Bitcoin Forum

Dear left-leaners of all kinds,

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I often see this ridiculous criticism of anarcho-capitalism that somehow if it were implemented, the poor would just starve and have no healthcare etc. So, let's do some maths based on some core assumptions that even you guys accept:

• 50% of the USA is left-leaning
• These people want the poor to have essential services

OK, let's assume for now that all evil right-wingers won't donate a cent, and that income is split approx 30/70 in favour of the right (this probably isn't true as many high-paid jobs are mostly practiced by left-wingers, but just to use ridiculous maths), so you have 30% of the wealth between all of you lefties.

Now let's assume you guys don't decide along with the right-wingers that you don't care about the poor, because you're better than us. Therefore, in the absence of government, you all agree to pay 'taxes' to provide essential services to those people (i.e. donate to charity). Let's say you all accept that 33% of your income is a fair amount, so we have 10% of the USA's GDP to spend on 'key' services.

Right now, this is somewhere in the realm of $1.4 trillion. Now, let's take a socialist country like the UK (http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/2010_june_budget.htm), and work out what $1.4 trillion (about £900 billion) could pay for. I'll multiply the budgets by 2.5, assuming that you're providing for the 50% of poorest Americans, as these services are currently provided to all of the UK.

You could pay for:
- The entire NHS service (free of charge healthcare which achieves a greater HALE than the US healthcare system) - £315 billion
- The entire state education service (free of charge education which achieves a reasonable global standard) - £200 billion
- The welfare state (provides up to $20,000 a year of welfare to the poor) - £290 billion

This comes to £805 billion ($1.3 trillion), so not only under tax-free voluntarism could you have free health & education for 50% of the population, but you could do it to a similar standard in education and 'better' in health & welfare than the current provision in the US.

This works on the ridiculous assumptions that you'd be as inefficient as the UK government and that you'd get no support from any of us evil rich right-wingers. Whatever the state of the world, if you lefties care as much as you say you do, the poor in your country are going to be fine no matter how evil we are.

cool argument. Can I re-post it on facebook on my notes?

Sure.

Very well put.

Your argument went bunk in the beginning.  Everyone benefits from social services, this is why it is only fair to make payment manditory so that everyone pays for them.  The fact that you estimated that 50% of the population is too small-minded to understand the importance of social services does not change the fact that this 50% will still benefit from them, and thus it is not a valid excuse for them to cop out of paying for them.

Oh, yes, My uncle moneybags couldn't wait to get his welfare check and food stamps.

Like I said, small-minded.  Let me see if I can help...


Consider for a second:

What would happen if welfare and food stamps were cancelled tomorrow?



Pro-tip history lesson:

If you don't occasionally throw the poor a bone, they'll come and take yours.


http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/French_Revolution_Louis_XVI_Execution.jpg

http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/china-communist-revolution.jpg

http://members.tripod.com/per_rasmussen/images/che_revolution.jpg

Where does 'Deflection' fall on that pyramid you posted in the other thread?

The services she (I'm assuming she) stated would be paid for are:
Welfare
Free education
Free healthcare

Welfare includes food stamps, housing, and a monthly stipend.

'The Rich' do not need food stamps, they can afford to feed themselves.
they do not need subsidized housing, they can afford to buy houses.
they do not need a monthly stipend, they have their own sources of income.
they do not need free education, they can afford private schooling, or tutors.
they do not need free healthcare, they can afford doctors.

Simply put, they don't need charity. Since they are already paying for those services through other means, why should we force anyone to pay for services they do not need, nor use?

Because they still benefit from those services.  Strain your brain hard and then go back and read my previous post - answer the question that was posed to you.  This isn't rocket science.  You don't need to be directly receiving welfare checks to be benefiting from welfare.

Ahh... so your position here is that Welfare benefits the rich folks by keeping the poor folk from killing them.

Well, then it would be in their best interest to donate to those charities that are taking care of those poor people, yes? You wouldn't need to force them.

Well that's one of an infinite number of reasons - actually one of the less obvious ones.  Again, just ask yourself what would happen if social services were eliminated tomorrow.  See all that chaos that would insue?  We're all benefiting from not having to deal with that higher crime, higher unemployment, all that good stuff.


And, no, they DO need to be forced.  They're benefiting from it so they're going to pay their share for it whether they like it or not.

So... Little old lady decides not to pay 'Her share'. You gonna hold a gun to her head and force her?

And what happens if she still says no?

Then we throw her old ass in prison for tax evasion.  It happens on the daily, yet you seem like you've never heard of it before.

No, I am quite aware that it happens regularly. What I am saying is that is wrong.

Free riders will always be a problem in any system. In a "progressive" system, you have a lot of poor free riders. In a corporatist system, you have a smaller number of rich free riders. In an anarcho-capitalist system, you would still have free riders, people who benefited from the assurance contracts others paid. The difference is that in ONLY an anarcho-capitalist system is there no systemic forced redistribution of wealth.  

Even then, one could argue that differing definitions of what constitutes legitimate property created conglict that could become violent, but hey- utopia is not an option.   The fact that AnCapistan wouldn't be perfect is no reason not to want it. It would be a heluva lot better than what we have now.

And if she resists being thrown into prison or attempts to escape from prison, you shoot her.  You are ultimately claiming the right to kill someone if their definition of "fair share" is different than yours.

Welcome to the real world.  It's called an organized society.

So I guess we'll never lock up anyone, ever, for anything, because then we'd be claiming a right to kill someone because their morals are different than ours.  Murderers, rapists... you're free to gol!  Who am I to judge what is and isn't ok?

Murder and rape aren't the same as not paying taxes. ::)

Don't take the ludicrous position that all crime is wrong and equal. All laws are not automatically just. All welfare is not automatically just.

Why not?  Who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not moral? 


If I can't tell you that in my society you need to your fair share or else... then you can't tell me that in your society I can't kill people or else.  It's called being consistent.  If I can't impose my moral views on other people then neither can you.

You can judge for yourself, but not for me or her. You can't use my resources to enforce your notions of responsible social behavior and expect me not to resist you- especially when My notions are so very different than yours. It's not unreasonable to conclude that people who kill stingy old ladies because they are stingy are worse than stingy old ladies.

Cool.  So then you can't force your ideals on me, therefore I can go and rape whoever I want and you can't punish me because I think rape is teh awesomesauce.

This viewpoint justifies any law. This justifies laws under Kim jong-Il, etc. If you simply accept that any law is morally justified because it is law, then you completely disregard the right of the public to liberty and justice.

It is true that if you had a society in which the consensus was that murder was fine, you'd probably be able to keep a society going in which murder was legal. There just isn't as much of a case against murder laws as there is against oppressive taxation.

Sure, you can try. You'd then be acting against the organizing principles of the society, and therefore not protected by them. The lady, for instance, would have the ability to blow your brains out the back of your skull for trying.

So what you're really saying is that you don't trust YOURSELF with so much freedom. I understand now. You need external discipline to keep yourself in line. I got news for you, Homeslice: you try raping me or mine and you'll find some external discipline regardless of the legal structure.  You can trust your loved-ones to the care of some flat-footed donut muncher. I put my faith in Smith and Wesson.

I think he's just trolling you guys.

Difference between a Troll and an actual Government supporter?

Government supporter is probably paying for his internet.

Awesome!  ;D 

And when the little old lady fails to pay her taxes she'll be acting against the organized principles of this society (her social constract), so we'll throw her in jail - failing that, we'll blow her brains out.

I think you're getting it now!

She signed a contract? Oh, well, that's entirely different. What are the stipulations in her contract, and Uh... could you show me that signature?

Justify your social contract. Why does it have any meaning or value?

Ah, but that's where you're wrong.  That's only your opinion that there isn't as much of a case against murder laws as their is against taxation laws, and you can't impose your opinion on me.  Do you see how we can play this game for all of eternity?


And you're damn right it justifies whatever law the society sees fit, which is why its called a social contract.  If you don't like it, change it.  If you can't change it peacefully, change it violently - such is history and human nature.

In this society, you're forced to pay your taxes because someone along the way was smart enough to make payment for social programs manditory.  Deal with it, or else.  And, yes, that or else is perfectly acceptable because violence is the only way ANYTHING is enforced, so cut the shit with this shooting old ladies rhetoric.

A contract has to have explicit (not implied) consent. You have to opt-in,not opt out. Moreover a contract is not valid if there is coercion.  all parties have to have the legal ability to enter into contracts, both (or all) parties have to be bound. Both parties have to have obligations. Without such conditions, no contract is binding.
I suggest you brush up on your Lysander Spooner.

Justify your property rights.  Why do they have any meaning or value?

The consent is explicit - the little old lady was either born a citizen, in which case her legal guardians sealed the deal or she's an import and sealed the deal herself with her oath.

You can opt in and opt out - if you want to opt out, GTFO out of the country.

Where's the coercion?  Last time I checked, you're free to GTFO out of the country.

LOL at legal ability.  Talk about chicken and egg.  So who defines the legal ability to define legal ability?

Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included.

Both parties do have obligations - the little old ladies pays her taxes and the government renders services.


Well, looks like we've got ourselves a binding contract!

Even if we assumed that we did agree to a social contract (we didn't), if one party (the State) violates the terms of the contract, then the other parties (we) are no longer bound by it.

MANY things are enforced without violence. If I don't pay my credit card bill, Mr. Mastercard doesn't send goons to my house to turn me upside down and shake the change out of my pockets. He just trashes my credit score. It's called OPPORTUNITY COSTS and it's not violent. Works great. so you're wrong.

It's impossible. It's entirely based on emotion. However, would you not prefer a man to own himself? It all comes down to self-ownership; the labors and virtues that come from self.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?

Ahh, but that's where you're wrong. Here's a man who proves you wrong, in more than enough pedantic detail to satisfy even you: Stefan Molyneux - Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics (http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks/UniversallyPreferableBehaviourEthics.aspx)

In essence: Nobody wants to get killed, therefore murder is wrong.

Cool story bro.  You broke your social contract when you went 56mph in a 55mph zone, the state is now free to kill you and your family with impunity because it is no longer bound by the contract.

That's a fun game to play, huh?


You're right, no goons to the house, they just harass you every second of your life, then put leans on your property, then they take your property... and if you resist, the police arrest you, and if you resist arrest, the police kill you.

Got any other examples of stuff not enforced with violence?  Anything worth enforcing is enforced with violence, because there simply is no other way to make people do something they really don't want to do.

That's the thing: People shouldn't have to do things they don't want to do.

If you don't like it... you can... GIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

/SouthPark

"Both parties are bound; it's called the law, it applies to everyone, government included."

when I steal it's theft. When government steals, it's taxation

when I kidnap, it's a felony. When the State kidnaps, it's an arrest

when I force people to work for me, it's slavery. When the State does it, it's the Draft, selective service, conscription, whatever.

The state doesn't obey the same rules at all. it breaks the rules and gives it's violations different names.

Sovereign countries don't exist. It's central banks all the way down. Whoever owns the money, owns the game. There is no possibility for competition on a political level with this current state-of-affairs.

Credit cards are unsecured debt, Einstein. They don't put liens on your house.

hahhahaha

Taxation isn't stealing, it's written into the law and thus part of the contract.

Arrests are kidnapping, their parameters are written into the law and thus part of the contract.

Selective service is written into the law and military members are paid, therefore it is part of the contract and not slavery.


YOU defined those things on your own terms.  The terms of the contract define them as such.

You've got that wrong. The government forces her to use their services, and then forces her to pay, or be locked in a cage, (at the expense of the other people they're forcing to use their services) and if she doesn't go peaceably to that cage, will beat her until she dies or stops struggling.

You see, the government's services are the best she will ever get because they are powered by the great power of democracy! It's completely infallible!

Better check into those new bankruptcy laws.  CC companies can now attach your pay and take your assets.  The days of scott-free bankruptcies ended awhile ago.

It's really cute how you completely ignore the fact that the relationship between the State and it's citizen is totally unilateral. Troll elsewhere.

Nope.  Not even close.  She's free to pack up and leave at any time.

...to the middle of the ocean.

The only reasonable option is to evade the state.

What's cuter is that you ignore the fact that people have a hand in government (that's what a democracy is), so they if they care enough they can tailor the contract any way they see fit.  If they're unable to do that, they can GTFO at any time.

What's the cutest is that you sit here and bemoan the evil government all day, while enjoying all its benefits.

No, no... there are about 199 other countries she can move to.

To say we have benefits, is to say we should be gratefiul for the Jello we got with our prison meal.

The State is the final arbiter of disputes, including disputes with the State.
The State is the sole enforcer of contracts
The State interprets the contracts.
You're cool with that? Don't see any problems with it?

Man, you have had some serious brainwashing. I'm guessing you attended government schools.

That have the same exact shit.

The LAW is the final arbiter of disputes.

The state enforces contracts based on what the LAW.

The JUDICIAL SYSTEM interprets the LAW and how it applies to contracts.

Yea, I'm cool with that.  The contracts applies to everyone, government included.


It's still hilarious that libertarians refer to the government as some outside, supernatural force when it suits them and then refer to it as a body of people when it suits them.  In this case it's a supernatural, outside force.  Because if you talked about it as it really is, a body of citizens, it just wouldn't sound sinister enough to fit your rhetoric.

'Democracy', lol. Let me know when you finish your high school civics class.

Keeping with the consistency of statism, you're right, I enjoy the 'benefits' of Government, like out of control cops, horribly maintained roads/infrastructure, and I'm given no other choices, because these services are forced on me, at gunpoint. Since you hate corporations so much, why are you so willing to type on a computer manufactured with parts made by evil corporations, using software developed by mega-corporations like Microsoft, and sending your posts out through internet owned and operated by a private corporation? Because you do these things, that means you can't hate corporations, because you use their products!

Nice argument, bro. How's High School treating you?

Now he's going to argue those corporations couldn't of done those things without the government.

Pwn't

No one is forcing shit on you.  You're free to move away at any time.  The US installed governments of most third-world slums hold dear the very same priciples that you do.  So when are you leaving?  I'll even come help you pack.

On the other hand, since there isn't a large corporation on earth that isn't exploiting someone, somewhere, I don't have any options.  However, I at least try to educate the ignorant, big business worshiping folk like yourself so that hopefully, someday, enough people will get off their asses that we can get things under control.

"The LAW is the final arbiter of disputes.

The state enforces contracts based on what the LAW.

The JUDICIAL SYSTEM interprets the LAW and how it applies to contracts.

Yea, I'm cool with that.  The contracts applies to everyone, government included."

The LAW as interpreted by the judiciary
The judicial system is an arm of the State, isn't it?

The Law as selectively enforced by the State

Your "education" was largely supplied by the State.
You have serious Stockholm Syndrome.

The LAW once said it was perfectly legal to own people. was that right? of course not. It's hilarious that Statists seem to think that the "LAW" is somehow a magical permission slip to do immoral things on one hand while banning consensual behavior on the other.  

How many times do we have to tell you, Big Powerful Corporations derive their power from governments. You aren't going to get rid of people who like big tools. You can only eliminate the tools or give them to everyone.

Stan Marsh, that u bro?

Considering every square inch of land, air, and water is claimed by some form of Government or another, no, I'm not 'free' to leave. When you say I'm 'free' to leave, what you're saying is, I have no choice. The hilarious thing about this circle you're creating out of your specious argumentation, is that you so eloquently are proving my point for me. Governments provide me with no choice. If I'm being oppressed, my only option is to move to a maybe less oppressive Government a thousand miles away, however, there's no promise that 50 years later they won't plunge into the depths of some nationalistic urge and decide to execute me for looking different than they do. We can look to the countless examples of this happening during history.

I won't get ahead of your state-mandated curricula, it would be quite devastating to learn that the world isn't as rosy and as peachy as your civics and history teachers make it out to be. I'm still laughing from the whole democracy bit, christ was that a knee-slapper.

http://celebrityimg.com/photos/BarackObama40345.jpg

The face of Democracy.

Let's ask this guy what he thinks about 'democracy'.

http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/article_cd181c8e-983b-11e0-a559-001cc4c03286.html

The government is big business. The government is a corporation. the State is a monopoly. What's more, it's a force multiplier for all the other corporations you hate. Why is that so hard for you to see?

This is my country and I'm not going anywhere. Our own Declaration if Independence recognizes our right to "alter or abolish" the government if it fails to secure our natural rights, the rights that pre-date and supersede the State. If you and Uncle Sam can't handle that, then you are of course welcome to GTFO.

A bit late to the discussion, but I would like to add:

I do NOT want or need "essential services" like:

1. A public school that teaches crap to my children, which crap I then have to make them "unlearn", forces me to pay for it through taxes, and makes it ILLEGAL for me to take up the natural parent responsibility of teaching my own children.
2. A healthcare service system that will stack me along with another 1000 people in a dirty hospital when I am in need of it, and makes it ILLEGAL for me to even work for someone unless I pay my fat contribution to it every month (20% of usable salary). If I want decent healthcare I have to pay extra fro a private plan.
3. A pension system that has no way of being solvent in 20 or even 10 years, which means I will get close to nothing eventually, and also makes it ILLEGAL for me to work for anyone unless I pay some more fat contribution to it every month (another 20% of usable salary). Same thing goes for any decent retirement expectation, I have to pay extra for a private plan.
4. A law enforcement system which does not give me the right to fire a shotgun in the air when someone is breaking into my house (imposing a fine TO ME in the best case, and imprisonment FOR ME if one pellet touches the burglar), which I am also forced to pay through taxes, and essentially makes it ILLEGAL for me to have the right to protect myself and my family.

Apart from the illegality, I cannot personally afford to pay extra for these things (a private school, private police, etc) because the money I can produce (almost 70% of it, in direct or indirect taxation and "contribution") is being thrown down the bottomless pit of the providers of these "essential services".

And by saying I don't "need" these services, I just mean that I believe I am in a more knowledgeable position to take care of these things for myself, if only they would let me.

Can someone please stop the government from offering me these "Essentials"? I don't want them.

I don't believe in revolutions anymore, so my only hope is that this whole system will implode to its extinction, as seems to be gradually happening.

And no, I'm not in the US, so I don't know how this applies to that country.

But yet you'll cite the constitution like it's the world of god.  Make up your mind.  You're talking about how unjust the law is in one breath and citing the Declaration of Independence in the next.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too, but yet that's why libertarianism is trying to do.

OMG big bad government is out to get me and I want it gone... but then you take the snipets of that big bad government that suit you and use them as points in your argument.  It doesn't work like that.




Society created the state.  Society created the law.  Society lives by the law interpreted by the state it created.  What part of that are you having a difficult time understanding?

But you benefit from those services whether you think you want them or not, so your society will continue to force you to pay for them, because your ignorance of their benefits to you does not preclude you from benefiting.

See how simple that is?


The day you (and the rest of the libertarians) realize that you are NOT islands unto yourselves, no matter how hard you try, the world will suddenly start making more sense.

I thought I made i point that I am NOT BENEFITTING in any way, neither do my fellow citizens. In fact, my own life and my fellow citizens' life is made worse by the day because of these. If I told you that I am from Greece, would it make any more sense?

I mentioned in my post that it might be different in your country. I pointed out what type of services I DO NOT want. I understand it is not obvious to the reader that I am not proposing a complete banishment of these. I wouldn't have any objections if the services were better, or at least closer to my personal standards. Maybe in your country they are, in which case, I would consider you a lucky person.

I don't know what a "Libertarian" is and what classifies me as one (I don't seem to understand the term). I'm just laying plain facts and common sense.

And I do at least believe that all these needed services would be much better off in the hands of local government instead of central govenrment (better, fairer, and by god - cheaper).

In any case Ayeyo, thank you for making me think again about what I wrote before.

The fact that you're from Greece and you're mad makes more sense.  I understand what you're saying.  Really, it's not the social services that you're railing against, it's the waste and inefficiency with which they're executed - on this we agree.


However, to say you aren't benefiting is foolish.  Would you want to be surrounded by a nation of uneduated people, impoverished old beggers, and have law enforcement personnel to control crime?  Of course not.  Your government has obviously been foolish and wasteful with its implementation of these programs, but the issue is the waste, not the programs themselves.  Crying out that you want to abolish the programs because they're poorly managed is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It pains me to have to explain this, so I'll use small words, Genius: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are separate documents. I haven't cited the Constitution, nor will I except to point out its flaws. It's your beloved "social contract" and it's worthless- a promise by the powers that be not to mistreat us unless they really really want to. It's selectively enforced and arbitrarily interpreted to mean anything they want it to mean.

Add to it the fact that in my life I have never seen efficiency in these areas. Maybe you're right, but nothing seems to work here for the last 30 years or so, I can't talk about earlier as I was too young.

And about the "living-in-fear" nation : I'm afraid what you're describing is coming anyway, pretty soon, at least in my greater neighborhood.

All the best.  

And what's the Declaration of Independence?  A holy document penned by god himself?  It was a document written to establish a new state and approved/signed off on by the US congress of the time, and you're the resident state-hater... but you'll quote it because it happens to fit your worldview.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

All the best to you as well.  What happens in Greece will certainly affect us all.  That type of waste and inefficiency is the perfect example of why democracies need educated, actively participating citizens in order to function.  If you don't like something, you can change it.  Unfortunately, people are too busy with their daily trivial activities to be concerned with the functioning of the government... until everything is collasping around them and now suddenly they're ready to take action.

I am merely providing evidence that the State doesn't live up to it's own justification for existence. The government claims that it exists to secure natural rights and that it derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed. This obviously means that it has no such justification if it fails to secure those rights or if it doesn't enjoy the consent of the governed. It wasn't written by God. It was written by Statists who unintentionally provided us with the reasoning to oppose them.

Society created the State and the Market.  Neither can be restrained effectively, but the State will eventually kill itself.  

No, what you're doing is arbitrarilly using a document created by the state to justify actions against the state because you don't like other state created documents.

I guess the irony of that escapes you.


You prefaced that by saying this is "your country", a statement for which you have no proof or legal backing... aside from the state created document that says you have a right to live here if you abide by the rest of the state created documents which outline the obligations of the state and obligations of its citizens... and we've come full circle.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Ever actually read the declaration?

It wasn't created by 'the state', it was written by a bunch of traitors to the crown.

You most certainly can have your cake and eat it too. As it happens, A am doing exactly that right now. (Chocolate peanutbutter!mmmm.) What you are trying to say is that you can't eat your cake and have it too, Brainiac.

There is nothing arbitrary about me using a State document to justify actions against the State. You seem to think  it's a one way street. Whether I like other state documents is irrelevant. It's obvious that the Constitution effectively does little if anything to restrain the growth, size and scope of the federal government. The American republic was a noble experiment that failed. Limited government was not achieved.

 I accept the rationale of the Founders for their rebellion against the State. I apply that same rationale for my oposition to the State they created. 

I am a citizen as Webster defines it:

1
: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

I don't have to prove my citizenship. The burden of proof is on those who claim otherwise.

Do you even know what the term "Rule of Law" means?

from Wikipedia:
The rule of law is a legal maxim that provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself. The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law, a feature of Roman law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.

An agent of the state can't break the law in order to enforce it. An agent of the State whether king or cop can't steal any more than I can as a private citizen.  This is true, even if he calls the theft "taxation."

I think I ate too much cake.

...if you live in illogical land, which you obviously do, being a libertarian and all.


It's like saying Christianity is wrong and then quoting the Bible to prove your point.   ::)

Give any person or group infinite power and tell them to restrain themselves, and the same is likely to happen. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That doesn't address the point.  Reread and respond to the point.

You do realize that the founders were ideologically far closer to libertarians than anything other politcal ideology that can be found in the United States today, right?

Like this?:

Christianity condones Baby-killing!
Psalms 137:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalms%20137:9&version=ESV)

Out of context much?

"O daughter of Babylon, doomed to be destroyed,
   blessed shall he be who repays you
   with what you have done to us!
9Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones
   and dashes them against the rock!"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=ESV

Says who?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -Thomas Jefferson

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers." - John Jay

"It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the greater, not the perfect, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment." - James Madison

"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine

"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power." - James Madison

"Personal property is the effect of Society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist, the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation therefore of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes, on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came. This is putting the matter on a general principle, and perhaps it is best to do so; for if we examine the case minutely, it will be found, that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labour that produced it; the consequence of which is, that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence. It is perhaps impossible to proportion exactly the price of labour to the profits it produces; and it will also be said, as an apology for injustice, that were a workman to receive an increase of wages daily, he would not save it against old age nor be much the better for it in the interim. Make then Society the treasurer to guard it for him in a common fund, for it is no reason that because he might not make a good use of it for himself that another shall take it." - Thomas Paine


Yup, sure sounds like they're right in line with your beliefs.  ::)

Bible thumpers have been using out-of-context quotes for centuries to rationalize all manner of things. What makes that any different?

But we stray from the topic.

I believe this was where we left off:

Which, at the time, were the state.  It was then ratified by the congress of the time, which was the state.

Quick review for the historically challenged (via wiki):

At the time it was written, the colonies were still subject to royal rule. Had their plot been discovered by the Crown's agents, they would have been hanged. The document itself lists a long 'Chain of abuses' which I could (and have, on another forum) find modern parallels to. I think using that document to chastise the government it helped to found is perfectly fitting.

What you think and what is logically consistent are two different things in this case.

Seven quotes, all of which were out of context, was the best that you could do?  Really?  I could have done better than that on your behalf.

I don't think that you want a founding father quote war.  You would be buried in counter quotes and this thread would just devolve into irrelevency.  They weren't gods, and they weren't ideologically perfect, either.  I didn't claim any such thing.  I said that they were closer to libs than anything else that can be found in modern politics, and I think that even you know this to be true.  I could crush what you posted with the single text of the 'give me liberty or give me death' speech.

You keep saying that, but I don't think that you know what that means.

If we were to bother with the logical consistency argument, you might die from the cognative dissonance.

Put them in context.

I have better things to do with my lifespan.

Nice cop out.  ::)

I've already established that you are only here because you enjoy arguing with libs, and imagine yourself to be the smartest person in the forum.  Hell, you're probably the smartest person in the room even when you're outside.  But the reality is that you just don't have anything better to do with your life, and thus your time has reached it's own true market value.  Most of the rest of us value our time more than to feed the troll.

Nice cop out.  ::)

+1.

I'm not saying I support government, but if you don't want the "services" of a government then who enforces property rights?

In an anarcho-capitalist society if somebody claims an unused building or piece of land to be "theirs" why should I respect that?

You need to quantify 'unused'

If you mean completely unused, State of Nature, without even a fence around it, then it's up for grabs. nobody's claimed it.

 A parkland-type area, moderately improved, paths, fences, etc, has been 'homesteaded', and signs would likely inform you that the owner wants to keep this area as close to nature as possible. A responsible owner would hire guards, or at least run periodic checks, to evict squatters. The Market would develop a standard for how long it takes for a property to be 'abandoned'.

 A run-down building would be in a similar situation. Standards would be developed to determine how long a building has to stay unused and unguarded, before it can safely be considered abandoned, and disputes would be handled, like in most situations, via mediation/arbitration.

I would also add that emergent standards arise concerning what exactly constitutes "abandoned" property. There is a body of common law on this already, which varies somewhat depending on where you are.  Bottom line is that the PRIMARY enforcers of property rights are the property owners themselves. Custom, common law, social pressure, third party dispute arbitrators all contribute to the enforcement and interpretation of property rights.

He's in favor of government, but against the corporations?

Stalinist much?

That way lies State Capitalism, which is even worse than the Corporatist system we currently have.

States and corporations are basically the same thing.

Sounds like government.

Property is impossible.

Not even 'basically'. There's no need to qualify it:
cor·po·ra·tion/ˌkôrpəˈrāSHən/Noun
1. A company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.
2. A group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough.

Sounds like government.

Property is impossible.
[/quote]

How does that sound like government?

I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned.

I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration.

Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government?

FYI: without property, society is impossible.

How does that sound like government?

I stated that THE MARKET would develop, organically (meaning via prior precedent, what we would today call 'case law') standards for how long a property could be left unattended without being considered abandoned.

I further stated that disputes would be handled by arbitration.

Where is the LAW, and the ENFORCEMENT that defines government?

FYI: without property, society is impossible.
[/quote]

Standards would be developed, and enforced via arbitration.  Or presumably there would be some sort of enforcement, since without an enforcement mechanism arbitration is kind of useless.

What does it matter what the "Market" says if I have armed guards?
If I have armed guards I can claim any property for any period of time. Period.
Then were back to the model of whoever has the most force determines the rules, as it is now.
That's not something I want at least.

The State is a corporation that enjoys a monopoly on legal initiatory violence and is the final arbiter of disputes, including disputes with itself. This is the definition of the State. Without such properties, the corporation is not a State. Society needs no such corporation, and in fact is harmed by such a corporation, although it needs rules.
A society that recognizes property rights, but not the legitimacy of a governance monopoly (State) is properly called "anarcho-capitalist". 

A corporation that provides the services currently supplied by the State, but that did not enjoy monopoly and final arbiter status would not be a State. "Essential services" would still be provided, and provided more efficiently and most important VOLUNTARILY. 

What you want and what you can reasonably expect are two entirely different things. We can't eliminate violence in society, unfortunately. We can only work to minimize it.

The point I'm trying to make is that I can't envision a peaceful society with "extensive" property rights.

What I mean with "extensive" property rights is that a person can own any amount of land beyond what they make immediate use of themself. It seems to me to have property rights beyond what you actually can use yourself you need force in some form.

People are going to want to have some land for themselves. Just look at how many squatters and land disputes there are today even with a State. The desire for people to have some land for themselves is not going to away just because the State disappears.

Also, this notion of property is relatively western & modern. Remember that American natives did not have this concept of land property.
So my preference would be to have no extensive property rights and thereby a more peaceful society.

Most 'enforcement' in AnCap society is economic. With force not a legitimate option, a person who refuses arbitration or refuses to abide by the result of the arbitration (unlikely, since he agreed to that result) would find himself outside of society. No one would trade with him, no one would work with him, and no one would offer him a job.

Worse, no arbitration firm or mediation group would contract with him, so he would be 'out in the cold' when it comes to dispute resolution... the original meaning of outlaw. Since learning this information would be part of growing up in the society, everyone would know it, so very few would refuse arbitration or fail to keep their end of the bargain.

Obviously, this is an extreme case. First time 'offenders' might still be able to find people to work with them, albeit at higher rates, with stricter contract requirements, more supervision, or payment required up front. Basically, Life, for the known - for lack of a better word - 'cheater', sucks.

If you have armed guards, the property isn't abandoned. You're expending your resources to protect it. Even if it's completely pristine, nothing to mark the border beyond a simple fence, If you're willing to pay men to do nothing more than make sure I don't step on your plants, I'm willing to let you.

So the biggest, most organized group with the most guns gets the most land. You could name that group "Government".

No, it's really quite different from what we have today. Today, those 'armed guards' are paid for by forcing people to give them money. That's not at all what this is.

Previously unclaimed property is previously unclaimed. Now it's not unclaimed, he claimed it. Same as if someone without the guards just up and moved in.

If someone was only gone a few days before someone else moved in, they could (and would!) take that person to arbitration. Since both you and I agree that a few days is way too short, it's likely that arbitration would come to the same conclusion, and require the person to relinquish the property to its original owner, with consequences outlined above for failure to comply.

They could lie to the arbitration court and say that the previous owner sold it to them, or they could simply kill the previous owner and bury his body without trace.

The point is that any organization with sufficient resources to lie, cheat, steal or kill sucessfully could assert themselves if people generally recognized that some people have right to a lot more land than other people. It took many centuries, but IMHO that's exactly how we got into this situation today.

They could, Yes. But then, Someone could sneak into the guy who has all the guards' house, kill him in his sleep, fire all the guards the next day, hire new guards, and take over his 'empire'.

In the event of a 'sale', there would be a distinct lack of paperwork to prove that, unlike in a real sale.

In the case of a murder, there is no such thing as 'without a trace'. Everyone makes mistakes, and a well-paid investigator isn't going to give up when told, 'One day, the original owner, he just 'poof' decide to move out.'

Fine, then we have "war" and the group that is most successful at lieing, stealing and killing (and keeping their ill gains) "wins".

You could present a forged document, or you could bribe the arbritation court. So many possibilities for the really creative evil person.

Then you kill any investigator who comes too close to the truth.

My point is, that yes, violence is one way to do things, but it is not the most efficient way. Once you've forcefully evicted someone, you then have to defend yourself against their counter-attack, not to mention the possibility of losses in the initial assault. Keep in mind that your armed guards aren't soldiers, they're just people looking for a paycheck, and there are better ways of earning your paycheck than taking over people's houses.

Then the person would make sure their armed guards are highly trained and have some fanatical attachment (through indoctrination) to the leader so they aren't just doing it for their paycheck. But of course you only start taking over the land of the weakest people first. Also you offer "peace" to anyone who submits to you voluntarily. Anyone who dares to counter-attack you threaten with with extreme retaliation (or perhaps cut a deal with them). Once you have "conquered" a large enough territory you declare yourself "king".

And where would this indoctrination come from? You going to be raising your own army from kids?

I guess it's possible, horrendously expensive, especially on your own dime, but possible. But what happens when you start storming houses, and losing troops? What happens when the other members of your society notice that you've gone and raised an army, and are now using it for conquest?

Well, look at history of the past 3000 years. This is exactly how it worked. You can "pay" for your conquest through the plunder you acquire.

You can indoctrinate people with religion, for example, or certain ideologies, like Communism or Fascism.

If you really have a strong army other people will have to submit to you. Also, if you are not entirely cruel and let people live under your "rule", then they might willingly submit to you or even help you. Also, you can always spread lies and rumors and make other groups seem to be worse enemies.

What I'm trying to say is that IMHO if violence or threat of violence in any form is acceptable then an anarcho-capitalist society is not going to work, or rather it will work but it will eventually end up in the situation we have today. That namely through competition the most successful group at using and consolidating force will eventually take over everything (and call itself "government" to justify itself).

Since the only way to "defend" unused property though is through violence or threat of violence (because many people want property) then property rights (beyond what you actually use for yourself) are not going to work.

1: You won't be making any money while you're raising the kids. that's a 16-18 year investment in what, 3 to 400 kids?  Whoo. You must be mighty rich.

2: Indoctrination doesn't happen overnight, Chief, you gotta get 'em young, before they start thinking for themselves.

3: Just exactly how strong an army can you afford? Remember, you've got to raise them on your own dime, since you can't have any plunder until you have an army.

4: How are you, by definition a monopoly, going to provide better services than the Market already does for these people? Do you honestly believe that propaganda is going to work in AnCapistan?

Since the only way to "defend" yourself against rape is by violence or threat of violence, Any form of sexual discretion is not going to work.

Just like happens now.

Are you just arguing that an Anarchist system would be flawed?  Because i don't think anyone denied that.

What is your system and how would it lessen these flaws?

There is no way of knowing how "extensive" the property rights would become in any given AnCap society, but because the founding principle of the society in the Non-Agression Axiom, the violence would likely be relatively less.   It's quite possible that Use would be a major factor if not the primary factor in determining ownership. I would be ok with that.

That is my point. If force is acceptable (in anything else than self-defense) then we would basically end up in some situation similiar to what we have today.

I support an anarchist system and it seems to me property rights would most likely be limited to what you can actually use personally. I don't see people accepting somebody owning land or buildings they practically never use. At least that is my sentiment and that's what I see from movements such as squatters. Though I agree it's hard to say what people would agree on.

But I also think this point will probably become moot after the 2012 event with the raising of consciousness. Violence and lieing will simply not be possible (or very, very limited).

I suspect I might be with you then.

I'm an Anarcho-Socialist so i don't believe in extensive property rights.