Capitalism.

[crumbs]

Let's see what you've rattled off there...  
You want the people to "pay the army directly"?  Just what, exactly would be the mechanics of that?  Let's say i live in your Equestria, where the standing army is paid by individual citizen pone.  Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie decided to chip in & buy themselves some protection from the evil Clompers.  They frightened Applejack, who in turn also decided to go in on the deal.  Twilight Sparkle and Fluttershy, went all "whoa, nelly!" and didn't offer up. Spike said brb, i'm broke, and Rarity... well, you know how Rarity is.
Wat do? (BonusPoint:  Who the best pone?)

I'm assuming those are some names from the my little pony cartoon? Since I'm not a fan and don't watch the show, I honestly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic 

I'm sorry, sweetie, but i've missed nothing.

Considering you answered the question of "Who pays for armies" with "The gubment," I'd say you missed a whole hell of a lot.

Oh, shnooks...  forgot already, huh?  Stop trying to "consider," that just makes your forehead wrinkle!  As long as you purty, you can ride in the van

[crumbs]

Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic 

Oh, shnooks...  forgot already, huh?  Stop trying to "consider," that just makes your forehead wrinkle!  As long as you purty, you can ride in the van

It's obvious you are not interested in debating this, and seem to only want others to tell you you are right, while posting what all the rest of us consider to be very incoherent and messed up jumbles of words, so why do you persist?

Tell you what. You are right. You win. Also, I have a bitcoin. Last one to reply to any of crumb's posts wins it.

I'm not playing for the crowd, sweety.  Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    Now clean yourself up, here's some change for the bus.

[wdmw]

It's obvious you are not interested in debating this, and seem to only want others to tell you you are right, while posting what all the rest of us consider to be very incoherent and messed up jumbles of words, so why do you persist?

One day, a statist will come with logical arguments, clearly expressed opinions, and valid points.  He shall not use irrelevant appeals and ad hominems, straw mans, false dilemmas and circular arguments.  He will challenge the notions of liberty, property, and voluntary association.

That day is not today.

[NewLiberty]

Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

[crumbs]

Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry?

[NewLiberty]

Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry?

Not an answer. 
OK, I will be the good sport and go first. 
I'm trusting that way, though you have provided no reason to be so.

With respect to you: Curiosity replaced ennui.
With respect to the primary discussion for this thread: Eagerness, was lost to patience, over your chasing off my interlocutors. 
Though I suspect some may ultimately return if you manage the introspection requested here.

Your turn.  Why do you delight in creating unwelcome emotions?

[Zarathustra]

I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working.
100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing.

[superresistant]

tldr

I can't believe people see Capitalism as something legit and stable 

[crumbs]

Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry?

Not an answer. 
OK, I will be the good sport and go first. 
I'm trusting that way, though you have provided no reason to be so.

With respect to you: Curiosity replaced ennui.
With respect to the primary discussion for this thread: Eagerness, was lost to patience, over your chasing off my interlocutors. 
Though I suspect some may ultimately return if you manage the introspection requested here.

Your turn.  Why do you delight in creating unwelcome emotions?

It's like this, NewLiberty:  I fell short of the glory of God.  I failed at loving you unconditionally, at turning the other cheek each time it was slapped, at being kind and not calling you on your broken logic, at letting you hold on to your false and cherry-picked facts and tales of gun-totin' self-sufficiency.

I erred on the side of kindness -- after getting a catty message ending with "FU" from Rassah, i wrote a detailed & courteous letter explaining my reasoning.  The reply?  "Stopped reading right there" after a two-sentence quote.  Sure, you're not him, but guilt by association happens IRL.

TL;DR: Bad manners alloyed with self-assured, humorlessly pompous stance = a magnet for "unwelcome emotions."

[Rassah]

I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working.
100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing.

So, are you for completely polygamous relationships, or are just temporary monogamous ones ok? And how do you believe that will affect economics?

[ktttn]

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up!

Aside from the fact that government isn't a "financial instrument" by ANY definition, at any time in history, anywhere on the planet (banks ate the closest you can come to claiming that; governments are only administrative instruments)
Here's the part you missed:

...
Armies are currently being paid for with money collected from businesses, corporations, and wealthy individuals. All of them have a vested interest in protecting their own property, and all of them would be able to pay the exact same amount they are paying now to get AT LEAST the exact same amount of private security to secure their property.

I am sorry I overestimated the lot of you.

Ever heard of "economies of scale"?

The Libertarian pipe-dream, summarized:
-Toll booths on every bridge and at the end of every road.
-Fences around every park and ticket booths.
-Ad hoc guilt-ridden individuals 'volunteering' to pay hundreds of individual charities that specialize in things like: feeding the homeless, old-folks' homes, smallpox vaccines, educating the poor... (All that "community" crap that stops the unenlightened lower classes from lynch-mobbing the rich for being too financially successful.)
-Individually paying dozens of security contractors to secure the various trade routes for your food, water, and fuel.
-Local mini-Foxconn factories producing a few dozen Apple-like products per year for their local hipster communities.
- (Didn't really get to mention currencies... maybe another time...)

Doesn't that sound fucking inefficient?
-To avoid being paralysed by paperwork, why not have some entity that consolidates a lot of that minor crap?
-And what's the point of having 100% accurate accounting (e.g.: tracking who used what road with how much tonnage?) if the tracking makes the overhead far higher than the 'losses' caused by doing guesstimates instead?
-Mini smart-phone factories in every village is obviously inefficient bullshit. Corporations growing to monstrous sizes is not a result of government meddling, it's just more efficient that way. One exception here seems to be the US' "War On Terror" exploiting the Middle East for cheap oil, thus maintaining cheap supply lines. Without extremely cheap transport, many international corporations would probably collapse. Perhaps in this case, violence (evil as it may be) is more efficient than letting the Arabs restrict oil supplies and build more desert palaces?

So if governments are evil phantoms with sham democratic processes, so what? Why not just call them private monarchies? Just reject the whole concept of 'public' and learn to love your (private, Capitalist) Big Brother.

Being is hard when someone owns every inch of the ground you walk on. When shelter and food are proprietary I get a bad, bad sunburn and a hungryness.

[ktttn]

Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.

It's an error to dismiss the many negative connotations of transgenderism, sexual ambiguity, and homosexuality, yet...

Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.

It's not really wage "slavery," since if you don't like the wage, just go find another job. You won't have a posse tracking you down, hogtying you, and bringing you back to your old position. There's slavery, and there's the personal choice to work or not.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?

I am often prevented from taking personal posession of public property by capitalists and cops.
New boss, old boss. wage slavery, abject poverty or luck and access to resources. These three options are all capitalism offers.

[ktttn]

Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry?

MODS.
shitposting sucks

[Zarathustra]

I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working.
100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing.

So, are you for completely polygamous relationships, or are just temporary monogamous ones ok? And how do you believe that will affect economics?

I'm just explaining the difference (in the real life of the whole history) between anarchy (self-sufficiency of the communities) and patriarchy (paternalised collectivism). Of course they've been monogamous for some weeks or months, but the begetters had no role of a father, because there was no knowledge of the causal relation between sex and reproduction. The father's role belonged to the mother's brother.

[crumbs]

[...]
 As for crumbs, he lost all manner of respect from me way before this thread even started. Still, sorry for spamming this discussion and feeding an obvious troll.

Yes, Rassah, there's an old saying:  Even a cat can look at a king.  And i don't mind if you do, but know your place, ffs!  You're in no position to judge one.

[crumbs]

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry?

MODS.
shitposting sucks

Kttn?

[crumbs]

...feeding the homeless, old-folks' homes, smallpox vaccines, educating the poor... (All that "community" crap that stops the unenlightened lower classes from lynch-mobbing the rich for being too financially successful.)
[...]

  +100 internets!

[MoonShadow]

Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need    

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry?

MODS.
shitposting sucks

REally?  So what you're saying is this; even if crumbs had not long ago earned his treatment, we should prevent that which comes around from going around because you somehow are innocent, and must deserve to be protected from offense?  Did I get that part right?

I'm just saying, the reputation of she who is offeneded is at least as important as the offenseive material itself; particularly when she isn't the intended target.

[MoonShadow]

I am often prevented from taking personal posession of public property by capitalists and cops.
New boss, old boss. wage slavery, abject poverty or luck and access to resources. These three options are all capitalism offers.

That's not capitalism.  That's communism.

And around and around we go, where we stop, nobody knows.

[NewLiberty]

Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.

It's an error to dismiss the many negative connotations of transgenderism, sexual ambiguity, and homosexuality, yet...

Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.

It's not really wage "slavery," since if you don't like the wage, just go find another job. You won't have a posse tracking you down, hogtying you, and bringing you back to your old position. There's slavery, and there's the personal choice to work or not.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?

I am often prevented from taking personal posession of public property by capitalists and cops.
New boss, old boss. wage slavery, abject poverty or luck and access to resources. These three options are all capitalism offers.

I guess you can also make your own luck (being entrepreneurial and taking risks) so I guess it's not all bad.

I like the meritocratic parts of both systems.
Reportedly even the Zuccotti free food folks at the Occupy Wall Street stopped serving when they were overrun by the homeless beggars in the community?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
So hunger and sunburns maybe could happen anywhere.

"The hideous thing about meritocracy is it tells you that if you've given life your all, and haven’t got to the top, you’re thick or stupid. Previously, at least, you could always just blame the class system."
- Laurie Taylor