|
Yes, but burnt out.
Found I was taking things too seriously, So I gave it a break to focus on my kids.
|
|
|
|
Without state-supported property rights...
I don't know about you, but I don't need someone to steal from me to support my property rights. I can support them just fine on my own, and if it comes about that I do need a little help doing so, I am perfectly capable of voluntarily paying someone to help out. Why do you assume that people who want their property rights supported would not desire that in a stateless society? |
|
|
|
Yes, Bitcoin is off Course Powered By Greed - I mean Only "The Rich Elite" Can afford the Proper Hardware To mine It!
But... I Personally Am against greed(It Sickens Me) It is what drives Evil People to do the things they do. I'm NOT saying
we should all hold hands and Sing "Amazing Grace" but still... There Are More "Attractive" Motivations, I'm Sure.
Tsk.... Greed is just self-interest. Without greed, people would be starving left and right, because they weren't self-interested enough to eat. Then greed isn't so bad as everyone is talking about. Nope, sure isn't. |
|
|
|
What you're advocating is a popular idealist fallacy.
OK, let me see if I got this straight: Private ownership of land and machinery, and voluntary purchase and sale of labor on an open market: Idealist Fantasy. Everyone sharing and giving freely of themselves, working for the good of all rather than themselves: Totally Realistic. Does that sum it up properly? |
|
|
|
|
So, basically, the State is a school-yard bully, writ large?
|
|
|
|
The thing is, we have the internet in our pocket now.
The internet.
In our fucking pocket.
So your argument is moot.
Explain how is it our pocket. You didn't provide any argument so your answer is moot. |
|
|
|
it is not for the troop to decide he is simply doing as he is told in the name of queen and country. "Just following orders," eh? |
|
|
|
Maybe everyone gets to vote! massive voting system an all major issues, lets not have a Government because that implies we need governing like inmates, What we need is an administration to get done what the voters demand.
Brave new world based on a tamper proof voting system.
Voting is force by proxy. If you stop assuming a monopoly, voting becomes unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Anarchy doesn't seem to fit in the paradigm of a large migration or conquest; the idea of moving somewhere and 'starting an anarchy'. I would postulate that it would be borne from individuals declaring their independence from the State, across the world.
I was pondering on what such a thing would say, if one already existed. Has anyone run across one?
The Shire Society Declaration: Shire Society Declaration
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED witnesses to the lesson of history — that no form of political governance may be relied upon to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, or property — now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental precepts measuring our conduct toward one another, and toward others:
FIRST, each individual is the exclusive proprietor of his or her own existence and all products thereof, holding no obligations except those created by consent;
SECOND, no individual or association of individuals, however constituted, has the right to initiate force against any other individual;
THIRD, each individual has the inalienable right of self-defense against the initiation of force;
FOURTH, explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid;
FIFTH, rights are neither collective nor additive in character, and no group can possess rights in excess of those belonging to its individual members;
We hereby declare our commitment to peace, individual sovereignty, and independence, and join the Shire Society. http://shiresociety.com/ |
|
|
|
Yeah this isn't realistic at all, if someone was holding out like this they just wouldn't be involved in the round. Someone's out in the woods while trading goes on? they don't trade!  Yeah, I'm calling it here. And from now on, the rounds are 24 hours. Starting when I post this round's results. |
|
|
|
In practice, what you describe is the exception to the rule within a state capitalist framework. Dependency on employers prevents many from ever coming far enough out of debt to do what they want.
I have a hard time with equating pay to exoneration or choice because reliance on any paycheck does not let you all the way out of the state or capitalist's control. Pay is giving a man a fish and assuming he has means to stockpile fish until he can learn to fish.
More nonsense. Pay is giving the cabin boy a fish out of the day's catch, he learns to fish by observation and participation in the trade of the fisherman. His increases in the skill of the trade increase his value to the captain of the boat, and also his pay. Eventually his wages exceed his need, and he can save up to buy his own boat from the boatmaker; or simply convince the boatmaker of his creditworthiness based upon his reputation as an experienced fisherman and crewman, in which case the boatmaker secures an ongoing source for fish for his own family's table. Every step without coercion. Employing an unskilled laborer is both giving him a fish for a day's work, and teaching him to fish. So much win. |
|
|
|
I, and I am sure others here 'know' grief. This guy is not displaying grief.
People grieve in different ways. |
|
|
|
I see a problem here: "defense" can be interpreted pretty broadly (e.g. "preventive strike", "we had to disable their capabilities to attack us"). Is this instruction only meant for the individual or does it extend to some group the inidividual might be part of?
I enjoyed your earlier discussion with blablabla, btw.
It's intended primarily as an individual guideline, but when you accept that grouping together doesn't grant the group any rights that the individuals comprising it don't have, you see that it works just fine for groups, too. As for a "preventative strike," a provocation is needed, an actual threat. (No, building a nuke power plant is not provocation) Since groups have no more rights than individuals, we can make an analogy, starting with an interpersonal interaction, and expanding it to interaction among groups. A man with a pistol on his hip is not threatening anyone. Pulling that pistol out and pointing it at someone, however, is a clear threat. Since no person has the right to initiate the threat of force, it is acceptable to respond to that threat with a preventative strike, to keep him from acting on that threat. Of course, it's prudent to respond to a threat with a threat of your own, proportional force, to prevent any unnecessary violence. If he's informed of the consequences of making good on that threat, he may back down. To expand that to groups, a group that has weapons, or builds the things they need to make weapons, isn't threatening anyone. If they mobilize those weapons, or place them in such a way as to threaten another group, then they are making a threat. And since no person has the right to initiate the threat of force, neither does a group. Of course, given the greater potential for loss of life should the confrontation get out of hand, proportional force becomes even more important. The resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example (even if the events leading up to it are horrible examples). Everyone put their guns away, and the world heaved a sigh of relief. |
|
|
|
|
A few questions.
Whose tree was that? If it belonged to the man in the red shirt (as the first panel implies), then the stereotype in the tophat actually owes him money, for altering his property without his permission. If it belongs to the stereotype, what is red-shirt doing on his land?
And clearly, the red-shirted man appreciated the stereotype's labor, or else he wouldn't have paid him. Or are you implying that there was some sort of extortion going on?
|
|
|
|
someone who works for free is also a volunteer.
An office worker might not be a volunteer,
If work without pay is volunteer, and with pay is slavery, then we are in a place I've never been. Or heard of for that matter. If you replace "pay" with "coercion" it makes more sense. So it does, but then we're no longer talking about wage labor. |
|
|
|
In the mean time, we are raising money and working to start a website and more. Nothing can bring my brother back, but we would like to start something that possibly turns into a label on ALL peanut products in ALL stores. Like a big red P sticker, or a picture of my brother.
All products that contain peanuts already are labeled. Even products that might contain peanuts, such as candy, are labeled.. |
|
|
|
Ultimately, you have to ask the question,
Why is it, that whenever we have these problems that need to be solved in society, the first solution proposed is "we need to steal people's money to pay for it"?
Not defending taxes, just wondering: How would you pay for roads, hospital and police in a society were there's zero taxes ? The money would need to come from somewhere, and someone would need to provide those services. How do you suggest it be funded? In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. |
|
|
|
someone who works for free is also a volunteer.
An office worker might not be a volunteer,
If work without pay is volunteer, and with pay is slavery, then we are in a place I've never been. Or heard of for that matter. It's called commieland, where working for the benefit of everyone else is voluntary, and working for your own benefit is slavery. Also, War is Peace, and Ignorance is Strength. |
|
|
|
Ignore real life evidence, spout theory. Good plan.
You're the one ignoring the simple fact that adding to an already large base of 300 million guns in circulation is not a plan. If you can get past your fetish for guns you might see that. You also might want to look at real world data regarding nations and gun metrics that aren't published with the backing of the NRA. Like these? http://www.naturalnews.com/040427_gun_violence_control_statistics.html |
|
|
|
|
Ignore real life evidence, spout theory. Good plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
