itself through drugs which allow them to continue their campaigns and also causes inter-gang conflict which leaves innocent civilians in the crossfire.^⁹

Similarly the black market affects the potency of the drugs. During Prohibition the consumption of beer plummeted and the consumption of spirits and moonshine increased. The relative price of whiskey fell to that of beer- the price of beer increased by 600% while whiskey increased by only 310% (Thornton, 1991 P102). The severity of the sanctions against drug dealing depends on weight. This leads the traffickers to increase the potency of the drug and thus the value of the shipment to reduce the relative burden of the effective tax created by the judicial punishments. (Thornton, 1991 P96) Even if weight is neglected any increase in the sanctions against traffickers will lead to an increase in potency since they need to offset the risk with higher returns. Thornton speculates that if the sanctions against heroin were imposed on cannabis, cannabis would be as dangerous as heroin currently is (Thornton, 1991 P110).

The artificially high price of drugs leads to property crime. A study by the Liverpool Drug Dependency Unit found that between 1985-87 90% of heroin users financed their habit by shoplifting and burglary. One estimate of drug related theft was £2,000m in 1993 (Stevenson, 1994 P30). This does not include though the extra costs needed for extra security devices or the general perception of crime of the population. According to a government white paper 280,000 of problem drug users cause half the amount of recorded crime.^¹⁰

Further, the high price leads users to inject over any other form of ingestion since it gives the most sensation per unit cost. And since 50% of users share needles this is major cause of HIV infections (Stevenson, 1994 P31).

The cost of drug related spending amounts to £1,483m in the 2005-6 period: £163m on services for young people, £380m on reducing the supply of drugs, £367m on reducing drug related crime; and £573m on drug treatment.^¹¹ As well as this huge cost, Benson argues that increased efforts to suppress illegal drugs have resulted in a decrease in the enforcement efforts against property crime and have thus resulted in an increase of it (Thornton, 1991 P120).

Prohibition creates a criminal problem on top of that of the medical one and does not reduce drug use. The costs of prohibition are so great that full legalisation of all drugs is necessary. It would take all the criminality out of the drugs trade and normal market forces would guarantee the quality and purity of the product. The deaths associated with drugs would fall as users could ingest without fear and with more information about the product. It would also cut the funding to many criminal gangs who fund themselves through drug money. Finally it would allow the police to use its scarce resources on what matters most to people: aggression against their person and property. The only conceivable problem with this is that drug use may increase. However since legislation has been ineffective and drugs, as a whole, almost certainly have an inelastic demand, this is highly unlikely; even if it did this would remain a purely medical rather than a criminal problem since the price would fall dramatically. Further voluntary exclusionary practices could mitigate the potential rise; the most powerful of these would be in the health insurance market, but this will not work at full effect while the State effectively controls the market.

1 http://www.lectlaw.com/files/drg09.htm accessed 18/12/07

2 http://www.release.org.uk/html/~The_Law/~Legal_History/1900_to_1939.php accessed 18/12/07

3 For arguments against the legalisation of cannabis, which can be extended to all drugs, see “Going Soft on Cannabis” http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/gsoc.pdf accessed 18/12/07.

4 http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Heroin accessed 18/12/07.

5 http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_DrugRelatedDeaths.htm accessed 18/12/07.

6 http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpublications/gsoc.pdf accessed 18/12/07.

7 Ibid. Citing Edwards, G and Busch, C, Drug Problems in Britain- A Review of Ten Years and Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Statistics of the Misuse of Drugs in the United Kingdom 1985, Home Office, Issue 28/86, 25 September 1986, Table 5, Page 17

8 For example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6051404.stm accessed 18/12/07

9 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7063488.stm accessed 19/12/07

10 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4091585.stm accessed 18/12/07

11 http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_EnforcementExpenditure.htm accessed 18/12/07

Books

Inciardi, James A. (Ed). The Drugs Crime Connection Sage Publication 1981
Stevenson, Richard. Winning the war on Drugs: To Legalise or Not? IEA 1994
Thornton, Mark. The Economics of Drug Prohibition University of Utah Press 1991

Websites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ accessed 18/12/07
http://www.christian.org.uk/ accessed 18/12/07
http://www.drugfree.org/ accessed 18/12/07
http://www.lectlaw.com/ accessed 18/12/07
http://www.release.org.uk/ accessed 18/12/07
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/ accessed 18/12/07

What Actually is Racism?

2008-01-14T19:55:00.000Z

With all the Ron Paul racism allegations it prompted me to think would be a cogent definition of racism. dictionary reference defines racism as :

1.	a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.	a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.	hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Normally it is argued that if you discriminate on the basis of race this means your racist. So they give the example if you have two candidates for a job and the black one is "more highly qualified" than the white one and you choose the latter you are racist. Yet the more highly qualified statement, normally based on paper qualifications, doesn't hold since there are many other factors determining whether you'll be good at the job. So if the employer by economising information costs believes that the black man is more likely to be hard work, not fit in with the firm and more likely to go off sick then this is an entirely justified action. It is a similar mechanism that one uses of people from certain backgrounds or places do x or y. It is merely economising on information costs since information is expensive to acquire; if they make mistakes though they will be punished by the market. This also explains why when most people say " I dislike immigrants because...." it is about behaviour and what's associated with immigrant behaviour not them just being an immigrant. What this comes down to is culture; not race but is associated with it. And I think it is clear that an anarchist legal system is better than a statist one thus the former is a superior culture. But suppose the latter is associated with whites and the former with blacks and a white man says "I hate blacks because they're anarchist" is a cultural rather than race based statement. So no racism here.

Supposing though that the employer believed that the two candidates for the job were identical but chose the white man over the black. Is this racist? Well not necessarily. Is giving preferential treatment to your children and family racist? It is an inherently discriminatory act but no one ever calls this racist. But as is obvious races are merely an extrapolation of the family so it thus makes sense you will prefer the one more like you than less. So no racism here either.

Suppose that you are employing people in Saharan Africa and you have a policy of employing only blacks since they are more likely to have sickle cell anaemia than whites and thus not susceptible to malaria (I think I remember this correctly but it makes the point). This is now a decision solely based on race but again is not necessarily racist. It would be the same as appointing an able bodied man over a guy in a wheel chair to be in your rugby team because there physical attributes are going to determine how good they are. This of course leaves open to debated whether certain races are more intelligent than others in the same way that Negroes are in general stronger than whites- look at athletics. So no racism here.

The only possible cogent definition of racism is that one believes that another race is morally inferior to another. So one believes that another race is ontologically inferior and deserves to live less than his own race. So examples of this would be those of the eugenics movement who saw blacks as less evolved than whites and so were not to be afforded the same (legal) rights as whites.

Anarchy is Not Chaos

2007-10-30T17:15:00.001Z

After been asked what my political views are on Facebook I thought it would be a good time to air them. Just to make it clear the only question I will be answering will be what the least worst form of government we can have on earth is. I will not address how we should relate to the current government in existence; how we can move from the present state of affairs to a better one; or a general moral theory.

The basis of my political theory is the axiom of non-aggression- no one should aggress against the physical integrity of any person or their property; however for this to make any sense one needs a theory of property rights. The one I propose is a Neo-Lockean one: he owns himself since he is made in the image of God ; those previously unowned resources he appropriated by mixing his labour with them (the first comer principle or homesteading) and any goods that he voluntarily acquired, assuming the individual who traded it had title to that good i.e. the good has an unbroken chain of voluntary exchange back to its first appropriation. Just for clarity this refers to man's relationship to other men not to God since God ultimately owns everything. Further one needs a concept of what ownership implies. I will define it as the unilateral right to do what one wishes with his property unless it harms the physical integrity of someone else's property; if one does not have this then one cannot be said to own it. To clarify, ownership applies only to the physical properties of the good not their value- if I own a shop you can't burn it down but you can put me out of business by undercutting my prices.

If one rejects that one owns himself there are only two other possibilities of who owns him: someone else owns him or that everyone owns everyone else. Let us first take the latter- no-one could do anything without approval of everyone else, however in attempting to seek approval one must use his vocal chords which he cannot unilaterally do. Thus with this ethic no-one could do anything and everyone would die; hardly a moral ethical theory. The former ethic is slavery which implies the slave owner has the right to maim, dismember or even kill his slave since he is his property; again this seems vile to any right thinking man. Self ownership has it.

If one rejects the first comer principle one must accept the second or more principle. However to do so creates problems: firstly no-one would appropriate any resources since some else could legitimately take it out of his possession so the whole human race would starve; secondly even if he did appropriate some resources theft would be legitimate which would reduce man to perpetual warfare and a subsistence, at best, existence. So anything but the first comer principle legitimises theft and would destroy society. If one says that the worlds' resources are given to man in common then you run up against the same problem of everyone owning everyone else as in the above paragraph. Therefore the first comer principle is the only conceivable ethic.

Having ascertained that the only possible moral position (liberty) is self ownership, homesteading and none aggression let us look at what the State is: it is a territorial monopolist over arbitration and has the power to tax. By a monopolist I mean an individual or group which has legal privilege; other people are legally restricted from using their property in that way. As is obvious from this uncontroversial definition the State is in contradistinction to liberty since by being a monopolist it is saying that it owns you- having a State is a form of Slavery. It says you must go to them if you have a dispute between yourself and another man. Any talk of the State protecting property rights is nebulous since in its nature it is an expropriator- the State is a protection racket. It says unless you pay it tribute it will kick your door in and even kill you. Hardly a moral organisation. So the State must be abolished to have a moral political system.

Now having ascertained that private property anarchism, or free market anarchism, is the only moral form of political system what about the practical question: it would descend into chaos wouldn't it? If we have a two person society do we need a monopolist? Well no, most people say. If you say there are one thousand people they say yes. Following this logic a monopolist is always necessary, otherwise one would descend into Hobbesian chaos; thus a one world government is necessary otherwise, as at present, each state is in an anarchic relationship between each other and need a monopolist to hit them over the head. Let’s look at the incentives for the individual and the state: the former can only fund themselves by work and voluntary exchange and must bear the full costs of their actions. A state on the other hand can impose a monopoly price for justice and can shift the costs of their activities onto others via taxation. After looking at these incentives who would be the most responsible?

As is clear society wouldn't be chaotic but would be less violent than the current system. However how would a pure free market provide security and law. Before I attempt a brief answer, this is the same as asking how would a market produce shoes when the State has produced them for as long as anyone could remember. So in answering I can only give a tentative sketch.

Security is an easier question to answer. Currently most security is private: door locks, car alarms, security lights, shutters, bouncers, security guards and such like. And as the former provide many different forms of security so would the private security forces. You would pay a fee, as in everything else, to do many different functions you wished them to do- a daily foot patrol, car patrols and any other mix of services. Now, unlike a State police force, the private ones prime aim would be the return of the loot and compensation of the victim rather than the imprisoning of the offender at the cost of the victim. So if Joe Bloggs steals my TV then the prime aim of my security firm would be the return of my TV set. This is easy if I and Joe Bloggs are part of the same security force. But what if Joe Bloggs is part of another firm which disagrees that Joe stole my TV, wouldn't both firms just fight? Fighting is expensive and since both firms want to maintain their reputation and make a profit that is an unlikely course of events. More probable they would go to arbitration which leads into how a private legal system would work.

Under the private legal system both parties would have to agree to the judge, or judges, to arbitrate in the case. If he then convicts you and you don't like it and don't pay up this would render huge suspicion upon yourself, since a respected judge convicted you of a crime, and thus a lot of society would disassociate from you and not trade with you. Also the victor in the case could call upon a police force, as such, to enforce the judge’s decision. So come round and take your possessions and sell them to pay your debt.
But wouldn't those with most money win? If a judge got this reputation many plaintiffs or defendants would refuse, legitimately in the eyes of society, to be arbitrated by that judge.
Currently one has to pay a monopoly price for justice which is higher than what it would be under a free market and accounts for the bad service rendered by the monopolist.

So as I have shown a State is immoral and also unnecessary. For those interested in more detailed description of how a stateless would provide law and security read this chapter from Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty. For some historical examples of a stateless societies see here: The Not so Wild Wild West and Mediaeval Iceland.

Don't Believe the Inflation Figures

2007-10-08T10:15:00.001+01:00

Inflation figures are said to be a measure of the price level. However what is the price level? This is normally calculated using a weighted basket of goods and calculates the change in prices over a time period, normally a year. However there are numerous problems with this approach. Firstly it fails to take into account changes in quality of goods- when deriving the price level it calculates the change in price of a good over the year however no-one can actually objectively determine that the good bought in the second year was identical to that of the first. Since quality, in this context, can only really be defined as “those properties to which the buyers and would be buyers pay-heed” and since these properties are in constant flux, determined by individuals’ value judgements, one is essentially adding apples and oranges to create this statistical construct.

Secondly, since various goods play-varying importance in one’s existence, coefficients are needed to show the relative importance of various commodities which is of course are arbitrary since importance to each actor is subjective. The conventional method for this is to calculate how much one spends on a good to see its relative importance- so in low-income households the main expense would be mortgage, or rent, payments. However if the price of a good rose, such as butter, this would change the pattern of consumer spending since they would substitute it for other goods, such as margarine, changing the relative importance of each commodity based on their expenditure upon it. So any change in a good will change the individual’s expenditure pattern which is neglected by the computation of the price level.

Another problem with this weighting is that different people buy different things and thus have different “price levels” which the government statistics do not take account of; Murray Rothbard always complained that the prices of books kept increasing but it made no indentation on the price level. Astonishingly mortgage repayments are omitted from the CPI even though they constitute a large percentage of household expenditure. Further there are various statistical techniques to compute these averages: arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic averages, median and such like. However there is no objective way of deciding which is a superior technique and thus any decision must again be arbitrary. Finally, as Mises points out, a “judicious housewife knows more about price changes as far as it affect her household than the statistical averages can” and she is no less scientific than the statisticians.

So how should we measure inflation? The older, and far more cogent, definition of inflation is the increase in the money supply. Suppose one had two goods in the economy A and B which both had prices of £5 each. Now if good A was to rise in price to £6 the price good B would have to fall to £4, assuming a constant money supply, which would yield an average price of £5. The only way prices in general can rise is if the money supply increases: suppose the money supply increased by £2 then the average price in the economy would rise by 20% to £6. Thus the prices rises are only a consequence of the increase of the money supply. It must though be stated at this point that prices in the real world do not increase, necessarily, at the same rate as the growth in the money supply since new money enters via a step process with different people receiving the new money at different times.

So instead of looking at the Price Level we should observe the M3 (a monetary aggregate) growth to see the true inflation rate and its wealth reducing consequences.

Quote of the Day

2007-09-28T17:23:00.000+01:00

I'm back posting now, hopefully regularly as previously. I had an extremely busy summe hence the lack of posting. Now for quote of the day:

"The police's job is only easy in a Police State"

Said by Mike Vargas, played by Charlton Heston, in Orson Welles' Touch of Evil. The film is pretty good although not one of Welles' best,

Maidwell 2007 Part 1

2007-08-08T14:20:00.000+01:00

On Sunday I returned back from a fantastic week or so at a Christian camp in Maidwell, near Northampton. Now when I say camp I don't mean we were under canvas but actually in dorms of a boys prep school; however we, the Bereans', slept in classrooms which included the Latin one. Now the Bereans are neither members or leaders, although legally we're the latter. Our motto is study and service. To get a feel of how this works here is a typical day:

0830- Quiet Time (which normally involved going through one of the seminars from the day before)
0855- Breakfast
0920- Business Meeting (sorting out the practical issues of the day)
0940- Corporate Prayer
1015- Bible Overview
1100- Break
1110- Bible Overview/ Seminar (depending on which day)
1145- Break
1210- Seminar (at which the senior members could attend)
1300- Lunch (then washing up for 140 people)
Free Time
1630- Afternoon Tea
1645- Bible Study
1745- Question Time (write any question on the board and get it answered)
1830- Tea Proper (then more washing up)
2030- Evening Meeting
2115- Evening Entertainment
2200- Free Time 2
2300- Sleep (well allegedly)

The Bible Overview sessions were conducted by Andrew Towner who recently graduated from Oak Hill Theological College with a Masters in Theology. We spent most of the time in the Old Testament since most people know little about the Old Testament and it has far more narrative in it than the New. The basis of the overview was People, Place and Blessing, which was nicked from Vaughn Roberts' God's Big Picture. Interestingly, we didn't start the overview immediately in Genesis but in Ephesians 1 where God declares his eternal plan of Christ being the vessel by whom we are saved, thenceforth to be his people, and to bless them through him. However we were taught Calvinistic predestination based on a faulty exegesis of the passage; however this didn't unduly affect the content of the overview. The reason for starting there is that how do we know where to start if we don't know where we're going. i.e If you ask a potter to make something he doesn't know where to start unless you tell him what you want making. This may sound a plausible argument especially since Ephesians 1 is chronologically before creation however I believe it carries many presuppositions which it brings to the text, not just Calvinism, and can yield interpretations filtered through one's own previously created system instead of allowing the Bible to naturally create the system. Further since Genesis was revealed first surely it follows that one should automatically start there and if there are greater insights from latterly revealed scripture then one should apply them latterly. (I will write on this at a future date) However I must repeat this did not unduly affect the overview.

We then skipped back to Genesis for the Creation and then the Fall: the second most momentous event in history. In this small part of the Bible a great theme is begun and the most eagerly awaited prophecy ever. The theme is that God blesses his people, they then turn away from God, he punishes them but then acts graciously: Creation is very good and Adam and Eve, not Steve, enjoy the blessing of God in the garden; they then sin by demonstrating that they believe God to be a liar by eating of the FRUIT, not apple, of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; God then punishes them by kicking them out of the Garden and cursing creation; but God provides skins to clothe Adam and Eve. This pattern is best outlined in the Exodus: God frees the Israelites from Egypt and carries them through approaching the promised land; now instead of trusting in God and taking Canaan they send spies in and get scared that the Canaanites are giants and do not attempt to take the promised land; God punishes them by condemning the Israelites to 40 years in the Wilderness however he provides manna for them in the desert.

We continued through the Law, Wisdom Literature and then the Prophets. One of the most interesting aspects of the Wisdom Lit. is that the Psalms are far more ordered than one might imagine: they are split into five distinct books put together by an editor. The first book focuses on David and God's commitment to him; the second on the Davidic line; the third on the failure of the Kings; fourthly on the nature of God- God is God; and finally on cries out to God for help followed by Psalms of huge praise to God.

We then studied Jesus' death and resurrection and how this fitted in- Towner also stressed the importance of Jesus' life since if it had not been perfect his death would have been in vain. Finally we looked at heaven and glory- the latter being living in the New Earth, not the one with cat nurses, in our resurrection bodies. This was particularly helpful in focusing our minds on what an unbelievable future we have and we should live for that and not now. Not surprisingly the millennial kingdom was conspicuous by her absence.

The other morning sessions were seminars on a variety of subjects including lust, doubt, suffering and ,in my opinion, most helpful those on image and pride. The former was done by Kate and it focused on how God sees us and how this changes our view of ourselves and consequently of other people. If one sees themselves as made in the image of God, and thus made to be in relationship with Him, this completely reorientates our outlook on life. Instead of defining ourselves by the world's riches, though these my be good in and of themselves, we see ourselves how God sees us. This then changes our view of other people since instead of primarily viewing them as ugly, beautiful, thick or intelligent we see that they're image bearers and are deserving of our love- this in particular should spur on our evangelism since if we now see them as they truly are we will see that their main need is that of Salvation.

Stuart did the seminar on pride which main point was to show how heinous pride actually is. I have come to the conclusion that pride is the essence of sin: it says I don't need God, I'll go my own way. This may seem obvious however pride can creep in unawares. The talk was a good boost in the arm for myself, and others, to critically evaluate our motives and actions to see whether we are doing things our own strength and thus feeding pride. Note well at this point false humility is worse than pride- it is being proud of the fact you are humble. What we need is to see what gifts God has given us, use them according and thank God for them. So if a position or role comes up which you believe God has given you the gifts to do it then do it. If you don't know what your gifts are try things out until you do. There is nothing worse than being given a fantastic present and refusing to use it.

The Bible studies were based on the overview. The first was on Ephesians 1. Subsequent ones included Exodus 20 (the 10 Commandments unfortunately not featuring Charlton Heston), Ruth and the "model" prophet Amos. These were helpful in going over parts of the overview in more detail.

Question Time was greatly useful and also entertaining; especially when we got discussing Baptism- Towner believes that non-professing belief baptism is legit whereas Stuart and myself believe solely in professing Believers baptism. Other topics discussed include the perennial predestination question (during which I bit my lip and put my head down), application of the Mosaic law today and capital punishment. On the latter the helpful distinction between 1st and 2nd party relations, and 3rd party relations was raised: in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus states "turn the other cheek" his analogy is between two people- first and second party relations. Whereas all instances of execution of justice are meted out by third parties. This distinction is important since it retains an eye for an eye, retributive justice, for legal authorities to execute.

The evening meetings were a mini service with singing and a talk. The songs were actually pretty good and most were contemporary. Who says I only like old music?! The talks were on the basics of the Gospel and the Christian faith; all were clear, concise, and Biblical.

The service aspect and anecdotes will be dealt with in a subsequent post.

To see photos see here:

http://cardiffuk.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=2223143238&view=all

I am Away

2007-07-26T12:59:00.001+01:00

I will not be posting in the next two weeks or so since I am on a Christian Camp. It is a 14-18 camp in Maidwell, near Northampton, at which I am on a training course and generally doing the dirty jobs around camp; lots of washing up. I did it last year and it was great fun. I'll report more when I return.

Spiderman's Take on the Responsibility of Man

2007-07-26T12:58:00.000+01:00

A couple of months ago I watched the first two Spiderman films directed by Sam Raimi. They were pretty solid films but that was it. However what struck me was the portrayal of man’s responsibility.

Let’s first take Peter Parker. Throughout the whole films it is pretty explicit that he should be use his powers as Spiderman for the good of mankind. The two most noteworthy scenes in this regard are: the line by his Uncle that “with great power becomes great responsibility”; and when the robber steals money from the wrestling event owner and Parker refuses to stop him as he runs past, since the owner defrauded him- the robber subsequently kills his Uncle Ben. But not only is he expected to use his powers to fight crime but should keep a perfect domestic calendar; for example when he returns late home and misses helping Ben decorate and missing Sarah Jane’s performance in that play. These two incidents, and other similar ones, are portrayed in a very bad light showing not only does he have a great responsibility to the community to fight crime but also to be the perfect man.

Now contrast this with portrayal of Norman Osborn (aka the Green Goblin). Initially he is shown to be an enthusiastic, but misguided, scientist and an ambitious businessman. He only becomes evil after he uses that green gas before it has been properly tested and turns him into a vindictive and malevolent criminal. What is most interesting is his internal fight between his true self and the Green Goblin: there are a few scenes in which his true self pleads with the Goblin not to kill Spiderman and innocents but this schizophrenia slowly dies until the Goblin takes over; although remnants of his true self are remain as the Goblin’s last scene shows. Due to this scripting Osborn is portrayed in a sympathetic light even to the extent of pretty much absolving himself of responsibility for his actions as the Goblin. This is a similar kind of portrayal given to Otto Octavius.

Now if I’m not mistaken these portrayals of mans’ responsibility are somewhat inconsistent. Someone who misses decorating with his Uncle is portrayed as if he has killed thousands while someone who has killed thousands is portrayed as if he has missed decorating with his Uncle! The underlying theme is that man only commits evil actions because an outside force- society- causes him do it. However what makes society bad? Well it must have been their society. But who made theirs bad and so on. As is clear this exhibits a regression ad infinitum fallacy: today’s action is based on yesterdays but never explains why the ultimate yesterday was bad. Therefore someone at some point must have commit an evil action of their own accord and be responsible for it otherwise the chain of causation does not come into existence. As is clear from this is that individuals must be responsible for their actions good or evil. This is clearly shown in the Garden of Eden when Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and sinned- demonstrating that you believe God to be a liar. She didn’t have to do it but she did and was responsible for that; she was though tempted by the Devil but she still had free moral agency. Consequently the film’s view of man is contorted and factually inaccurate showing man to be in denial about his true self and thus continuing in his sin. I believe the way Parker is portrayed is an attempt by the maker’s who know that they commit sinful actions to shift attention and responsibility upon someone superior to them and hold them to far higher moral scrutiny.

Price Controls are Killing People

2007-07-18T14:40:00.000+01:00

Yesterday Liam Donaldson, England's chief medical officer, suggested that there should be "presumed consent" in regards organ donation; essentially this would create an opt-out, rather than, an opt-in system. This would, he said increase, the number of donors and save lives: currently only 20% of the UK population are organ donors, 13 million, but since a lot of the organs are unsuitable for numerous reasons the number of people awaiting an organ transplant is 8,400.

There is indeed a problem here however the State essentially taking control over our own bodies is surely not the answer. As Hans Hoppe points out: either someone else owns are body-slavery; everyone owns everybody- communism; or we own our selves- liberty. This most definitely comes under slavery and is another attempt to extend the State's control over us.

So how do we solve the problem? Well suppose you ask me to work in your factory for 40 hours a week. I then reply "that sounds a good job; how much does it pay?" You then reply "nothing". Do you think I will take the job or not?

This is an analogous situation in regards organ donations: the government imposes a price control of zero on organs and you wonder why not that many people donate their organs. This is simple economics: if the government introduces a price ceiling below the market price excess demand will exist; which is precisely the case with organ donations. Currently you can only give away YOUR organs for free. Now since we own our own bodies (in a interpersonal sense since God actually owns everything) why can't we sell our organs the same way we sell our labour services? One can save lives by being a fireman or doctor and be paid for it; so why can't one save lives by donating their organs and be paid for it? Either the first activity is legitimate and the second is; or neither are legitimate. It would be inconsistent to argue otherwise.

Thus the answer is, as normal, to allow the free market in organ donations. By allowing the free trade in legitimately owned property, our own organs, this will increase the supply of organs and save lives. This does not mean that all organ donations will yield a price; some people will donate their organs for free in the same way some people do voluntary work. Neither will organs be tremendously expensive as in the current black market since the supply will be far larger due to the removal of the price control and the fact it will no longer be illegal, without demand changing in much; it is similar to a large degree to the drugs market.

Now to the much vexed question of "exploitation": people could buy organs, most likely to be kidneys, cheaply off people from the third world thereby exploiting there poor position. However if one is to argue this then one must also argue that importing cheap goods from the third world is a form of exploitation too. Yet these cheap, normally textiles or electronic goods, are examples of the third world's comparative advantage. To ban these imports or to put a tariff on them would destin the third world to be forever economically backward. Now to ban organ sales would not have as greater impact however would be prohibiting a mutually beneficial exchange. You have two perfectly good kidneys of which you could live comfortably live with one; I will die in the next three months if I don't have a kidney. I then pay you £400 for your kidney. I will now live for another twenty years and you have £400, which is equivalent to around a year's wages in your country allowing you to better feed your family and educate your children. How on earth can this be exploitative? Finally economics tells us how this cannot be exploitative: to this trade to go ahead you most value my £4oo more than your kidney and I must value your kidney more than my £400; there is no other way we would logically trade since if we valued both items equally there would be no point trading; and if you valued your kidney more than my £400 you wouldn't trade. The fact that you live in less than desirabe circumstances is irrelevant.

The government price control is killing people and the only way to stop this senseless slaughter is to allow the free trade in organs.

Source for the first paragraph is here accessed 18/07/07.

Mending Society with Sticky Tape

2007-07-11T17:39:00.000+01:00

Over the past few days the Tories' "Social Justice" Policy group, headed by former Tory leader Iain Duncan-Smith (who I met once at the Lostock Hall "Conservative" Club a few years ago when I still thought they were useful- how wrong was I) has produced a huge 671 page report on the ills of society and policies to remedy them. The key points can be seen below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6287914.stm

Most of the attention has been focused upon the report's support of marriage in the form of tax breaks. The report rightly points out that children from a married household are less likely to commit crime, do drugs or be unemployed and do better academically; the unmasking of this manifest truth has provoked anger in the leftist relativist corner who believe all form of lifstyle choice to be legitimate. The report also affirms that the family is the building block of society and should be the focus of policy to heal society of its rather long list of woes. However despite a good anaylsis of the problem the solution does not tackle the root problem; it is similar in some respects to The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan.

The destruction of marriage, the family and society can almost solely be blamed on the state: in particular the welfare state. It is not a coincidence that since the German pioneered welfare state has been in existence the family has become a weaker and weaker institution. On a side note the state provision of welfare was first introduced in the Elizabethan era because that Church was no longing giving alms to the poor; the reason for this is that Henry VIII stole the monasteries. Where the state does more, the Church and family (nuclear and extended) do less. This can be seen on a purely economic analysis:

In the absence of state provision traditional marriage would come to the fore as the common type of family set up for the main reason that it affords the greatest financial stability than any other form for the following reasons: firstly a marriage contract commits the two parties to life long companionship (contractual stability whereas cohabitation has none); this then makes it conducive for child rearing since the contract is not intended to be ended; ending the contract (note at this point the state has made easier), this would only be possible if the Church or other institution sanctioned it- normally only allowed under limited proscibed circumstances-, requires a cost normally falling upon the man to provide income for his former wife while she looked after children.

Now what incentives does the welfare state introduce: Well for starters where people used to wait to get married to have children they no longer have to because they know that the state will bail them out; if you’re a “poor” single mum they’ll give you a council flat (sorry social(ist) housing). But not only that, but the child’s education and health needs will also be provided by the state and in some, cases, income support for the mother and the child’s day to day needs. It even does not stop there: you get a reward for every time you produce another one. No longer are these things needed to be paid for; the benevolent state with its unlimited resources (i.e. stolen money and counterfeited (fiat) money) will do it for me. Even cohabitation, due to the current “benefit system”, now makes more financial sense than marriage again artificially increasing the incidence of a less stable structure.

In short the welfare state shifts the costs of individual’s actions onto other people thus making them more irresponsible. More children are born to the feckless and foolish than they otherwise would, thus cause a lot of the problems we see to day. Further and more insidiously the bailing out by the state replaces the normal guardians of financial stability- fathers. With their financial responsibility gone, so does there parenting responsibility which leaves them to indulge in their whims. This then leads to an unbalanced upbringing causing a lot of the problems of young men today.

For an in depth analysis read James Bartholomew’s excellent The Welfare State We’re In

So what has been shown is that it is again the state that has caused the problem and it is now attempting to disguise itself as the solution again. As to the proposals, any tax cut should be supported; as for the rest it will be purely ineffectual at best. Only the entire abolition of the welfare state will solve this and many other problems; as long as it exists these problems will be perpetuated.

Poland 2007

2007-07-08T00:30:00.001+01:00

As some of you may be aware I was in Poland from the 21st June to the 2nd July. I went there to teach English as a foreign language with the Cardiff Navigators (Navs). Here is how it went:The Navs lads- Phil, Jonny and I from Cardiff and Clarence from Southampton- met up at London Liverpool Street Station on the Thursday and got the direct train to Stansted airport, or should I say Tesco Extra under Martial Law. Firstly it really does look like a Tesco Extra (see above- sorry for the bad placement of pictures: help in putting them around the screen properly would be appreciated)

Secondly, as soon as I walked into the compound, I was greeted by two burly men carrying sub-machine guns seemingly getting macho highs out of carrying them. The whole atmosphere inside the building generated by the increased security and regulations introduced last year (I now believe its worse after that flaming car was driven into Glasgow airport; makes sense to increase security inside the airport when the problem came from outside doesn’t it?)- the “attempted bombing” at Heathrow which precipitated this, although no evidence of any plot as been aired neither has anyone being convicted of any crime, which was responded by rolling the tanks in a very Fascist fashion- was designed to frighten the travellers into giving up more and more liberty to the state to “protect” us hastening the slide to a totalitarian state. If the security threat is so large the individual airlines and airport authority would impose the regulations themselves: what do you think Ryanair’s sales figures would be like if one of their aircraft was blown up by a terrorist? One must also remember at this point that practically all plane crashes have massive media attention which would further damage Ryanair’s reputation. Also I seem to recall a lawsuit in the US in which a film contained a plane crash bearing the name of an existent firm who sued the makers for essentially slander; such is the importance of safety reputation in air travel industry. Thus the fact that the airlines themselves did not increases the regulations and security proves that the new regs are either superfluous at best, or sinister at worst. (This is an area I will cover in more depth in the future)

Back to the narrative.

When entered we met up with an other member of our team Rachel- she was a member of Navs in Cardiff back in 1989 when she started her optometry degree. We then checked in with no trouble although Rachel’s hold luggage was two kilos over the 15kg limited- this proved not to be case on the way back when she was charged 64 zlotys (£13) for this unfortunate aberration; although Jonny’s was the same weight and was charged nothing at all. We then went through security which wasn’t as bad as expected although at one point I uttered that “you spend more time queuing than you do in prison these days”; however we were spared the ignominy of having to take our shoes off unlike the chosen few.

The flight to Wroclaw, the south-west of Poland, (pronounced vrotz-lav contrary to the woman on the tannoy) was delayed by around an hour due to the plane arriving from its previous flight late. The flight was uneventful except for the landing which was singularly the worst landing I have ever experienced: it at was as if the pilot had forgotten his training and landed on the front wheel. When we arrived we were met by Bev- she is a Navs’ missionary who teaches English in Eagle school in Wroclaw and has been there for the past 13 years (I think)- and Bogusia; the latter was the lads’ host for two nights and for one on the way back . We were then taken back to Bogusia’s flat while Rachel went to Bev’s. On arrival we were provided with some supper: various cheeses, ham and bread which, as we were to learn, seem to be the Poles staple diet; not that I was complaining about that.

On the Friday we had our orientation day in which we met two more members of our team: Amelia and Lauren. The former is now director at Eagle school and the latter is an American from Owensboro, Kentucky who has come to Poland for a whole year to teach English; she was dove tailing this with work with another American team who she was then with. During the day Bev went over what we would be doing and various things to be aware of during our stay. In the evening we went out for a traditional Polish restaurant in which I had fried pork steak in breadcrumbs and fried cabbage (another very Polish food); it was very tasty although the cabbage was slightly bitter. The best thing though was the price- 8zl or about £1.60. The prices for most things were darn cheap: under a pound for a packet of 20 fags and about £40 for a good three piece suit; if I had the time I would probably have bought one. We then retired for the evening in preparation for the mammoth eight and a half hour train journey to Ketzryn the next day; it is in the north east of Poland near the Lithuanian and Soviet border.

Getting on the train however was made difficult by possibly the worst designed train doors I have ever seen: there was a central bar down the middle left after opening the doors thus making it difficult to put luggage on. The journey itself wasn’t too bad after we had commandeered most of the luggage space of the carriage. My defence of Open Theism at the behest of Phil was probably the most noteworthy. Upon arrival we were picked up at the station by a member of the Ketrzyn Baptist Church and taken to the church which would be our base for the next 9 days or so. The Church is attached to the Pastor’s residence and a small school which is where we taught the lessons and is where the year round teaching is done; the Pastor was President of the Baptist Union of Poland for 8 years. Our decampment was delayed due to a wedding in the Church which boosted the congregation numbers the next day. We ate that evening in a small restaurant which was practically smoke free- unlike here the Poles still have the liberty to smoke in places where the proprietor agrees. Upon return we settled in: the girls in the attic and the lads on the balcony at the back of church; that wasn’t too bad except that to turn the lights on and off required walking downstairs and across the church which made coming back up again, after turning them off, more difficult than for the girls who had lights next to each bed. After we had unpacked we played cards in the kitchen- this came to be the past time in the evenings after the organised events. That evening we were introduced, by Amelia, to a game called Phase 10 which lasts an inordinate length of time.

On the Sunday we attended the morning service at which Fonda, who was to be the last member of our team, gave her testimony and Bev translated the sermon. During the service an interesting custom of bringing greetings from various places and churches was observed. The rest of the day we relaxed.

The format for the working week was as follows:

Breakfast: 9am

Cleaning

Bible Study: 11am

Lesson Preparation: 11:45am

Dinner: 12:45pm

Free Time: 1:30pm

Tea: 5pm

Lessons: 6pm

Evening Event: 8:30pm

Breakfast, as previously indicated, was mainly cheese, meat and bread. Cleaning entailed washing up, cleaning the kitchen and mopping out the showers; by the time I arose they were mainly cold except once when I got lucky and it was vaguely warm. The Bible studies were on the Psalms including 119 and before you ask it wasn’t on all of it. Most of them went pretty well and were of existential use especially the discussion of true rest however there was a collision between my methodology and the rest. I think I came across as over theoretical with my talk of means and ends even though this was intended to be the sound base from which to deduce practical ideas.

Dinner was ordered in from a local bar offering an array of food such as Goulash, Birgos and Pirogi; it was mainly meat and potatoes. In general it was rather tasty, and cheap; on one day Lauren and I had strawberries and pasta, a traditional Polish dish, which was surprisingly good.

In the free time we generally relaxed: reading, walking into town and to the castle and going to the internet café. However Rachel used some of time to carry on lesson prep; she somehow had the most to prepare, or took longest to do. In fairness however she had the lowest ability group. On the Wednesday we went to the Wolf’s Lair: one of Hitler’s secret wartime bases. The site was 10km sq and consisted of mainly concrete bunkers in various states of decay. We climbed to the top of Goerring’s collapsed bunker where there were gun emplacements. Climbing was the operative word since it required us to climb a ten foot of rock face and then a ladder- a collection of steel rungs- to the top. Neither while climbing, nor on the top, were there any barriers stopping us from falling off; in short Poland has practically no health and safety laws- cash back! The lair was also the place of an attempted assassination of Hitler.

For tea it was some food to complement the bread, cheese and ham; one night there was some meat and sauce but beyond that I don’t remember much.

Now to the teaching: There were four groups- elementary (Rachel), lower intermediate (Phil and Clarence), intermediate (Jonny and Lauren) and upper intermediate (myself and Fonda). The teaching went pretty well supported by the fact that Bev, who organised it, was asked, by the students, to bring the same team back next year. However there was a slight problem with Rachel’s group on the first day: two ladies complained that the group was far too easy and they claimed that they were near a first certificate in English (a Cambridge accredited exam) which was above the level my lot; they clearly weren’t, as ascertained by Bev’s interview prior to being assigned their group, and so left. My group had four to six people depending on what day it was; the other groups were of similar number. I got on very well with my group in particular a lad called Jakub who was at Warsaw University doing Journalism. The lessons mainly revolved around getting the students to converse in English rather than teach them grammar et al. Subjects discussed ranged from childhood to the health industry. The latter was rather amusing thanks to Janusch who displayed a level of cynicism approaching mine: he complained that one had to queue for hours in a doctor’s surgery only to have a quick check over and be told to take vitamin C; and that if there was anything actually wrong with you they merely referred you to a specialist. He further complained that they were currently on strike and could be replaced by other people to do most of the referral job. The problems cited by Janusch are mainly due to the State’s monopoly and continuing intervention in the health industry which are mainly manifest in restriction of supply. In one of the lessons we played a game of life in which Anna became a pop star, I a baggage handler and Janusch was arrested on fraud charges; this went down a treat. Working with Fonda was great even though she is an extrovert character like me; she did though tell me I annoyed sometime during teaching after correcting her pronunciation, she is American after all, although I was entirely oblivious to this.

In the evening events we did different things each night. The first was a games evening with coffee and biscuits: games included Phase 10, Uno and Scrabble; I got beat playing the latter by four Poles! - I hang my head in shame. The second evening comprised of silly games such as the famous chocolate game and the mummy game: who is the fastest at wrapping a team mate head to toe in toilet role. The next night was Scottish Dancing which went down well although I did nearly injure one of the girls by being slightly over enthusiastic which led her to connect with the floor. Then it was British night which was just a quiz with music, pictures and standard questions. We had decorated the room up with post cards, flags, pictures and tea towels to give it a vaguely British flavour. We also supplied a small array of British food including Jelly babies and shortbread. Bev’s team won on a tie breaker of guessing the population of Wales which is either three or four million. On the last night the Yanks (sorry Confederates) did line dancing and supplied some good ol lemonade and strawberry and cream flan- they have a name for it but I’ve forgotten again- darn senility. The line dancing was entertaining however that doesn’t mean I was any good which one can see by viewing the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5JtOfa7ZsI

On that evening we were joined by Tomick’s friends who are in a rap group called The Real People; think of wiggers and you know what they look like. Tomick was the person who affected me most while I was out there. He has only been a Christian for less than a year, he attends the local charismatic church bizarrely called the Granary Church, but has turned his life around: he no longer smokes weed, drinks or watches television for Jesus now; he also prays and fasts every Friday, he used to do it Friday and Saturday, because of his love of God. He is an example to us all of how our lives should be radically different after believing in Jesus for salvation. Note it may not require any of the above; again it is an area I will discuss in the future.

During one of the evenings I had a good chat with Antoni which started off about cameras: he had a digital SLR while I still use my fully manual film SLR. He said that cameras in the US were cheap but he wouldn’t import any due to the tariff imposed upon them. I then told him about how we (Brits) go on Booze Cruises to France due to the tax disparity. He then said it was the same on the Soviet border: Poles go over every day and bring back booze and fags to sell on the black-market because they are even cheaper than the Polish prices! Do Ryainair fly to Russia yet?! Another example of making naturally law abiding people into criminals by providing a service other people want.

On the Saturday we had a day of site seeing around the local area. We visited a Catholic “church” which was very beautiful and contained an exceptionally ornate organ which had moving angels and spinning stars on it. While we were looking at the merchandise one of the clergy, an elderly gentleman, started talking to us and took particular liking to Rachel and attempted to teach her “I love you” in Polish; Rachel tried to respond and asked him to say what “I love God” is in Polish. After this we travelled to a small town which had a Teutonic Castle and a church with a large bell tower- 180 feet high. When we reached the top of the bell tower, which had magnificent views of the surrounding country side, all there was stopping us from falling off was a bit of plastic fencing bought from the local garden shop. Not that it was unsafe: if one used a slight bit of common sense while up there and didn’t go up there when it was particularly windy it was perfectly safe. However this Polish common sense, I was informed, will be replaced by our ridiculous laws within the next twenty years or so. While standing outside the ice cream shop, opposite the castle, a black dog ran past panting, for at that point it was rather hot, upon which I remarked “I’d hate to be black in this weather” which was responded with a suitably black look from Rachel. We then took an hour off and then went to an excellent local restaurant. I had a sort of thick stew with pork, garlic, cheese and potatoes which was delicious. On the walls of the restaurant were some wild boar furs. We were then taken to a local folk museum which had various rooms mocked up to be different periods. The building was actually four houses: each with a quarter of the building to share one communal chimney in the middle. The reason for this strange set up was: TAX! The Polish government taxed the number of chimneys and thus distorted house building in this way.

On the Sunday we attended the church service at which Jonny shared a few words about what God had been doing in his life recently; Phil gave them some words for thought from Mark 5 (he though that is what the reading was from but in fact it was Matthew 5); and Clarence gave his testimony (this was all translated btw). The Church is a mixture of old and new- most similar to Emmanuel Baptist Church for you Cardiff lot. On the previous Sunday I recognised most of the tune which included Amazing Grace; however that day I recognised precisely none of them. During the service the Pastor and his wife sang a duet which translates something like whatever trouble you may face Jesus will always be there. However the reason why I remember it was because it was just pure 80s: the song was pure synth from a tape deck and had a fade out ending. After the service we all went to different families houses for dinner. I went to one of the elder’s house which was around 15 miles away. And yes, if that were possible, Polish roads are worse than British roads. He didn’t speak English although his grandson fortunate did; we conversed in the car mainly about basketball of which he is a big fan. For my dinner: I had chicken soup with homemade pasta; followed by various cuts of duck, pork stew, potatoes, salad and some disgusting vegetable looking like a small cucumber; this was finished off with cake, ice cream and biscuits. All in all it was a great lunch. After this I returned to the Church whereupon I had arrest and got ready for the next days train journey. Fonda didn’t arrive back until around 9 after being shown the sights and sounds of the area by Janusch, his wife and daughter.

On the Monday we disembarked for the station. We got on the train fine although we then had a heated rush down a few carriages to get to a cabin to ourselves. After this however the journey was again uneventful: we read, listened to music and at one point Phil and myself had a fruitful discussion of free market anarchism. However about 40 miles from Wroclaw the train stopped and we were informed that there were trees on the line. We then proceeded to wait an hour then travel for ten minutes then weight an hour and so it continued. During this time we were reduced, at my suggestion, that we should play the game think of a category and think of words for it going through the alphabet. We had innovative categories such as films, actors and actresses and Bible characters; Rachel was excellent at the latter. This was brought to an end when we rolled up to the station around three hours late. We were later informed that there had been a storm in there which probably caused the trees to fall; well it’s a better excuse than leaves on the line, isn’t it? We were collected by Andrew, Bogusia’s husband, and taken back to their flat where we were fed with-you’ve guessed it- ham, cheese and bread. Basha, Bev’s flat mate, picked her and Rachel up.

The next day the lads gave presents to Bogusia and family including a Love Spoon, a model of Salisbury Cathedral, a British flag and a book of Japanese Logic Puzzles- Marius, there son, was good at maths so I figured he’d like it, which he did. We then met up for a final meal in Wroclaw square then headed to the airport. Security was not as tight heading through airport which pleased me somewhat; however I didn’t expect them to be as generous as they were: I had accidentally not put my toiletry bag, which contained my razor blades, in my case and left it in my hand luggage. Yet know one in security batted an eye lid. The flight was again uneventful except for continuous inane pre-recorded adverts coming through the sound system; and the landing was suitably better. We survived immigration said goodbye to Rachel, who was catching a coach on the way back home, and headed into London and then went our separate ways.

To see a collection of photos of the trip see here:

http://cardiffuk.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=2374809620&view=all

PS. I forgot to say what the weather was like. It was variably with quite a bit of rain although it got rather warm and sunny of some days. I donned my Hawaiian shirt on a few days anyway.

I Have Entered Cyberspace

2007-07-04T11:14:00.000+01:00

Cyberspace is no longer safe- the Eclectic Rambler has arrived. Throughout my blogging career I intend to blog on practically everything: film, music, television (= Doctor Who), sport, politics, philosophy, economics, theology and anything else I happen to have an opinion on. I will endeavour to post every week or so with my first proper entry in the next few days.