How to run an Anarchy

[JA37]

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

[1714134717]

1714134717

[1714134717]

1714134717

[1714134717]

1714134717

[myrkul]

Boring don't stop it from being true.

And maybe the police are nice because they're less overworked because there's less crime because all the houses are protected... by owners with guns?

It's only true if you're a member of the NRA or so. Guns make it very easy to kill someone, far easier than any other tool, so in effect guns do kill people. Most people recognize this. Only those with an agenda does not.

So you want more police and more social programs for the poor? More officers makes each one less overworked, and more social programs, like they have in Switzerland, reduce crime.

Hammers make it much easier to pound in nails. Does a hammer build a deck?

Right, social programs reduce crime. That's why Harlem and Watts are such models of social order.

[JA37]

Hammers make it much easier to pound in nails. Does a hammer build a deck?

Right, social programs reduce crime. That's why Harlem and Watts are such models of social order.

A witty saying proves nothing. But yes, you could say that tools get the job done, if you like.

It does in other parts of the world. Perhaps your social programs aren't built on science but on a specific political agenda? I don't know what programs are in place in Watts and Harlem.

[myrkul]

A witty saying proves nothing. But yes, you could say that tools get the job done, if you like.

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

[JA37]

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

No, you have to look at it too. Please go right away and come back here when it's done.

[myrkul]

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

No, you have to look at it too. Please go right away and come back here when it's done.

OK, so can we agree that tools are tools? Or would a better hammer suddenly make the deck leap together? Maybe, a Nailgun?

[JA37]

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

No, you have to look at it too. Please go right away and come back here when it's done.

OK, so can we agree that tools are tools? Or would a better hammer suddenly make the deck leap together? Maybe, a Nailgun?

Welcome back. I assume the deck is finished now.
Your "Guns don't kill people" are about as useful as my "Tools get the job done". It's a saying that doesn't prove anything.
Now go back to what I wrote before and make an honest effort to TRY to understand the point.

[LastBattle]

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland

If I had to pick a specific country to go to, Hong Kong would actually be my first choice.

[AyeYo]

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland

If I had to pick a specific country to go to, Hong Kong would actually be my first choice.

Better read up a little more.  Hong Kong is just as regulated as any other country, they just have effective regulations.

http://www.info.gov.hk/hkma/

http://www.mallesons.com/MarketInsights/marketAlerts/2011/Leaps_and_bounds_how_the_Hong_Kong_regulatory_landscape_will_change_in_2011-12/Pages/default.aspx


So where are you off to now?  Keep pointing out prospering countries and pretend they're libertarian leaning, and we'll keep pointing out how strong their central authority actually is.


Know where all the countries closest to libertarian ideas are?  Right here:



I have a feeling you wouldn't want to move to any of them though.  Better to stay here and enjoy the cushy, yet terribly, terribly oppressive and oh so  coercive living of a "socialist" nation.

[myrkul]

It's only true if you're a member of the NRA or so. Guns make it very easy to kill someone, far easier than any other tool, so in effect guns do kill people. Most people recognize this. Only those with an agenda does not.

Would that be this?

I still haven't seen any reports of guns jumping up off a table and shooting someone in the face, nor hammers leaping from belts and self-assembling decks. Say what you want, guns do not kill people, any more than hammers build decks. Hammers are used to build decks. Guns are used to kill people. Hammers are also used to dismantle decks, just as guns are also used to defend people.

[JA37]

Would that be this?

I still haven't seen any reports of guns jumping up off a table and shooting someone in the face, nor hammers leaping from belts and self-assembling decks. Say what you want, guns do not kill people, any more than hammers build decks. Hammers are used to build decks. Guns are used to kill people. Hammers are also used to dismantle decks, just as guns are also used to defend people.

Yes it would.
Look at gang violence. If we were to take away all their guns. We can safely assume that they would use other tools to go at each other. Do you think they will be as effective killing opposite gang members?
People who are dead today are so because the assailant had a gun. Had they just had a knife or something else they wouldn't be. Effectively you can say that guns kills people.
Yes a person is required, but that same person without a gun wouldn't have killed.

It's ok that you don't want to understand.

[myrkul]

Yes a person is required, but that same person without a gun wouldn't have killed.

No, They would still have killed, with a knife or a club, or a sword, even. People have been killing people since the dawn of time.

And if you think that more guns = more killing, I suggest you look at Kennesaw, Georgia

[AyeYo]

Yes a person is required, but that same person without a gun wouldn't have killed.

No, They would still have killed, with a knife or a club, or a sword, even. People have been killing people since the dawn of time.

And if you think that more guns = more killing, I suggest you look at Kennesaw, Georgia

Though I disagree with his anti-gun stance, and I own many guns myself, his argument is correct.  Guns make killing easier, there's no doubt about it.  Eliminating guns does not eliminate killing, as all anti-gun nations have found out, but it does reduce it.  So trying to argue that guns don't make killer easier is asinine.  Guns are for show, knives are for pros.  It takes real balls to kill someone with a knife - any idiot can pull a trigger though.

If you're going to argue pro-gun, then use the only argument that holds up: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. i.e. anti-gun laws only affect people willing to follow them, they are preventative laws that punish people that haven't done anything wrong.

[LastBattle]

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland

If I had to pick a specific country to go to, Hong Kong would actually be my first choice.

Better read up a little more.  Hong Kong is just as regulated as any other country, they just have effective regulations.

http://www.info.gov.hk/hkma/

http://www.mallesons.com/MarketInsights/marketAlerts/2011/Leaps_and_bounds_how_the_Hong_Kong_regulatory_landscape_will_change_in_2011-12/Pages/default.aspx


So where are you off to now?  Keep pointing out prospering countries and pretend they're libertarian leaning, and we'll keep pointing out how strong their central authority actually is.


Know where all the countries closest to libertarian ideas are?  Right here:



I have a feeling you wouldn't want to move to any of them though.  Better to stay here and enjoy the cushy, yet terribly, terribly oppressive and oh so  coercive living of a "socialist" nation.

I was unaware that Socialism, as in Angola, is Libertarian.

Most African countries are ruled by dictators. Try again.

The exceptions are Botswana (which certainly isn't great but has been improving rapidly compared to its neighbors) and Somalia (which has been invaded by UN backed thugs repeatedly, yet is still light years ahead of where it was under communist dictatorship).

It would seem you are arguing with a stereotype of Libertarians rather than bothering to see what we actually stand for.  Again I ask myself why I even bother.

PROTIP: Read the time indicated by the articles you are providing.

The articles you are providing on Hong Kong are indicating that there WILL BE new regulations, something I already knew. They still aren't even marginally as pervasive as those elsewhere. Up until recently, Hong Kong had no minimum wage, either.

At any rate, I indicated the country I would prefer to go to right now, not whether it is trending in a libertarian direction. That is an entirely different issue (before you ask, Iceland would be one of the better performing ones in that category). You do realize there is a reason I am not bothering to move anywhere, right?

Know where the country closest to your ideals is? Right here:

[TheGer]

I want to live in a country with a decentralized government, a resource/commodity backed currency, a free market economy, and where people are free to defend themselves and their family without persecution.

Currently I don't live in a country like that.

[myrkul]

I want to live in a country with a decentralized government, a resource/commodity backed currency, a free market economy, and where people are free to defend themselves and their family without persecution.

Currently I don't live in a country like that.

If you can find one, let us know.

[myrkul]

 It takes real balls to kill someone with a knife - any idiot can pull a trigger though.

If you're going to argue pro-gun, then use the only argument that holds up: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. i.e. anti-gun laws only affect people willing to follow them, they are preventative laws that punish people that haven't done anything wrong.

I would not have expected you to end up on my side on any issue, But I'll not turn away help.

Your first point is why I am Pro-gun. It takes a trained soldier to kill someone with a 6-inch chunk of sharpened steel, but a little old lady can defend herself from any attacker with a gun.

Your second point is why I'm against gun laws (and in a broader sense, laws in general) They don't do squat to stop criminals.

[TheGer]

Laws create structure and stability within a group.  You are correct Laws don't stop criminals, but just as in pre-recorded history, if you broke the rules binding a tribe together you were ostrcized from that group and no longer had its protection or resources.

While criminals will create problems due to not following Law, most people in the group will thus creating a stable environment for the group to flourish.  This is ofcourse assuming the laws are just and freely accepted by all.

[myrkul]

Here we run into the difference between Law and laws

Law is social order, and can be achieved without laws, which are codified consequences for specific behaviors. Laws result in an inflexible legal system, in which something that is not prohibited, even though it is wrong, is not punishable, and worse, allows for punishment of some act simply because it is prohibited.

[LastBattle]

Would that be this?

I still haven't seen any reports of guns jumping up off a table and shooting someone in the face, nor hammers leaping from belts and self-assembling decks. Say what you want, guns do not kill people, any more than hammers build decks. Hammers are used to build decks. Guns are used to kill people. Hammers are also used to dismantle decks, just as guns are also used to defend people.

Yes it would.
Look at gang violence. If we were to take away all their guns. We can safely assume that they would use other tools to go at each other. Do you think they will be as effective killing opposite gang members?
People who are dead today are so because the assailant had a gun. Had they just had a knife or something else they wouldn't be. Effectively you can say that guns kills people.
Yes a person is required, but that same person without a gun wouldn't have killed.

It's ok that you don't want to understand.

Just to toss in my two cents, did you know that the UK had less gun crime per capita BEFORE it passed its anti-gun legislation?