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

[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.

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

By denying them economic freedoms like the ability to run a business out of their residence, and so forth?  You could not be more wrong.

[kokjo]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

[myrkul]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

But there is no reality, it's all in your head, right?

[kokjo]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

But there is no reality, it's all in your head, right?

yup, but i choose to call it reality. because its so much more fun then floating around in the nothingness/maybe-something-ness.

[myrkul]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

But there is no reality, it's all in your head, right?

yup, but i choose to call it reality. because its so much more fun then floating around in the nothingness/maybe-something-ness.

Well, if it's all in your head, where do you get off telling people that their reality is "fairy tales"?

[Anon136]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

I never made a claim that this society will ever exist so how could you call anything i said utopian? i simply expressed what are my preferences nothing more nothing less. If a sufficient number of the other people around me begin to share my preferences to the point that it creates the sort of society i wish i lived in than great. But even if i knew as a point of fact that this would never happen it still wouldn't change my preferences.

i really dont understand you. Even if we accept for the sake of discussion than an ancap society could never function, so we dont even have to say its utopian for the sake of discussion lets say its technically imposable and provably so. why on earth would you expect even this to cause me to alter my preference for non-aggression?

you statists twist my brain into knots

[kokjo]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

But there is no reality, it's all in your head, right?

yup, but i choose to call it reality. because its so much more fun then floating around in the nothingness/maybe-something-ness.

Well, if it's all in your head, where do you get off telling people that their reality is "fairy tales"?

this is not relevant for the discussion. are you giving up?

[myrkul]

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.

yeah me too... but its never gonna happen, what you is describing is a utopian fairy tail land.

come back to reality...

But there is no reality, it's all in your head, right?

yup, but i choose to call it reality. because its so much more fun then floating around in the nothingness/maybe-something-ness.

Well, if it's all in your head, where do you get off telling people that their reality is "fairy tales"?

this is not relevant for the discussion. are you giving up?

Nope, just trying to keep you honest. You call what we want "fairy tales," and then tell us to "come back to reality," but if there is no reality, you've not really made an argument, have you?

[kokjo]

why on earth would you expect even this to cause me to alter my preference for non-aggression?

because aggression can sometimes be a means to self preservation.

[Anon136]

why on earth would you expect even this to cause me to alter my preference for non-aggression?

because aggression can sometimes be a means to self preservation.

Sure i agree with that statement, but it doesnt in any way rebut my previous statement.

I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways)

this still doesnt change the basic fact that generally speaking i prefer non-agression to the alternative.

[myrkul]

I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways)

It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him.

[kokjo]

I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways)

It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him.

oh my hero.

[myrkul]

I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways)

It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him.

oh my hero.

That's a pretty good picture of me.

[Rassah]

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

So, how many of these laws do you break every day:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

[myrkul]

So, how many of these laws do you break every day:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

I'd wager none, since most of them are vehicle related, and he doesn't drive.

He might have worn a mask at some point.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

So, how many of these laws do you break every day:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

I'd wager none, since most of them are vehicle related, and he doesn't drive.

He might have worn a mask at some point.

But how can you even break a law, after all, they're only "social constructs"?

[Rassah]

So, how many of these laws do you break every day:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

I'd wager none, since most of them are vehicle related, and he doesn't drive.

He might have worn a mask at some point.

But how can you even break a law, after all, they're only "social constructs"?

We think so. These guys, however, believe laws are where morals come from.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

So, how many of these laws do you break every day:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

I'd wager none, since most of them are vehicle related, and he doesn't drive.

He might have worn a mask at some point.

But how can you even break a law, after all, they're only "social constructs"?

We think so. These guys, however, believe laws are where morals come from.

Indeed.  There have been studies that indicate humans naturally empathize with the plight of others, unless indoctrinated not to.  Morality is essentially hard-wired into us, thus theft, assault, fraud, etc are all punishable offences pretty much across every human culture, and some offences even exist, in some form,  in more primitive primates.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

So, how many of these laws do you break every day:

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/denmark

I'd wager none, since most of them are vehicle related, and he doesn't drive.

He might have worn a mask at some point.

I think he'd make an ideal "Flag man" to warn horses of oncoming automobiles. 

[Anon136]

I agree that there are circumstances where i would be willing to commit acts of aggression. As i said non-aggression is not an moral imperative for me, it is just one of my preferences. Sometimes stronger more pressing preferences over-ride that one. (i think this is where myrkul and myself part ways)

It is a moral imperative for me, but there are times when I would, for pragmatic reasons, violate someone's rights so as to prevent greater harm. Stealing a boat to save a drowning victim, for instance. The difference is, I would then attempt to compensate the boat owner for my theft, acknowledging that I have wronged him.

yes those are the sorts of scenarios i was thinking of. So i guess we don't diverge there after all.

Lots of people would compare taxation to stealing the boat to save the drowning person. I.E. we need taxes to steal from a rich person to pay for food for people who are at risk of starving is sort of the same argument.

my argument is that in principal this is correct, it just so happens that these sorts of actions create bad incentives which cause more harm than good to the exact types of people you are trying to help. I like this because it turns a philosophical argument into a scientific one. The question of should we have a government to help the poor is a philosophical question i cant give an objectively valid answer to, fortunately the question of is the government capable of helping the poor can be assessed scientifically.