Collective self-defense is not the same as a state. You clearly don't understand anarchism. You think it amounts to pacificism. It does not.

What could be more arbitrary than mob rule? By the way, you keep ignoring my bill for services rendered of my "house waving service". I've been by your house several times and waved at it therefore you owe me a million dollars. You've had plenty of time to move so you obviously want my services according to your logic. What gives? Please show me how you intend to weasel out of this bill.


If you don't like my house waving service, stop using it. Oh that's right, I don't allow you to cancel my services, too bad.


Brinks. ADT. Any number of private security firms.

Do our politicians have dissociative identity disorder or is robbing people at gunpoint not a lucrative enough enterprise?

Ah, good ole' Jacque Fresco. I watched a documentary on him years ago and I almost bought into it. His logic is the same logic that used to make me wonder why people go hungry while food sits on the shelves in grocery stores collecting dust. Then I learned economics. He's a great engineer which is why he thinks like one rather than an economist. All he sees is that we need X tons of resources to have futuristic cities and also that we have X tons of resources in the ground. It seems like all we need to do is get from A to B, problem solved. Getting from A to B is the hardest part though. Who's going to be in charge? Who's going to do the work, when and how much of it? Those are questions that simply cannot be centrally planned as long as we have scarcity of labor and people with bizarre notions of being individuals. When we have robot slaves, he's going to be all set. Until then, stick to the engineering Jacque.


That being said, I definitely want a house that's been extruded, has no crevices or seams, that's positively pressurized and can be hosed out when dirty.

Why not? You are agreeing to put theft to a vote. Please come up with some sort of principled argument instead of ad hoc assertions. Why is one immoral act up for vote but not another?

Never underestimate the destructive power of well-intentioned idiots.

I know nothing about programming with Qt but I'm willing to learn if nobody else takes you up on this. Good luck!

Also, I forgot to mention that if you use Google's version of OpenID with your Google account you can have two-factor authentication which makes this the most secure exchange at the moment, unless someone else has two-factor authentication or is also using OpenID.

Read more about it: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in-security-for-your.html

Also, Google provides the ability to use one-time-passwords which is useful if you need to use an insecure network or a limited browser.

Ding, ding. We have a winner.

Competition good! Monopolies bad!

That's just my unfrozen caveman lawyer interpretation of it though.

Where would you rather spend the night, in a public park or Disney World? In a public park you are protected by the police but at Disney World you are protected by security guards. Somehow, I think I would feel safer at Disney World, especially once it gets dark.

Then why would anybody bother to work when people like you will clothe and feed them? I'm sorry but I don't owe anyone anything like that. If you want to survive, do it yourself.


Ignore them? Jump in the ocean and drown? By the way, my bill to you is in the mail. If you keep living in your house then I'll assume you agree that it's legitimate.

I'm 99.999% sure that keefe is going to take me up on this. I'll update this thread once everything is finalized. Thanks for the replies everyone!

So, you're saying that it's alright if I let him and his family starve but it's not alright to make him an offer whereby he is able to save his family? That really makes no sense to me.


I don't see how this is analogous to my situation. Are you saying that before I exited my mother's birth canal I knew that I was going to be subject to taxes and therefore I shouldn't have been born if I didn't agree to it? That's plainly false. I'm not some guy moving into a house. I'm a guy kidnapped and taken on board a ship while asleep.

If he is then I'll be sending him my bill for "B2C's house waving service" whereby I drive by his house, wave at it and he owes me a million dollars.

Yes, I think it should be honored. There's a difference between going on board a ship voluntarily and being kidnapped and carried on board, just like there is a difference between voluntarily immigrating to a country and being born there. The former implies consent to the laws of the land while the latter does not, even if you remain there instead of moving. That's the extent to which that analogy is relevant. Don't read more into it than that.

If I don't offer the guy the deal, his family starves anyways. Somehow by giving him the means to save them I'm harming him?


So, if the cable company starts sending you a bill even though you didn't request their services and don't intend to use them, you're going to pay it? Also, money can exist privately without government. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange and stored value longer than fiat currency. I feel sorry for people that can't even conceive of a system not based on aggression and coercion. The fact we're on the Bitcoin forums where you make the claim that money only has value because of the government is very ironic.

Of course it's valid. All voluntary agreements are valid.


Here's what David Hume thinks of such an assertion:



Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

No, they just shoot you in the head or lock you in a rape dungeon. That's much better!

By the way, when you go to a loan shark they are up front with you. They say, "We'll loan you this money but if you don't pay up then we'll break your thumbs." If you don't like that deal, don't take it! Are you seriously expecting me to feel sorry for someone that voluntarily enters into an agreement and then is surprised when the other party keeps their word?

Again, at least with a loan shark you can agree to their terms or walk away. With the government there is no option. Pay up or we'll take your stuff. If you try to defend yourself, we'll kill you or beat you into submission and lock you in a rape dungeon. That's somehow better?


I can't tell if you're serious or not. If drugs were legal, they'd be cheap and nobody would be killing each other over them. Do you see people shooting each other in the streets over alcohol? Not anymore but during prohibition they were. Of course, let's not do anything intelligent like drawing a lesson from that.

Then your argument is reduced to absurdity. It doesn't matter if there will always be rapists, we should still strive towards a maximally rape-free society, just like we should strive towards a maximally aggression-free society. The fact that neither will ever exist completely is absolutely irrelevant.

By the way, where do you get the idea that anarchists are pacifists? That would imply that we don't see self-defense as legitimate and I haven't met one yet that believes that. We're against aggression, not violence.

Our society is already full of thugs and gangs, the police and politicians. Go ask some poor bastard sitting in prison being tortured, locked away from his family, his livelihood taken away from him because he refused to pay taxes or had the audacity to smoke a joint. The difference is that our current system necessarily promotes abuse and injustice. At least we have a fighting chance with anarchism.

Isn't that like saying we should allow rape because there will always be rapists and therefore a rape-free society is impossible?


All states employ taxation which is immoral. All states outlaw some form of drug use which is immoral. Therefore, your system of right and wrong is already broken.