Bitcoin Forum
June 17, 2024, 07:09:31 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 »
  Print  
Author Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism  (Read 33824 times)
wdmw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 199
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 07:12:53 PM
 #641

i like the no gun laws and armed police officers, because it makes it unnecessary to have scary armed guards at my university.

Wow, this one too!
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:13:02 PM
 #642

The point you missed was that some countries don't need visible on-site security at their universities at all!

Is this because the government is there to make sure no one does anything bad? I guess since there is no visible security, the answer is no. So is this because the people in your country are just decent people, all by themselves? If yes, then why can't they be just as decent under AnCap? Are you suggesting that the ONLY reason that people are nice and behave themselves is because they know that there are people called "politicians" in buildings called "government?"
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:13:44 PM
 #643

absolute freedom and responsibility will be forced upon me, and i don't want that.

You're free to select a leader for yourself. Just not for anyone else.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 07:17:13 PM
 #644

...ancap does not function well without a state...
I'm just catching up on this thread, and thought this was worth calling out.
Yeah, kinda like saying fire doesn't function well without ice.
many people need a state, just as they need religion. You are hurting a lot of people if you remove the state.

i like the no gun laws and armed police officers, because it makes it unnecessary to have scary armed guards at my university.
Wow, this one too!
apparently universities in the USA have armed security guards(and the even have police too).
universities in Denmark does not have armed security guards.

just saying...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:19:20 PM
 #645

Ok, please give me a list of what kind of rules or things will be forced on you should AnCap take over and you find yourself in an AnCap world? What exactly will you be oppressed with or forced to do?
absolut freedom and resposability will be forced upon me, and i don't want that.

No, they will NOT be forced upon you. You can still pay someone to control you, and have them force you to make decisions. You just won't be able to make others pay to be forced around as well.

Quote
do you think AnCap people is a minority? (please just for once answer the fucking question)

Actually, it's hard to tell. A LOT of people are AnCap when it comes to the internet. They want their internet access, search engines, file downloads, communications, etc totally unregulated when it comes to the web, yet many are just ok with how things are in real life. I would say the answer to your question is "AnCap people who KNOW they are AnCap are a minority, but those who don't know they are AnCap quickly realize they are as soon as they bump up against regulations they find annoying, or as soon as someone tries to screw with their internet." Which, of course, makes statists like yourself, be similar to the majority christians, trying to opress non-religious types, or AnCaps, with your laws, and screaming bloody persecution when you are told to stop it.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:21:41 PM
 #646

...ancap does not function well without a state...
I'm just catching up on this thread, and thought this was worth calling out.
Yeah, kinda like saying fire doesn't function well without ice.
many people need a state, just as they need religion. You are hurting a lot of people if you remove the state.
We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
 #647

...ancap does not function well without a state...
I'm just catching up on this thread, and thought this was worth calling out.
Yeah, kinda like saying fire doesn't function well without ice.
many people need a state, just as they need religion. You are hurting a lot of people if you remove the state.
We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
then go build a sea-stead!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:25:01 PM
 #648

many people need a state, just as they need religion. You are hurting a lot of people if you remove the state.

Many people NEED to steal things to survive, and many more NEED to steal things so that they can keep living without bothering to work. For example, many people might NEED to steal money from their parents wallets, or NEED to steal cars, to be able to pay for their apartment, their food, and/or their addiction...
What's your point? That we should indulge them because they have a need? What entitles them to have their needs fulfilled at the expense of others? (not expecting much of an answer, since you already claimed you don't believe in personal property, and won't care if someone stole your bike, or I guess your car or house).
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:26:38 PM
 #649

We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
then go build a sea-stead!
I think you fail to understand the analogy.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:28:26 PM
 #650

We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
then go build a sea-stead!


AKA, "You're not Christian? Then GTFO out of my country!"

So very nazi of you Tongue
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:37:06 PM
 #651

SOOOOO many misconceptions...

The An-Cap Story...

An-Cap supporters: "hey everyone! We've got this cool political idea we wanna try out..."

Some other people: "sounds cool! Let's do it."

The rest: "hey, wait a minute. I didn't sign up for your weird-al "property" concept."

AnCap's "weird-al property concept" is just "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it was, or what do you disagree with in that?

Quote
An-Cap supporters: "too bad! It's in the NAP."

The rest: "but you said the NAP was voluntary and non-coercive!"

An-Cap supporters: "It is. In fact it's SO AWESOME that we (my An-Cap buddies and I) decided to make an exception and enforce it, so that everyone can enjoy it equally!"

You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?

Quote
The rest: "You're like the pigs in Animal Farm. Selling us an appealing idea of "peaceful revolution by education, not by force" [getting rid of the Farmer]. But then you take over and manipulate things. Anarchy is supposedly leaderless, yet you are obviously trying to lead and control the NAP [7 commandments], keeping it out of the hands of the common man [the sheep]."

The idea of AnCap is that no one is in control, thus no one can take over. If someone takes over, that's no longer AnCap, that's a government. And anyone trying to take over, and in the process trying to get control aggressively, is breaking the NAP agreement, and those "The rest" are free to use the exact same NAP to defend themselves against these controllers. So obviously you had no idea what AnCap was exactly when you wrote that. And I guess you had no idea what NAP was.

Btw, the opposite of NAP is that it's ok for people to steal, assault, and murder people without retaliation. Basically, the opposite of the NAP is that some people should be free to commit crimes and get away with it. Do you support that opposite of NAP? (you might say "no" but you actually do)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:40:27 PM
 #652

We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other.
You also (unsurprisingly) fail to understand the analogy.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 07:42:30 PM
 #653

It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other.


Can you give me an example of some of these other NAPs that would be competing?
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 08:04:21 PM
 #654

can't you people see "nearly unlimited" power of the state is because its allowed to force people to do stuff?
a state would not be a state, if it could not do that. it would just dissolve into a voluntary organisation, and therefor loosing its power.

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.

The state is a necessary evil, and AnCap is more poison then its medicine.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 08:12:01 PM
 #655

can't you people see "nearly unlimited" power of the state is because its allowed to force people to do stuff?
We do indeed see that.

a state would not be a state, if it could not do that. it would just dissolve into a voluntary organisation, and therefor loosing its power.
You say that like it's a bad thing...

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.

The state is a necessary evil, and AnCap is more poison then its medicine.
No such thing as a necessary evil.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 08:14:12 PM
 #656

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.
I don't want security guards on my university.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 08:16:33 PM
 #657

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.
I don't want security guards on my university.
You don't need them now, why would you need them if the Danish government was a private entity?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 29, 2013, 08:17:56 PM
 #658

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.
I don't want security guards on my university.
You don't need them now, why would you need them if the Danish government was a private entity?
USA lacks appropriate gun laws... USA needs them...

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 08:19:47 PM
 #659

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.
I don't want security guards on my university.
You don't need them now, why would you need them if the Danish government was a private entity?
USA lacks appropriate gun laws... USA needs them...
Non Sequitur. That does not answer the question.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
April 29, 2013, 08:23:04 PM
 #660

it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.
I don't want security guards on my university.

Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards. I didn't want guards on my university either, but the state said that they should be there at all universities, and that they should be armed. You get the difference yet? In AnCap, a university will be free to choose if there are armed guards or not, and you are free to choose whether to go to a university with armed guards or not. With our current governments, your university can't have armed guards even if it wants them, even if Denmanrk's economy starts deteriorating, some crazy people turn to socialist nationalism, and start going around universities, trying to kill off "elitists" in the same way Soviet Union did when they were killing off all their educated people as "enemies of state." At the same time, my university is forced to have armed guards, even if there's nothing to say whether those guards actually know how to use those guns, and may end up accidentally shooting someone they thought was threatening.

In short, you are very specifically and rather agressively advocating for the position that people should not have a choice, because some other people should make all the choices for everyone, while at the same time accusing AnCaps of trying to push through a system where some people will make all the choices for everyone, and not allowing people to have a choice. You are basically accusing AnCap of being the very exact opposite of what it is.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!