First of I was under the impression the offers were cumulative  On the other hand if they aren't. 5 pound (80 ounces) of gold is like $133k US atm, so I guess you must value a shag from an ugly chick pretty damn high I value metal over toilet paper, actually. The shag is a bonus. Me too, give me something real any day. |
|
|
|
Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.
Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence? Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination. Foundations NGO Lobbying Endowments PACs Dedications Scholarships Funded Research Advertising Movies Books Screenplays TV Shows Radio Shows Political Movements Pornography Celebrities etc.... |
|
|
|
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. [...] You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election." -Warren Buffett
Probably not a good idea. You'll basically end up replacing people who know what the hell they are doing with people who are clueless. At least in the private sector there is an abundance of skills learned from other businesses. Since the government is a monopoly, you can't just hire a Senator from some other Senate. People not knowing what they are doing might actually do a better job because they would then revert to their own common sense and sense of morality. I would actually rather risk gather a random person from the street and make them Senator than put my faith in someone who "wants" to become a Senator. Sounds like a variation of William F. Buckley's quip that he'd "rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."  Very nice, WFB has some nice quotes & quips over the years. I wish he were still around today R.I.P.. Dalkore |
|
|
|
An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town. I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production. You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.
I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more? Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time. I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. See, that's the best thing about capitalists. You always know what their interests are: Profit, both short- and long-term. Running you out of business would not be helpful to my long-term profit potential, and the short term benefits would not be worth that loss. You wish that is what Capitalist's only interests are. WRONG. There is this thing called Power & Influence which after you get a certain amount of money, becomes more important that digits in a bank account. You need to read more history on this subject. I personally have read histories on many industrialist and bankers whom we could consider proto-typical Capitalists and guess what I found across the board? Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence. Do you know why this is? IT IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL DIE AT SOME POINT. This means that their legacy and influence in what they care about and that does not have a direct correlation to making profit. They may have their own ideas on how society should be run or what culture will be taught, don't ever forget this. It is crucial to everything around you. |
|
|
|
An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town. I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production. You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.
I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more? Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma. It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time. I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. |
|
|
|
The act of Capitalism which is part of AnCap is not economically peaceful
Ah hah! So we get to the root at last. How is mutual voluntary trade and private ownership not peaceful? Well on face value it would not be known because we both have incomplete information in our mutually agreed upon trade. My point is when you control resources and means to productions and likely influence on distribution, you can enact harm on people through your trading practices. An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town. I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production. You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you. This actually happens all the time and we do have laws the counter these types of tactics. I am just showing you that all violence does not need to be physical, thats all. |
|
|
|
It all boils down to this: You think I must do something and instead of trying to persuade me to do it voluntarily and accept a potential rejection you think you should be able to use violence in order to force me to do it no matter what I want.
Bottom line, that's what you advocate and have shit for brains of calling it good.
You know what you are? You are an evil stupid bully/thug and you can go fuck yourself.
That is your opinion and your entitled to it. You should refrain from personal insults. Quite unbecoming of a " Staff" member. This whole discussion where certain people advocate violence against peaceful people merely because they refuse to do something became unbecoming so I fail to see your point. Also your assumption that these were peaceful people is a large assumption as well. The act of Capitalism which is part of AnCap is not economically peaceful and being that the money/profit derived from this activity is my sole manner of acquiring the goods I need for my survival, you could in fact through collusion, enact violence on my pocket-book and deny me the means of my survival. You think just because I am not clubbing you over the head I can not be violent or aggressive against you. Interesting... Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. - |
|
|
|
There would be no "posts" in AnCap. People will be hired based on their skills, and services will be "voted" on by purchases. Don't like the person at some "post?" Pay someone else.
I bet that is "exactly" what they will be hired on. No posts in Ancap, wow I feel safe. |
|
|
|
"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. [...] You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election." -Warren Buffett
Probably not a good idea. You'll basically end up replacing people who know what the hell they are doing with people who are clueless. At least in the private sector there is an abundance of skills learned from other businesses. Since the government is a monopoly, you can't just hire a Senator from some other Senate. People not knowing what they are doing might actually do a better job because they would then revert to their own common sense and sense of morality. I would actually rather risk gather a random person from the street and make them Senator than put my faith in someone who "wants" to become a Senator. |
|
|
|
Subjective morals aside, contrary to popular belief, you can't actually get very far in business while being an asshole about it. The only way to get far in the private sector is to give others something they want. You can be a total asshole and still get elected or make money in politics though (e.g. Gingrich, lobbyists, etc). As for being self centered, again, the only way you can make your own self centered life better is by trading something with someone else, be it your money, your skills, or your good/services. So even if you are narcissistic and self centered, at least you gave a lot of other people things to get that way.
You need to spend more time in business. It is called lying to your customers. There is much less competition in most industry and most are basically monopolies so either you pay ball or not. Also, you don't need to "get far", you just need to "get enough" and cash out and say "f**k em". I am not going to waste my time with this line of discussion. I would rather continue elsewhere, no offense I hope but I just think you are not being objective enough on this subject. |
|
|
|
They're irresponsible because they can be. Why get a job, when you can live off welfare and food stamps? Why save for retirement, when you can collect social security? Why save for a rainy day, when if you get fired, unemployment will pay you? I know you just want to help. I just wish that you would see that the help is what's causing the problems.
The only public goods you presented up there were Domestic Army ("national" defense), and infrastructure. The rest are either private goods, such as education, or not goods at all, such as elections. Infrastructure is easy to make profitable, or for that matter, turn into a private good. Toll roads, for instance.
The defense is a bit of a problem, since there is the positive externality of all the people who don't pay getting defended along with those who do. Of course, those who don't pay probably are taking care of their own defense, with a small arsenal of weapons. Therefore, they provide that same positive externality back to the community. Seems an equitable tradeoff to me. And as long as the defense company is able to run profitably, without charging so much that people stop paying, then they find it a fair trade as well.
Well now you bring a good line of discussion to go into: How would you feel about the State if we cut those benefits you spoke of? Is that a major part of you angst? Before I address your comment about my wanting to help (I'll give my reasoning), I would like to state I believe everyone universally is entitled to education in a Capitalistic society. Also road should be maintained for everyone, it should not become a class issue to travel in your country, at least to the doorstep of someones property. Elections should be funded by the public with no private money at all, issues are what get you elected and that is all. Even in AnCap you would have some form of elections to posts everyone agreed you needed. Now here is my issue with your hardline approach to whine people off of welfare services. I agree we would be stronger without them, the problem I have is the intentional perversion of the education and culture that has really brainwashed the populous into this servile state. I have to have some compassion for their situation and realize it is not all their cause and fault (some yes, not all). Also I don't believe "wealth" ie "money" should be the determinate factor on a person worth in society as well. Look where is has gotten us, no where except we have a few extra goodies. |
|
|
|
It all boils down to this: You think I must do something and instead of trying to persuade me to do it voluntarily and accept a potential rejection you think you should be able to use violence in order to force me to do it no matter what I want.
Bottom line, that's what you advocate and have shit for brains of calling it good.
You know what you are? You are an evil stupid bully/thug and you can go fuck yourself.
That is your opinion and your entitled to it. You should refrain from personal insults. Quite unbecoming of a " Staff" member. |
|
|
|
Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery. I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.
They're not really responsibilities if they are basically forced on us. If I were to give money to a local school, I'd be taking on the responsibility for funding and growing our local education and workforce. Instead, I just see a bunch of money leaving my paycheck, and I have no idea where it's going. I can only assume a part of it is going to the school, but the "responsibility" is essentially forced upon m me. Well there you go, you believe you live in a bubble and other live in bubbles and you do not recognize the community or the responsibility that go into maintaining a community. You are wrong in that notion and I feel comfortable that your system will never catch on until you compromise on that issue among others. My whole purpose of engaging in this debate was to get to this core issue. You have a lack of take responsibilities for issues of your community that do not have a direct affect on you. A selfish attitude and we already have plenty of this in the world today and is one of the reasons we are going down the tube. That is exactly how most seem to see libertarians and AnCaps, and it couldn't be further from the truth. I believe that I live in a community, and that I have responsibilities for it. I just think that my responsibilities should be voluntary, and that by "forcing" this responsibility on everyone, the government is essentially teaching everyone to completely abdicate their own responsibilities. Why should people care and be responsible if the government will just take their money and take care of things itself? The low voter turnouts pretty much show that people mostly don't care what their money goes to, and don't want to be responsible for how it's spent. Also, note that the point of doing taxes for everyone is to end up paying as little as possible. So, not only is the government teaching people to abdicate responsibilities, it's teaching them to avoid paying for as much of it as possible, too. I could similarly argue that your side is the selfish one, where you are projecting your own selfishness on all people in general, believing that everyone is as selfish as you, and only contribute to society because they are forced to, not because they feel responsible for it. Ok, now I think I have a question to bridge this divide. I can see at least this present company, our hearts are in the right place. Question:How do we get the general populous to start caring about their community and the people around them. If I had faith in them to be the proper custodian then I would be much more open to a different decentralized form of government. The modern media culture shows basically messages that are narcissistic and self-centered. About getting to the top no matter how ruthless. The less morals you have and the more you will exploit yourself the better. How do we combat this message? How do we bring back honor in people actions? Not all people because there are always exceptions but in most people. |
|
|
|
But if it's mutually beneficial, who would not purchase such a service voluntarily?
- I will actually use your line, there are irresponsible idiots Those are called, in economics, "public goods." Can you name some of those services? Can you think of some ways that they could be made profitable without resorting to forcing people to pay? Can you think of any ways that it might be paid for entirely voluntarily, with each person giving only as much as they desire?
- I have named these services many times so it feel redundant repeating this list. I think you can figure those out yourself. Hint: Domestic Army, Basic Preventative Health Care, Infrastructure, Education, Incarceration Facilities, Elections, Archival of Historic Records, etc.... These services should all be done not for profit and people should be required to pay. No choice. No I don't think they can be paid for voluntarily because people are in whole pretty selfish and irresponsible. This is why I think AnCap will never succeed unless you can change this aspect of human behavior. I am not saying taking all selfishness away but we are WAY beyond a healthy amount. Just look around and see the messages and the shit people say these days. I know you agree with me there, you wouldn't be even thinking about this subject if the current culture didn't make you cringe. Try responding my comment about human behavior and lets see if we can make some progress. |
|
|
|
Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery. I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.
They're not really responsibilities if they are basically forced on us. If I were to give money to a local school, I'd be taking on the responsibility for funding and growing our local education and workforce. Instead, I just see a bunch of money leaving my paycheck, and I have no idea where it's going. I can only assume a part of it is going to the school, but the "responsibility" is essentially forced upon m me. Well there you go, you believe you live in a bubble and other live in bubbles and you do not recognize the community or the responsibility that go into maintaining a community. You are wrong in that notion and I feel comfortable that your system will never catch on until you compromise on that issue among others. My whole purpose of engaging in this debate was to get to this core issue. You have a lack of take responsibilities for issues of your community that do not have a direct affect on you. A selfish attitude and we already have plenty of this in the world today and is one of the reasons we are going down the tube. |
|
|
|
Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.
That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies. It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic. No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not. Logic. Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery. I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone. If they're so mutually beneficial, why the force? Could it not be voluntary? Because there required, there is no option. These are also services where your lack of participation increases cost on everyone while at the same time yo enjoy these services regardless if you are directly involved with them. |
|
|
|
If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots. Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects. No, it is that we actually have empathy and compassion to people that are more disadvantaged that we are. If we are going to talk about a society different than are current one, we would not just let them fall to the way side. |
|
|
|
This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system. Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.
That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you. - How will they be " forced" " quickly". Sounds like speculation with no meat backing up that claim. We have a current system with good and bad laws and we have clear cut criminal behavior and we can't force quick justice. What makes you think in a system where we roll back government, they would speed up. I think your purely speculating and that is all. |
|
|
|
Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.
That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies. It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic. No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not. Logic. Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery. I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone. |
|
|
|
|
How much are you selling it for? I would be inclined to purchase it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
