Freedom is ...

[hazek]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

[DPony13]

Basically doing things for yourself,
what you want.

[myrkul]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

Ha! Slavery can only be applied to objects for which the concept of ownership exists. Since the concept of 'ownership' doesn't apply to me, I don't own myself and neither can anyone else. Thus, 'self-ownership' is a double-edged sword that enables enslavement.

You don't own yourself, do you? Then who is moving your fingers? And if I don't own myself, why are you trying to convince me of that fact? Here, let me quote the wikipedia article for you:

It has been argued by Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe that self-ownership is axiomatic (Argumentation Ethics). His reasoning is that self-ownership is a presupposition of argumentation, thus a person contradicts oneself when one argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a performative contradiction because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who one is trying to persuade have a right to use their body in order to argue.

Furthermore, try this:

Draw a circle around everything that it means to be 'you',
E.g.: your body, personality, ideas, property owned by you, income, work, genes, physical appearance, etc...

Then draw another circle that encompasses everything that some community means,
E.g.: maintenance of property, fees, protection against intruders, a safety net in case of loss of income, support from neighbours, etc...

Then bring the circles together so that there is some overlap. Do you see what happens? Some of things that it means to be 'you' are covered by both circles. OMG! In Myrkul's simplistic world this is unacceptable -- in his case the circles can never overlap. However, he also seems to have difficulty accepting that this fundamentalist individualist attitude makes it impossible for him to ever be a member of any community.

Go ahead and draw that venn diagram for me. Or even just list some of the things that would go in the overlap.

[FirstAscent]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

Ha! Slavery can only be applied to objects for which the concept of ownership exists. Since the concept of 'ownership' doesn't apply to me, I don't own myself and neither can anyone else. Thus, 'self-ownership' is a double-edged sword that enables enslavement.

You don't own yourself, do you? Then who is moving your fingers? And if I don't own myself, why are you trying to convince me of that fact? Here, let me quote the wikipedia article for you:

It has been argued by Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe that self-ownership is axiomatic (Argumentation Ethics). His reasoning is that self-ownership is a presupposition of argumentation, thus a person contradicts oneself when one argues against self-ownership. The person making this argument is caught in a performative contradiction because, in choosing to use persuasion instead of force to have others agree that they are not sovereign over themselves, that person implicitly grants that those who one is trying to persuade have a right to use their body in order to argue.

Furthermore, try this:

Draw a circle around everything that it means to be 'you',
E.g.: your body, personality, ideas, property owned by you, income, work, genes, physical appearance, etc...

Then draw another circle that encompasses everything that some community means,
E.g.: maintenance of property, fees, protection against intruders, a safety net in case of loss of income, support from neighbours, etc...

Then bring the circles together so that there is some overlap. Do you see what happens? Some of things that it means to be 'you' are covered by both circles. OMG! In Myrkul's simplistic world this is unacceptable -- in his case the circles can never overlap. However, he also seems to have difficulty accepting that this fundamentalist individualist attitude makes it impossible for him to ever be a member of any community.

Go ahead and draw that venn diagram for me. Or even just list some of the things that would go in the overlap.

The circle that is you is subtracted from the circle that is the community. Wherever you are, that part of the Universe (the physical extent of your body) is owned by you.

[Rassah]

That in a world with free will, every human action and so-called 'reaction' is initiatory in nature. Labelling something a coerced response would be intellectually dishonest and a kind of cognitive dissonance. A Libertarian as a reacting party could claim the right to choose to respond in some way, while simultaneously claiming that they were 'forced' and therefore not responsible for their actions.

First, think you either don't understand what "to react" means, or are just really stretching definitions beyond what they typically mean.
And second, in what world is someone not responsible for their actions, even if they were forced? I'm pretty sure in your world the Nuremberg Trials would have been very short and unproductive.

[Rassah]

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.  

That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you.

[CountSparkle]

2.  I said that as people skirt the laws, the voluntary society will fall into a state of lawlessness and the longer that persists the more likely a State will form to deal with it with enforced rules.

It doesn't have to be the state. If there are issues with lawlessness, people can obtain their own security to counter it without needing a state (personal weapons, security systems, private security, private military, etc).

[CountSparkle]

That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you.

+1
If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots. The sight of someone dying of starvation because they failed to secure their own lives and are unwilling to do anything about it may be somewhat common 

[Dalkore]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not.  Logic.

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

[myrkul]

If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots.

Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects.

[myrkul]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not.  Logic.

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

If they're so mutually beneficial, why the force? Could it not be voluntary?

[Dalkore]

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.  

That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you.

And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses - How will they be "forced" "quickly".   Sounds like speculation with no meat backing up that claim.  We have a current system with good and bad laws and we have clear cut criminal behavior and we can't force quick justice.   What makes you think in a system where we roll back government, they would speed up.  I think your purely speculating and that is all.

[Dalkore]

If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots.

Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects.

No, it is that we actually have empathy and compassion to people that are more disadvantaged that we are.   If we are going to talk about a society different than are current one, we would not just let them fall to the way side. 

[Dalkore]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not.  Logic.

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

If they're so mutually beneficial, why the force? Could it not be voluntary?

Because there required, there is no option.   These are also services where your lack of participation increases cost on everyone while at the same time yo enjoy these services regardless if you are directly involved with them.

[Rassah]

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

They're not really responsibilities if they are basically forced on us. If I were to give money to a local school, I'd be taking on the responsibility for funding and growing our local education and workforce. Instead, I just see a bunch of money leaving my paycheck, and I have no idea where it's going. I can only assume a part of it is going to the school, but the "responsibility" is essentially forced upon m me.

[Rassah]

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.  

That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you.

And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses - How will they be "forced" "quickly".   Sounds like speculation with no meat backing up that claim.  We have a current system with good and bad laws and we have clear cut criminal behavior and we can't force quick justice.   What makes you think in a system where we roll back government, they would speed up.  I think your purely speculating and that is all.

Boycotts, protests, ostracism, public shaming, vigilantism that doesn't wait for a legal process, angry mobs, and if it comes down to it, outright guerilla warfare and destruction of property. These may not be as clean, but they can and have been very effective.

[Dalkore]

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

They're not really responsibilities if they are basically forced on us. If I were to give money to a local school, I'd be taking on the responsibility for funding and growing our local education and workforce. Instead, I just see a bunch of money leaving my paycheck, and I have no idea where it's going. I can only assume a part of it is going to the school, but the "responsibility" is essentially forced upon m me.

Well there you go, you believe you live in a bubble and other live in bubbles and you do not recognize the community or the responsibility that go into maintaining a community.

You are wrong in that notion and I feel comfortable that your system will never catch on until you compromise on that issue among others.  My whole purpose of engaging in this debate was to get to this core issue.  You have a lack of take responsibilities for issues of your community that do not have a direct affect on you.  A selfish attitude and we already have plenty of this in the world today and is one of the reasons we are going down the tube.  

[myrkul]

If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots.

Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects.

No, it is that we actually have empathy and compassion to people that are more disadvantaged that we are.   If we are going to talk about a society different than are current one, we would not just let them fall to the way side. 

You'll notice I didn't include you on the list. If you'd like to be included on the list of "irresponsible idiots," you certainly can be.

If they're so mutually beneficial, why the force? Could it not be voluntary?

Because [they're] required, there is no option.

But if it's mutually beneficial, who would not purchase such a service voluntarily?

These are also services where your lack of participation increases cost on everyone while at the same time yo enjoy these services regardless if you are directly involved with them.

Those are called, in economics, "public goods." Can you name some of those services? Can you think of some ways that they could be made profitable without resorting to forcing people to pay? Can you think of any ways that it might be paid for entirely voluntarily, with each person giving only as much as they desire?

[Rassah]

If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots.

Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects.

No, it is that we actually have empathy and compassion to people that are more disadvantaged that we are.   If we are going to talk about a society different than are current one, we would not just let them fall to the way side. 

If you have empathy and compassion, why wouldn't you support those people voluntarily in an AnCap society? Just think, instead of just $500 of your annual $7,500 bill going to the needy, you could send them the entire $7,500?
Or is it that, by "compassion," you mean that you are compassionate enough to force others to take care of them, while giving the minimum effort yourself?

[hazek]

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't.

That is a perfect example of your fallacious "black-or-white" thinking. Clearly, your stubborn mental block causes you to be unable to recognise the overlap of sets drawn by self-ownership and community. Thus, you seem to conflate your concept of self-ownership with being a 'Sovereign' -- an absolute ruler to whom no law applies.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not.  Logic.

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

Call it what you want, if I didn't agree to it, it's by definition slavery.