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

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet.

thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic.

Parasites are very rarely self-aware, when they are, we call them tyrants, thieves, looters and/or moochers.

[myrkul]

Parasites are very rarely self-aware, when they are, we call them tyrants, thieves, looters and/or moochers.

Even a thief often rationalizes his actions.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Parasites are very rarely self-aware, when they are, we call them tyrants, thieves, looters and/or moochers.

Even a thief often rationalizes his actions.

True enough.  Stealing food when hungry is not the same as enslaving others.

[Stardust]

Because for many profit is not everything, the lust for power and religion can also be a great motivator. Some people just want to have slaves or impose on others how to live. And if they fight the government now, those private security providers will be a lesser challenge.

How easy is it to subdue an urban, armed population?  The most powerful govt the world has ever seen can't seem to do it effectively in Iraq, for example.

No doubt there are always going to be people lusting for power, but the only way that it works now is because people have been trained over centuries, particularly through the church and the public school system to accept the idea of government.  It needs to be indoctrinated in for a majority to accept it.  Without that indoctrination being present

Iraq is a bad example, since they are not free. But I agree an armed population is a deterrent against foreign invasion. But I wasn't talking about foreign invasion. Armed population is no defense against religion, mobs, and the tyranny of the community. Many private schools are worse than public ones. They invade the privacy of children, and restrict their freedom, teach them religious concepts. And by the time they grow up, it will be too late.

I have serious doubts as to whether a modern, educated population would accept a new government after not having one at all.

Since the final phase of communism is anarchy, this what communists thought, that statelessness requires educated population. And thats how they justified authoritarianism and things like the cultural revolution (as a transition to the ultimate phase).

Just thought I'd toss this in here:



Is it so crazy to suggest an open source method might be a better solution?

Not at all, an open source method and decentralization are clearly superior. But the way An-Cap is envisioned now, I'm afraid will lead to corporate abuse, religious dominance, and force the poor into collectivization or become corporate slaves. Or worse degenerate into a gangland. Anyhow individual freedom is lost. And this is the beauty of open source, one can improve. But this can be done only by abandoning dogma, and truly addressing problems.
So far all political ideologies are extremely buggy (some more than others).

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

[hawkeye]

Because for many profit is not everything, the lust for power and religion can also be a great motivator. Some people just want to have slaves or impose on others how to live. And if they fight the government now, those private security providers will be a lesser challenge.

How easy is it to subdue an urban, armed population?  The most powerful govt the world has ever seen can't seem to do it effectively in Iraq, for example.

No doubt there are always going to be people lusting for power, but the only way that it works now is because people have been trained over centuries, particularly through the church and the public school system to accept the idea of government.  It needs to be indoctrinated in for a majority to accept it.  Without that indoctrination being present

Iraq is a bad example, since they are not free. But I agree an armed population is a deterrent against foreign invasion. But I wasn't talking about foreign invasion. Armed population is no defense against religion, mobs, and the tyranny of the community. Many private schools are worse than public ones. They invade the privacy of children, and restrict their freedom, teach them religious concepts. And by the time they grow up, it will be too late.

Religion is mostly toothless these days.  The only real time they become an issue at large is when the state starts pandering to them.   Indoctrination of kids is a problem but it is smoothing out over time.  Indoctrination of kids to government is a much larger problem than religious indoctrination and results in significantly worse results overall.

Mobs?  There are mobs now, there will be mobs in a free society.   Although, I think people's individual security will be improved when it's a free market.   Most private schools, at least here in Australia, are just pseudo-public schools.  They are better but still have to follow the same basic curriculum set by government.  I went to a religious private school and have known others that have been and haven't heard of anything as bad as you seem to be implying.  

I'm atheist now incidentally, the religious stuff lost it's hold in my early-mid teens.

Government took longer, I was into my 30's before that finally lost it's hold on me.  Unfortunately, I don't have the choice to ignore it the way I do religion.  Although I have to say I really want to.  When you realise they don't have the rights they claim, it's hard to to take it seriously when they come at you with their demands.  The desire to shove their bullshit right back down their throats is strong, tempered only by the fact that I know they have the guns and the power and authority to make my life miserable if I don't do what they say.  And that's simply because people still believe the myth.  Otherwise, I wouldn't be concerned.  Kind of like being in the ancient world and knowing you might be sacrificed to the gods if you don't do what the Pharoah says.  It's all nonsense, of course, but what are you going to do?  You don't want to end up on the sacrificial altar.
 

I have serious doubts as to whether a modern, educated population would accept a new government after not having one at all.

Since the final phase of communism is anarchy, this what communists thought, that statelessness requires educated population. And thats how they justified authoritarianism and things like the cultural revolution (as a transition to the ultimate phase).

Some communists thought the final stage was anarchy.  I think those at the top probably knew better and it was basically just propaganda to placate the masses.  And I don't think you can call the communist countries that well educated.  Their schools are worse than ours.

I don't advocate authoritarianism to get to my goal, nor do most anarchists.  In fact it's the complete opposite.   I don't advocate teaching kids a certain curriculum either.   I am for free market competition in education.  

[kokjo]

“Freedom requires effort if it is to be won and vigilance if it is to be maintained. People just don't value freedom until it is taken away.”
― Terry Goodkind, Faith of the Fallen

I don't value freedom, therefor it have not been taken away from me by the state.

[hawkeye]

“Freedom requires effort if it is to be won and vigilance if it is to be maintained. People just don't value freedom until it is taken away.”
― Terry Goodkind, Faith of the Fallen

I don't value freedom, therefor it have not been taken away from me by the state.

That's fine.  No-one is saying you have to be free.  In a a free society you will have the option for others to look after you if that is what you so wish.  There will still be state-like entities I'm sure for those who want them due to market demand.

The thing is, just because you don't want freedom, that means you can say others shouldn't have it either?

[kokjo]

“Freedom requires effort if it is to be won and vigilance if it is to be maintained. People just don't value freedom until it is taken away.”
― Terry Goodkind, Faith of the Fallen

I don't value freedom, therefor it have not been taken away from me by the state.

That's fine.  No-one is saying you have to be free.  In a a free society you will have the option for others to look after you if that is what you so wish.  There will still be state-like entities I'm sure for those who want them due to market demand.

The thing is, just because you don't want freedom, that means you can say others shouldn't have it either?

i did not say that i did not want freedom, just that i don't value it, because i have it. myrkul's quote states that, freedom only have value when you don't have it.

[hawkeye]

Most of the planet seems to be happy as slaves.  

Part of it is that they have got used to it.  They were brought up that way and so their brains have adapted to the situation.  Some of us, our brains rejected it, but we didn't know why and we end up feeling like there is something wrong with the world without knowing exactly what it is.   Thank God for the internet or I don't think I would have ever come across the answers. 

And it's hard because you don't quite fit into society.  But then I think most people don't.  And that's what alcohol and other drugs are there for.  To dull the senses so that people can ignore it for a short time in order to enjoy themselves.  While you're at work your mind is busy on other stuff, then you've always got the TV when you get home to do the rest of the job of distraction.

[Anon136]

“Freedom requires effort if it is to be won and vigilance if it is to be maintained. People just don't value freedom until it is taken away.”
― Terry Goodkind, Faith of the Fallen

I don't value freedom, therefor it have not been taken away from me by the state.

That's fine.  No-one is saying you have to be free.  In a a free society you will have the option for others to look after you if that is what you so wish.  There will still be state-like entities I'm sure for those who want them due to market demand.

The thing is, just because you don't want freedom, that means you can say others shouldn't have it either?

i did not say that i did not want freedom, just that i don't value it, because i have it. myrkul's quote states that, freedom only have value when you don't have it.

you have freedom!? i need to move to where ever you live!

so you can just turn your house into a business and start selling or manufacturing what ever you like (excluding crazy things) and the government wont try to stop you? Could you go down town and buy a building that used to be a business and set up your living quarters in there? No one ever says to you the functional equivalent of "give me the products of your labor or else ill lock you in a cage, if you refuse to go to the cage ill beat you up, if you refuse to allow me to beat you up ill shoot you?"

where is this awesome place where you have freedom, where the government doesn't lord over you and how to live and force you to give it your money?

[kokjo]

so you can just turn your house into a business and start selling or manufacturing what ever you like (excluding crazy things) and the government wont try to stop you? Could you go down town and buy a building that used to be a business and set up your living quarters in there? No one ever says to you the functional equivalent of "give me the products of your labor or else ill lock you in a cage, if you refuse to go to the cage ill beat you up, if you refuse to allow me to beat you up ill shoot you?"

why would i care about all that? why would i do something illegal?

i have enough freedom, but if thats your idea of freedom i don't want anything to do with it.

where is this awesome place where you have freedom, where the government doesn't lord over you and how to live and force you to give it your money?

i like the freedom i have, and i don't want more because it give me less.

less is more.

[Anon136]

so you can just turn your house into a business and start selling or manufacturing what ever you like (excluding crazy things) and the government wont try to stop you? Could you go down town and buy a building that used to be a business and set up your living quarters in there? No one ever says to you the functional equivalent of "give me the products of your labor or else ill lock you in a cage, if you refuse to go to the cage ill beat you up, if you refuse to allow me to beat you up ill shoot you?"

why would i care about all that? why would i do something illegal?

i have enough freedom, but if thats your idea of freedom i don't want anything to do with it.

where is this awesome place where you have freedom, where the government doesn't lord over you and how to live and force you to give it your money?

i like the freedom i have, and i don't want more because it give me less.

less is more.

if it was illegal to drink water i think you would find a reason to do something illegal.

my idea of freedom is being allowed to pursue my own goals with out interference so long as i am not causing harm to other people. I'm sorry that you dont like this idea. Im sorry that you would prefer that people who are behaving peacefully be interfered with. But i respect your right to have your own preferences.

Lets be clear here, there is no argument to be made for how you are free, you arnt. But there is definitely room for debate over whether freedom is actually a good thing. So stick to that.

[Ekaros]

Not at all, an open source method and decentralization are clearly superior. But the way An-Cap is envisioned now, I'm afraid will lead to corporate abuse, religious dominance, and force the poor into collectivization or become corporate slaves. Or worse degenerate into a gangland. Anyhow individual freedom is lost. And this is the beauty of open source, one can improve. But this can be done only by abandoning dogma, and truly addressing problems.
So far all political ideologies are extremely buggy (some more than others).

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

Some what what I think now. I just don't trust in my fellow man at all... And for that reason I prefer to have a state...

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Not at all, an open source method and decentralization are clearly superior. But the way An-Cap is envisioned now, I'm afraid will lead to corporate abuse, religious dominance, and force the poor into collectivization or become corporate slaves. Or worse degenerate into a gangland. Anyhow individual freedom is lost. And this is the beauty of open source, one can improve. But this can be done only by abandoning dogma, and truly addressing problems.
So far all political ideologies are extremely buggy (some more than others).

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

Some what what I think now. I just don't trust in my fellow man at all... And for that reason I prefer to have a state...

So you trust your fellow men when they form a state with a monopoly on violence?

[kokjo]

if it was illegal to drink water i think you would find a reason to do something illegal.

no one, would ever make it illegal to drink water. the government should be afraid of the people, just because is it not that way where you live, it means that you suck, and are unable to realize that a government should be a servant of the people.

my idea of freedom is being allowed to pursue my own goals with out interference so long as i am not causing harm to other people. I'm sorry that you dont like this idea. Im sorry that you would prefer that people who are behaving peacefully be interfered with. But i respect your right to have your own preferences.

your idea of freedom sucks. plain and simple.

Lets be clear here, there is no argument to be made for how you are free, you arnt. But there is definitely room for debate over whether freedom is actually a good thing. So stick to that.

fuck you asshole! i decides how free i am, if i says im free, im free! you libertards all think that your definition of freedom, is universal and objectively good. Surprise asshole: IT IS NOT!

i have a lot more actual and usable freedom, right now in the state of Denmark. and i would have alot real freedom less, if there was no state to protect my interests.

your freedom is equal to social darwinism, the big ones assrapes the little ones, because they have freedom to do so. Your freedom is less free.

[Ekaros]

Not at all, an open source method and decentralization are clearly superior. But the way An-Cap is envisioned now, I'm afraid will lead to corporate abuse, religious dominance, and force the poor into collectivization or become corporate slaves. Or worse degenerate into a gangland. Anyhow individual freedom is lost. And this is the beauty of open source, one can improve. But this can be done only by abandoning dogma, and truly addressing problems.
So far all political ideologies are extremely buggy (some more than others).

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

Some what what I think now. I just don't trust in my fellow man at all... And for that reason I prefer to have a state...

So you trust your fellow men when they form a state with a monopoly on violence?

Yes because there is lot more of us...

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Not at all, an open source method and decentralization are clearly superior. But the way An-Cap is envisioned now, I'm afraid will lead to corporate abuse, religious dominance, and force the poor into collectivization or become corporate slaves. Or worse degenerate into a gangland. Anyhow individual freedom is lost. And this is the beauty of open source, one can improve. But this can be done only by abandoning dogma, and truly addressing problems.
So far all political ideologies are extremely buggy (some more than others).

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

Some what what I think now. I just don't trust in my fellow man at all... And for that reason I prefer to have a state...

So you trust your fellow men when they form a state with a monopoly on violence?

Yes because there is lot more of us...

Having large groups to help impose order does not require a state.

[kokjo]

Not at all, an open source method and decentralization are clearly superior. But the way An-Cap is envisioned now, I'm afraid will lead to corporate abuse, religious dominance, and force the poor into collectivization or become corporate slaves. Or worse degenerate into a gangland. Anyhow individual freedom is lost. And this is the beauty of open source, one can improve. But this can be done only by abandoning dogma, and truly addressing problems.
So far all political ideologies are extremely buggy (some more than others).

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

Some what what I think now. I just don't trust in my fellow man at all... And for that reason I prefer to have a state...

So you trust your fellow men when they form a state with a monopoly on violence?

Yes because there is lot more of us...

Having large groups to help impose order does not require a state.

but to work efficient and protect customers/citizens it will have to behave like one.

[myrkul]

Just as communists were naive that the proletariat will do no wrong (or if they do, their peers will correct them), capitalists seem to believe that in a free market corporations will do no wrong (or if they do they will be corrected by the free market). Things don't work as on paper in real life.

First off, "corporations" are state creations, and would not exist. A great many of the abuses of corporations in our current "capitalism" are the result of the "corporate veil," the artificial personhood of the corporate entity. With so much of the risk of business actions removed from the CEO and other corporate officers, they take riskier actions. So, companies in a free market would be more cautious with who and how much they damage, since the liability is not limited to the corporate person.

Second, the government actually allows a great deal of the rest of the problems to occur, via regulations. Companies use regulations to prevent competition from entering the market. Regulations impose extra costs on companies, that larger companies have the volume and infrastructure to handle, but smaller ones do not. Which is why you will often find large companies lobbying for regulating their industry.

So while a truly free market will not make all companies into angels, it will encourage them to behave better.

[Anon136]

if it was illegal to drink water i think you would find a reason to do something illegal.

no one, would ever make it illegal to drink water. the government should be afraid of the people, just because is it not that way where you live, it means that you suck, and are unable to realize that a government should be a servant of the people.

my idea of freedom is being allowed to pursue my own goals with out interference so long as i am not causing harm to other people. I'm sorry that you dont like this idea. Im sorry that you would prefer that people who are behaving peacefully be interfered with. But i respect your right to have your own preferences.

your idea of freedom sucks. plain and simple.

Lets be clear here, there is no argument to be made for how you are free, you arnt. But there is definitely room for debate over whether freedom is actually a good thing. So stick to that.

fuck you asshole! i decides how free i am, if i says im free, im free! you libertards all think that your definition of freedom, is universal and objectively good. Surprise asshole: IT IS NOT!

i have a lot more actual and usable freedom, right now in the state of Denmark. and i would have alot real freedom less, if there was no state to protect my interests.

your freedom is equal to social darwinism, the big ones assrapes the little ones, because they have freedom to do so. Your freedom is less free.

i do not believe in categorical imperatives, i do not believe that my definition of a word is somehow more correct than anyone elses. I do not believe that the NAP is in any way objectively preferable to any alternatives.

i simply have preferences. one of those preferences is that i would prefer to live in a society where people do not initiate or threaten to innate the use of violence against each other. I would prefer to live in a society where people respect each other. I would prefer to live in a society where people are allowed to pursue their own goals so long as they are not harming each other. If you feel differently and would prefer to live in a society that does not conform to these ideals than i respect that. I do not claim that you are in some way wrong and that i am in some way right, we just have different preferences.

please be very careful when making assumptions about people.