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

[freedomno1]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

My dear departed dad (May he rest in peace) had a saying that he oft quoted:
"Roll on Armageddon."

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

If Margaret or Reagan are what you consider to be a reset, we are in deep doo-doo.

[freedomno1]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

If Margaret or Reagan are what you consider to be a reset, we are in deep doo-doo.

Did Say Every 50 to 100 years If that kind of reset happened every other day we would be in constant recessions and anarchy mean :p

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

If Margaret or Reagan are what you consider to be a reset, we are in deep doo-doo.

Did Say Every 50 to 100 years If that kind of reset happened every other day we would be in constant recessions and anarchy mean :p

So, give me an example of one or two of these resets in the last 100 years or so, please.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

If Margaret or Reagan are what you consider to be a reset, we are in deep doo-doo.

Did Say Every 50 to 100 years If that kind of reset happened every other day we would be in constant recessions and anarchy mean :p

Anarchy does not bother me:

an·ar·chy 
/ˈanərkē/
Noun
1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

If Margaret or Reagan are what you consider to be a reset, we are in deep doo-doo.

Did Say Every 50 to 100 years If that kind of reset happened every other day we would be in constant recessions and anarchy mean :p

Ahh, the sound of crickets, how sweet and peaceful.

[freedomno1]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?

Till it becomes too socialist and a reset occurs Margaret Anyone ^^
Happens every 50 to 100 years or so lol based on the last 3 centuries lol

If Margaret or Reagan are what you consider to be a reset, we are in deep doo-doo.

Did Say Every 50 to 100 years If that kind of reset happened every other day we would be in constant recessions and anarchy mean :p

So, give me an example of one or two of these resets in the last 100 years or so, please.

Well I'll focus on just some governmental changes
Although a wide amount of them went from capitalist to socialist I never disagreed on that point but the inverse happens too

However before I start that list have you ever heard of Billy Joel
Because we Didn't the Start the fire it was always burning since the worlds been turning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m50p-XScreM One with words
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g Ones with video

Fidel Castro
Chavez in Venezuela
El Salvador Civil War
Egypt
Opposite
Pinochet in Chile
Muammar Gaddafi‎ to the National transitional council
Brazil under Lula was more socialist due to its leadership than under Dilma
Margaret Thatcher In Britain
Reagan in the US

Could argue that before Castro Cuba was more capitalist
Before Chavez Venezuela was in civil wars military control
Pinochet and what happened after
Gaddaffi and the current militias

What else do I have to say

[myrkul]

Reagan was a pretty piss-poor "reset."

[kokjo]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

It's impossible to reason with these guys, kokjo.
They've got it jammed into their heads that the "one line" non-aggression 'principle' is the holy grail of laws.

They keep playing out the same illogical debating style:

• Non An-Cap person disputes X for whatever reason (e.g.: that in practice the NAP would be just like government laws, but with trigger-happy lynch mobs in charge who have no respect for fair trails or due process, or literacy for that matter.)
• An-Cap person responds with an appeal to hypocrisy. Despite "the one" NAP being summarised in a lengthy Wikipedia page, they cherry-pick a snippet from Myrkul's personal interpretation, point to it and say things like "are you seriously suggesting that you would prefer to be violent? Because if you reject 'X' that means you must be in favour of 'Y'."
• Whenever the non-An-Cap person responds, the An-Cap person -- instead of defending the NAP -- again goes on the attack. They basically believe that governments are universally bad, and that the NAP is universally good or (or at least much better). And when the NAP is deified like that, you know they could never be 'convinced'. They've made up their mind and their opinion perma-view is final! I think the term "calcified mind" fits nicely (thanks Myrkul!)

+10 !

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Are you seriously saying that you should be able to commit violence on anyone you want without repercussions?

i did not say that. i expect repercussions and thats why i don't do violence(im forced not to do violence, by thread of violence).

It's impossible to reason with these guys, kokjo.
They've got it jammed into their heads that the "one line" non-aggression 'principle' is the holy grail of laws.

They keep playing out the same illogical debating style:

• Non An-Cap person disputes X for whatever reason (e.g.: that in practice the NAP would be just like government laws, but with trigger-happy lynch mobs in charge who have no respect for fair trails or due process, or literacy for that matter.)
• An-Cap person responds with an appeal to hypocrisy. Despite "the one" NAP being summarised in a lengthy Wikipedia page, they cherry-pick a snippet from Myrkul's personal interpretation, point to it and say things like "are you seriously suggesting that you would prefer to be violent? Because if you reject 'X' that means you must be in favour of 'Y'."
• Whenever the non-An-Cap person responds, the An-Cap person -- instead of defending the NAP -- again goes on the attack. They basically believe that governments are universally bad, and that the NAP is universally good or (or at least much better). And when the NAP is deified like that, you know they could never be 'convinced'. They've made up their mind and their opinion perma-view is final! I think the term "calcified mind" fits nicely (thanks Myrkul!)

Look at the part of his quote I bolded, and ask yourself if that is something that deserves reasoning with.

[Rassah]

They keep playing out the same illogical debating style:

• Non An-Cap person disputes X for whatever reason (e.g.: that in practice the NAP would be just like government laws, but with trigger-happy lynch mobs in charge who have no respect for fair trails or due process, or literacy for that matter.)

Statists keep playing on the same illogical debating style. AnCap person describes NAP as a mutually agreed on policy, and goes on to describe how it will likely be maintained by private arbitration and private security (think police, but whom you actually choose and pay for directly), and Non AnCap person for whatever reason ignores all that and insists that NAP can only result in lynch mobs and mob justice.

• An-Cap person responds with an appeal to hypocrisy. Despite "the one" NAP being summarised in a lengthy Wikipedia page, they cherry-pick a snippet from Myrkul's personal interpretation, point to it and say things like "are you seriously suggesting that you would prefer to be violent? Because if you reject 'X' that means you must be in favour of 'Y'."

AnCap person explains that the NAP is a specific thing, a definition of a policy, but statist ignores the definition, and starts coming up with things like, "but what if my NAP is different from your NAP?" trying to redefine words in order to argue about how bad something is when it's used with their specific definition, and then gets upset when told that changing definitions like that doesn't work, and that when they propose "the opposite of not being violent," what they are actually proposing is the idea that initiating aggression or being violent for no reason should be allowed.

• Whenever the non-An-Cap person responds, the An-Cap person -- instead of defending the NAP -- again goes on the attack. They basically believe that governments are universally bad, and that the NAP is universally good or (or at least much better). And when the NAP is deified like that, you know they could never be 'convinced'. They've made up their mind and their opinion perma-view is final! I think the term "calcified mind" fits nicely (thanks Myrkul!)

AnCaps believe that Government would be ok, if it was voluntary, and if supporting it (paying taxes/fees) was voluntary, and the idea of "not being aggressive" and "only being defensive" is good, while statists come up with strawmen arguments, arguing that AnCaps are saying something completely different, that NAP is something completely different, and then argue against their own made up versions of what AnCaps believe in and what NAP means.


For the last time. NAP is "I won't fuck with you, you don't fuck with me. If you fuck with me, I will defend myself." Every other version of NOT-NAP is the following:
1) I will fuck with you, but don't you fuck with me back, and don't defend yourself. Just let me totally fuck you over.
2) I won't fuck with you, but please, feel free to fuck with me all you ant, I won't defend myself
3) I won't fuck with you, you won't fuck with me, but if one of us decides to fuck with the other, the other just has to bend over and take it.

You don't like the NAP. Ok, then you have those three other choices. Please let us know which one you believe is better. Being a violent asshole (1)? Being a defenseless pussy (2)? Just being completely pacifist and letting anyone walk over you and your neighbors/family (3)? Please enlighten us.

[Rassah]

Here, let me try something.

blablahblah, democracy is basically rounding up people you don't like and putting them into concentration camps for no reason. I don't like democracy, because it imprisons and kills people for no reason, and with democracy we'll just have millions of people starving or getting killed. And what if your democracy is different from someone else's democracy? I don't want you to impose your democracy on me, because democracy is just a bunch of mob justice that results in deaths of millions.

[TomUnderSea]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

[myrkul]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

False advertising. Look who started the thread.

[TomUnderSea]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

False advertising. Look who started the thread.

Just noticed the color of his ignore button.

That explains much.

[hawkeye]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

False advertising. Look who started the thread.

Just noticed the color of his ignore button.

That explains much.

What does having a different colour mean?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

False advertising. Look who started the thread.

Just noticed the color of his ignore button.

That explains much.

What does having a different colour mean?

My guess is that once a certain threshold is hit, it get's highlighted.
Maybe a mod or a Hero member could expound on exactly what the threshold is, and if it goes red after another threshold, etc.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

The USA was founded on the free market and libertarian ideals, as per the Bill of Rights, so much of the discussion here is indirectly about America.

[myrkul]

9/10ths of the way to 1000 posts and I don't see "americans" in the thread discussion.

False advertising or just off topic?

False advertising. Look who started the thread.

Just noticed the color of his ignore button.

That explains much.

What does having a different colour mean?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68329.0