Sweatshops in a realistic light.

[LastBattle]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

Absolutely unture.  If they're within a libertarian system then they are being forced to abide by that system and everything that comes with it.  No man is an island unto himself, you'll learn that someday when you grow up.

There are some farmers who would kill for all of the strawmen you are erecting.

You are right in that no man is an island. Therefore, people would have to negotiate and find common ground with each other through reasoning as opposed to, say, having a group of men with guns take money and force people to do things they don't want to/stop them from doing things that harm no one else.

Your definition of "complexity" is flawed. A half decent computer program is not run as a single mammoth program bursting with code and commands, it is run as a very large amount of subroutines that influence each other. Each individual one is small, but when properly coded they work together in such a way as to create a functional system that wouldn't work with just one large program. Likewise, the individuals within the market might not be especially clever or competent, but the interaction between the billions of people in the supply chain creates the best allocation of resources that a large government bureau couldn't manage.

[1714171832]

1714171832

[1714171832]

1714171832

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

Absolutely unture.  If they're within a libertarian system then they are being forced to abide by that system and everything that comes with it.  No man is an island unto himself, you'll learn that someday when you grow up.

There are some farmers who would kill for all of the strawmen you are erecting.

You are right in that no man is an island. Therefore, people would have to negotiate and find common ground with each other through reasoning

Exactly.  This is called a social contract and it spawns a form of government of the society's choosing.  No man is an island unto himself.  Compromise, and thus force, will ALWAYS be a part of any societal organization.

[Anonymous]

Uh, it's not of society's choosing. It's only of the founding populace and it's irrelevant if the laws are subject to change due international, corporate or authoritarian influence.

[myrkul]

Cccc-ombo breaker! (thank god!)

Exactly.  This is called a social contract and it spawns a form of government of the society's choosing.  No man is an island unto himself.  Compromise, and thus force, will ALWAYS be a part of any societal organization.

Right... that's why so many Mediators die in gun fights.

[LastBattle]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

Absolutely unture.  If they're within a libertarian system then they are being forced to abide by that system and everything that comes with it.  No man is an island unto himself, you'll learn that someday when you grow up.

There are some farmers who would kill for all of the strawmen you are erecting.

You are right in that no man is an island. Therefore, people would have to negotiate and find common ground with each other through reasoning

Exactly.  This is called a social contract and it spawns a form of government of the society's choosing.  No man is an island unto himself.  Compromise, and thus force, will ALWAYS be a part of any societal organization.

Who is this "society" and where can I negotiate terms with him?

A contract that I never signed nor agreed to and is enforced on me under duress is a contract I, nor anyone else, am obliged to follow up on.

[AyeYo]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

Absolutely unture.  If they're within a libertarian system then they are being forced to abide by that system and everything that comes with it.  No man is an island unto himself, you'll learn that someday when you grow up.

There are some farmers who would kill for all of the strawmen you are erecting.

You are right in that no man is an island. Therefore, people would have to negotiate and find common ground with each other through reasoning

Exactly.  This is called a social contract and it spawns a form of government of the society's choosing.  No man is an island unto himself.  Compromise, and thus force, will ALWAYS be a part of any societal organization.

Who is this "society" and where can I negotiate terms with him?

A contract that I never signed nor agreed to and is enforced on me under duress is a contract I, nor anyone else, am obliged to follow up on.

You give your continuing concent to the contract every second that you keep choosing to NOT leave.  No one is forcing you into the terms of this society, you can leave at any time.  You choose not to.  You choose to stay and reap the benefits of this society while constantly bitching about how horrible it is.  That means you're subject to all the rules and agreements of this society.

You negotiate your terms here:



and here...



and if you're really savy, intelligent, and capable, here too...

[myrkul]

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

[AyeYo]

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

Voting changes politicians all the time.  The lack of systemic change rests solely on the shoulders of the lazy, ignorant, uninformed, apathetic populace.  They'll all bitch and moan that life sucks, the country is going down the drain, all the politicians are horrible, etc., but when the ballot boxes open, they're no where to be seen.  When campaign season starts, they're too busy on the internet bitching and whining.  When there's a local government meeting going on, they're at home playing on their iPad.

[myrkul]

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

Voting changes politicians all the time.  The lack of systemic change rests solely on the shoulders of the lazy, ignorant, uninformed, apathetic populace.  They'll all bitch and moan that life sucks, the country is going down the drain, all the politicians are horrible, etc., but when the ballot boxes open, they're no where to be seen.  When campaign season starts, they're too busy on the internet bitching and whining.  When there's a local government meeting going on, they're at home playing on their iPad.

The problem is, there's no 'None of the above' option. Lesser of two evils is still evil.

[AyeYo]

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal. - Emma Goldman

Voting changes politicians all the time.  The lack of systemic change rests solely on the shoulders of the lazy, ignorant, uninformed, apathetic populace.  They'll all bitch and moan that life sucks, the country is going down the drain, all the politicians are horrible, etc., but when the ballot boxes open, they're no where to be seen.  When campaign season starts, they're too busy on the internet bitching and whining.  When there's a local government meeting going on, they're at home playing on their iPad.

The problem is, there's no 'None of the above' option. Lesser of two evils is still evil.

You're free to run for office.  What's stopping you?  Change happens at home first; are you active in your town's politics?  Do you go to town meetings?  Town politicians are very accessable; have you ever stopped into their offices to talk to them?  Do you campaign for third-party candidates locally or nationally?  There are plenty of ways for you to make change happen, but they all require you to get off your ass and do something.  Stop bitching on the internet and go make the change you want happen.

You've obviously never voted because there's usually 10+ names on any given ticket (POTUS included).  The two party, lesser of two evils system only works because people allow it to.  It goes right back to what I just said about the general populace.

[myrkul]

I have voted, and you know, not once did I see a 'Nobody' option.

It was always a choice of which person I wanted to mug me. Pass.

[LastBattle]

Exactly, but, ironically enough, the one who stole the land WAS the employer.

Isn't it magical how this all comes full circle?

How did the employer steal the land then?  There is something you're not telling me.

You know the way macropolitics always works, economic destruction by officials, land purchase by corporations, jobs worked by people who could have never had a practical opportunity to influence either decision.

So.... not theft then.  OK.

Oh, that's right!  As long as it's techinically LEGAL then it's perfectly ok... unless we're talking about taxes, then of course it's definitely theft because all our standards are completely arbitrary.  I think I'm getting the hang of this libertarian thing!

Voluntary transactions are not theft; taxes are not voluntary.  If you're looking for inconsistencies in the libertarian position, you won't find in there.

Taxes sure as hell are voluntary.  You're free to leave the country or stop paying them at any time.  If you choose to stop paying them, you'll face jail time or fines, but no one is preventing you from making that choice.

Just like the people getting their land taken away, they're free to fight back and get killed.  They have a choice (albeit a crappy one), so according to libertarians, choice (no matter how terrible) = voluntary.

They have a choice to not work in the sweatshops.  They can skip the work and starve to death.  That's a choice, so it must be voluntary.

I don't think you understand what coercion is.

Also, being extorted by the mafia is voluntary, too. You can leave the country or get shot if you don't want to pay, but no one is preventing you.

If we're using your standard than you're 100%.


I do understand what coercion is, I just refuse to let you use the word arbitrarily.  Arguing a societal system is all about consistency.  It's easy to come up with seemingly viable systems if you use arbitrary application of principles and standards, but those systems, like your libertarian system, don't pass the consistency test.  Real-world workable systems must be consistent, because the real world is too complex and includes people of too many differeing opinions for you to get away with using YOUR arbitrary standards.

That sure is some strange logic.

The world is complex, therefore there must be thugs who extort people for their money and control what they can/cannot do.

You do realize that in a libertarian system, each individual would have his own standards and therefore it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference whether a person had a differing opinion or not, right? Seems like the real world is too complex for your arbitrary standards.

Absolutely unture.  If they're within a libertarian system then they are being forced to abide by that system and everything that comes with it.  No man is an island unto himself, you'll learn that someday when you grow up.

There are some farmers who would kill for all of the strawmen you are erecting.

You are right in that no man is an island. Therefore, people would have to negotiate and find common ground with each other through reasoning

Exactly.  This is called a social contract and it spawns a form of government of the society's choosing.  No man is an island unto himself.  Compromise, and thus force, will ALWAYS be a part of any societal organization.

Who is this "society" and where can I negotiate terms with him?

A contract that I never signed nor agreed to and is enforced on me under duress is a contract I, nor anyone else, am obliged to follow up on.

You give your continuing concent to the contract every second that you keep choosing to NOT leave.  No one is forcing you into the terms of this society, you can leave at any time.  You choose not to.  You choose to stay and reap the benefits of this society while constantly bitching about how horrible it is.  That means you're subject to all the rules and agreements of this society.

You negotiate your terms here:



and here...



and if you're really savy, intelligent, and capable, here too...

S'not anyone else's land except my own, and thus no one else can say I consent by not abandoning my property.

Anyway, majority rules are pretty stupid. It ends up with the "majority" deciding it will benefit from this guy:


Or these guys:



Or this guy:



etc

If people in my "country" can loot a minority by will of its numbers, why can't I get together a bunch of guys in my town and rob some neighbors? After all, they consent to being robbed if they don't leave.

[myrkul]

Guys, As a favor, can you guys quit with the quote pyramid now, especially since we've got pictures? My eyes... they bleed...

[LastBattle]

Guys, As a favor, can you guys quit with the quote pyramid now, especially since we've got pictures? My eyes... they bleed...

kay

[AyeYo]

If people in my "country" can loot a minority by will of its numbers, why can't I get together a bunch of guys in my town and rob some neighbors? After all, they consent to being robbed if they don't leave.

That's why your arbitrary standard of concent is a load of horseshit.

That's why pure democracy doesn't exist anywhere.

Humans are fallable, that's why we have laws and basic legal documents like constitutions that secure some basic rights and principles to protect the minority from the majority.  Beyond that, it's all compromise, which really can only be done through a majority vote.

[LastBattle]

If people in my "country" can loot a minority by will of its numbers, why can't I get together a bunch of guys in my town and rob some neighbors? After all, they consent to being robbed if they don't leave.

That's why your arbitrary standard of concent is a load of horseshit.

That's why pure democracy doesn't exist anywhere.

Humans are fallable, that's why we have laws and basic legal documents like constitutions that secure some basic rights and principles to protect the minority from the majority.  Beyond that, it's all compromise, which really can only be done through a majority vote.

Okay. My buddies set up a constitution with a variety of "laws" that we begin to enforce, but notably allows our enforcers to steal money from our "citizens". Every year we have an election to decide who gets to be an enforcer and who gets extra money taken from them.

Also, what happened to your bullshit about consistency, then? The majority is completely in control except when it isn't? What happened to consistency right there?

What separates a "rightful" government from the mafia? And don't give me that "consent of the governed blah blah" garbage, I didn't consent and neither did many others. Please, seeing as how you think that you have the consistent position and I don't, give me a clear definition of a government that separates it from something some toughs in a town or the Mafia could establish.

[AyeYo]

If people in my "country" can loot a minority by will of its numbers, why can't I get together a bunch of guys in my town and rob some neighbors? After all, they consent to being robbed if they don't leave.

That's why your arbitrary standard of concent is a load of horseshit.

That's why pure democracy doesn't exist anywhere.

Humans are fallable, that's why we have laws and basic legal documents like constitutions that secure some basic rights and principles to protect the minority from the majority.  Beyond that, it's all compromise, which really can only be done through a majority vote.

Okay. My buddies set up a constitution with a variety of "laws" that we begin to enforce, but notably allows our enforcers to steal money from our "citizens". Every year we have an election to decide who gets to be an enforcer and who gets extra money taken from them.

Also, what happened to your bullshit about consistency, then? The majority is completely in control except when it isn't? What happened to consistency right there?

What separates a "rightful" government from the mafia? And don't give me that "consent of the governed blah blah" garbage, I didn't consent and neither did many others. Please, seeing as how you think that you have the consistent position and I don't, give me a clear definition of a government that separates it from something some toughs in a town or the Mafia could establish.

The enforces don't steal money from the citizens.  Give me real world proof of government officials DIRECTLY pocketing public money on a large scale.  Is that really what you think happens?  No wonder you're so clueless.


It's completely consistent.  The majority rules WITHIN THE BOUNDS SET BY THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT.  They can do what they want as long as it doesn't violate the ground rules.


The Mafia doesn't hold public votes, last time I checked.  No public meetings, open forms for opinion, etc.  That's the major difference, but feel free to keep bringing the lulz with your hyperbole.

You did give and are continuing to give your consent.  You're free to live at any time.  If you choose to stay, you choose to abide by the rules.

[Anonymous]

We can't leave. The central banks have a monopoly on all of the wealth and every first-world state is a cattle state.

[AyeYo]

We can't leave. The central banks have a monopoly on all of the wealth and every first-world state is a cattle state.

Then go move to a third-world state.  Greece was selling island not long ago.  Get a bunch of your nutty libertarian friends together, buy one, and establish liberland.

As long as you choose to sit here and bitch, you choose to follow the rules.  You're free to leave at any time.  You do have a choice.

[Anonymous]

We can't leave. The central banks have a monopoly on all of the wealth and every first-world state is a cattle state.

Then go move to a third-world state.  Greece was selling island not long ago.  Get a bunch of your nutty libertarian friends together, buy one, and establish liberland.

As long as you choose to sit here and bitch, you choose to follow the rules.  You're free to leave at any time.  You do have a choice.

Once we establish it, you parasites will come and take it. You will consider us a threat because of our prosperity. Everybody would be coming to us eventually.