So I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone that had a $200,000 house and wouldn't protect it for $100 a year (or whatever the dues were)? A fool and his money...

That calls for a great deal more speculation as to being able to manipulate people with a vast conspiracy without being exposed, etc, etc.

So, let's imagine that there are no governments and that the rich and powerful have vast private armies. Let's also imagine that, as would be likely, there are a bunch of other private armies and though they are each far smaller, altogether the number of soldiers is greater than that in the private armies of the rich and powerful.

Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.

It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.

Good, that's my goal.


It might not happen anytime soon. It might take generations. It might get worse before it gets better. Slavery didn't end worldwide overnight but when the time was right, it ended. That's the same kind of thing I envision for statism. When people are ready, it will happen but first it has to at least be seen as something possible and worth hoping for.

I see we're having trouble coming up with anything of substance to say. You're outmatched and you're frustrated so you resort to your default sarcastic douchebaggery self-defense mechanism. I swear they must have an assembly line for you statists. Oh that's right, it's called public school.

They won't once intellectual property laws are done away with, not in their current forms at least..


Contracts don't apply to third parties. I may sign a contract with Microsoft promising not to give away their software but if I do, anyone that receives that software isn't bound by that contract. They can do whatever they want. Once the cat is out of the bag...


Right. I don't expect to get anything for free. If I leave my property, I'll have to abide by the rules of others. That's voluntary which I'm not against. That's not a tax. That's a fee.


If the good people out number the bad, it's better to keep things decentralized because as soon as you have a single point of failure, it's easier to attack. If the bad people outnumber the good, we're fucked no matter what. See below.


That always applies. Do you think you'll be able to repel invaders with a book of laws as if it were the Bible to a vampire? It'll slow down the bullets but it won't stop them. Whoever controls the most resources wins but it doesn't have to be a single person controlling them. I'll pit your single 1000-man army against a thousand 100-man armies any day.

It's simple. Find me all the raw materials and send them to me. I'll solder the cables together, make them look nice and pretty and send them back to you USPS.

No, Microsoft and Cisco wouldn't exist because they are based on government enforced intellectual property laws.


If you don't want to give your money to a state, you're kidnapped or murdered. If you don't want to give your money to a corporation, you're forced to do without their goods or services.


Who do you think is going to try to seize control of the state hardest of all other than the evil greedy bastards you're trying to stop?

We also have to define property rights. If I grab the shirt you're wearing, am I the aggressor? Well, it depends. If you stole the shirt from me yesterday then you're the aggressor and I'm just reclaiming my property. If you own the shirt though, I'm the aggressor. We have to detail property rights before we can sort out who is the aggressor. The theory of property rights we advocate is homesteading and legitimate title transfer. You can claim unowned property by mixing your labor with it or you can transfer the title to already owned property by any legitimate means, gifts, gambling, trade, etc.

The biggest failure of evolution is having our food hole and breathing holes share the same tube. Anyone that's inhaled soda after reading some of the idiotic statist arguments on these forums probably knows what I mean.

I think the second biggest failure is having testicles dangling unprotected. It could have at least built a cage around them like my lungs have.

So if I have food and I don't give you any, I'm enforcing starvation on you?

The rest of your post is being ignored because it's based on a bunch of false assumptions. You don't know me so don't pretend to know why I favor markets.

I'm not talking about unemployment insurance which doesn't last forever. The point is, if eventually the option is to not work and get nothing or work and get very little then some people might prefer to work and get very little rather than to do nothing and get nothing. Who are you to enforce your personal opinions on them?

No, the question was, would you argue that not working and getting $0 an hour is better than working and getting $1 an hour. Also, assuming you say it's better to not work and get $0 an hour then do you think this is just your personal opinion or is it something that should be enforced everyone regardless of what they believe?

I heard it was just a bunch of BS about how we need more regulations because the ones that got us into that mess weren't enough and capitalism is based on greed, blah, blah. Is that an accurate description?

If people are smart enough to govern each other then they are smart enough to govern themselves.

Idiots and/or cowards.

Clearly, you're the one living in a fantasy.

Why are the statists on these forums such clowns? Oh that's right, because it's an ideology for idiots and/or cowards.

I said you were stating the obvious. I'm sorry if you don't know whether or not that implies I agree with you.

Define in his context how you are using "rational", "future" and "guaranteed".[/quote]

Use a dictionary. Answer the question.

There's no reason for me to assume any of that.[/quote]

Why is that an unreasonable assumption? Please provide some substance.

What's your point? I claimed that stores would assure access to a major highway and then you state the obvious viz. that they wouldn't assure access to every customer at any cost. How does that disprove my claim that stores would still assure access to a major highway? I'm assuming that you concede that point.


Would any rational person have bought that property in the first place if they couldn't be guaranteed access to it at a reasonable price in the future? No.


Of course it is. It's also feasible that everyone decides to kill themselves tomorrow at 2:33 PM -5 GMT. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. I take it that you concede my point that most roads will be owned by a business.


Thanks but I'm taken.