|
Much wisdom in that letter. Both men and women suffer for the lack of taking responsibility from their actions and choices. I am grateful for the lady in my life, somehow she got brought up properly and didn't suffer enough of the reality in that letter. My grandma was really hard on my growing up about how to treat people and enough of it stuck as well. Most people in my peer group, that is not the case. They bounce from person to person wondering why "it didn't work out" or "I'll settle down later". To each as his own but having a real partner is a great feeling on a daily basis. Hard work too lol.
|
|
|
|
All this arguing is pointless. Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.
Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.
Then with your own statement, we will never be without Aggression. A person murders in cold blood - He will be executed Feeling pain is part of life and a survival function People will be imprisoned when they are a threat to society and if their crime was heinous enough, possible executed. |
|
|
|
You can live in your fantasy all you want. I live in the real world where the reality is that humans are aggressive just like all top-tier animals in nature.
Is that so? Who have you killed today? On your drive to work, did you just plow out into the freeway, slamming other cars aside, or did you wait for a spot to open up before you moved over? When another car tried to get on the freeway, did you ram them over the guiderail, or did you let them on? Actually I took the ferry to work that is supported by my sales tax and rider card revenue. It is affordable, dependable, clean and I trust in the people running it. |
|
|
|
Why are you focusing on healthcare so much, that was only one item on the list?
Because it is such a clear benefit. I am not showing "partisan" politics. I'm showing you reality. The reality is that you are asking someone to point a fucking gun in my face and demand my money. If you wouldn't do that yourself, why do you ask someone else to do it? Taxation is what you keep referring to. It is mandatory not voluntary. I am showing you reality. AnCap is a pipe dream with good points but that is all. Not enough substance to keep a functioning society together. By functions I mean Law & Order that is fair and just. |
|
|
|
Thank you for clarification on them being Joint-stock companies and how they would operate, sounds promising and I would like to see that in-place in our current system. Not gonna happen. Lobbying is cheaper than competing. I am sorry you can't handle a mandatory tax for basic services. I am also not going to continually defend it or apologize for it. You obviously have a lower bar for what I believe is needed for the general welfare and well being of a functional society.
On the contrary, I have a much higher bar. You accept aggression as a matter of course, I do not. I would would heavily restrict lobbying if it was on my watch and I am not sure if I would even let companies participate. Public official need to focus on domestic non-business issues almost exclusively. You can live in your fantasy all you want. I live in the real world where the reality is that humans are aggressive just like all top-tier animals in nature. |
|
|
|
Response to 1st line of discussion: I reject your premise that a government is a Master/Slave relationship & than having things your are required to do in a society is a form of slavery. Translation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03sResponse to 2nd line of discussion: No I would not point a gun at you for healthcare...
But that is exactly what you are doing. Worse... you aren't even ballsy enough to do it yourself. You're asking someone else to point a gun at me so you can have healthcare. Ok, there is a difference between our perspective. Good luck selling AnCap on the people. Why are you focusing on healthcare so much, that was only one item on the list? You show your partisan politics pretty heavily. Its taxation, get over it or don't. AnCap is a libratarians wet dream, but that is all it is. Some pieces have promise but as a whole, inadequate. |
|
|
|
Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.
Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed. Where is your proof of that? Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations. I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State. Well, first off, they wouldn't be corporations. Not in the sense we use the word. They might still be Joint Stock Companies, but they would not have the legal and liability protections granted them by the government. Nor would they have their artificially high barriers to entry, provided by the regulations they paid for. Competition for their market share would be fierce. And how do they keep that market share? By serving the customers. Because we have the money they want, and without the guns of government to make us give it up, the only way to get it is to give us what we want.
Because the efficient way is also more expensive. I can hardly predict the entirety of all market interactions, so I can't predict whether there would be more people who just sign up for security contracts, or more who train a few hours every week at home, or more who do both. (If I were running a security company, I would offer discounts for agreeing to - and training to - help out in the event of an invasion - allows me to keep my staff small, and my profits high.)
Sounds like something I wouldn't want to leave to chance or market gyrations. So instead you give it to a monopoly, and let them use their guns to make you pay for it? Thank you for clarification on them being Joint-stock companies and how they would operate, sounds promising and I would like to see that in-place in our current system. I am sorry you can't handle a mandatory tax for basic services. I am also not going to continually defend it or apologize for it. You obviously have a lower bar for what I believe is needed for the general welfare and well being of a functional society. |
|
|
|
Taxation is backed up by force of arms. Do you dispute that? - No I do not. Non-compliance will land you in jail and so armed force will come to your place of residence if you do not voluntarily surrender if judgement deemed your incarceration. (I am not saying this could be the only punishment, just that is the current remedy)
And if the slave didn't work for Master, what happened? The whip. So they get money from people by threatening them with guns, just like the plantation owners got work from the slaves by threatening the whip. Then, a not-for-profit charity, perhaps?
Charity Definition - The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.
Keep the non-profit and change voluntary to mandatory giving of money and you will have what I am advocating for those basic services I feel is not an option for the vast majority of societies.
You would, then, point a gun at me, to provide yourself with healthcare? I reject your premise that a government is a Master/Slave relationship & than having things your are required to do in a society is a form of slavery. Actually, the government has done many positive things for me. I am not satisfied in many areas but I won't write it off completely either. Response to 2nd line of discussion: No I would not point a gun at you for healthcare, but I would also not defend you not paying taxes that were put in place in American through our republic if you lived in America. If a court found you guilty of tax-evasion and decided that jail-time was the prescription under the law, then if they needed to grab you by force because you would not surrender yourself, so be it. Go live somewhere else or start a revolution and see if you get broad support. If you did the later and was proven correct, I would support the will of the people, and still think they were wrong. |
|
|
|
Because the efficient way is also more expensive. I can hardly predict the entirety of all market interactions, so I can't predict whether there would be more people who just sign up for security contracts, or more who train a few hours every week at home, or more who do both. (If I were running a security company, I would offer discounts for agreeing to - and training to - help out in the event of an invasion - allows me to keep my staff small, and my profits high.)
Sounds like something I wouldn't want to leave to chance or market gyrations. |
|
|
|
Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.
Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed. Where is your proof of that? Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations. I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State. |
|
|
|
You should just take away that I believe their are basic responsibilities that I do not believe some private entity will be a good custodian of, better than a central administration (ie: a government).
Is there any reason that central administration can not be run as a for-profit company, rather than pointing guns at people to get their money? I am not sure where this "pointing guns at people" is referring too, please elaborate? Taxation is backed up by force of arms. Do you dispute that? Now to the question about why not a for-profit company. Because the incentive is not the same when you are in a job "for profit" than when you in a job "providing a public service not for profit". To close, I fee their are "services" that I believe are better provided by a
"not for profit" administration than a "for profit" one. I mention a list in an earlier reply in this thread.
Then, a not-for-profit charity, perhaps? - No I do not. Non-compliance will land you in jail and so armed force will come to your place of residence if you do not voluntarily surrender if judgement deemed your incarceration. (I am not saying this could be the only punishment, just that is the current remedy) Then, a not-for-profit charity, perhaps? Charity Definition - The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.Keep the non-profit and change voluntary to mandatory giving of money and you will have what I am advocating for those basic services I feel is not an option for the vast majority of societies. |
|
|
|
Passing money and making transactions outside of normal pay channels has serious repercussions for the financial industry.
Translation from propagandese to What-They-Really-Meanese "People peacefully cooperating without seeking approval from authorities are dangerous and evil." I actually agree 100% with this statement. You hit the nail directly here. |
|
|
|
|
I love a guy that does exactly what he says other do to him and topics he responds or creates. I am glad to find out that I am not the only one who feels Rudd-O is really rough when he responds.
Now to your point to stay on topic - Yes, I agree many mental illnesses are created by environmentally conditions, I would even say the majority (large majority). I don't want to go on about this but I will leave it that our modern society has some very counter-productive messages that start with what the parents were taught as children up those each step of contact we make through society, schooling, media, peer-groups and straight-up propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Davout - Can you be more clear on exactly what your saying? I am still trying to contempt his OP.
I sure could but can't be bothered I think Mike above actually did. Thanks though. |
|
|
|
You should just take away that I believe their are basic responsibilities that I do not believe some private entity will be a good custodian of, better than a central administration (ie: a government).
Is there any reason that central administration can not be run as a for-profit company, rather than pointing guns at people to get their money? I am not sure where this "pointing guns at people" is referring too, please elaborate? Now to the question about why not a for-profit company. Because the incentive is not the same when you are in a job "for profit" than when you in a job "providing a public service not for profit". To close, I fee their are "services" that I believe are better provided by a "not for profit" administration than a "for profit" one. I mention a list in an earlier reply in this thread. |
|
|
|
Anyway, I am not the topic of discussion here. The fact that we're discussing me, and that I was brought up as a topic by these people, is proof enough that these people have managed to derail the conversation and make it about me, to stall and avoid actually thinking about the ideas we were discussing.
Actually you are the topic of discussion and you methods are exactly what derails these discussions. Just start from the beginning before you posted a single reply and see what direction and how the tone changed in this thread. I find it quite obvious. Me and Myrkul don't see eye to eye, but we can communicate with one another directly but not crossing the line into something else. |
|
|
|
Hey, all you guys claiming that AnCap may lead to things like bit powerful companies using their strengths to bully the little guy
Statists resort to this belief as a form of fearmongering. It is, of course, a lie. They can't possibly know whether this would happen in a stateless society, and we know this is so, because whenever they want to "prove" their belief, what do they do? They bring up examples of statist societies, where the examples of organizations who supposedly are "very dangerous" have, in fact, been empowered by (you guessed it) a state. It's nothing but projection, see? Statists project the fact that in their statist system, they support the accumulation of murderous power in the organized criminals doing business as "government", who, of course, trample on the little guy as much as they want. They pretend this is a form of "protection", but, of course, it isn't protection any more than any other Mafia charging you "protection money" to "protect your business from burning down". Their whole "argument" boils down to "I want the strangers I worship to kill / cage / rob me if I disobey them, because I am scared of strangers killing / caging / robbing me". Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands how pathologically lunatic this Livestockholm Syndrome is. It is a classic example of projection of abuse to deny their own abuse. No point in debating someone with their mind made up, so disrespectful and assuming. See, you call me names (not the first time, by the way), but you never actually bother responding to arguments (mine or others') with valid rebuttals. Yes, I've seen your posts. You pretend to have a debate, but then you respond to arguments by calling them names all the time, and if that doesn't shut your interlocutor up, you call them names directly. You try to pretend that your interlocutor "is not listening" or "does not want to have a debate", when those empty complaints of yours describe your very behavior. I have yet to see a valid rebuttal coming from you... and I'm kind of tired of waiting for that, and seeing cheap stalling tactics instead. You're going straight to my ignore list. This is not a punishment -- I simply do not need to read your anti-contributions to the boards. 1. No point in debating someone with their mind made up, so disrespectful and assuming - This is a fact is not calling you a name? If so, what name? 2. If anyone cares, read the 2 posts I didn't respond two and tell me I should allow myself respond to such a disrespectful tone? In closing, I am actually glad Rudd-O ignored me so I don't need to respond to valid questions from people with a lack of patience, tact and general manners in a debate/discussion. |
|
|
|
Rudd-O, while you are quite likely absolutely correct in your analysis of their question I do not agree with your approach for a response or lack thereof.
If we are ever going to get to an ancap society it will require a lot more people adhering to the same principles as we ancaps already do. Since people do, what they were taught by their parents, friends, teachers, priests and other gurus it's really pointless to blame them for their beliefs or worldview because it's not their fault they got taught bullshit. It's likewise pointless to point out to them their coping mechanism because it does not teach them anything of value but instead likely turns them even further away from listening to you and your ideas, not to mention some may consider your approach borderline trolling.
Why not instead recognize that what they know and how they live their life is not their fault, recognize the likely coping mechanisms they deploy to deal with the fallacies they base their principles on and find a way around all of that to help them realize where they are wrong on their own? In other words why not do your best to teach those willing to listen instead of going on rants?
Of course this has reasonable limits but don't you think you at least have to give them a chance if we are ever going to get enough people reasoning correctly?
I disagree. People with minds broken beyond repair won't change their minds. Either the world will change without them and they will not matter, or they will die off and be replaced with people who do have healthy minds and will change the world. In any of those cases, trying to reason with a person who has been made mentally ill by societal abuse, is not going to work. I give people a chance when they behave in a way that leads me to believe they will take the chance. What societal abuse brought you to your conclusion of this alleged better system of government? |
|
|
|
Rudd-O, while you are quite likely absolutely correct in your analysis of their question I do not agree with your approach for a response or lack thereof.
If we are ever going to get to an ancap society it will require a lot more people adhering to the same principles as we ancaps already do. Since people do, what they were taught by their parents, friends, teachers, priests and other gurus it's really pointless to blame them for their beliefs or worldview because it's not their fault they got taught bullshit. It's likewise pointless to point out to them their coping mechanism because it does not teach them anything of value but instead likely turns them even further away from listening to you and your ideas, not to mention some may consider your approach borderline trolling.
Why not instead recognize that what they know and how they live their life is not their fault, recognize the likely coping mechanisms they deploy to deal with the fallacies they base their principles on and find a way around all of that to help them realize where they are wrong on their own? In other words why not do your best to teach those willing to listen instead of going on rants?
Of course this has reasonable limits but don't you think you at least have to give them a chance if we are ever going to get enough people reasoning correctly?
Also don't assume that your system is the correct way as well. This should be a respectful discussion where "we" challenge each others ideals. Just as you believe I have fallacies, I believe you hold some fallacies as well based on how your perceive the world around you and your frustration with how government structure have and currently are operated. If we are not trying to have a discussion where both sides are intellectual at the point where you could be swayed by another's ideas, then this is really just propaganda and nothing more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
