This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[myrkul]

did you notice the trend about, that denmark rises after USA with a 'short' delay?
or that Denmark's movement down is flatting out?

TA is voodoo. Denmark's still going down.

[Schleicher]

Statistics like that are meaningless. The devil is in the details.
What do we want to count?
Unemployed persons?
Families where all members are unemployed?
Average family income?

[kokjo]

did you notice the trend about, that denmark rises after USA with a 'short' delay?
or that Denmark's movement down is flatting out?

TA is voodoo. Denmark's still going down.

wanna bet if Denmark is going up or down?

[myrkul]

did you notice the trend about, that denmark rises after USA with a 'short' delay?
or that Denmark's movement down is flatting out?

TA is voodoo. Denmark's still going down.

wanna bet if Denmark is going up or down?

Sucker bet. Chart clearly shows it going down.

[myrkul]

"No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person."

Notice how it's missing your favourite part? No special extras for property-obsessed Capitalist cronies! You keep trying to avoid that point by falsely accusing NAP opponents of promoting violence. You keep pushing a straw man.

It's hardly my favorite part. But it does sort of wreck the symmetry of the concept. Still, let's see where that goes, shall we?
First off, burglary becomes an accepted act, as does breaking and entering.

No, burglary only exists in societies where ownership exists. If things are not owned, they cannot be subjected to your idea of theft.

Sorry. Let me rephrase.

First off, burglary sneaking into someone's place of residence and removing things from it becomes an accepted act, as does breaking and entering damage to buildings so as to gain access to them. Also, vandalism willful destruction of material objects would be acceptable. For that matter, simply walking in into some's place of residence in broad daylight and walking out with the entire contents would be fine as long as you never used or threatened force against the occupants. After all, those are crimes only against a person's "property". You would have to sleep in your car - at least, if you wanted to use it in the morning - because taking it out of the driveway would be perfectly fine. Basically, anything not physically in your possession is "up for grabs." It's not all bad, though, you can't force someone to "share" their food, because that would require the initiation of at least a threat of force upon the person. Of course anything just sitting there in the pantry, unused, you'd be free to take, and nobody could stop you, since that would be initiating force against you.

So, if this were implemented tomorrow, I imagine there would be an orgy of theft appropriation and redistribution, after which I doubt anyone would do much work, given that the proceeds of that work could be taken from him as soon as he set it down. Anything that a person wanted to keep, they'd need to keep on their person at all times.

Better?

[kokjo]

Congratulations. You're finally starting to 'get' that:

diverse moral and belief systems + complete absence of any control structure = Anarchy.

So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.

don't push him too hard, dude. he will just flip right back into the denial stage again.

[myrkul]

So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.

I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will.

[kokjo]

So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.

I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will.

AAAAAAND he flipped back...

[myrkul]

So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.

I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will.

AAAAAAND he flipped back...

Have I ever said that I wanted to control others? That would be required for me to "flip," would it not?

[myrkul]

You know, I think it's kinda funny how I get along better with the actual libertarian socialist than I do either of you.

[kokjo]

So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.

I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will.

AAAAAAND he flipped back...

Have I ever said that I wanted to control others? That would be required for me to "flip," would it not?

well you have agreed that its human nature to be violent sometimes... and i guess you are human... and i will also go as far as to say that this violence will in some way be used to enforce control of some sort over someone.

so yes, you want to control others.

[kokjo]

You know, I think it's kinda funny how I get along better with the actual libertarian socialist than I do either of you.

i have never claimed to be a libertarian of any sort(and even i have it was a part of a argument).

[myrkul]

So yes, now I can see why you would prefer to have the Anarchy restricted to a Capitalist style. However, then the 'Anarchy' part would be phony, because people like you would constantly try to implement/promote/influence/educate some law principle (e.g.: an N.A.P.) to control others.

I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will.

AAAAAAND he flipped back...

Have I ever said that I wanted to control others? That would be required for me to "flip," would it not?

well you have agreed that its human nature to be violent sometimes... and i guess you are human... and i will also go as far as to say that this violence will in some way be used to enforce control of some sort over someone.

so yes, you want to control others.

You say that I would. That's not me saying. That's you. Nice try, though. Especially for you. It almost made sense.

You know, I think it's kinda funny how I get along better with the actual libertarian socialist than I do either of you.

i have never claimed to be a libertarian of any sort(and even i have it was a part of a argument).

Yes, I know. You're a statist to the core, and freely admit it. You love the thought of people being shot in your name.

Edit: And I forgot to mention, robbed at gunpoint so you can have lunch.

[kokjo]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

The NAP allows you to try and control people under some circumstances. Give up the NAP and you will win the argument...

[myrkul]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him?

Nope. Sure wouldn't. If he had already kicked me in the nuts, there would be little point in attempting to control him. Rather like closing the barn door after the horse is out, don't you think?

[Mike Christ]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him?

Nope. Sure wouldn't. If he had already kicked me in the nuts, there would be little point in attempting to control him. Rather like closing the barn door after the horse is out, don't you think?

Arresting the drunk driver after he's caused a major traffic accident

[myrkul]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him?

Nope. Sure wouldn't. If he had already kicked me in the nuts, there would be little point in attempting to control him. Rather like closing the barn door after the horse is out, don't you think?

Arresting the drunk driver after he's caused a major traffic accident

How would caging him repay all the damage he's caused?

[myrkul]

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him?

Nope. Sure wouldn't. If he had already kicked me in the nuts, there would be little point in attempting to control him. Rather like closing the barn door after the horse is out, don't you think?

Arresting the drunk driver after he's caused a major traffic accident

How would caging him repay all the damage he's caused?

a)It would free society from a continuation of his bad driving.
b)The slight inconvenience of being brutally coerced at gunpoint into "not driving" unless you get a licence and abide by various horribly inhumane terms and conditions, is more than balanced by everyone's increased freedom from dangerous drivers.

Neither of those repay the damage he caused.

[myrkul]

Well, you did ask a stupid question. He had a major traffic accident and your first and foremost concern was about payment.

Restitution. Setting things right. Shouldn't that always be the first thing you're concerned about after an accident?

[myrkul]

Well, you did ask a stupid question. He had a major traffic accident and your first and foremost concern was about payment.

Setting things right.

That's more like it! Depending on the amount of damage/suffering to others, and the various applicable laws (compulsory terms and conditions), "settings things right" could legitimately include putting him behind bars for a while to straighten out his brain. Drunk driving = re-education required*.

*Assuming that the drunk driving is against the law in that society.

But that doesn't repay any of the damages he caused. Worse, it's usually paid for by the victims, without their consent. They're being violated twice. That's not justice.