Why do you all want to take away money from the government? Who will then build

[beetcoin]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

[TheButterZone]

tl/dr; People are assholes, and will either pay "the cost of admission" to government (not their victims) for being such, if they're "caught", or most likely never get "caught", and not suffer at all, because screaming at said assholes and making them feel bad is generally a misdemeanor (ie CA PC 419), worse than an infraction.

[dank]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Government is the tank that may legally break into your home, rob you, and even kill you.

If there was no tank, your neighbors wouldn't fear to step in if someone is violating your natural rights.

[beetcoin]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Government is the tank that may legally break into your home, rob you, and even kill you.

If there was no tank, your neighbors wouldn't fear to step in if someone is violating your natural rights.

huh? my point is that the tank is the vessel, and it's a variable.. you can replace a tank with any other weapon, like say a gun. but the constant in all this corruption we have in society is.. PEOPLE. the one pointing the gun, not the gun itself. that's where i differ fundamentally with anarchists.

[TheButterZone]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

[wachtwoord]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

[Hawker]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

Mandatory draft is not an defence against a charge of crimes against humanity. 

[wachtwoord]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

Mandatory draft is not an defence against a charge of crimes against humanity. 

I said might because if someone (effectively) puts a gun to your head and commands you to shoot someone else or die yourself the situation isn't really clear-cut, nor your own fault. I'd probably comply but look for the first opportunity to kill the person who forced me into committing that crime.

In all other situations I agree. People are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable. That's not how the world works however (look at the Manning vids, no-one was convicted for the serious crimes we all witnessed).

[Kiki112]

well, people could organize meetings where they would gather money to build stuff
there would be a hell lot less of bribe and shizzle

[dank]

I'd rather be attacked directly by bad people rather than by bad people legally funded by other bad people with my own goddamn money ("just following orders" is indefensible).

This. Even using the excuse "I was just following orders" pisses me off so much. No YOU shot those people. YOU are a murderer! I don't care what your commander told you to do! (unless it's an mandatory draft in a war situation, then I might be able to make an excuse because refusing to fulfill and order then will get you killed for mutiny).

Mandatory draft is not an defence against a charge of crimes against humanity. 

I said might because if someone (effectively) puts a gun to your head and commands you to shoot someone else or die yourself the situation isn't really clear-cut, nor your own fault. I'd probably comply but look for the first opportunity to kill the person who forced me into committing that crime.

In all other situations I agree. People are responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable. That's not how the world works however (look at the Manning vids, no-one was convicted for the serious crimes we all witnessed).

I'd just die imo, eternal peace sounds a lot nicer than killing someone.

beetcoin, nearly every case of violence is caused by greed and desire, if we were to remove money from the equation, along with infinite energy for everyone, there would be no reason to hurt someone, you'd just be outcasted by your peers or hurt back, and sad.

In the future we will not seek resources, but energy.  People will care about gaining happiness.

[Rassah]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

One variable that is missing here in incentives. Build the incentives so that the first to break the rules wins, and you'll have the same situation as with that lady with her car. Build the incentives so that the first person to break the rules loses (like with Bitcoin protocol, or with negative costs added to breaking rules in real life), and people will behave. The trick is to figure out how to construct those incentives in an anarchy society.

[Mike Christ]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Everyone had their own car, and this one person made a decision that only effected herself (and of course, the people she could've put in danger.)  In the way government is setup now, only a handful of people have cars, which everyone else must drive in.  If your political leader (i.e. driver) decides to do something dangerous like skip their turn for a small gain, all the other passengers in other vehicles say, "Those fucking (your nation here) almost got us killed!  I hate these guys!"  You didn't have anything to do with it, but you're still to blame.

Anarchists don't have a problem with cars, they have a problem with who gets to drive, and for whom those people drive for.  The anarchist wants to equip everyone with a car just for themselves, and the people they take care of i.e. family and such who cannot yet drive.  They don't blame cars; they blame the people who use violence to prevent everyone else from having one.

[elektibi75]

Last I heard Obama wasn't president of the world. He is president of the socialized states of America duh.

You heard right 

[beetcoin]

I was at a dysfunctional stoplight today, and I think it was a perfect example for my point with social order.

The lady next to me stopped before the intersection, waited for one group of cars from the other lane to move past the light, and proceeded to move before her turn. In this instance, she didn't play by the rules that everyone else did.. and you know what? She was rewarded for it, by saving time.

Anarchists believe government is to blame for everything, and in this case.. government is the car (a vessel for social order). But you know what? The problem was not the car, but the human being behind it. A common response I'd probably get to that is "well, if she didn't have the car, there wouldn't have been a problem. Anarchists always point to the variable, the car (government) and not the human being (the constant) behind it. If you were waiting in line at disneyland, would you say "if the person didn't have legs, there would be no cutting in line"?

Everyone had their own car, and this one person made a decision that only effected herself (and of course, the people she could've put in danger.)  In the way government is setup now, only a handful of people have cars, which everyone else must drive in.  If your political leader (i.e. driver) decides to do something dangerous like skip their turn for a small gain, all the other passengers in other vehicles say, "Those fucking (your nation here) almost got us killed!  I hate these guys!"  You didn't have anything to do with it, but you're still to blame.

Anarchists don't have a problem with cars, they have a problem with who gets to drive, and for whom those people drive for.  The anarchist wants to equip everyone with a car just for themselves, and the people they take care of i.e. family and such who cannot yet drive.  They don't blame cars; they blame the people who use violence to prevent everyone else from having one.

no, it affected the other people who were waiting in line. she went ahead of them, so they honked.

and i disagree with you.. anarchists have a problem with the cars. they don't want government involvement, and in my example, government is metaphorically the vehicle that is used for the cheating.

[Mike Christ]

no, it affected the other people who were waiting in line. she went ahead of them, so they honked.

and i disagree with you.. anarchists have a problem with the cars. they don't want government involvement, and in my example, government is metaphorically the vehicle that is used for the cheating.

Which anarchists have you asked?  I don't agree with their view.

[beetcoin]

no, it affected the other people who were waiting in line. she went ahead of them, so they honked.

and i disagree with you.. anarchists have a problem with the cars. they don't want government involvement, and in my example, government is metaphorically the vehicle that is used for the cheating.

Which anarchists have you asked?  I don't agree with their view.

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

[Mike Christ]

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality.  This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions.  Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism.  This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

[beetcoin]

well, i don't entirely disagree with anarchists.. i hate politicians and executives as much as they do. i'm definitely not in favor of the status quo. i just don't think having an anarchistic society really fixes any of those problems.

Yes; anarchism leaves out too many factors to consider, so usually when anarchism is spoken of, it's in a bubble that seems disconnected with all of reality.  This is why I push for rationalism, opposed to anarchism; if a person is rational enough to successfully seek the truth, and if I've been successful in my own pursuits, we should always arrive to the same, or at least very similar, conclusions.  Once it's understood that anarchism can only remain among a rational society, many of the unknowns become irrelevant; you just can't pull the wool over the rational's eyes.

Anyhow I agree with a very simple philosophy: all societal interactions should be voluntary, i.e. voluntaryism.  This happens to include anarchism since the state is involuntary, and rationalism so people are highly resistant to ulterior influence; after all, why pay someone to do what you can easily do for yourself?

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

[Mike Christ]

i'm not for or against voluntaryism.. but someone told me about it a few weeks ago. if people stuck to their own groups, wouldn't that cause extremism? it's what we are seeing with the american political system.. 90% of republicans are whities. they feel like the non-whities are starting to outnumber them, so they turn more and more "white."

Doesn't matter to me, so long as they're not committing involuntary acts, i.e. theft, rape, murder, violence, etc.  Once they decide they want to become involuntarists (possibly due to "sticking to their own groups"), then they're no longer voluntaryists and I see them as villains.  I suppose you could say it's a form of extremism to stick to the group which upholds morality, but only in the context of the majority being immoral or hypocritical about their morality.

[Inedible]

I suspect most of the people here saying that the roads would be maintained by the users aren't considering areas where there are fewer houses or poorer families.

The areas with fewer houses will either need to be owned by rich people or they'll have to move closer to town. Fine.

What happens to the poor areas?

What about road standards? I built it, I demand people drive on the left.

What about sewage, water supplies, telecoms infrastructure and of course, health care?

How would YOU structure a private road system?

Do you possess the ability to think outside of the box?

I don't think it would work and thus I have no solution other than some form of tax.

I can think out of the box but that doesn't help in a society that won't accept any unusual solutions.