Random selection of the representants.

[fornit]

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

you basically say it yourself. where there is no such law there is no such crime. for example, if you have no law protecting property, the term "theft" doesnt make any sense.

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

yay, more universal rulesets! like the world hasnt enough fanatics already...

[myrkul]

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

you basically say it yourself. where there is no such law there is no such crime. for example, if you have no law protecting property, the term "theft" doesnt make any sense.

Care to point out where I don't protect property?

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

yay, more universal rulesets! like the world hasnt enough fanatics already...

Tsk... It's not a new universal ruleset... it's one that everyone already agrees on. Read the book. Maybe you'll listen to a fellow French Canadian.

[myrkul]

...

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

Let's not keep taking things to extremes. By basically saying "it's either my way, or the rape and murder way! Which do you prefer?", it seems you're being intellectually dishonest and avoiding discussion of legitimate criticisms. I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but these sort of tit-for-tat debates are just silly.

I'm saying "Rape and murder is always wrong"

You reply with "Hey, let's not take it to extremes, now..."

How is that not defending rape and murder?

[myrkul]

What happens to opposing viewpoints if AnCap becomes mainstream? It seems that AnCap would start to oppress their opponents. Thus it would no-longer be voluntary - everyone would be forced to do things the AnCap way.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "forced to do things the AnCap way." If you mean forced to operate as capitalists, you would be wrong. If you mean forced to not steal, rape, murder, or coerce, well, then I suppose you would be right. But again, "forcing" someone not to do those things is not coercion, it's defense.

Since the notion of "private property" seems just as much a dogma as the notion of "State ownership", what makes AnCap supporters (and holders of related views such as Libertarianism) think they are more morally right than others?

If you feel "private property" is "dogmatic," then answer me this question: Who owns you? Answer that question - truthfully - and you will see the moral basis for our claims.

Edit: and we haven't even touched on the possibility of a healthy middle-ground like the "real world" has -- with various combinations of a State and private property.

If you can call - with a straight face - the systems currently in place around the globe "healthy," you're either hopelessly deluded, or straight-up evil.

[glub0x]

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

[myrkul]

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

[myrkul]

...then answer me this question: Who owns you? Answer that question - truthfully - and you will see the moral basis for our claims.

To put it another way: without an almighty "Property God", there is no such thing as ownership. In what little I know about myself, I would like to think that I transcend this made-up concept of ownership. Therefore I cannot 'own' myself, and neither can anyone else.

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

[dank]

Some people seek power and control over others because it makes them feel a sense of happiness.  There's a great chance these people have never had love in their life so they don't know any other way of feeling happy.

If you show these people how love gives a true sense of happiness, and how power just requires additional power to feel good, they will stop chasing the unattainable ultimate power over humanity, since control is temporary and illusory.

As less people fear those in power, the less power they have, causing what we see in society today, the eradication of our human rights.

[myrkul]

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

I am. I could argue that "a bit of everything" is responsible -- me, the world, other people. However, I only have the empirical evidence of my senses that the rest of the world exists, whereas I know that I exist. Therefore, I am responsible for my actions.

So, you own yourself.

[glub0x]

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

There is actually once every page a reply in the subject. Now the fact that you are not able to respect the thread of someone else is for me a very strong sign that the anarchy you promote is just going back 6000years and start again.
Respecting the rights of other (speaking, property, integrity, ... )  is not natural, you are the first and best exemple here.

I am not even speaking of the fact that the first law you want to put in your anarchy is the exact opposite as the view the author you linked to me defend. wich i would sum up as Security is a product as any other, let's put it in competition.

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

[myrkul]

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

There is actually once every page a reply in the subject. Now the fact that you are not able to respect the thread of someone else is for me a very strong sign that the anarchy you promote is just going back 6000years and start again.
Respecting the rights of other (speaking, property, integrity, ... )  is not natural, you are the first and best exemple here.

I am not even speaking of the fact that the first law you want to put in your anarchy is the exact opposite as the view the author you linked to me defend. wich i would sum up as Security is a product as any other, let's put it in competition.

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

If I could split the thread, I would. I can't. So if you would like the thread split, request it. In the meantime, there is a conversation going here that will be moved when the thread is eventually split, and your thread is continually bumped to the top. The more you whine to me about it, the less time you are spending reporting those posts and getting the thread split. Seems like your time would be best spent asking someone who can do something about it, n'est-ce pas?

Now, my apologies, but if you wish for someone to remove their conversation to another thread because it is off-topic, then the appropriate time to ask is when that conversation starts, not after you have already participated in it.

[Rudd-O]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy  )

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

[fornit]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy  )

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

congratulations! your perception has increased from 0 to 1! you are now able to the see walls up to 4m ahead, recognize when an ogre is eating your limbs and tell hamsters and strategic missiles apart - if they move.

[Rudd-O]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy  )

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

congratulations! your perception has increased from 0 to 1! you are now able to the see walls up to 4m ahead, recognize when an ogre is eating your limbs and tell hamsters and strategic missiles apart - if they move.

Classic sardonic religious believer non-response.

[myrkul]

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

I am. I could argue that "a bit of everything" is responsible -- me, the world, other people. However, I only have the empirical evidence of my senses that the rest of the world exists, whereas I know that I exist. Therefore, I am responsible for my actions.

So, you own yourself.

Different concept.

Nope, same concept. Have you never heard the phrase "own your mistakes," or "own your actions"?

Or is your favorite phrase, "It's not my fault"?

[myrkul]

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

I am. I could argue that "a bit of everything" is responsible -- me, the world, other people. However, I only have the empirical evidence of my senses that the rest of the world exists, whereas I know that I exist. Therefore, I am responsible for my actions.

So, you own yourself.

Different concept.

Nope, same concept.

If it's the same concept, then I wonder why people bothered to create a whole new word for it based on 'respond'.

As you point out, one primarily refers to verbs, the other to nouns. English is a very messy language, and many words share meaning.

Or is your favorite phrase, "It's not my fault"?

You never answered this... or did you?

I could also argue that I transcend 'responsibility' because that too is a made-up concept.

[Rudd-O]

I could also argue that I transcend 'responsibility' because that too is a made-up concept.

Someone should, like, rob blahblahblah's house and then tell him "nope, no one is responsible for this robbery, because responsibility is a made-up concept".

That'll teach him the difference between valid and invalid concepts, whether derived from observable reality or "made-up".