Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2018, 12:36:31 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...  (Read 16345 times)
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 08:03:05 PM
 #1

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
1534466191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534466191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534466191
Reply with quote  #2

1534466191
Report to moderator
1534466191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534466191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534466191
Reply with quote  #2

1534466191
Report to moderator
1534466191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534466191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534466191
Reply with quote  #2

1534466191
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534466191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534466191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534466191
Reply with quote  #2

1534466191
Report to moderator
1534466191
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534466191

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534466191
Reply with quote  #2

1534466191
Report to moderator
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 08:21:16 PM
 #2

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

+1.  On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control.  I estimate 20% would be sufficient.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 08:22:38 PM
 #3

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

+1.  On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control.  I estimate 20% would be sufficient.

Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha.

Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent.
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:24:48 PM
 #4

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

Ha ha   Smiley



The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:28:11 PM
 #5

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

+1.  On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control.  I estimate 20% would be sufficient.

Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha.

Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent.

True but sad:  http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/police-arent-legally-obligated-to.html

I think it all goes back to the age old question:  Is liberty the mother or the daughter of order?
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:29:35 PM
 #6

Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 08:31:27 PM
 #7

Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha.

Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent.

True but sad:  http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/police-arent-legally-obligated-to.html

I think it all goes back to the age old question:  Is liberty the mother or the daughter of order?

Ahh...the age old question: "Why the hell am I paying taxes to fund these police parasites when they aren't even legally obliged to protect me"

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 08:32:00 PM
 #8

This is far from an overblown statement. Fact: The only thing libertarianism works against is force against the individual's right to himself.
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:34:50 PM
 #9

Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha.

Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent.

True but sad:  http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/police-arent-legally-obligated-to.html

I think it all goes back to the age old question:  Is liberty the mother or the daughter of order?

Ahh...the age old question: "Why the hell am I paying taxes to fund these police parasites when they aren't even legally obliged to protect me"

Hey man, it's for a good cause.  How else could we afford to bomb brown people? 
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 09:26:31 PM
 #10

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

+1

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Mittlyle
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 10:52:39 PM
 #11

I do appreciate the libertarian ideology for it's internal coherence. The main problem for me, however, is the concept of fairness. Our current economics (and very likely one in libertarianism too) is one form of structural classism. Poor people are by default in debt, paying interest for being that way. The rich on the other hand have a chance to earn interest on already having wealth. Thats just arbitrary construction that just happens to be. I see no moral problem with fixing it with an another one. Obviously thats just one example of systemic unfairness. Individuals may be able to overcome those, but in aggregate the result is obvious. In games like go and renju handicap or handicap rules are given to make the game even as first player has otherwise an advantage. Everybody agrees these rules are reasonable and fair. Life should be no exception.

Fairness and justice are values just as are property rights. Your definition of fairness may be different than mine but so may be my perception of property rights to yours. Thus, to achieve more just outcome I deem taxation – aka legitimized stealing and thus tampering your property rights – completely fine. Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth. To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time. To say there's no obligation is just immoral. To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.  

In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.

I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it. In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 11:09:12 PM
 #12

Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.

Dramatic? Yes. But think about it. Taxation is, at its most basic level, the violent extortion of money. It's a mugging.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:09:12 PM
 #13

Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth.

I'll concede that it's almost a human right, but it's still not.  However, the right to keep the fruits of one's own labors most certainly is a human right that is regularly violated by people who claim the authority to do so by reason that they are the government.

Quote

 To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time.


It seems to have worked pretty well in the US right up until the New Deal.

Quote

To say there's no obligation is just immoral.


Obligation to do what, exactly?  Aid your fellow man?  Sure, I'm obligated as a Christian to help the needy, but that is my religious obligation.  It's not something that can be satisfied on my behalf by government taking from me to give to another.  Nor can I, as a Christian, force my mores upon others.  

Quote

 To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.  


<sigh>

If you aren't a communist at 20, then you have no heart.  If you are still a communist at 30, then you have no sense.

Quote

In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.


You obviously have a distorted understanding of what libertarian system would be.

Quote
I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it.

There comes a point that it's no longer worth trying to fix, and it's just better to junk it and try again.  We passed that point around 1971.

Quote

In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.

Public & private is what we have been getting for as long as I have been alive, and as you pointed out above, that seems to lead to a broken system with endless stream of bad decisions.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 11:13:34 PM
 #14

Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.

Dramatic? Yes. But think about it. Taxation is, at its most basic level, the violent extortion of money. It's a mugging.
+1

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 11:20:50 PM
 #15

Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.

+1.  Can anyone say "paradigm shift"?

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 12:03:53 AM
 #16

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 12:09:19 AM
 #17

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.

You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 12:17:49 AM
 #18

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.

You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth.
They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse.
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 12:19:26 AM
 #19

Not everybody derives value from just money. People will easily bid over the lower ones.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 12:23:58 AM
 #20

Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.

You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth.
They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are Extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse.

Wait, which is it?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 12:29:27 AM
 #21

Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.

You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth.
They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are Extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse.

Wait, which is it?
Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 12:35:56 AM
 #22

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 12:47:13 AM
 #23

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 12:48:49 AM
 #24

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...
This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 12:52:31 AM
 #25

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 01:20:12 AM
 #26

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?
That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 01:24:52 AM
 #27

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?
That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.

Um. So, Who won that one? Wink

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 01:33:39 AM
 #28

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...

And How, pray tell, do the businesses restrict access to affordable loans?
That. You need to in effect become a private government, thus making society unlibertarian. Thus it is in the worker's best interests to have a libertarian society.
Did somebody just have a brain fart?
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 01:47:49 AM
 #29

Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.

You mean like your constant usage of "fantasy liberland" or whatever it is you like to say?
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 02, 2011, 01:49:33 AM
 #30


Did somebody just have a brain fart?

I think that might have been some cognative dissonance antimatter coming together with a *bang*.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 02:16:17 AM
 #31

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...
This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 02:21:04 AM
 #32

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...
This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

The current world we live in is ran by a state fed on poisonous debt and money.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 02:22:22 AM
 #33

Exactly -- you take advantage of the fact that a person's market rate need not be what they can make for you.

Ohh.... I see your point now. Profit is evil, huh? Does the worker get no say in this equation? What about what he values his labor at?
The worker gets a say in this equation. That is what makes the relationship consensual (and also what makes it subtle).

Now then, you must hope and try to make sure that they don't get together and start working for themselves, because if they do and if they are successful, the market rate will be what they produce, and you cannot survive in such a market. One way to do this is to restrict access to affordable credit. In any case, you need to distort or destroy the libertarian society you live in...
This is irrational conspiracy. There is no ground to prove markets will form like this.

Yea, no ground, just the world we live in and the current system we have.  That's nothing substantial.  Feel free to overlook it.

The current world we live in is ran by a state fed on poisonous debt and money.

Which is a result of the type of the market action described.  Someday you might understand that.  The current system didn't spring up out of the ground.  It's the end product of free markets and human nature.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 11:50:37 AM
 #34

"Which is a result of the type of the market action described.  Someday you might understand that.  The current system didn't spring up out of the ground.  It's the end product of free markets and human nature evolution."
Mittlyle
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 02:17:50 PM
 #35

Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth.
I'll concede that it's almost a human right, but it's still not.  However, the right to keep the fruits of one's own labors most certainly is a human right that is regularly violated by people who claim the authority to do so by reason that they are the government.

I define human rights as right to meet basic physical and mental needs. Taxation may not be pretty way to ensure meeting those needs but I think its justifiable. I don't see how charities and market mechanisms would meet that goal. Setting wages to float (as I believe libertarian system would do) will lead to unreasonable workload to sustain oneself for the least productive. Otherwise there will be unemployment which is even bigger a problem. Basic income and minor tax-rate and the problem is solved.

Quote from: MoonShadow
Quote from: Mittlyle
To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time.
It seems to have worked pretty well in the US right up until the New Deal.
New Deal essentially is what had to be done as charities weren't enough of a safety-net during the great depression. Of course the great depression is not a fair point of reference, but proves the point that at least at times welfare is needed.

Quote from: MoonShadow
Quote from: Mittlyle
To say there's no obligation is just immoral.

Obligation to do what, exactly?  Aid your fellow man?  Sure, I'm obligated as a Christian to help the needy, but that is my religious obligation.  It's not something that can be satisfied on my behalf by government taking from me to give to another.  Nor can I, as a Christian, force my mores upon others.  
My wording wasn't that successful there. I just mean that if the system fails to deliver basic rights to people, then there is moral obligation to change the rules to somehow meet those needs. I wasn't saying that individual should immediately give what he has in excess to somebody not so fortunate.

Quote from: MoonShadow
Quote from: Mittlyle
To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.  

<sigh>

If you aren't a communist at 20, then you have no heart.  If you are still a communist at 30, then you have no sense.
I take that commie-note as mere tool of rhetoric. Not everything short of libertarianism is totalitarianism even though that seems to be the point in these circles. All I'm saying is that tax money that is spent to make unfortunate people better functioning individuals will reap benefits to the whole society. I think thats very sensible.


Quote from: MoonShadow
Quote from: Mittlyle
In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.
You obviously have a distorted understanding of what libertarian system would be.
Please clarify or give a source so I can verify this as I'm genuinely interested in the concept of libertarianism. For now I'll just state that as libertarianism is an ideology without reality so it is very easy to fall trap of unreasonable hopes, or any other misconception for that matter. Communism is prime example of how rosy ideology and harsh reality failed to match. Similarly communism was the ideology to free people from perceived oppression of entity and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if libertarianism ended in similar dystopic result. The rule of the state is just replaced by the rules of the economics that will emerge.

Quote from: MoonShadow
Quote from: Mittlyle
I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it.
There comes a point that it's no longer worth trying to fix, and it's just better to junk it and try again.  We passed that point around 1971.
Here's a better metaphor: if your car is broken, you wouldn't argue everybody should start using bicycles only. I agree that sometimes reseting the game may be the only viable way to build functioning solution.

Quote from: MoonShadow
Quote from: Mittlyle
In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.
Public & private is what we have been getting for as long as I have been alive, and as you pointed out above, that seems to lead to a broken system with endless stream of bad decisions.
Bad decisions have been result of lack of accountability. Private side is optimized by profit incentive. That can lead to very different results than what is desirable.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 02:29:53 PM
 #36

Quote
I take that commie-note as mere tool of rhetoric. Not everything short of libertarianism is totalitarianism even though that seems to be the point in these circles. All I'm saying is that tax money that is spent to make unforunate people better functioning individuals will reap benefits to the whole society. I think thats very sensible.

Libertarians just CANNOT wrap their minds around this, which is what leads to a lot of the circular arguments.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:01:04 PM
 #37

Good god could everyone just read "A Theory of Justice" so we could better debate one another.  It is cheap, easy to find, and a basis for the majority of US liberal egalitarianism.  I have seen good counter arguments to Rawls's work by Libertarians ans Anarchist but nothing on that level here in this forum.

http://books.google.com/books?id=kvpby7HtAe0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+theory+of+justice&hl=en&ei=FD4PTqDSJ_KGsAKsnJ35CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
barbarousrelic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 675
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:05:52 PM
 #38

How would a libertarian society address the causes of global warming?

Do not waste your time debating whether Bitcoin can work. It does work.

"Early adopters will profit" is not a sufficient condition to classify something as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. If it was, Apple and Microsoft stock are Ponzi schemes.

There is no such thing as "market manipulation." There is only buying and selling.
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:12:16 PM
 #39

Good god could everyone just read "A Theory of Justice" so we could better debate one another.  It is cheap, easy to find, and a basis for the majority of US liberal egalitarianism.  I have seen good counter arguments to Rawls's work by Libertarians ans Anarchist but nothing on that level here in this forum.

Smiley

I agree, though it is worth pointing out that Nozick is often writing in direct response to Rawls and forms that basis/bedrock of much of the right-libertarian philosophy on this board. So there is indirectly a lot of criticism of Rawlsian social contract positions even if people may not be making them explicitly.

(I would add Iris Marion Young "Justice and the Politics of Difference" for a comprehensive discussion of non-distributive justice and Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" for a re-examination of liberty/freedom.)
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:18:35 PM
 #40

How would a libertarian society address the causes of global warming?

The magical market would cure global warming with happiness and pixie dust.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
epi 1:10,000
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
 #41


I agree, though it is worth pointing out that Nozick is often writing in direct response to Rawls and forms that basis/bedrock of much of the right-libertarian philosophy on this board. So there is indirectly a lot of criticism of Rawlsian social contract positions even if people may not be making them explicitly.

(I would add Iris Marion Young "Justice and the Politics of Difference" for a comprehensive discussion of non-distributive justice and Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" for a re-examination of liberty/freedom.)

I haven't read Nozick yet. Thanks for the suggestions! I look forward to reading them.

Might I point to some free books you mentioned

http://books.google.com/books/about/Justice_and_the_politics_of_difference.html?id=Q6keKguPrsAC
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Development+as+Freedom&btnG=Search+Books

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:32:31 PM
 #42

The magical market would cure global warming with happiness and pixie dust.

Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.

AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:44:17 PM
 #43

Am I wrong?  Answer his question if I didn't do it.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:52:07 PM
 #44

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:54:55 PM
 #45

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.


Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 04:04:25 PM
 #46

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.


Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

Quote
hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 04:20:16 PM
 #47

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.


Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

Quote
hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.


I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man... Cheesy


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 04:30:00 PM
 #48

I'm glad you liked the answer. I'll answer your questions since you're being civil for the moment.

So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.

Yes, you can but restitution has to be proportional. It's hard to see how my breathing can be contributing damage worth more than an infinitesimally small fraction of a penny. Feel free to waste your time suing for that.

Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too.

If you can't prove damage to your property then why else would you be suing, hurt feelings?
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 02, 2011, 04:54:59 PM
 #49

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.


Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

Quote
hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.


I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man... Cheesy


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

Oh boy! An easy target!

First of all, unsubsidized roads = far less driving = no problem. It would solve itself in just that fashion as alternate transportation sources were used (probably trains).

Second, it would be proportional. Trace amounts of pollution wouldn't be worthwhile to go after. But then, number one means that such amounts would be lacking and thus there would be no problem.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:01:13 PM
 #50

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.


Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

Quote
hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.


I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man... Cheesy


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

Oh boy! An easy target!

First of all, unsubsidized roads = far less driving = no problem. It would solve itself in just that fashion as alternate transportation sources were used (probably trains).

Second, it would be proportional. Trace amounts of pollution wouldn't be worthwhile to go after. But then, number one means that such amounts would be lacking and thus there would be no problem.


Irrelevant.  More pixie dust.  While you masturbate to the free market's ability to solve all problems to perfection, I'll be busy filing a law suit again.... every human being on the planet.  The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
 #51

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:18:14 PM
 #52

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.
Subtract the expenses in mailing all the people claims for their pollution.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:18:56 PM
 #53

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.


When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:20:11 PM
 #54

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.


When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.



Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:27:25 PM
 #55

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.


When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.







Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.



I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:28:19 PM
 #56

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.


When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.







Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.



I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.
Guns aren't free. I hope you have proper funding lined up. Guards don't work cheap either. Your investors aren't just going to want a tyrannical court either. They will want it to be sustainable.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:31:24 PM
 #57

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:33:55 PM
 #58

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

Your logic is jaw-dropping. We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.
You neglect to mention many others will have similar amounts of guns. He won't have a monopoly.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:37:09 PM
 #59

You neglect to mention many others will have similar amounts of guns. He won't have a monopoly.

No, in his fantasy world he will have already purchased all the guns with his unlimited supply of gold that fell from the sky.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:38:17 PM
 #60

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.


"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:39:47 PM
 #61

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.


"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.
Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:41:52 PM
 #62

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.


"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:42:55 PM
 #63

We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:45:39 PM
 #64

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.


"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .


Yes, that's exactly what a centralized authority is: the man with the biggest gun.  Congrats, captain obvious.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:49:34 PM
 #65

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.


"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Wait, wouldn't the man with the biggest gun (governments today) be the centralized authority?

Good try though .


Yes, that's exactly what a centralized authority is: the man with the biggest gun.  Congrats, captain obvious.
..and you love these monopolies.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:50:09 PM
 #66

We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.

There's a major difference though.  If you lose the court case at the centralized court, AND you fail to get the law changed, you're going to be locked away by the centralized authority and you aren't going to have a chance to kill me.  The government can do that now because the government will always have a bigger gun than anyone else.

In Liberland, there's no one to lock me up.  There's no central court, so I can go to whatever court will rule in my favor (or even my own court that I preside over).  There's no government to lobby for change.  I make you do whatever I want as long as I've got a bigger gun than you.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:51:20 PM
 #67

We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.

Only if most people are violent assholes, in which case, laws won't do us any good anyways. There also isn't any finality in disputes already. I can take it all the way up the courts and if I don't like the ruling then I can lobby the government to change the law. If we are in a disagreement over a piece of land and you win the court case, guess what, the government can just pass a law granting me whatever I want, some new ordinance that says I get to do whatever I want. The only final arbiter in any dispute is death.

There's a major difference though.  If you lose the court case at the centralized court, AND you fail to get the law changed, you're going to be locked away by the centralized authority and you aren't going to have a chance to kill me.  The government can do that now because the government will always have a bigger gun than anyone else.

In Liberland, there's no one to lock me up.  There's no central court, so I can go to whatever court will rule in my favor (or even my own court that I preside over).  There's no government to lobby for change.  I make you do whatever I want as long as I've got a bigger gun than you.
You see, it isn't going to be easy to get a bigger gun. You actually have to work in favor of what the people are willing to pay for.
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 02, 2011, 05:52:06 PM
 #68

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.


When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.







Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.



I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

I was unaware that a lack of government would result in people going apeshit because they can.

Also, good luck using that stockpile of guns on your own. It would be fun to see you attempt to man a single tank without a gunner or driver against ten tanks that have both.

Assuming you find people willing to use those guns (since otherwise it doesn't matter how many/how large your guns are since they will just be collecting dust), good luck keeping them paid and happy compared to what they could get from a legitimate organization.

You haven't thought things through very well, have you?

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 05:59:07 PM
 #69

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 07:15:36 PM
 #70

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.

No, he thinks that people with the biggest guns can just take what they want. But to get the biggest guns they already have to have the money in the first place i.e. his argument is circular. I've already debunked his "go to whatever court I want to" argument before so I see no point in rehashing it but just to review, nobody is going to do business with you unless you agree to abide by a respectable court and no court is going to be respectable unless they have a solution for disputes between other courts viz. yet another court that both will defer to in disputes. He makes a bunch of arguments that are plausible albeit naive but don't stand up to scrutiny. The only person he's convincing is himself.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 08:19:36 PM
 #71

He thinks that people magically capture 90% of the market.

No, he thinks that people with the biggest guns can just take what they want. But to get the biggest guns they already have to have the money in the first place i.e.

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 08:39:37 PM
 #72

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 08:45:03 PM
 #73

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....


That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 02, 2011, 09:27:45 PM
 #74

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....


That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

Abolition of private property followed by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat ought to do the trick.

Quote
Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.

Having dealt with those specific rich and powerful, lets assume that this system has been in place for a long enough time that previously state backed enterprises are gone:

-How would they company hiring an army make its money initially, though? Imperialism is an expensive venture, highly risky, and the rate of return would only be high against a target that likely was very powerful in its own right (say, another large company with its own large security force, not to mention any volunteer militias and private defense agencies nearby).
-Assuming they succeeded, how would they keep up momentum? To return the initial investment for the invasion force, they would have to conquer very large amounts of land, which would piss off large amounts of people in a major way, not only the people occupied but also their relatives, people with knowledge of the invasion, etc. If they pissed off people in this way, ignoring large scale PDAs and militias for a second, they would be plagued by constant guerrilla activity, where a handful of guys with old guns would be on the same playing field as an army with high tech equipment (though Imperialist Co. would have to pay more for an army with high tech equipment, which would require more conquests to pay off the initial investment, which would leave them with even more enemies and with them right where they started), as Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating.
-Why would people continue to do business with them after they began the attacks? Once they were acting like criminals (or whatever you want to call them), the negative publicity would be a huge hit on their initial industry, regardless of what it is. The only industry that could conceivably make a profit from all of this would be a PDA, but they would (A) have plenty of competition out to wipe them out and (B) wouldn't have many honest customers after the attacks (would you hire a company for protection that ran the risk of suddenly turning around and seizing your property?).

A legitimate concern would be anarchist countries beside jealous countries with governments. A government, through taxation, monetary controls, etc would not want an alternative to them with a better deal right next door, so they would have a very good reason to throw everything at annexing the anarchists while they still held the advantage of manpower, etc. That would be an actual danger, though it would entirely depend on the circumstances and isn't any problem with the anarchist system itself, per se.

Also, what prevents a corporation from doing this now? I don't mean just anywhere; the US could never be conquered that way; but what about a small, relatively poor country? JP Morgan could probably hire a large enough army to take over, say, Honduras. The problem is that that sort of thing isn't profitable nor is it considered to be acceptable by most people. That would not change if the government was gone.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 09:40:39 PM
 #75

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

If only there was a way to change that? Hmmmm....


That's where the quote in my sig comes in.  We have the impossible task of making a system that is powerful enough to control all those in it, even very powerful corporate entities and rich folk, but we must keep it from being hijacked by any one group or from turning tyrannical itself.

Abolition of private property followed by the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat ought to do the trick.

Quote
Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.


Finally you bring up some legitimate points.

Here's the deal, when I say rich and powerful, it doesn't necessarily mean the same group of people in power right now.  It means WHATEVER group of rich and powerful end up emerging.

Case in point is... every revolution in history, ever, for all time, ever ever.

For recent history that we all know, how did the US start out?  People (just like you!) cried about high taxes (just like you do!) and they overthrew the current system (just like you want to!) and established their own system that they thought would be better (just like you want to!)... and here we are 200 years later with a group of elite as our masters again. 

This scenario plays itself out over and over, no matter what revolution you look at.  China is another great example.  The poor revolted against their rich dictators... and end up creating a tyranny of their own.  The French peasants revolved against the elite of their country... and we all know how happy, pretty, and full of freedom that turned out.


No matter WHAT system you put in the place, A group, maybe not the current one, but SOME group will work themselves into a system of power and end up ruling over everyone else - be it directly like a dictator or indirectly like a modern, manipulative democracy.  Your system does NOTHING to prevent or even delay this accumulation of power, in fact, for limitless reasons explained in numerous arguments all over this board, it actually facilitates and speeds up the process.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 02, 2011, 10:04:15 PM
 #76


Quote
Finally you bring up some legitimate points.

It seems you aren't willing to acknowledge a point if there isn't any common ground in it.

Quote
Here's the deal, when I say rich and powerful, it doesn't necessarily mean the same group of people in power right now.  It means WHATEVER group of rich and powerful end up emerging.

Case in point is... every revolution in history, ever, for all time, ever ever.

The only revolutions in history that were expressly made for the purposes of stopping the "rich and powerful" would be the French and Russian revolutions (the German ones too, but they didn't succeed so we will never know how they would have changed things). The French revolution ended with no rich and powerful at all (barring maybe Napoleon himself, and he was only powerful because of the wars that France fought at the time), nor did the Russian one (there were arguably rich and powerful people, they just happened to be exclusively from the people in charge, though people in charge are almost always rich and powerful anyway).

At any rate, no revolution has ever aimed for the abolition of government (barring the Makhnoists and CNT-FAI, both of whom were stabbed in the back by the Communists).

Quote
For recent history that we all know, how did the US start out?  People (just like you!) cried about high taxes (just like you do!) and they overthrew the current system (just like you want to!) and established their own system that they thought would be better (just like you want to!)... and here we are 200 years later with a group of elite as our masters again. 

There was a LOT of change in between the beginning (revolution against the current system) and now (group of elite as masters). For quite a while things were very good and there was no "rich and powerful" elite class. This period peaked in the 1840s and possibly 1850s, where even the banking system was entirely free. Then Lincoln began helping Northern industrialists with high tariffs at the cost of Southerners who had more to gain from free trade, ultimately leading to the civil war and the system we have now.
Had the system be more decentralized (and I doubt you will find anything more decentralized than anarchy), the civil war would have never occurred due to a lack of federal power, resulting in the large corporations never getting the subsidies that characterized the 1870s and 1880s.

Quote
This scenario plays itself out over and over, no matter what revolution you look at.  China is another great example.  The poor revolted against their rich dictators... and end up creating a tyranny of their own.  The French peasants revolved against the elite of their country... and we all know how happy, pretty, and full of freedom that turned out.

Communist China under Mao was much, much worse than it is now. It is still very bad (corporatism isn't much better than communism), but it has at least improved. The French revolution's problems came mostly from its attempts at imperialism (under Napoleon) and the surrounding nations' attempts to destroy it.

Anyway, the problem both of them had can be traced to a centralized apparatus which was in control (in China it was the Communist party, in France it was Napoleon), which wouldn't exist in an anarchist society.


Quote
No matter WHAT system you put in the place, A group, maybe not the current one, but SOME group will work themselves into a system of power and end up ruling over everyone else - be it directly like a dictator or indirectly like a modern, manipulative democracy.  Your system does NOTHING to prevent or even delay this accumulation of power, in fact, for limitless reasons explained in numerous arguments all over this board, it actually facilitates and speeds up the process.

Anarchist Ukraine never had any of these problems. It was simply betrayed by the Communists who first used them as manpower to bleed the Whites and then stabbed them in the back while they were weakened. Likewise, the CNT-FAI ultimately failed because the idiotic Republicans used them as pawns against the Nationalists and then tried to stab them in the back before the Nationalists were defeated.

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 12:23:14 AM
 #77

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

So, you're saying the people that are already in control will still be in control? What's the difference again?
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 01:54:55 AM
 #78

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

And thus the point stands.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:43:48 PM
 #79

Anarchist revolutions have less of a problem with people within them becoming powerful and more of a problem with betrayal at the hands of rival groups.

And thus the point stands.

... The Communists are going to stab us in the back? First, the Communists are about as far away from the "rich and powerful" as you can get, many of them falling into the "poor and pitiful" demographic, thus making your entire point moot. Second of all, that is a bit of a circumstantial problem which would not arise in every revolution. Third, an anarchist revolution is incapable of having someone grow powerful and set up a dictatorship for blatantly obvious reasons that it would appear you didn't pay any attention to.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 11:06:58 PM
 #80

Maybe you missed it, but that IS my argument.  The rich and powerful (the ones that have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, the ones that made the system that you so hate) already have all the money.  Therefore, in Liberland, they will immediately be in control.  It's not all that difficult a concept to understand.

There are about a million problems with this argument, so I will provide a couple samples (some of which may or may not apply, depending on HOW the ancap society came into existence):

-What money? The government issued monopoly money would be worthless, which could (in the case of, say, large banks) make them powerless.
-Many of the rich and powerful (who have currently hijacked our governments and are in control, as you so eloquently put it) are rich and powerful because of government contracts, government subsidies, government regulations which insulate them from competition, government provided monopolies, etc. Which would not exist in an anarchist world, obviously.
-If something caused the state to collapse in on itself, it is HIGHLY unlikely that it would come out of the blue with the government-backed corporations intact. Depending on how the state came to fall, they could have been weaned and very heavily weakened (democratic change, economic troubles resulting in collapse), been destroyed directly (violent revolution), etc.

Having dealt with those specific rich and powerful, lets assume that this system has been in place for a long enough time that previously state backed enterprises are gone:

-How would they company hiring an army make its money initially, though? Imperialism is an expensive venture, highly risky, and the rate of return would only be high against a target that likely was very powerful in its own right (say, another large company with its own large security force, not to mention any volunteer militias and private defense agencies nearby).
-Assuming they succeeded, how would they keep up momentum? To return the initial investment for the invasion force, they would have to conquer very large amounts of land, which would piss off large amounts of people in a major way, not only the people occupied but also their relatives, people with knowledge of the invasion, etc. If they pissed off people in this way, ignoring large scale PDAs and militias for a second, they would be plagued by constant guerrilla activity, where a handful of guys with old guns would be on the same playing field as an army with high tech equipment (though Imperialist Co. would have to pay more for an army with high tech equipment, which would require more conquests to pay off the initial investment, which would leave them with even more enemies and with them right where they started), as Afghanistan and Iraq are demonstrating.
-Why would people continue to do business with them after they began the attacks? Once they were acting like criminals (or whatever you want to call them), the negative publicity would be a huge hit on their initial industry, regardless of what it is. The only industry that could conceivably make a profit from all of this would be a PDA, but they would (A) have plenty of competition out to wipe them out and (B) wouldn't have many honest customers after the attacks (would you hire a company for protection that ran the risk of suddenly turning around and seizing your property?).

A legitimate concern would be anarchist countries beside jealous countries with governments. A government, through taxation, monetary controls, etc would not want an alternative to them with a better deal right next door, so they would have a very good reason to throw everything at annexing the anarchists while they still held the advantage of manpower, etc. That would be an actual danger, though it would entirely depend on the circumstances and isn't any problem with the anarchist system itself, per se.

Also, what prevents a corporation from doing this now? I don't mean just anywhere; the US could never be conquered that way; but what about a small, relatively poor country? JP Morgan could probably hire a large enough army to take over, say, Honduras. The problem is that that sort of thing isn't profitable nor is it considered to be acceptable by most people. That would not change if the government was gone.

What about people/corporations who have large amounts of land already, and leverage that to acquire more over time by buying out the smaller players rather than by invasion? Couldn't a situation develop analagous to feudal Europe, where everyone not born into a select aristocratic class has virtually no chance of ever owning land? Libertarians seem to hate forcible redistribution of legitimately owned property which presumably rules out a peasant revolt, but on the other hand the feudal lord is more or less able to tax his subjects to his heart's content which also seems to be a libertarian no-no.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 11:25:46 PM
 #81

What about people/corporations who have large amounts of land already, and leverage that to acquire more over time by buying out the smaller players rather than by invasion? Couldn't a situation develop analagous to feudal Europe, where everyone not born into a select aristocratic class has virtually no chance of ever owning land? Libertarians seem to hate forcible redistribution of legitimately owned property which presumably rules out a peasant revolt, but on the other hand the feudal lord is more or less able to tax his subjects to his heart's content which also seems to be a libertarian no-no.

Tax implies that there's no choice in the matter. Without coercive force, and with open 'borders', there'd be no way to keep 'serfs' tied to the land, so the market would correct any excessive charges pretty quick.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 11:40:09 PM
 #82

Why assume open borders? If the surrounding properties are privately held then their respective owners are well within their rights to repel trespassers with physical barriers or force.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 11:47:22 PM
 #83

But the one they're in can't keep them there. Do you really think these greedy businessmen would turn away people who want to give them money?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 12:05:52 AM
 #84

They might and they might not, but it's quite possible that the few land owners would choose to harmonize their policies on any number of policy decisions as a cartel would. You might find that none of the surrounding fiefdoms that will allow you entry offer any better of a deal. Competitive practices are of course possible too but there are no guarantees that the 'old boys club' would choose to undercut each other if they can profit more by fixing prices.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 12:09:28 AM
 #85

They might and they might not, but it's quite possible that the few land owners would choose to harmonize their policies on any number of policy decisions as a cartel would. You might find that none of the surrounding fiefdoms that will allow you entry offer any better of a deal. Competitive practices are of course possible too but there are no guarantees that the 'old boys club' would choose to undercut each other if they can profit more by fixing prices.

Somebody will. They may be far away, but by undercutting even by a little, they could make a lot of money.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 12:11:33 AM
 #86

But how does that help you if nobody in between will allow you passage?

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 12:21:50 AM
 #87

Blocking off travel blocks off trade. Nobody's going to block off trade. That would be tantamount to committing suicide.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 12:39:14 AM
 #88

You seem to be arguing now that my hypothetical is unlikely, but you don't go so far as to say it's impossible. In any case I think it demonstrates that freedom of movement/self-determination can be severely limited if property rights are absolute.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 12:44:20 AM
 #89

You seem to be arguing now that my hypothetical is unlikely, but you don't go so far as to say it's impossible. In any case I think it demonstrates that freedom of movement/self-determination can be severely limited if property rights are absolute.

Can be, in theory. Would not be, in practice. For purely self-interested reasons.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Fakeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 01:25:12 AM
 #90

Predicting human behavior with certainty can be notoriously difficult.

It's been a fun debate but I'll move on for now. I do like some aspects of libertarianism from what I understand of it so far, notably an interest in commodity money, but as I say I have some strong reservations about the idea.

16wEsax3GGvJmjiXCMQUWeHdgyDG5DXa2W
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 07:08:09 AM
 #91

Let me grab my Libertarian Tank and we'll see who wants to take it away from me.

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 04:43:24 PM
 #92

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
Anonymous
Guest

July 04, 2011, 04:50:18 PM
 #93

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.
Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 05:37:08 PM
 #94

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.
Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 05:53:44 PM
 #95

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.
Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

+1

Atlas I'm puzzled by your post as well. 

How does Bitcoin do any wealth distribution?  Those that have wealth now would simply have it denominated in Bitcoin.  Or is there some middle step I missed?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 07:48:35 PM
 #96

On the 'big gun' theory, it's not so much that the wealth will be evenly distributed, or even the guns. It the fact that without the legitimacy granted by the pretense of 'consent of the governed'. In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 08:13:45 PM
 #97

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 08:21:22 PM
 #98

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

How well do you suppose the Mafia moving into an area would be received by the general populace? Hailed as liberators, or resisted?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 08:29:13 PM
 #99

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.
I'll just leave this here for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
Anonymous
Guest

July 04, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
 #100

No man has the incentive to sit on a massive amount of wealth --while letting it drain itself-- without creating more for others.

The only time wealth is stagnant is when its in the hands of central banks and government, to where its use is reduced to irrational greed, violence and bureaucracy.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 08:44:12 PM
 #101

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.
I'll just leave this here for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Quote
This happens because as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.

1, and the most glaring error here: Who is not going to notice the invasion of a conquering force, with or without a flag?

2, AnCap presupposes a higher level of personal responsibility than the current 'The Police will take care of it' mentality. When there is no official police force, and most people are armed, they tend to take care of their own problems.

So, nice try, and you do have a fine point, in today's society of sheeple, but it doesn't hold up in AnCapistan.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 08:45:11 PM
 #102

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.
Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

Making a claim that bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth is a little bit too extreme.  However, I would say that since bitcoin facilitates transactions in a peer-to-peer fashion and allows anonymity and no central authority getting a slice of revenue throughs fees/taxes/inflation, therefore use of bitcoin can promote more equal distributions of wealth than what we currently have with VISA, PayPal, the Federal Reserve, taxation, etc.

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

Here's the deal. It is much more difficult to coerce an armed man.  If some criminal sends a letter each year asking for X% of your income on condition of kidnapping, then that criminal most likely won't walk out alive after attempting to break into your home.  Unfortunately, of course the current democratic government has an aura of legitimacy which enables power hungry psychopaths to use deadly force against innocent non-violent people.  But yeah, provided that every man has a gun ready at all tames and provided that it's considered legitimate to use deadly force to protect yourself from all robbers, then Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle functions effectively enough to nullify the ability of Tom's armored vehicle to make you a slave.  It is very difficult to tax dead people's income.  Cadavers aren't very productive.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Anonymous
Guest

July 04, 2011, 08:46:37 PM
 #103

Making a claim that bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth is a little bit too extreme.

It's not. It potentially takes away the government's and bank's ability to monopolize and limit wealth distribution and creation. It's not about how much money is in everyone's pocket. It's about man's ability to grasp it and build it to further heights while its produced innovation benefits everyone's ability to sustain.

Wealth is potentially unlimited unless it is reduced --again-- to irrational greed, violence and bureaucracy.  
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 08:56:29 PM
 #104

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

How well do you suppose the Mafia moving into an area would be received by the general populace? Hailed as liberators, or resisted?

depends on what exactly they do as they move in.

if they start making a problem of themselves on a wide scale, yes, they're going to be resisted, most likely by a newly formed organization of residents of the area (this is how many gangs got started, as a response to combat crime (organized or not) in an area, but once they finished that task, they didn't go away.), in a relatively fair fight (something you don't want as a general rule) which is why a smart mafia leader is not going to do that.

if they just move in and stay generally out of things initially and gradually insert themselves in things over time, you're not going to get nearly as much protest.  nevermind you've done this a hundred times before in other areas, people assume they're special and it will be different here.  then 10 years down the road they're running the whole joint and removing them would be messy and dangerous, and besides, people are now used to it, so you don't rock the boat.

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

this isn't "today's society".  this dates back thousands of years to the first societies, which then grew into the first empires.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 09:09:38 PM
 #105

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

I think you meant 'Psychology', But yes, slowly turning up the heat might work. Maybe. Of course, keep in mind that in order for it to work, you can't go in to any one place with too much of a show of force, so you'll probably end up evenly matched in any individual encounter, and the people are armed, remember. Also remember, that you can't extort dead people, so it's not in your interest to kill anyone (even as an 'example', because that's not exactly a slow boil tactic).

So, what would most likely happen is that you'll lose a few enforcers, Maybe a few shopkeepers will lose their lives or businesses, the community will notice, and, out you go.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 09:22:02 PM
 #106

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

I think you meant 'Psychology'

So, what would most likely happen is that you'll lose a few enforcers, Maybe a few shopkeepers will lose their lives or businesses, the community will notice, and, out you go.

yes, i did.  my spell chequer is working great.

or more realistically, the community notices and everyone individually thinks "that could be me next.  i don't want trouble" and resistance fails to happen or alternatively, a resisting organization forms, boots them out, then becomes a new mafia, and starts expansion, possibly under the premise of getting rid of the existing mafia, and the whole thing starts again from the beginning.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
Anonymous
Guest

July 04, 2011, 09:24:50 PM
 #107

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 09:29:47 PM
 #108

or more realistically, the community notices and everyone individually thinks "that could be me next.  i don't want trouble" and resistance fails to happen or alternatively, a resisting organization forms, boots them out, then becomes a new mafia, and starts expansion, possibly under the premise of getting rid of the existing mafia, and the whole thing starts again from the beginning.

As soon as the 'new mafia' started muscling businesses or people, out they would go, too. So, as long as they are peacefully protecting each other's property without resorting to coercive methods to obtain funding, Where's the harm in a 'Merchant's association'?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 09:41:36 PM
 #109

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 09:53:22 PM
 #110

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

Remind me what happened to Rome again... and who took 'em down?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 10:10:01 PM
 #111

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

Remind me what happened to Rome again... and who took 'em down?

people from what is now germany captured rome, after the romans were in power for about 800 years.

and the eastern roman empire (aka the byzantine empire) kept on going for almost another 1000 years until they were taken out by the ottoman empire, which itself only stopped existing last century.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 10:13:01 PM
 #112


Quote
This happens because as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.

1, and the most glaring error here: Who is not going to notice the invasion of a conquering force, with or without a flag?

2, AnCap presupposes a higher level of personal responsibility than the current 'The Police will take care of it' mentality. When there is no official police force, and most people are armed, they tend to take care of their own problems.

So, nice try, and you do have a fine point, in today's society of sheeple, but it doesn't hold up in AnCapistan.

1) Maybe they notice it, but don't see it as their problem.

2) So the fact that there is a police today makes people sheep, but the fact that there will be a rent-a-cop force in AnCapistan is going to make people into Mr Badass McKickass.  Makes sense. Perhaps people just act this way, regardless, armed or not? You are aware that in an armed society, your opponents tend to be armed as well. I don't know about you, but my rational self interest tells me that getting into firefights isn't in my immediate self interest. I'd rather have the police deal with it. Armed or not.
In an unarmed society where I can be reasonably certain that someone isn't armed, I can gather a few friends and overpower an assailant.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 10:27:06 PM
 #113

In an unarmed society where I can be reasonably certain that someone isn't armed, I can gather a few friends and overpower an assailant.

Which society is this, that the criminals follow the laws?

As far as getting into a firefight not being in my immediate self-interest, some people can look a little bit ahead, and think, "I could be next" (Or maybe a little bit back, and remember "They came for the Catholics...")

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 04, 2011, 10:58:39 PM
 #114


Which society is this, that the criminals follow the laws?

As far as getting into a firefight not being in my immediate self-interest, some people can look a little bit ahead, and think, "I could be next" (Or maybe a little bit back, and remember "They came for the Catholics...")

I'd say that in most of Europe your risk of being shot for stopping a criminal is rather small. Stabbed yes, but not shot.

Or they'll just think that they'd rather be home with their kids than engage in a firefight over a hypothetical situation.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 11:09:32 PM
 #115

Or they'll just think that they'd rather be home with their kids than engage in a firefight over a hypothetical situation.

Hypothetical? Let's assume a smart invader that takes down one place at a time, and doesn't drive a damn tank down the middle of the road. At what time does the situation switch from hypothetical to real? When the store next door gets taken out? Five doors up? When they kick your door in?

They came for the Catholics, indeed....

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:41:03 AM
 #116

Hypothetical? Let's assume a smart invader that takes down one place at a time, and doesn't drive a damn tank down the middle of the road. At what time does the situation switch from hypothetical to real? When the store next door gets taken out? Five doors up? When they kick your door in?

They came for the Catholics, indeed....

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 06:48:44 AM
 #117

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 08:53:21 AM
 #118

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

You mean the Police and the Army?  Doesn't that defeat the whole object of a libertarian society?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 08:56:33 AM
 #119

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:15:47 AM
 #120

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?


myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 09:18:26 AM
 #121

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:26:57 AM
 #122

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 09:34:54 AM
 #123

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt,be very upset with us.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:52:38 AM
 #124

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?

'Price and nice uniforms', as you said. Think armed security guards, but with military training and entrance requirements.

So if I have Bob's little army and you have Bubba's little army, can we have a little war?  The winner gets to tax everyone in town.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt,be very upset with us.

"defense agencies, not assault agencies" Huh

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:00:04 AM
 #125

"defense agencies, not assault agencies" Huh

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

Yeah... Not how it works.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt, be very upset with us.

They're not paid to kill other people, they're paid to protect your stuff. They also have all those other customers to think about, so, most likely if you asked them to attack me (or I you), they'd probably just drop the contract.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:07:48 AM
 #126

"defense agencies, not assault agencies" Huh

Really?  So when one of them starts taking money to kill people, is there a "boss" army that can bring them back into line?  If not, I am paying Bob to kill you, you are dead and I want all your stuff. 

Yeah... Not how it works.

If you tell Bob's army to attack me (or Bubba's Army), Or I do the opposite, they'll look at you (or me) and say, 'No.' They're defense agencies, not assault agencies. Assuming one of us raised the price enough, we'd also have to beat Amy's army, and Joe's, etc. Not to mention the other customers of our army, who would, no doubt, be very upset with us.

They're not paid to kill other people, they're paid to protect your stuff. They also have all those other customers to think about, so, most likely if you asked them to attack me (or I you), they'd probably just drop the contract.

Sorry but I can't believe you are happy with the notion that I can have you killed and its only a commercial decision as to whether or not Bob's Army does it.  The whole concept of armies that compete for business is far fetched enough but to say that your right to life is down to whether or not its profitable to kill you takes this beyond parody.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:11:13 AM
 #127

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:29:22 AM
 #128

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:41:29 AM
 #129

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

No superior force? 3 armies, fighting in defense (which means they could probably call in others via mutual assistance contracts) wouldn't overpower your what, 5 guys you were able to bribe? and what about the other customers of your army? They're not defenseless, either. You'd be stopped, and brought to arbitration. If you succeeded in killing me, you'd likely be handed to my survivors to be dealt with as they please. I should point out at this juncture that my Fiance is strongly in favor of public execution. Messy, violent, public execution.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:52:11 AM
 #130

Where did I say you could pay to have me killed?

I said at several points that you could not.

You said they wouldn't for commercial reasons.  There is no superior force to the little army I have hired to kill you.

The reason this matters is that in real life, people do pay for killing.  From the day you have rival armies set up, you will have people willing to pay for kills.  I don't see how you propose to control this.

No superior force? 3 armies, fighting in defense (which means they could probably call in others via mutual assistance contracts) wouldn't overpower your what, 5 guys you were able to bribe? and what about the other customers of your army? They're not defenseless, either. You'd be stopped, and brought to arbitration. If you succeeded in killing me, you'd likely be handed to my survivors to be dealt with as they please. I should point out at this juncture that my Fiance is strongly in favor of public execution. Messy, violent, public execution.

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
 #131

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 11:26:49 AM
 #132

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:38:32 PM
 #133

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

So first it was personal responsibility, now it's the shopkeepers that should take action to protect the populace.
And what about the defence agencies? I doubt they go for an all out war with anyone, and I doubt they will be equipped for it. It doesn't make economical sense. They'd probably just strike a deal, and sacrifice a part of their clients.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:41:28 PM
 #134

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.


Read some other threads.  I've been over this scenario with him and a few others MANY times.  They just can't wrap their minds around it.

Sounds like a bad place to live, IMO.  I need a private army to protect me from the endless number of other private armies.  What insane amount of money am I going to have to pay this army to be willing to die to protect me?  Do they stand around my house 24/7?  That's going to get expensive.  If they don't, they better be stationed nearby in case Hawker's private army comes to kill me in the middle of the night.  Do they have that kind of response time?  

Hell, what's saying they even DO protect me when the rubber meets the road?  They've got all the guns AND they've already got my money AND there's no more powerful central authority to force them to follow their contract.  They're likely to tell me to pound sand and fend for myself.


Here's another scenario:

What's stopping these "defense" agencies from realizing that if they band together, THEY have the monoply on force and THEY can rule the world?  There's really no scarier thought than that of a privately own army with zero accountability and no larger force to stop it.


Oh wait... private force, no accoutability, no loyalty to anyone but themselves... I've seen this movie before, I know how it ends: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-10-07-blackwater-investigation_N.htm

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 01:53:40 PM
 #135

There is a glaring example of such a "balanced" (stable is not the right word) state of anarchy that you statists continue to overlook.  There is no such government over the international negotiations of nations, as all nation-states interact in a condition similar to anarchy.  Of course, sometimes they do go to war, and sometimes the biggest dog dominates the others.  Again, I'm not an anarchist, but not because of the reason presented here.  Such security conglomerates can work, because they have in the past.  Call them what you will, but tribes, clans and city states all existed for this exact reason; but they all yielded to such organizations more powerful than themselves.  Humanity seems to have a natural tendency towards self-organization into such social structures.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 02:06:43 PM
 #136

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.



A form of government and leadership.



Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.  Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.  The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 02:43:36 PM
 #137

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.


A form of government and leadership.
Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.
Quote

Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.
Quote
Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.
No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.

Quote
 Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.

I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.

Quote
 The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.
Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 04:37:24 PM
 #138

I have not bribed anyone.  I have a legitimate reason for wanting to kill myrkul and Bob has freely entered the contract to do it.

Are you saying that in an ideal world, its just a question of whether or not myrkul has enough money to hire a bigger army?  Is that your version of a free market?

We'll assume you have a 'legitimate' reason. So you've got a contract with Bob. You'll be fighting my defense force with 1 guy, then? Good, it will save them bullets.

And no, it's not who has the most money. We're not operating in a vacuum, a fact you seem to stubbornly ignore, no matter how often I remind you. The aggressor will not be a popular man, no matter what the results of the assault is. at the minimum, you're going to have to pay me back for any damages incurred, to say nothing of the tremendous reputation hit, at most, you'll pay with your life at the hands of my - very vengeful - wife.

Bob has the biggest army and I am richer than you.  I don't care if I am popular as I have a big army defending me.  You are dead.  Your poor widow is even less likely to be able to afford a big army than you, especially now that I own all your stuff.

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

How did you become rich, though? No government grants, no government protections: you would have to either be a great worker of some kind (say, an actor or a neurosurgeon) or a businessman. How much business do you think you will get after you do hire a "big army" to oppress people? You won't be able to fund that big army the instant you blow all of your reputation on a petty attack.

Meanwhile, you would have to look far and wide to find a "big army" of thugs to oppress people, too. Who would hire them afterwards? How would they supply themselves (unless the rich person personally supplies them, in which case the above problem applies to the big army, too)? Attacking someone on the rich man's behalf would alienate any future customers.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:02:21 PM
 #139

Genghis Khan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 05:36:04 PM
 #140

Maybe we are overworking this.  The point I am trying to make is that in any society, things work better if there is a monopoly of violence in the hands of the state.  The idea of lots of small armies that are literally fighting for business doesn't work unless you are happy to accept lots of extra deaths.

uh... No.

Monopolies are never good. Especially monopolies on Violence. Even Moonshadow will agree that the people need to be able to defend against the aggressions of the state, should their 'long train of abuses' become too much.

What's stopping these "defense" agencies from realizing that if they band together, THEY have the monoply on force and THEY can rule the world?  There's really no scarier thought than that of a privately own army with zero accountability and no larger force to stop it.

They STILL don't have a monopoly on force. The populace is armed. Any conquering force, within or without, would lose a lot of people. Most people would consider that not worth it. Especially when they can have almost as much profit, with much less chance of losing their lives.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
ascent
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:40:40 PM
 #141

Monopolies are never good.

This is not entirely true. Key phrase: utility company infrastructure development.

Please donate: 1E4WizTzmANGZgyK1XBqS3h4VuXsBXo4Ev
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 05:44:42 PM
 #142

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.


A form of government and leadership.
Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.


Then are you here for the gang bang or just to troll, because the argument is obviously against the anarchists.


Quote

Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.



And that matter of scale makes all the difference.  Kind of like how a lemonade stand and running GE is not the same experience, and what the lemonade stand guy can get away with doesn't necessarily work for the GE CEO.



Quote
Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.
No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.

And a government has no power not granted to it by its people, whether it be through concent or apathay.


Quote
 Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.

I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.


I said nothing about declaring war in a constitutional manner.  I said the support of the public was required.  Again, whether this is accomplished through concent or apathy and how much propoganda is needed is irrelevant.  When public outrage becomes too loud (see: Vietnam), the show cannot go on.

Joe Idiot and Jane Idiot don't have this issue.  They need only be convinced themselves.

Quote
The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.
Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

I don't confuse them.  I merely understand that libertarianism IS anarchy, which is why it cannot exist for any period of time.


You've also shot your own system in the foot with your argument about the relationship between Joe and Bob.  Joe hired Bob to defend his interests; he didn't hire Bob as legal council or to question his decisions and debate what is or isn't worth fighting for.  Bob will do as he is told because that's what he's being paid to do, and he wants to get paid.

There is a formal mediation process between criminal organizations, it's called the police.  Conflicts are rare because open conflict draws unwanted attention from the central authority.  That isn't an issue in Liberland, as the Liberkids and their private armies can do whatever they please without fear of a central authority cracking down on them.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:20:05 PM
 #143

Do you know what tribes, clans, city-states, and nations all have in common?  It's a tough one, think hard.


A form of government and leadership.
Which is why I'm not an anarchist.  I consider it an unstable society.  And any unstable society will, more often than not, lead to oppression and tyranny.  The framers of the Constitution built a republic with balance of powers because, as risky as that was, it was the best option available to them.  We may have better options in the age of the Internet, but I'm not any more convinced of that then you seem to be.


Then are you here for the gang bang or just to troll, because the argument is obviously against the anarchists.


Please review the subject of this thread.

Quote

Quote

Joe Idiot hiring Bob's Army to defend his personal interests against Jane Idiot and Bubba's Army is NOT comparable to US and Russian interactions.

Sure it is, it's just a matter of scale.  The same incentives to avoid conflict, but not at any cost, exist just the same.



And that matter of scale makes all the difference.  Kind of like how a lemonade stand and running GE is not the same experience, and what the lemonade stand guy can get away with doesn't necessarily work for the GE CEO.


The matters of scale do make a difference, but both still respond to the same incentives.
Quote
Quote
Also, there is a world-wide regulatory body, it's called the UN.  There is such a thing as international law that the UN presides over.
No, they don't.  The UN has no power not granted to them by the voluntary actions of the member governments.  At best, the UN is an established system of mediation.  At worst, the UN is a puppet organization that gives legitimacy to the collective aggressions of the largest member states.

And a government has no power not granted to it by its people, whether it be through concent or apathay.

I'll concede that point.  Still, the membership of the UN don't grant the UN any kind of monopoly on force, nor any other ongoing power.  Governments are possessive of their regional monopolies.
Quote
Quote
 Yes, when it comes down to it, nations fight it out if they can't otherwise agree. However, the major difference is that in order to take an entire nation to war, one must first get public support from hundreds of millions of people or more.

I'd love to live in the world that you think that you live in.  Even the most progressive democracies of the modern world do not require the consent of the governed to engage in war.  The United States has not declared war in the constitutionally described manner since WWII, and even that would not have required the public support from even a simple majority of voters.


I said nothing about declaring war in a constitutional manner.  I said the support of the public was required.  Again, whether this is accomplished through concent or apathy and how much propoganda is needed is irrelevant.  When public outrage becomes too loud (see: Vietnam), the show cannot go on.


We must have different understandings of the term "support" in this context.  In my world, neither apathy nor ignorance would qualify.

Quote
Quote
The cost of entry into national sized war is large, the cost of operation is massive, and the cost of defeat is massive.  On the other hand, Joe Idiot doesn't have to do anything other than make a phone call to Bob's Army that he's already got on paid retainer.  Joe never has to put himself in harm's way and he is the only person that needs to be convinced.
Joe isn't the commander of Bob's Army.  Bob is.  Once Joe makes that phone call, Bob is the one that has to weight the options toward resolution.  Bob faces, not just the prospect of defeat (and his own death) if he should choose to ignore mediation as a solution; but also (more likely) the expense of combat exceeding the perceived losses of his client, the desertion of his manpower, and the depletion of his resources.  Depending on the injustice that Joe has suffered, it can quickly become in the best interests of Bob to compensate Joe himself, and either seek restitution from the offender (or offender's own private security force) using the evidence available to him, or drop Bob as a covered client should the evidence favor that Bob is a fraud.  No one here can really say whether actual combat would be more or less rare in a anarchist society with any certainty.  The answer would be highly dependent upon unforeseeable factors and matters of culture.  That said, I find it unlikely that combat in the streets would be any more likely than such combat between rival mafia families or street gangs are in some areas today.  There is no formal mediation process between such criminal organizations, and by definition, these organizations are filled with violent criminals; yet, these kind of conflicts between such organizations are relatively rare for all the same reasons as it would be rare between private security forces that are (presumedly) comprised mostly of legitimate forces representing a broader and less violent cross section of society.  I can't even imagine how this could lead to a 'Mad Max' scenario of a constant state of low level warfare, as you seem to imagine.  But I won't argue that such a condition is possible.

Again, I'm a libertarian, but not an anarchist.  Like so many statists, you seem to confuse the ideologies.

I don't confuse them.  I merely understand that libertarianism IS anarchy, which is why it cannot exist for any period of time.

As I just said, you confuse the ideologies.  Libertarianism is not advocacy for the dissolution of the nation-state.  Nor is it an absence of social cohesion, otherwise considered to be 'chaos'.
Quote

You've also shot your own system in the foot with your argument about the relationship between Joe and Bob.

It's not 'my' system.  I presented a defense of the anarchist concept of private security forces sans state.  Libertarians don't advocate for the dissolution of the state, but for it's limittaion to it's core purposes.  One of those core purposes is the defense of nationals from enemies foriegn and domestic, another is the enFORCEment of law.

Quote
 Joe hired Bob to defend his interests; he didn't hire Bob as legal council or to question his decisions and debate what is or isn't worth fighting for.  Bob will do as he is told because that's what he's being paid to do, and he wants to get paid.
Bob only wants to get paid if he can stand to profit.  If Bob is the commander of a private security force for a rational reason, then he is going to weigh the risks before (or even after) taking the job.  The argument changes little regardless of how much Joe has, for itf the costs of the war exceed the resources of Joe, it doesn't make any difference.

Quote
There isn't a formal mediation process between criminal organizations, it's called the police.  Conflicts are rare because open conflict draws unwanted attention from the central authority.  That isn't an issue in Liberland, as the Liberkids and their private armies can do whatever they please without fear of a central authority cracking down on them.

Again, I wish I lived in the world you think that you live in.  Criminal organizations exist in certain locales because the police forces are either ineffective or corrupt.  In either case, such organizations persist where they do because they have a functional safe zone within which they can operate with near zero risk from local police interference.  Such organizations do not, and never have, operated in other locales because the police forces in those areas have neither problem.  Mafias, in particular, are a phenom begotten by government prohibitions, and are thus strongest in locales wherein the gulf between the degree of prohibitions and the enforcability of those prohibitions are greatest.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:33:42 PM
 #144


Genghis Khan was up against nation states which surrendered. Plus, these days it is a bit harder to find the initial finance to make an absurdly large army and supply it.

Also, this is a circular argument.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 06:36:16 PM
 #145

Monopolies are never good.

This is not entirely true. Key phrase: utility company infrastructure development.

A single set of wires is probably beneficial, but having only one company in control of those wires definitely is not. A consortium is probably best.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:13:18 PM
 #146

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Quote
The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (with 235,500 registered voters, as of 2008)[citation needed], behind the Republican party membership which exceeds 50 million[citation needed]and the Democratic Party membership which exceeds 70 million[citation needed]. According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence

It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked Sad

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:34:50 PM
 #147

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Quote
The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (with 235,500 registered voters, as of 2008)[citation needed], behind the Republican party membership which exceeds 50 million[citation needed]and the Democratic Party membership which exceeds 70 million[citation needed]. According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence

It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked Sad

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

Don't confuse the Libertarian Party with the philosophy of libertarianism which, if one is logically consistent, implies anarchism.
compro01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 599
Merit: 500


Join FlipNpik Telegram : t.me/flipnpikico


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:36:37 PM
 #148

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Quote
The US Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States (with 235,500 registered voters, as of 2008)[citation needed], behind the Republican party membership which exceeds 50 million[citation needed]and the Democratic Party membership which exceeds 70 million[citation needed]. According to the party, libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence

It seems that myrkul's idea of a society without a government, an army or police is not libertarian at all so the thread is hijacked Sad

Anyway having read the wikipedia, libertarianism seems fine.  I doubt people will vote for it but the idea seems OK.

that depends on which wing of the L party you refer to.  there is a wing of myrkuls in the party.

IMO, a libertarian government could work (i don't think it would be an optimal form of government, but it would function), if and only if they eliminate corporations or place very strong limits on what they are legally allowed to do.  a person has rights, an imaginary person formed of a group of people does not.

without that provision, it is my opinion a libertarian government is doomed to failure.

                    ▄▄▄▄▄██
             ▄███▌ ███████▌
     ▄▄▄▄▄  █████ ▐██████▀
    ▐█████ ▐█████ ▀▀▀▀▀
    █████▌ █████▌
   ▐█████ ▐█████▌  ▄▄▄▄
   █████▌ ██████ ▐████
   █████  █████▌ ▀▀▀▀
  ▐█████ ▐█████
  ▐████▌ █████
  █████  ███▀
 ▐████▀ 
 ████▀
 ▀▀



 ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▐██    ▄▄                ▄▄       ▄▄                ▄▄   ▐█▄
▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▐██    ▀▀               ▐███      ██▌               ▀▀   ▐██
▐██        ▐██    ▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▐████▄    ██▌     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄   ▐██   ▄██▄
▐███████▀  ▐██    ██  ▐███▀▀▀███   ▐██████▄  ██▌   ▐███▀▀▀███  ██   ▐██ ▄███▀
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██ ▀████▄██▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██████
▐██        ▐██    ██  ▐██     ██▌  ▐██   ▀█████▌   ▐██     ██▌ ██   ▐██▀▀███
▐██        ▐██▄   ██  ▐███▄▄▄███   ▐██     ▀███▌   ▐███▄▄▄███  ██   ▐██   ▐██
 ▀█         ▀███  ██  ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀█      ▀█▀    ▐██▀▀▀▀▀▀   ██    ▀█    ██▌
                      ▐██                          ▐██
                       ▀█                           ▀█

           ▄█████████████▄
          ▐██▌          ██▌
         ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄     ██▌
     ▄█████████████     ██▌█▌
     ███████▀▀▀▀▀▀      ██▌██
    ▐█████▀▄█           ██▌█▌
    ▐█████▐██           ██▌██
    ██████▐██           ██▌█▌
    ██████▐██▌          ██▌██
   ▄██████▐███████▀███████▌
 ▄████████▄▀█████████████▀
▀█████████████▀
  ▀▀████████▀
      ▀▀██▀
Anonymous
Guest

July 05, 2011, 09:38:05 PM
 #149

The Libertarian party is full of pansies. They do not represent libertarianism.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 09:44:19 PM
 #150

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:51:45 PM
 #151

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion

Mind, I would be perfectly fine with a very, very small state with the sole purpose of protection in mind (The night watchman state). It would be inconsistent, but I doubt I would complain unless it started growing.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:28:45 PM
 #152

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion

Mind, I would be perfectly fine with a very, very small state with the sole purpose of protection in mind (The night watchman state). It would be inconsistent, but I doubt I would complain unless it started growing.

I don't disagree with the statement, "anarchism is libertarianism taken to it's logical conclusion" on general terms, it's the specifics that concern me.  All things being equal, I'd say that this is correct.  However, people are not always logical, and cultures don't always react to threats in a rational manner.  The differences between a libertarian state and an anarchist society may, in fact, be very small in practice; but I don't consider those differences to be trivial.  Prior to 1908, the lifestyle of the average American was very libertarian in practice, if not in fact.  For example, the average American would have nearly zero contact with official federal agencies over the course of his entire lifetime, and contact with state officials only on an occasional/annual basis.  There was no such thing as regulation of finance except at the highest levels, no personal income tax, no departments of energy, agriculture, education or even defense.  There was no Federal Reserve, and no fractional reserve banking.  All US money was specie or banknotes issued as wearhouse receipts of specie.  All loans were secured with an equal amount of long term savings, not on demand accounts with the backing of the FDIC.  All this was better than it is today in many ways, but worse in different ways.  Semantics aside, the average American born after the civil war could have lived clear till 1913 at least without any contact with any federal agency without even trying to do so.

All of that said, that same average American would have had exactly zero contact with any government in an anarchist society, but would it have looked the same if the federal government did not exist at all?  I can't say that it would have.  Certainly, slavery would have collapsed for economic reasons without the destructive need for a civil war to forciblely ended it, eventually.  But at what cost, then?  Two more generations of declining slavery versus civil war?  The end results might have been about the same if Lincoln had permitted the South to seceed, and slavery then die an economic death without bloodshed, but is that perferable if the cost was two more generations of humans owning humans?  And what, in a truly anarchist society, would prevent the return of that irrational culture, if not the collective threat of force from society at large?  I can't quite accept the argument that private security forces would rise to protect all facets of society.  I can imagine that such a force would rise that caters to black Americans, but what about Islamic Sharia law?  Sure, there would be forces that would protect the interests of daughters of white men, but about the daughters of those who proscribe to sharia themselves?  Do they not have the right to reject their upbringing?  Not according to sharia, but what incentive would a protection company have to intervene on behalf of them?  And if they did have such an incentive, wouldn't AyeYo's argument that such a society is, itself, coercive?  From my understanding of both, sharia is fundamentally incompatible with libertariansim.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:45:39 AM
 #153

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.


This will be the first (and probably only one) of your posts that I agree with.  Anarchy most definitely is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion, for exactly the reason you gave.  As has been discussed an endless amount of times already, libertarianism is inherently hyprocritical because coercion and force MUST exist in any society, including a libertarian one.  This leads libertarians to redefine words and apply them in an arbitrary manner in an attempt to avoid inconsistency and contradiction.  It doesn't work.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 01:50:10 AM
 #154

Anarchy is simply libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

"They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence."

A government gets its funding via coercion and violence, or it wouldn't be a government.

Ergo: Divest the government of it's Monopoly on force, and allow competing agencies to provide the services of protection.


This will be the first (and probably only one) of your posts that I agree with.  Anarchy most definitely is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion, for exactly the reason you gave.  As has been discussed an endless amount of times already, libertarianism is inherently hyprocritical because coercion and force MUST exist in any society, including a libertarian one.  This leads libertarians to redefine words and apply them in an arbitrary manner in an attempt to avoid inconsistency and contradiction.  It doesn't work.

That's like saying that cancer MUST exist in any body, even a relatively healthy one.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:53:27 AM
 #155

coercion and force MUST exist in any society

In libertarian society, you are forced to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission. Give me a single reason why I should care if you don't like this.
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:59:19 AM
 #156

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear the whining of seventeen year-olds like this a lot more or a lot less?...somehow I think it's more.  Sign me up for the alternative.  Grin


I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:00:45 AM
 #157

coercion and force MUST exist in any society

In libertarian society, you are forced to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission. Give me a single reason why I should care if you don't like this.

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 02:02:45 AM
 #158

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear whining like this a lot more or a lot less...somehow I think it's more.

No, after the coercion and force stops, Libertarians and Anarchists will shut up.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:03:11 AM
 #159

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

No, I don't. You define force as making people do things they don't want to do and since I want to force people not to murder, rape or rob me, I'm definitely in support of force. Try again.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:06:30 AM
 #160

As discussed already, because you advocate no force or coercion, yet you force and coerce.

No, I don't. You define force as making people do things they don't want to do and since I want to force people not to murder, rape or rob me, I'm definitely in support of force. Try again.


Quote
1force
 noun \ˈfȯrs\












Definition of FORCE


1

 a (1): strength or energy exerted or brought to bear : cause of motion or change : active power <the forces of nature> <the motivating force in her life> (2)capitalized—used with a number to indicate the strength of the wind according to the Beaufort scale <a Force 10 hurricane> b: moral or mental strength c: capacity to persuade or convince <the force of the argument>


2

 a: military strength b (1): a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose (2)plural: the whole military strength (as of a nation) c: a body of persons or things available for a particular end <a labor force> <the missile force> d: an individual or group having the power of effective action <join forces to prevent violence> <a force in politics> eoften capitalized: police force —usually used with the


3

: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing



4

 a: an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects b: any of the natural influences (as electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, and the weak force) that exist especially between particles and determine the structure of the universe


5

: the quality of conveying impressions intensely in writing or speech <stated the objectives with force>


I define it as... well... the rest of the non-insane world defines it.  If you're making someone do something they don't want to do, you're FORCING them into it.  Get it?

And stop that hyperbole or I'm going to send you back to the little kids' table.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:08:49 AM
 #161

We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.

However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.

Personally, I find Atlas's mindless rhetoric oppressive.  Does a Libertarian society mean I have to hear whining like this a lot more or a lot less...somehow I think it's more.

No, after the coercion and force stops, Libertarians and Anarchists will shut up.
I have my doubts.  Atlas has never shown any sign of running out of rhetoric.  Grin  I strongly suspect there will always be another "slave" to be freed or another "looter" or "murderer" to be brought to "justice" by a seventeen-year old who really has never experienced significant slavery oppression or murder.

Edit: I stand corrected.  Atlas has now changed his profile to show that he is now the age of Methuselah

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:09:00 AM
 #162

Get it?

Yes, I get it. I also said I support forcing people not to do certain things, like murder, rape and theft. Do you get that? It's kind of hard to claim I'm against force and call me a hypocrite when I just said that I support certain kinds of force. Now tell me why I should care.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:17:32 AM
 #163

Get it?

Yes, I get it. I also said I support forcing people not to do certain things, like murder, rape and theft. Do you get that? It's kind of hard to claim I'm against force and call me a hypocrite when I just said that I support certain kinds of force. Now tell me why I should care.

One more time with the hyperbole and I'm going to make you sit in the corner.

I'll repeat myself, since you're obivously blind to second paragraphs:

Quote
Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.


"Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner."
-Noam Chomsky


Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:21:04 AM
 #164

Quote
Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

Yes, those are consequences of keeping your hands to yourself. If you can't just grab what you want, you have to pay for it and you might be forced to pay what the seller asks or do without. Again, I don't really care. Why should I? Because you feel self-entitled? Not good enough. Sorry.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:23:55 AM
 #165

Quote
Also (again, as discussed already), those are NOT the only items of force and coercion that citizens of Liberland are subject to.  They are also subject to the direct force and coercion of large market players and the indirect force and "coercion" (your definition as you currently cry about it in this society) of the ripple effects of the market due to the actions of other market participants.

Yes, those are consequences of keeping your hands to yourself. If you can't just grab what you want, you have to pay for it and you might be forced to pay what the seller asks or do without. Again, I don't really care. Why should I? Because you feel self-entitled? Not good enough. Sorry.

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.


"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:26:30 AM
 #166

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.

"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So in other words, you've got nothing. That's fine with me. Let me know if you come up with something.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:31:11 AM
 #167

Alright, ten minutes in the corner for you.  When you're done, you can come back, apologize for your continued use of hyperbole, and then I'll give you a second chance to engage the adults in conversation.

"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So in other words, you've got nothing. That's fine with me. Let me know if you come up with something.


Second paragraph blindness strikes again.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2011, 02:35:31 AM
 #168


"Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

So, you suggest that to prevent someone from looking at two consenting people having sex, you would beat them, take their money, and put them in a cage?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:36:32 AM
 #169

Second paragraph blindness strikes again.

I read it but I don't see anything new. Yes, you are forced to keep your hands to yourself. Yes, that has certain consequences such as being forced to live (or commit suicide) in a world where pornography has affected it. Why should I care? I've already said that I have nothing against forcing you to keep your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission and all the consequences that entails. Why should I have a problem with that? Give me a reason to care.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 06, 2011, 02:37:07 AM
 #170

Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it." - Robert Locke

That is false on it's face.  Of course he can choose to live in a culture that has not been "vulgarized" by porn.  He just has to choose to live in a sub-section of society that is less than ideally libertarian.  The ideal is unobtainable anyway.  Take a look at the differences between public life in the North Eastern US and the 'bible belt' southern states.  Adult businesses are hard to miss r