We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.
That's not the main argument; the main argument is on ethics, claiming that using coercion is immoral, and the use of systematic coercion through the state is still systematically immoral. |
|
|
|
|
It's a peer-to-peer distributed accounting ledger, invented to remove the trust required in the banking system.
|
|
|
|
I've noticed this trend: people who refuse to use the edit or insert quote function and instead decide to post in succession, even up to three to four times in a row, are often in support of the state.
Why does this happen?
It's because when people aren't bounded by rules, regulations or laws, or there's no enforcement, the community norms inevitably drift to selfishness. That makes sense, but this community does have rules--perhaps not explicitly stated but we can all see what they are by observation. Do you think this occurs due to a person always being fed rules, that they become very poor at identifying them otherwise? |
|
|
|
I don't quite understand what you mean here by the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary. If you point is that the minority would walk away somewhere if they disagree with the majority, I don't think this relocation will be by their free will and accord. Actually, they will be coerced to do so by the majority. It happens daily in life even without state and its laws. But exactly the introduction of state in the form of the law allows to break this otherwise circular argument...
Coercion
Threat of kidnapping, extortion, force or violence to be performed immediately or in the future Lets say you're at a friend's party, and you don't like the party but you also don't want to leave. Are the party-goers now coercing you to leave? |
|
|
|
Why should I adjust, or rather, why minority should adjust in the first place? If we have to, then it is not much different what state actually does. Are you still missing my point?
No, I understand your point: both anarchism and the state are forms of government. I think we've established this point already. Can you address the point about the state being involuntary and anarchism being voluntary, please? |
|
|
|
Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. At first you said that "either they or I must adjust". Maybe, now you are going to argue that anything you do against your will, you do voluntarily? I always thought it is called coercion. Should I quote the definition of the word you posted earlier or you take a look yourself?
No; if you want to participate in that society, you must adjust. If you must understand programming to create a program, are the developers of programming languages coercing you into learning them? |
|
|
|
I have already explained everything in one of my earlier posts. Also you said it yourself that if my beliefs clash with other people's, either they or I must adjust, so there is still no room for voluntary change if that was your point...
Of course that's voluntary; you don't have to conform if you don't want to, you just gotta figure out how to survive without other people. Nobody is forcing you to do that. What do you believe is a voluntary interaction? And don't tell me there are none; you're participating in one right now. |
|
|
|
As you may guess, I don't see much difference between such "relocations" and forced evictions...
vol·un·tar·y [vol-uhn-ter-ee]
adjective
1.
done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice in·vol·un·tar·y [in-vol-uhn-ter-ee]
adjective
1.
not voluntary; independent of one's will; not by one's own choice I'm running out of ideas on how to help you understand this fundamental difference. If people hate you enough to not want to interact with you, you have no right to force yourself on them. That's just how society works; you play by the rules or you get shut out. |
|
|
|
|
A penny for each block, split between all the miners in a given pool would be less than a penny reward for each block; you burn more $ in electricity for that ten-minute block than you earn that $<0.01
You'd have to be making some sort of patriotic sacrifice to go along with this.
|
|
|
|
|
Christmas brings memories of tiny motel rooms.
|
|
|
|
someone's going to feel like a party is not paying their fair share, and there would be dischord. how would that get settled?
The party feeling discord makes it public that the persons in question aren't putting in their fair share. People respond accordingly; if they care, the persons get a bad rep, and if they don't care, the persons don't. If you get a bad rep, it gets harder to function around people. If you get a good rep, it gets easier. |
|
|
|
I think anarchy is not the answer, I think a change of the people that we have in govt from millionaires to actual politics, sciences and social science majors in the office.... People who actually have a clue instead of puppets being fingered by corporate interests.
If you had the power to help that, you'd be an anarchist  You don't get the state without the corruption, sorry. It's either or. |
|
|
|
I almost slipped on some ice. As you can see, I had a fairly good day  |
|
|
|
as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?
That's a terrible business model Nobody would drive if you charged to drive on them, and then how would businesses get consumers? The point of roads is to lead to business, not to charge for the privilege. well how else would the people who create the roads make money? Think about it Who profits from there being roads? Who has the greatest incentive to get them built? |
|
|
|
I'm not suggesting an American libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist system here. The examples I gave were of real anarchic movements, that is, without hierarchy. Infrastructure was still created and maintained, without the need of anyone in particular owning it.
Yes; I believe the Spanish anarchists followed a communist model. |
|
|
|
as far as public infrastructure, i think private companies will create roads.. but then you'd have toll roads everywhere. and since men are not created equal, one guy might climb to the top of the ladder and own all the roads. what happens then, when he charges you exorbitant fees?
That's a terrible business model Nobody would drive if you charged to drive on them, and then how would businesses get consumers? The point of roads is to lead to business, not to charge for the privilege. |
|
|
|
i guess you agree with me then, because i think if 1 country were to go anarchistic (and they are surrounded by state-run governments), an external force (neighboring country) would come in and invade them.. which has happened in the past. i don't think just arming every man and woman with a gun is going to get the job done.
Secular rationalism; it's easy to conquer an isolated anarchist community, it's very hard to conquer oneself. |
|
|
|
|
Wonderful! We'll finally return to the norm.
|
|
|
|
Anarchy would never ever ever work. Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.
Human nature is self destructive. when ever people make categorical claims about human nature, they are almost always talking about themselves. I agree, but I also believe it's difficult to escape this bias, as people rarely experience any life but their own; only ~18% of the population are both intuitive and highly empathetic, who can easily walk in the shoes of another human being. It's better to just discard the argument of human nature, it rarely provides any insight except "Humans do this and therefore it's in their nature," which we were aware of even before the argument was presented. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
