Private school is child slavery!!!

[myrkul]

OK, now that you guys are done with your circle-jerk, maybe we can get something productive done?

btw, what happens to children in ancap when their parents die and there is no relative?

Ever hear of godparents?

Noun
godparent (plural godparents)
    One who cares for a child if untimely demise is met by the parents

And I never did get adecent answer to this...

But the kid isn't the one receiving the service. You are. They're teaching your child for you.

Well well well... So the child is 'owned' by you?

And the attitudes, material wealth, and political views of the parents somehow justify some children getting more educational opportunities than others?

Every child has the same educational opportunities. Every moment of a child's life is an educational opportunity... and they use it. Sponges, they are.

Not sure how you got "the child is 'owned' by me" out of that.

Perhaps a more detailed response is in order. Every child has the same educational opportunity, as I said, homeschooling. Now, if you want a professional to take over this duty for you, there will, of course, be varying levels of quality in said professionals, and thus in the education provided. I suggest you get the best you can afford, and it never hurts to take a hand in the job as well, even if you are paying a pro.

[myrkul]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

[cunicula]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

lol godparents. And if there are no godparents then we get to eat it?

[myrkul]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

lol godparents. And if there are no godparents then we get to eat it?

I'm sure there would be many charities set up to help orphaned children. The child could select which one they would prefer, or if too young for even that, one could be selected for them until such time as they are old enough to choose.

You seem to think of children as property, rather than people. That worries me. Promise you won't have kids and subject them to your toxic world-view?

[cunicula]

if too young for even that, one could be selected for them

Who does the "selecting for them"? Sounds very much like a statist entity.

[fornit]

I'm sure there would be many charities set up to help orphaned children. The child could select which one they would prefer, or if too young for even that, one could be selected for them until such time as they are old enough to choose.

i am sure there would be. most of then busy with a huge marketing budget and practically no money to spend on the children, because thats more profitable. its not like donators actually do much fact-checking. just gets in the way of the fuzzy feeling.

You seem to think of children as property, rather than people. That worries me. Promise you won't have kids and subject them to your toxic world-view?

its more likely he realizes that you cannot automatically assume that everyone shares your own affection for children. in your so called statist societies, there have always been those that seek profit through the explotation of children. why do you assume that ancap makes that phenomenom magically disappear?

[myrkul]

if too young for even that, one could be selected for them

Who does the "selecting for them"? Sounds very much like a statist entity.

Most likely, the person who finds/rescues them. So, yeah, not a state.

I'm sure there would be many charities set up to help orphaned children. The child could select which one they would prefer, or if too young for even that, one could be selected for them until such time as they are old enough to choose.

i am sure there would be. most of then busy with a huge marketing budget and practically no money to spend on the children, because thats more profitable. its not like donators actually do much fact-checking. just gets in the way of the fuzzy feeling.

You seem to think of children as property, rather than people. That worries me. Promise you won't have kids and subject them to your toxic world-view?

its more likely he realizes that you cannot automatically assume that everyone shares your own affection for children. in your so called statist societies, there have always been those that seek profit through the explotation of children. why do you assume that ancap makes that phenomenom magically disappear?

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

[myrkul]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

[myrkul]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

Yes, actually use of the state matchmaking services is indeed one of the wonderful benefits I enjoy as a state employee. Not kidding.
Isn't the state wonderful?

[myrkul]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

Yes, actually use of the state matchmaking services is indeed one of the wonderful benefits I enjoy as a state employee. Not kidding.
Isn't the state wonderful?

And I suppose there are heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Perhaps even jail time?

[cunicula]

The answer to both your questions is the same, and quite simple: The children can choose to switch. If they're being mistreated, they leave. The market keeps the charities honest.

I see, so there will be state investigators inspecting the orphanages to make sure the children are allowed to leave. Very good to know.

Does everything in your world view require monopoly force?

Yes.

So I suppose you'll be going to your state's dating board to assign you a girlfriend, then? And don't forget to get the approved list of first date locations while you're there.

Yes, actually use of the state matchmaking services is indeed one of the wonderful benefits I enjoy as a state employee. Not kidding.
Isn't the state wonderful?

And I suppose there are heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Perhaps even jail time?

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

[myrkul]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

[cunicula]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

[myrkul]

That is an interesting idea. Perhaps you should go into politics?

No thanks, I have standards.

BTW, you never answered. Are there heavy fines for not using this matchmaking service? Or jail time?

Nope, sorry to disappoint you. I believe that love matches are permitted.

But I thought you said everything requires monopoly force? If you truly believe this, you should push for those sanctions.

[myrkul]

Meh. The thread's kinda dead, man. You had your chance; everyone's gone home. Face it, you lost this one.

By definition, quitting is not "winning."

Since you have no response, I must assume you're admitting defeat. Shame you're too much of a coward to come out and say it.

No, I just can't be bothered responding to your endless nutty responses any more. It's OK, we get it!

Then kindly stop pushing your statist drivel.

Since you apparently didn't read those responses there, I'll repeat them here:

In other threads you were never able to answer the problem of 'justice' in a Stateless society, and your religious worship of free markets relies on the faulty premise that markets are more fundamental than laws.

Justice... I assume you mean for all, yes? Not just the State? Competing arbitration and mediation firms will ensure that those best able to provide that justice will profit more, thus "floating to the top."

You were also unable to answer the question of what happens to people who try to live under a different moral code if AnCap gains popularity.

I felt I answered that quite well. as long as they don't try and force that moral code on others, for instance, by trying to take their property, then they will be respected. In other words, if they live peacefully, they will be treated peacefully. A commune can certainly exist peacefully within an AnCap society, but an AnCap community would not be tolerated in a communist society.

Furthermore, you were unable to answer why the dogma of 'private property' is somehow superior to the dogma of 'community', and why everyone should be required to embrace one and completely reject the other.

As I said above, it's superior because it allows peaceful coexistence, while "community" would not allow someone "own" something.
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." - Frank Zappa.
To say nothing of being based on a rational and self-consistent philosophy, ie self-ownership.

[myrkul]

You were also unable to answer the question of what happens to people who try to live under a different moral code if AnCap gains popularity.

I felt I answered that quite well. as long as they don't try and force that moral code on others, for instance, by trying to take their property, then they will be respected. In other words, if they live peacefully, they will be treated peacefully. A commune can certainly exist peacefully within an AnCap society, but an AnCap community would not be tolerated in a communist society.

No, it's like this: within an AnCap-dominated society, no-one is allowed to reject the concept of private property. If they do, they may be accused of various 'crimes' such as stealing, trespass, intellectual property infringement, unauthorised use, and so on. That's funny, the brochure promised that it would all be optional and "voluntary"! Voluntary except for the AnCap rules "natural laws" that everyone would be forced to obey via a process of mutual coercion. But that's OK, you've got a comprehensive explanation for why 'private property' is an inherently superior dogma to that of 'community':

wut? Voluntary goes both ways. In order for something to be voluntary, both parties must agree to it.
They're perfectly allowed to reject the concept of private property. But if they attempt to force another to accept and join in their rejection (by taking their stuff), then they're stealing. If they, among themselves, agree to reject the concept of private property, then the person who does respect private property will respect their choice.

An AnCap society will peacefully accept a commune that keeps to itself. A communist (or for that matter, Statist of any sort) society will violently oppress an AnCap community, even if it keeps to itself.

[myrkul]

Therefore, if AnCap supporters want to punish dissidents for adhering to an equal but competing system, then they being coercive. However, if they don't punish dissidents, then their system is likely to fall apart and be taken over by something else.

Define "punish dissidents." I've already explained how AnCap can noncoercively coexist with competing systems. If you think that is untenable within a voluntary framework, explain how and why.

Let me use a few examples:
Propertarian (A) meets non-propertarian (B).

B attempts to take A's food. A objects. B uses force to do so anyway, A resists with force. Both might see this as the other coercing them, but objectively, B is attempting to coerce A. A did not agree to the transfer, and so it is not a voluntary action.

B attempts to take A's food. A agrees. Voluntary transaction

A attempts to take B's food. B agrees. Voluntary transaction.

A offers an item in exchange for B's food. B agrees. Voluntary transaction.

You can replace "food" in all of those with any property (or even just the generic "property") and you get the same results.