Defending Capitalism

[NghtRppr]

Let me begin by explaining what capitalism is and isn't, first, what it isn't. Capitalism isn't big business getting favors from the government. That's facism. When Hitler came to power in a democratic election (so much for democracy), rather than put all the businesses such as BMW under government ownership, which would be socialism, he simply told businesses what to do. He controlled them through regulations even though they were still left in the hands of private ownership. I'm definitely against facism, unlike most US presidents.

So if it's not facism or socialism, what is capitalism? Well, first let me digress. Let's say that our dear friend Doood has a shiny new bicycle and I want it. There are two ways I can obtain it. One is, I can make him an offer. I could say, "I'll give you $500 for it." I could say, "I'll walk your dogs for the next 4 years." However, if Doood doesn't like any of my offers, he keeps the bicycle. That's the free market way. The other way I could obtain it is if I point a gun at him and say, "Give me your bicycle or I'll shoot you in the face." In the same manner, I could get a bunch of my friends together and we can all vote that I should have his bicycle because I need it more or I look better riding it or whatever and then we all point our guns at him and make the same threat, "Your bicycle or your life." That's not the free market way. That's theft.

So, what is capitalism? Capitalism is the free market and the free market is simply the aggregation of all voluntary trades. If I make you an offer and you accept it voluntarily, that's part of the free market. If I mug you at gun point, that's not part of the free market. If capitalism is the free market which is nothing but voluntary trading, why would anyone object to it? Well, there are still a few objections which I'd like to address.

Objection 1: Capitalism is exploitative.

If capitalism is simply the free market which is simply voluntarily trading then that means voluntarily trading has to be exploitative. How could that be? If we're both self-interested rational creatures and if I offer you my X for your Y and you accept the trade then, necessarily, I value your Y more than my X and you value my X more than your Y. By voluntarily trading we each come away with something we find more valuable, at that time, than what we originally had. We are both better off. That's not exploitative. That's cooperative.

Objection 2: But, but… wage slavery!

If you want to live then you have to work. That's nature's fault (or God's fault if you're a Christian). Either way, you have to work to survive. Nobody is obligated to keep you alive. You have the right not to be murdered, you don't have the right to live. So, if I offer you a job, that's still a voluntary trade, my resources for your labor. If you don't like the trade then you can reject it and go survive through your own means or simply lay down and die. It's harsh but fair. Otherwise, I'd have to take care of myself and everyone else which is unfair. Requiring me to provide you a living is actual slavery, much worse than nonexistent wage slavery.

Objection 3: The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Historically speaking, this is nonsense. For the last 800 or so years, there has been a steady increase in the quality of life for everyone, not just the rich. What's more, the rich get rich by making the poor better off. People like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc, make their money by giving us awesome services and technology. My family has lived in Alabama for generations, not exactly a cultural nexus, and my ancestors were indentured servants. Yet, I've been able to fly first class all over the country, eat all kinds of exotic foods, been to concerts, plays and all kinds of shows. I have a wardrobe full of clothes, all kinds of electronic gadgets, two cars, etc. My parents and grandparents weren't able to do that. I'm better off not worse. If I were living 200 years ago I wouldn't have any of that. I'd probably have a single set of clothes and little else. The life expectancy at the dawn of man was 18 years at birth and by the dawn of the USA it was at around 45. Now in capitalistic countries it's closer to 70 and some of us can expect to live as long as 100 years. The rich get richer and the poor get richer. We are all better off. We live longer and healthier.

Objection 4: Free markets are oppressive, racist, sexist, etc.

Actually, free markets force those kinds of behaviors to come at a cost. If a black woman's labor is worth $8 an hour but because I'm a racist, sexist, pig I only pay her $6 an hour thereby making $2.00 profit for myself, I run the risk of some other greedy capitalist pig to offer the same black woman $6.01 an hour to undercut me and make $1.99 profit. This same kind of greedy profit-driven behavior will continue until the black woman's wages approach what the market value is, $8 an hour. There is no place in the market for anything other than profit seeking and that will require greedy capitalist pigs to ignore their personal feelings of racism or sexism unless they want to be put out of business.

Objection 5: Free markets don't care about the environment.

As long as humans value clean water, clean air, pristine land and so on and as long as said land is privately owned and doesn't become a victim of the tragedy of the commons, there will always be a cost to pollution and the market will punish it accordingly. If you dump toxic waste in my river, you owe me money, either in damages if it was without my permission or as payment to offset the value of the environment that you're destroying. Companies that find ways to avoid pollution won't have to pay these extra costs and therefore will make more profits. Companies that can't work around pollution while eventually be driven out of business by companies that can.

Objection 6: Free markets destroy art and culture by making people more materialistic.

Again, historically speaking, this simply isn't true. In the Baroque period of music, when most composers were employed by a king, church or some form of government, they were greatly censored and limited in the ways they could express themselves. It was only later when composers such as Mozart could work independently in a free market that they found greater freedom. The Romantic period owes a debt to the free market for making this happen. Also, capitalism has contributed to the emergence of entire new genres of art such as interactive video, video games, etc. I have an entire recording studio in a single machine that can sit on my desk. These days anyone can express themselves through art. Art and culture has expanded, not shrunken. Of course, some philistines might sneer at YouTube videos being considered a form of art but that's their problem not mine. Anyone that can watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuU00Q3RhDg and claim that it's not art, has no humanity. This video is a product of a free market composer being reinterpreted using commodity audio/video equipment, computers, editing software and a service making it available to millions. This is capitalism and art at work.

Objection 7: Monopolies!

Abusive monopolies don't arise in free markets. There is only one way to bar new entries into the market and that's by law. The abusive monopolies that exist are products of government interventionism. Even if there is only a single company providing a good or service the mere potentiality that someone could enter the market is enough to keep them in line. If they were to start charging absorbent prices it would provide incentive to new companies to enter the market and undercut them. Even if they started buying up companies they would have to do so at a loss and it would only provide even more incentive for new companies to enter the markets. All abusive monopolies are the result of laws, not markets. You can't corner the market in anything and charge whatever you want. All attempts to do so have failed.

Objection 8: Let's talk about the poor again! Nobody would feed them.

So the argument is that unless we have laws that enable us to point guns at people and force them to empty their pockets for the poor, nobody would ever help the poor. The question you need to ask is, if that were true, how could any such laws get established in the first place? Why would anyone vote to have a gun pointed at them if they weren't also willing to do it without the gun? The mere existence of laws designed to help the poor is direct evidence that people want to help the poor! Charity is part of the free market. It's simply a free trade where one party asks for nothing in return. It's moral, ethical and would still exist in pure capitalism. In fact, it would exist better in pure capitalism because people would be able to direct their funds to the poor better. They would have a choice of charities and if some charities did a terrible job, nobody would donate to them and they'd go out of business. In the end, the best charities would remain and that would in turn help the poor more efficiently.

Objection 9: Some things are too important to leave to the free market.

On the contrary, the free market punishes poor performance. As a business, if you sell pizza that kills thousands of people a year, you lose money and eventually go out of business. As a government agency, if you kill thousands of people, you lose nothing and you get to keep doing a terrible job. The free market punishes bad behavior and weeds out incompetence. Not so with the government. You might say that you can vote people out of office but it's really hard to vote on specific issues. If there are two candidates and you like half of one person's policies and half of the other person's policies, there's no way to vote for just the policies that you like. You have to take the good with the bad, whereas the free market allows for fine grained control. If you want only 10-speed bicycles then you only buy 10-speed bicycles and the market responds. If the government builds roads and manages them poorly, nothing happens. If free market companies build roads and manages them poorly, they go out of business and the businesses that remain are necessarily doing a better job than the ones that went out of business. The market again acts to weed out incompetence. Central planning, be it facism, socialism or communism, doesn't have this mechanism.

Objection 10: Capitalism promotes greed and all we'll end up with are greedy corporations.

This is scraping the bottom of the barrel. All humans are greedy. When you go to the grocery store or shop for a new TV do you pick the TV that is the cheapest for a specific quality level or are you generous enough to pay extra to the seller? Of course you try to get the best deal. That doesn't make you a greedy asshole. It just makes you intelligent. It's just plain stupid to pay more than you have to for anything and it cuts both ways, as a producer and a consumer. Greed is good, when it's done intelligently.

So, in summary, capitalism is the only moral system since it's based on voluntary actions rather than violent or coercive ones (yes even if everyone votes to rob one guy democratically that's still violent and coercive). Even if moral considerations aren't enough, for instance you're some kind of inhuman utilitarian, then the efficiency of free markets should convince you. Central planning simply can't respond to human desires the same way that free markets can. If the central planners decide to make 100 bicycles and 200 sneakers and it turns out that people wanted 200 bicycles and 100 sneakers, that's just too damn bad. There's no way to signal that to the planners that's as efficient. I say efficient to acknowledge that syndicalism (if it could work) could respond to human desires but only at the cost of massive inefficient bureaucracies. Capitalism, the free market, voluntary trade, is still the best option and the only moral one.

[1714258429]

1714258429

[1714258429]

1714258429

[1714258429]

1714258429

[1714258429]

1714258429

[TiagoTiago]

"Give me your bike you earned thru your work or you die"
"Give me your work or you die"

Those two don't sound all that much different to me; you have the choice of not pulling the trigger just the same way you have the choice of feeding the hungry...

[NghtRppr]

It's more like...

"Give me your bike you earned through your work or I shoot you"

vs.

"Give me your work or I won't feed you"

Nobody has positive rights, only negative rights. In other words, I don't owe you any action but rather I owe you inaction i.e. not murdering you, not raping you, not robbing you. I don't owe you food in your stomach or clothes on your back. Why would I unless I'm your slave? Only a slave owes his master labor and the fruits thereof. I'm not your slave.

[divergenta]

In general, I agree pretty much of what youré saying but but is it really that wise to start an argumentative text by using a logical fallacy and Godwin's law?

[NghtRppr]

In general, I agree pretty much of what youré saying but but is it really that wise to start an argumentative text by using a logical fallacy and Godwin's law?

The mere mention of Hitler isn't a violation of Godwin's law since facism is directly related to the issue at hand. Godwin's law was meant to illustrate how silly it is to compare minor offenses to genocide which trivializes it. That's not the case here. As for the logical fallacy, I'm not saying I didn't make any. After all, I'm only human and I make mistakes but I can't correct those mistakes if you refuse to point them out. What logical fallacy do you think I'm committing?

[benjamindees]

Most of this pertains to unregulated free markets which is only tangentially related to capitalism.

[TiagoTiago]

Ok, replace a gun with a ticking timebomb for which you got the shutdown key; you have the choice of disarming the bomb the same way you have the choice of feeding the hungry.

[NghtRppr]

Most of this pertains to unregulated free markets which is only tangentially related to capitalism.

Well, "unregulated free market" is redundant and "regulated free market" is an oxymoron. If it's regulated then it's not free because regulations are limits on freedom.

Ok, replace a gun with a ticking timebomb for which you got the shutdown key; you have the choice of disarming the bomb the same way you have the choice of feeding the hungry.

Let's say that I don't have the key because I don't know who built the bomb but I do have the knowledge to disarm it. Am I somehow obligated to disarm it? If so, why?

[BCEmporium]

Now I've to say you totally lack the sense of Capitalism! What you described is the free market feature as if it was the whole. Your definition is as valid to Capitalism, as it is to Mercantilism, as to basically any other economic system.
Capitalism is defined by the "strength of the Capital", it outdated Mercantilism as it can gather more Capital strength to carry on with ventures that would be limited otherwise.

The chain of unfairness, which Marx addressed with his invented "struggle of classes" (this is what I call the biggest fallacy still in practice, "classes" have different goals, people just fight for common goals... means that the real "struggle" is within each "class" with its pairs, not between "classes" - this would be subject to another issue), is how the wealth ended up distributed. Your "attenuators" are due Socialist, Distributist, Ecologist and other practices put into Capitalism, otherwise, for Capitalism as it is, is a bunch of baloney!
In fact the Capitalism makes the Capital the primary element, each venture must respond primarily upon the strength of the capital put to it (means be profitable to whoever put the money into it) and just then to other considerations, being labor one of the weakest link in Capitalism...
If up to here it sounds somewhat ok, Capitalism by taken stock holders as the primary element of the equation, wide-opens the door to speculation and everything that comes with it; like inflation, deflation, fractional reserve, debt, etc. To be "safe" Capitalism has to be always growing, if at some moment it recesses the capital vanishes and once such happens... you get yourself a crisis and need to be bailed out or get bankrupt. As nothing can grow to infinite, Capitalism suffers one thing called "cyclic crisis".
To deal with this issue it has been created the IMF, to bail out bankrupt states. Allowing States to bankrupt, depending on where or how strong it's its influence, may cause a domino effect creating economic havoc and crisis spread.
Still the issue with IMF is that it relies on some states to be wealthy in order to relief and loan to others. As this is also impossible the solution was to create Central Banks. Central Banks can generate wealth out of "nothing" and their scam can run for quite a long time (up to centuries) - still not forever.

Put to the very end, in Capitalism you don't need to look for scammers, Capitalism is a scam by itself.

[benjamindees]

Most of this pertains to unregulated free markets which is only tangentially related to capitalism.

Well, "unregulated free market" is redundant and "regulated free market" is an oxymoron. If it's regulated then it's not free because regulations are limits on freedom.

If I am not free to take your stuff, then there are obviously some regulations.

[NghtRppr]

Most of this pertains to unregulated free markets which is only tangentially related to capitalism.

Well, "unregulated free market" is redundant and "regulated free market" is an oxymoron. If it's regulated then it's not free because regulations are limits on freedom.

If I am not free to take your stuff, then there are obviously some regulations.

That's theft which has nothing to do with trading, free or otherwise. If you hold a gun to my head and force me to take one penny for my house that's at least an actual trade, though not a free one. That's still got nothing to do with regulations.

[benjamindees]

So I'm guessing you would be against trading which tends to harm uninvolved, third parties?

[ffe]

You seem to be idealizing capitalism in the same way some poor souls idealize communism. Communism can sound good until you realize real people abuse the system and in real life it is very unjust and inefficient.

Capitalism has a redeeming feature in that it creates a group that can stand up to the power of the state. These are the capitalist that hold large fractions of our wealth. Since the start of the industrial age they’ve had a vested interest in the rule of law and personal freedoms.

You can’t, however, ignore the non-ideal real world of capitalim. The big players start controlling the state in ways that distort laws in their favour. It can become very unjust and exploitative as well and it does no good denying this or saying that’s not true capitalism.

I’d still want to live in a capitalist world but I want a balance of power between the state and the capitalist.

[benjamindees]

You seem to be idealizing capitalism in the same way some poor souls idealize communism. Communism can sound good until you realize real people abuse the system and in real life it is very unjust and inefficient.

What bitcoin2cash described as "capitalism" is flawed even in the ideal case, practicalities aside.

[NghtRppr]

So I'm guessing you would be against trading which tends to harm uninvolved, third parties?

Define harm. If I open a lemonade stand next to yours with lower prices then I'm harming your business but that's entirely ethical. Do you have any examples?

The big players start controlling the state in ways that distort laws in their favour.

Right and the problem is the state which is necessarily violent and coercive.

What bitcoin2cash described as "capitalism" is flawed even in the ideal case, practicalities aside.

Why? Do you have any kind of reasoning or argument to go along with your assertion or are we expected to take you on your word alone?

[benjamindees]

Define harm. If I open a lemonade stand next to yours with lower prices then I'm harming your business but that's entirely ethical. Do you have any examples?

Well my best example involves trading DNA strands, but we'll get to that in a minute.  How about, I'd like to trade nuclear waste and transport it through your neighborhood, very slowly, for example.  Or my neighbor, he likes to trade for wood to burn in his stove, and I'm the unwitting beneficiary of this transaction in the form of lung cancer.  I'm just establishing that you do in fact recognize the concept of negative externality.

[ffe]

The big players start controlling the state in ways that distort laws in their favour.

Right and the problem is the state which is necessarily violent and coercive.

And without the state the big companies won't resort to force???

[NghtRppr]

Define harm. If I open a lemonade stand next to yours with lower prices then I'm harming your business but that's entirely ethical. Do you have any examples?

Well my best example involves trading DNA strands, but we'll get to that in a minute.  How about, I'd like to trade nuclear waste and transport it through your neighborhood, very slowly, for example.  Or my neighbor, he likes to trade for wood to burn in his stove, and I'm the unwitting beneficiary of this transaction in the form of lung cancer.  I'm just establishing that you do in fact recognize the concept of negative externality.

Harming me by radiation poisoning or smoke inhalation is no different from throwing a rock and hitting me in the head with it. So, obviously that's not legitimate unless I agree to let you do those things to me. Of course, if you do throw a rock at me, it's not the fault of the guy that gave you the rock.

The big players start controlling the state in ways that distort laws in their favour.

Right and the problem is the state which is necessarily violent and coercive.

And without the state the big companies won't resort to force???

There will always be people that want to use aggression to accomplish their goals. The only difference is that in a stateless society we can have our own private army to pay to defend us against aggressors. Remember, businesses have to make money, governments don't. Few people are going to patronize or invest in a business that engages in costly wars. Besides, do you really think Google or Microsoft is suddenly going to start buying tanks? There's a difference between grabbing a loaded gun that's already in play vs. having to build one, load it yourself, aim it and pull the trigger.

[ffe]

Define harm. If I open a lemonade stand next to yours with lower prices then I'm harming your business but that's entirely ethical. Do you have any examples?

Well my best example involves trading DNA strands, but we'll get to that in a minute.  How about, I'd like to trade nuclear waste and transport it through your neighborhood, very slowly, for example.  Or my neighbor, he likes to trade for wood to burn in his stove, and I'm the unwitting beneficiary of this transaction in the form of lung cancer.  I'm just establishing that you do in fact recognize the concept of negative externality.

Harming me by radiation poisoning or smoke inhalation is no different from throwing a rock and hitting me in the head with it. So, obviously that's not legitimate unless I agree to let you do those things to me. Of course, if you do throw a rock at me, it's not the fault of the guy that gave you the rock.

The big players start controlling the state in ways that distort laws in their favour.

Right and the problem is the state which is necessarily violent and coercive.

And without the state the big companies won't resort to force???

There will always be people that want to use aggression to accomplish their goals. The only difference is that in a stateless society we can have our own private army to pay to defend us against aggressors. Remember, businesses have to make money, governments don't. Few people are going to patronize or invest in a business that engages in costly wars. Besides, do you really think Google or Microsoft is suddenly going to start buying tanks? There's a difference between grabbing a loaded gun that's already in play vs. having to build one, load it yourself, aim it and pull the trigger.

The only reason they don't have armies is because the state exists and serves their purpose. Without a state the most powerful would invent it even if that power is simply measured by wealth. Each group paying for their own armed men is anarchy and the really powerful (again measured by wealth or productive power if you like) will not tolerate that.

[FatherMcGruder]

The only reason they don't have armies is because the state exists and serves their purpose. Without a state the most powerful would invent it even if that power is simply measured by wealth. Each group paying for their own armed men is anarchy and the really powerful (again measured by wealth or productive power if you like) will not tolerate that.

That's not anarchy. It's just capitalism at work. Anarchism opposes capitalism.

[NghtRppr]

The only reason they don't have armies is because the state exists and serves their purpose. Without a state the most powerful would invent it even if that power is simply measured by wealth. Each group paying for their own armed men is anarchy and the really powerful (again measured by wealth or productive power if you like) will not tolerate that.

First of all, we have to acknowledge that most people don't want constant violence in their daily lives and that most people are basically decent. If that isn't the case then humanity is already fucked and no form of ideology is going to save us. Assuming there are no objections to that, let's say that 90% of humans just want to live in peace and the other 10% want to use aggression to accomplish their goals. So, the argument is that the 90% should concentrate all their force into the hands of a single group of people to protect us from the other 10%. The flaw in this is that, what's to stop the 10% from taking control of this concentration of power? It seems only natural that the bad 10% of people would seek to control it. You're only making things easier for them that way. At least in a stateless society we have a fighting chance and of course the 90% can overpower the other 10% and defend themselves. At some point it comes down to sheer numbers rather than who has the most gold.

[benjamindees]

Harming me by radiation poisoning or smoke inhalation is no different from throwing a rock and hitting me in the head with it. So, obviously that's not legitimate unless I agree to let you do those things to me. Of course, if you do throw a rock at me, it's not the fault of the guy that gave you the rock.

Okay, I can see that subtlety is not getting us anywhere.  Let's use this example.  Let's say that I own a rather large cache of fossil fuels.  I also own a small plot of land.  And I'd really like to build a pyramid, one as large as humanly possible.  So I'm going to burn all of my fossil fuels in order to obtain the energy to build my pyramid.  In fact, let's just say that I own enough fossil fuels to completely consume all of the oxygen on Earth.  And I intend to use them.  Once my pyramid is complete, my plan is to crawl inside of it just as Earth's oxygen levels dip below the level required to maintain human consciousness, remove my oxygen mask and tank, and gloriously ascend into the afterlife.

Don't I have a right to build a giant pyramid?  Don't I have a right to use my property as I see fit?  Regulating this would just be unnecessary government intrusion on the free market, right?

[NghtRppr]

Okay, I can see that subtlety is not getting us anywhere.  Let's use this example.  Let's say that I own a rather large cache of fossil fuels.  I also own a small plot of land.  And I'd really like to build a pyramid, one as large as humanly possible.  So I'm going to burn all of my fossil fuels in order to obtain the energy to build my pyramid.  In fact, let's just say that I own enough fossil fuels to completely consume all of the oxygen on Earth.  And I intend to use them.  Once my pyramid is complete, my plan is to crawl inside of it just as Earth's oxygen levels dip below the level required to maintain human consciousness, remove my oxygen mask and tank, and gloriously ascend into the afterlife.

Don't I have a right to build a giant pyramid?  Don't I have a right to use my property as I see fit?  Regulating this would just be unnecessary government intrusion on the free market, right?

You have the right to use your property as you see fit but not if it involves damaging my property, which includes the air. If you can somehow keep all your pollution in your airspace why would I care? I only care when it starts to affect me and my property. There's little difference between polluting my air and dumping raw sewage on my property.

Also, don't you feel a bit silly engaging in these extreme cases? We don't base general principles on extreme cases and for good reason. They aren't reflective of typical situations.

[ffe]

The only reason they don't have armies is because the state exists and serves their purpose. Without a state the most powerful would invent it even if that power is simply measured by wealth. Each group paying for their own armed men is anarchy and the really powerful (again measured by wealth or productive power if you like) will not tolerate that.

First of all, we have to acknowledge that most people don't want constant violence in their daily lives and that most people are basically decent. If that isn't the case then humanity is already fucked and no form of ideology is going to save us. Assuming there are no objections to that, let's say that 90% of humans just want to live in peace and the other 10% want to use aggression to accomplish their goals. So, the argument is that the 90% should concentrate all their force into the hands of a single group of people to protect us from the other 10%. The flaw in this is that, what's to stop the 10% from taking control of this concentration of power? It seems only natural that the bad 10% of people would seek to control it. You're only making things easier for them that way. At least in a stateless society we have a fighting chance and of course the 90% can overpower the other 10% and defend themselves. At some point it comes down to sheer numbers rather than who has the most gold.

You can't pretend the 10% that seek to control the rest is a static group. The moment the 90% overpower them another 10% will materialize out of the winners and they will want to control the rest. Revolutions for hundreds of years have proven this. (An outstanding exception was the American revolution. The miracle is they balanced state power against federal power in a stable configuration.)

What you're describing doesn't exist. It's just another utopia.

[benjamindees]

I also like to build robots.  Self-replicating robots.  Tiny, self-replicating robots.  And they are powered by oxidizing common elements, such as iron, aluminum, carbon, and hydrogen.  Basically all they do is consume resources and reproduce.  I'd like to keep them in my back yard.  Actually, no, scratch that, I'd much rather let them go free to roam the Earth.  So I will program them to only consume resources that people aren't currently using.

Any objections to this plan?

[benjamindees]

Also, don't you feel a bit silly engaging in these extreme cases?

Don't you feel silly being oblivious to how the world works and the flaws in your idealized system?

not if it involves damaging my property, which includes the air.

You own the air?  Can I use some?  Can the rest of us have some to breathe?

[MoonShadow]

Wow.  This is the largest example of mental masterbation that I have seen in a long time, and I read a lot on the Internet.

This is an unresolvable disagreement, simply because both sides talk past each other because neither can really agree on the definition of critical words.

I have a question...

Whatever it may be called, and based on the given that, whatever it is called, basicly every "Western" society largely shares the majority of characteristics of the same whatever.  Do you believe that your lifestyle today is better, worse or about the same as your grandfather's?

[NghtRppr]

What you're describing doesn't exist. It's just another utopia.

No, it's Utopian to think that you can have a monopoly on legitimate violence and that it won't lead to abuses.

I also like to build robots.  Self-replicating robots.  Tiny, self-replicating robots.  And they are powered by oxidizing common elements, such as iron, aluminum, carbon, and hydrogen.  Basically all they do is consume resources and reproduce.  I'd like to keep them in my back yard.  Actually, no, scratch that, I'd much rather let them go free to roam the Earth.  So I will program them to only consume resources that people aren't currently using.

Any objections to this plan?

You talk about me being oblivious to the real world when you're talking about replicators from Stargate SG-1? If your replicators only used unowned resources then why would I care? Until you damage me or my property, I have no concern. Of course, if I see your replicators running wild I'm not going to sit on my thumbs until everything is used up. I will start to claim more resources for myself so that I don't run out. I see no problems other than the absurdity of your question. By the way, if we can make Stargate SG-1 replicators then I want my Star Trek food computer that produces Earl Grey tea on voice command.

You own the air?  Can I use some?  Can the rest of us have some to breathe?

I didn't say I own all the air. Don't make straw man arguments. I own some air though. Do you have an issue with that? What's the argument that you can own land but not air? Land moves too. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Wow.  This is the largest example of mental masterbation that I have seen in a long time, and I read a lot on the Internet.

I'm under no delusions that I'll convert anyone here. I'm just trying to refine my views through trial-by-fire. You'll never know if you're wrong unless you put your views to the test.

[Gluskab]

This conversation should rarely go further than both parties to the conversation ensuring the other one will not use violence to implement their ideas upon the other.

If neither believes a difference of opinion should end in violence, great!  You can put together whatever kind of economic or political scheme you wish, as long as you can convince others to work towards that system as well, and as long as you do not force anyone to join you.

If one of you is willing to use violence over a difference in opinion, don't engage with that person because:

• That's not a conversation.
• Engaging with the idea that violence is an appropriate means to resolving a difference in opinion only gives credence to that all-too-common world view.

The correct play is to walk away and just interact with those who don't whip out the implicit gun every time there's a disagreement.

[NghtRppr]

The correct play is to walk away and just interact with those who don't whip out the implicit gun every time there's a disagreement.

The problem is that unless people are forced to point the gun themselves they don't actually think they are using violence. They just get to vote for whatever laws they want and blue uniformed thugs do the actual dirty work. Also, I'm interested in getting my ideas tested rather than just proselytizing.

However, you're right and it's always funny when people try to argue their way towards legitimizing aggression since violence is the interruption of discussion not the conclusion thereof. If they really thought violence was the answer then they would just shoot me in head and be done with it instead of engaging me in discussion. By engaging me in discussion you are already presupposing that your view of aggression as legitimate is wrong and that discourse is the proper mode of settling disagreements.

[Gluskab]

The correct play is to walk away and just interact with those who don't whip out the implicit gun every time there's a disagreement.

The problem is that unless people are forced to point the gun themselves they don't actually think they are using violence. They just get to vote for whatever laws they want and blue uniformed thugs do the actual dirty work. Also, I'm interested in getting my ideas tested rather than just proselytizing.

However, you're right and it's always funny when people to argue their way to legitimizing aggression since violence is the interruption of discussion not the conclusion thereof. If they really thought violence was the answer then they would just shoot me in head and be done with it instead of engaging me in discussion. By engaging me in discussion you are already presupposing that your view of aggression as legitimate is wrong and that discourse is the proper mode of settling disagreements.

You are right that it is important to test your ideas, however you need to ensure that anyone you are having a serious debate with is actually interested in the truth and not some game where they use debate to mentally bully others in order to deal with unresolved issues.  The vast majority of people use philosophy as ex-post-facto justification for past wrongdoing, and you will never advance ideas in that context.  You might learn something about scoring points in a conversation or dealing with excessive frustration; but life is too short in my opinion.

That's why my play is generally to bring the gun into the room.  Make it personal.  If the person is willing to literally pull the trigger if I'm not willing to contribute to their plan, then you have the end of the conversation.  If they're not, it then becomes useful to square their ideas with the newfound realization of what they actually entail philosophically.  Then you can have a productive conversation from there.

Otherwise, just find people who are interested in truth and are interested in working with you in a voluntary fashion.  Anything else tends to detract from your quality of life IMO.

[NghtRppr]

You might learn something about .... dealing with excessive frustration; but life is too short in my opinion.

Actually, that is one of my goals. I used to completely lose it when dealing with intellectually dishonest people or just plain idiots. Then I moved on to typing scathing replies, reading them and then backspacing over them without posting, out of guilt. Now, it's very rare that my temper flares up and when it does I am able to just take a few breaths and let it pass. By the time I'm in my 30's I hope to be some sort of zen master at dealing with fools. Recently, I've had people applaud my patience so I think I'm making progress. To each his own though. I've always been an argumentative person.

[Gluskab]

You might learn something about .... dealing with excessive frustration; but life is too short in my opinion.

Actually, that is one of my goals. I used to completely lose it when dealing with intellectually dishonest people or just plain idiots. Then I moved on to typing scathing replies, reading them and then backspacing over them without posting, out of guilt. Now, it's very rare that my temper flares up and when it does I am able to just take a few breaths and let it pass. By the time I'm in my 30's I hope to be some sort of zen master at dealing with fools. Recently, I've had people applaud my patience so I think I'm making progress. To each his own though. I've always been an argumentative person.

I would argue the capacity for anger when dealing with someone who is intellectually dishonest is a good thing.  Otherwise you'll often ignore the emotional underpinnings of what that person is saying, and you'll be arguing versus and argument that he isn't really making (because he doesn't care about the argument, intellectually dishonest people are often just working out their own emotional issues), and that's another reason, in my mind at least, why I've stopped engaging those people.  They troll anyone who is trying to find a scrap of truth until they either get bored or until they get the desired reaction from the person they are engaging.  However, they never put any idea of their own forth, and the conversation is never furthered by their involvement.

We're probably somewhat talking past each other here, but my only real point is that I only think it's worth it to debate with someone who is seeking truth and isn't tied to their conclusions.  Otherwise, you're probably better off dissecting your point of view yourself.

[Gluskab]

I also want to make it clear that I don't think you should get mad at people for being idiots or for not being able to see past the stories they've been told their whole lives.  I'm mostly talking about those who only enter a debate to win and to be nasty to their opponent.

[benjamindees]

Objection 2: But, but… wage slavery!

If you want to live then you have to work.

This is completely, totally false.  It is economically false --  it is based on a misunderstanding of "work".  It is historically false -- historically humans have worked less than they do now, especially in highly free-market-oriented countries.  And it is scientifically false -- there is absolutely no physical reason for humans to be required to "work" in order to survive.

That's nature's fault (or God's fault if you're a Christian).

It is someone's fault.  But not God's since God is just a fictional character.

Nobody is obligated to keep you alive.

True.

You have the right not to be murdered, you don't have the right to live.

You have a right to life.  But it is a negative right.

Otherwise, I'd have to take care of myself and everyone else which is unfair.

False dichotomy.  You are only responsible for your own actions.  But that includes all of them.

Requiring me to provide you a living is actual slavery, much worse than nonexistent wage slavery.

That depends.  Are parents slaves?

a bunch of offtopic stuff

You sure post a lot for someone who isn't interested in engaging in conversation.

[NghtRppr]

I'm only going to respond to your sensible comments. If you want me to address something I've ignored don't just whine that I've ignored it, elaborate on it so that I understand that you actually have some sort of cogent point to make.

If you want to live then you have to work.

This is completely, totally false.  It is economically false --  it is based on a misunderstanding of "work".  It is historically false -- historically humans have worked less than they do now, especially in highly free-market-oriented countries.  And it is scientifically false -- there is absolutely no physical reason for humans to be required to "work" in order to survive.

So you don't consider hunting, farming, fishing or foraging to be work? Well, I do but instead of playing semantic games why don't we just say that you have to "take action" in order to survive because food isn't going to hop onto your plate?

You have a right to life.  But it is a negative right.

If you have a right to life then I would be obligated to save you if you were drowning. No, you have a right to not be murdered. All negative rights must contain some sort of negation if they are to be negative.

That depends.  Are parents slaves?

No but they also aren't required to provide me a living. They can drop me off at any hospital (well it's too late now since I'm college, but they had their chance to give me up for adoption).

[benjamindees]

They can drop me off at any hospital (well it's too late now since I'm college, but they had their chance to give me up for adoption).

Good and what happens when they do that?  Is the hospital obliged to care for you?  Is the hospital staffed by volunteers?  Does this action constitute force or is this just more free market goodness?  Free kid?  Is it a donation?

Well, I do but instead of playing semantic games why don't we just say that you have to "take action" in order to survive because food isn't going to hop onto your plate?

Fiat Victus.  But yes, some minimal action.  Certainly not life-long wage labor.

You have a right to life.  But it is a negative right.

If you have a right to life then I would be obligated to save you if you were drowning. No, you have a right to not be murdered. All negative rights must contain some sort of negation if they are to be negative.

You're misunderstanding the concept of negative rights.  They are negative precisely because they require no positive obligation.  It is a moral distinguishment, not a semantic one.  And they must be negative because they would be inconsistent otherwise.


By the way, just in case you didn't know Craig Venter and others are building self-replicating robots.  It is not science fiction and the concept (Von Neumann machines) is quite old.

[kiba]

Defending capitalism bores me.

[NghtRppr]

Good and what happens when they do that?  Is the hospital obliged to care for you?  Is the hospital staffed by volunteers?  Does this action constitute force or is this just more free market goodness?  Free kid?  Is it a donation?

There's no shortage of people that want to take in an abandoned baby.

But yes, some minimal action.  Certainly not life-long wage labor.

You do whatever it takes to survive. On your own you can hunt, farm, fish or forage. Nobody owes you anything. However, someone might offer you some food that they have in exchange for something. If you don't like their offer you don't have to take it. You then go back to the original state of affairs, doing what it takes to survive. Again, nobody owes you anything.

They are negative precisely because they require no positive obligation.

A right to life implies a positive obligation. Some socialists are saying they have a right to health care. That again implies a positive obligation. Nobody owes you that. They owe you negatives, inaction, not action; not murdering you, not raping you, not robbing you.

[benjamindees]

There's no shortage of people that want to take in an abandoned baby.

If all humans are selfish, why do you suppose this is the case?  (Assuming this were true, which I don't believe it is.  I think there are far more un-cared-for children out there than potential adopters.)

A right to life implies a positive obligation.

Of course not.  No right implies a positive obligation.  The entire concept is absurd.

Some socialists are saying they have a right to health care.

They are short-sighted and wrong and abusing people's stupidity for short-term political gain.

[NghtRppr]

If all humans are selfish, why do you suppose this is the case?

I didn't say they are purely selfish.

[BCEmporium]

That's not anarchy. It's just capitalism at work. Anarchism opposes capitalism.

Again, Anarchy can co-exist with any economic form, as it doesn't have one. Anarchy doesn't oppose anything there.

I second most of ffe, including that I'd still prefer capitalism to the known alternatives, thus the need for "parts" of others ideologies.

@bitcoin2cash,

You just talk about Capitalism as it looks to you personally and how you'd been affected by it so far. Capitalism at "personal level", forgetting that Capitalism is more a State and Global movement.
A trades a bike with B... A can trade a bike with B on every circumstance in any given economic model. You forget for an instance, by your initial post, "the value of the 500 bucks".

OK, say that I've the bike and accept those 500 bucks, because I'm up to buy a skate for 250 later on. Now... what are or how much worth 500 bucks? In the current status of capitalism, they're just printed paper issued by a private bank, the FED, not indexed to anything at all (In God we trust... and we better because on the notes you're wasting your time). Back on Mercantilism, trade was ruled by bullion; silver, gold...; now it's ruled by worthless paper.
Back on our business, I said I want to buy a skate for 250, but... my bad... I let it pass one month and now they sale for 550. As you see, by holding worthless paper the values float without much control as you can never redeem such paper for nothing.

To the end, in Anarchy, the Capitalism we've at the moment couldn't exist. Without a government to hold the currency value, and anyone able to print how much he pleases, it would be zeroed.

NOTE: Bitcoin is a form of electronic bullion, as it has its own way to control its issue, btw.

[左]

Ahem, originally posted in the wrong thread. Let's try again.

I haven't read the thread. I haven't even read the first post. I'm just going to put a few thoughts down about capitalism and anarchism, and leave the thread again. I.e. don't expect a response.

Capitalism, where individuals can accumulate resources beyond (far beyond) what can be used by an individual requires a government like structure. I'll explain. A capitalist is one who owns resources beyond what can be used by the capitalist on their own. So, the capitalist either rents out the resources for others to use, or hires others to work these resources. (I would suggest these, and lending money at interest, are basically the same. The capitalist lets others use the resources, in exchange for taking a percentage of what is produced. The difference between renting and hiring is the structure, and how much the capitalist takes.) If the person to whom the capitalist is renting the resources to refuses to pay the capitalist, the capitalist will then use force to evict the person from the {factory; land; etc.}.

Anyway, I'll stop now, because Robert Nozick said it better in the first two parts of his book [rl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_State_and_Utopia]Anarchy, State and Utopia[/url]. Basically, all those little private defence agencies that would spring up to defend the capitalist's interests, would merge by necessity and by reason of efficiency. Eventually you would be left with multiple rather large defence agencies that would be big enough to enforce their world-view on all the people in a particular geographical area. Oh wait, that's a state.

I fundamentally disagree with Nozick's conclusions in his book, but I can't fault his reasoning that in any "state of nature" (as he puts it) which is a state-less capitalism, a state will inevitably emerge.

---

Now, contrast this to a anarchism where resources do not accumulate beyond what can be personally used, and rent, interest and profit are all rejected. I would argue (and have done elsewhere) that a state would not emerge from such a society. Mainly because without capital, individuals and groups of individuals would not be able to accumulate enough power to form a state.

I prefer that utopia, thank you very much. (And I would argue, as I have done else where, that it is a utopia that permits more utopias than the so call "anarchist"-capitalism.)

Final words: Mafia run society.

[Gluskab]

You just talk about Capitalism as it looks to you personally and how you'd been affected by it so far. Capitalism at "personal level", forgetting that Capitalism is more a State and Global movement.

That's just a story people tell.  There is no state, there are only individuals.  Arbitrarily lumping certain individuals together does not change their nature.

[BCEmporium]

You just talk about Capitalism as it looks to you personally and how you'd been affected by it so far. Capitalism at "personal level", forgetting that Capitalism is more a State and Global movement.

That's just a story people tell.  There is no state, there are only individuals.  Arbitrarily lumping certain individuals together does not change their nature.

Actually it does, an individual alone doesn't have the strength of a collective body. Other than that you've the group and mob mind. An individual may act one way when alone and the same individual may act in a totally different way within a group and yet another within a mob.

@左:

Mafia doesn't run societies, it's the other way around; Mafia is a private business resembling the Governments... the only reason why Governments don't like Mafia is because they don't get quite along with concurrence.

[Gluskab]

You just talk about Capitalism as it looks to you personally and how you'd been affected by it so far. Capitalism at "personal level", forgetting that Capitalism is more a State and Global movement.

That's just a story people tell.  There is no state, there are only individuals.  Arbitrarily lumping certain individuals together does not change their nature.

Actually it does, an individual alone doesn't have the strength of a collective body. Other than that you've the group and mob mind. An individual may act one way when alone and the same individual may act in a totally different way within a group and yet another within a mob.

@左:

Mafia doesn't run societies, it's the other way around; Mafia is a private business resembling the Governments... the only reason why Governments don't like Mafia is because they don't get quite along with concurrence.

There is no such thing as a collective body.  There are a bunch of individuals.  If you turn into a mindless blob with no opinions outside what the group 'thinks' (seriously, how does a group think?  Does a new, collective brain appear?), that's not something I've ever experienced.  It's the existence of a collectivist mentality in the first place that allows people to shut their brains off while chanting things like, "USA! USA! USA!" or any other 'collective identity' people adopt because they have no self-esteem and choose to identify themselves through a geographic accident rather than anything they've ever done.

If you stick a bunch of trees together, it's called a forest, but the trees inside do not change their individual nature in anyway.  If you're saying two people will together have more physical strength than one person or two people (generally) have more brainpower working together than separately, well no kidding.  That still doesn't contradict anything I've said.

And the reason people who make up the government don't like the mafia, when they are just a legitimized mafia, is because they don't like competition.  If they did, they wouldn't back up their edicts with force.

[NghtRppr]

If every US citizen were to die, there would be no more USA. Therefore, the USA is nothing above and beyond the people that it is comprised of.

[JA37]

I didn't say they are purely selfish.

A few years ago there was a science radio show about generosity and human nature. Can't provide a link unfortunatly but from what I recall the conclusion is quite the opposite what you claim. People are inherently generous, and give more than they "have to". The study was done on isolated tribes all over the world. Tribesmen who didn't manage to get enough food or shelter were aided by their peers, and in every single study the peers gave more than what was needed. The "cheapest" society gave about 20% surplus, the more generous societies gave well over 100% more.

Believe it or not, but there you have it.

[BCEmporium]

@Gluskab;

Being a social animal, humans want to fit in to something; a "society" and its spheres of identity. Starting with your family to your country, to your race, to your religion to whatever one can "hold in to" to grab his "identity". Depending on the group you choose or by accident decided to join for this purpose you get the "group mind", a set of rules you learn to not contest at the expense of be expelled of such group and therefore lose your group identity or be considered as an outcast by your group. This is what sets the group mind.
Depending on the group, the reasons can be various and either rational, accidental or plainly irrational, jersey colors on sports, place of birth on nationalism and patriotism... still and even if you don't contest, it doesn't mean you think about it an agreed, to many of them you just accept by a single reason; you don't even bother to think about it.

[Gluskab]

@Gluskab;

Being a social animal, humans want to fit in to something; a "society" and its spheres of identity. Starting with your family to your country, to your race, to your religion to whatever one can "hold in to" to grab his "identity". Depending on the group you choose or by accident decided to join for this purpose you get the "group mind", a set of rules you learn to not contest at the expense of be expelled of such group and therefore lose your group identity or be considered as an outcast by your group. This is what sets the group mind.
Depending on the group, the reasons can be various and either rational, accidental or plainly irrational, jersey colors on sports, place of birth on nationalism and patriotism... still and even if you don't contest, it doesn't mean you think about it an agreed, to many of them you just accept by a single reason; you don't even bother to think about it.

So, when you pull that person out of the group, you no longer have a person?  Just a 1/n of a group?

[NghtRppr]

I didn't say they are purely selfish.

A few years ago there was a science radio show about generosity and human nature. Can't provide a link unfortunatly but from what I recall the conclusion is quite the opposite what you claim. People are inherently generous, and give more than they "have to". The study was done on isolated tribes all over the world. Tribesmen who didn't manage to get enough food or shelter were aided by their peers, and in every single study the peers gave more than what was needed. The "cheapest" society gave about 20% surplus, the more generous societies gave well over 100% more.

Believe it or not, but there you have it.

Selfish meaning they care about themselves first and others second. Who would deny that?

[BCEmporium]

So, when you pull that person out of the group, you no longer have a person?  Just a 1/n of a group?

It's the other way around... you don't "pull persons out of the group", instead they join themselves groups and, depending on the kind of the group, abide by its rules (strangely on some groups, as religious ones, they tend to not "abide by their rules" but instead acting dualistic being very intransigent for others to abide the god or gods given rules - even those outside the group - whereas themselves believe to have a sort of "god's chump discount").

You see, the "group mind" is way too complex to be a simply put in and pull out... and groups themselves can come in all flavors and colors. Humanity is weird... like you said, as when people switch off the brain to call out the name of the geographical accident where they, by totally random reasons, happened to born.

[Gluskab]

So, when you pull that person out of the group, you no longer have a person?  Just a 1/n of a group?

It's the other way around... you don't "pull persons out of the group", instead they join themselves groups and, depending on the kind of the group, abide by its rules (strangely on some groups, as religious ones, they tend to not "abide by their rules" but instead acting dualistic being very intransigent for others to abide the god or gods given rules - even those outside the group - whereas themselves believe to have a sort of "god's chump discount").

You see, the "group mind" is way too complex to be a simply put in and pull out... and groups themselves can come in all flavors and colors. Humanity is weird... like you said, as when people switch off the brain to call out the name of the geographical accident where they, by totally random reasons, happened to born.

So, people's minds cannot be individually changed.  You should just join a group that sort of matches your philosophy and hope people accidentally join that group?

[BCEmporium]

So, people's minds cannot be individually changed.  You should just join a group that sort of matches your philosophy and hope people accidentally join that group?

...or a group whose philosophy matches your own... if we were talking about rational groups, which not all of them are.
I understand your point, yet you're putting it to black & white, be individual vs be in group... there's a gray-scale in between of those two extremes.
At some point you may find the individual unwilling to change, even if the change is reasonable, if it could put his place in a particular group at stake, or vice-versa. Not all groups are the same or aim for the same. Like the poster on X-Files said «I want to believe», pretty often people just «want to believe»... even if the belief is totally senseless.

[Gluskab]

So, people's minds cannot be individually changed.  You should just join a group that sort of matches your philosophy and hope people accidentally join that group?

...or a group whose philosophy matches your own... if we were talking about rational groups, which not all of them are.
I understand your point, yet you're putting it to black & white, be individual vs be in group... there's a gray-scale in between of those two extremes.
At some point you may find the individual unwilling to change, even if the change is reasonable, if it could put his place in a particular group at stake, or vice-versa. Not all groups are the same or aim for the same. Like the poster on X-Files said «I want to believe», pretty often people just «want to believe»... even if the belief is totally senseless.

But that doesn't change the nature of the person.  Of course people are social creatures and tend to interact with other people, and people who have similar interests or beliefs.  I never claimed people had irrational beliefs, I just didn't take the view that you have to change a group to change the viewpoint of any of the people 'within' it.  From the start, the comment I replied to said:

You just talk about Capitalism as it looks to you personally and how you'd been affected by it so far. Capitalism at "personal level", forgetting that Capitalism is more a State and Global movement.

Which, maybe if you're talking about the 'capitalism' that is in the world today (read: corporatism), that might make a little more sense, but capitalism that means only voluntary interactions happens on a person by person basis, and that's the only real way to frame it philosophically.  You can extrapolate out from that how things might happen with larger groups of people, but that doesn't mean you can't talk about capitalism or any other economic/political system in the context of individuals interacting.  In fact, I think that's exactly how you should frame the discussion philosophically because you can't interact with a group, a group cannot interact with another group, only people can interact with other people; even if those people are also speaking on the behalf of a group or any number of individuals.

[BCEmporium]

Some groups are irrational, like team supporters. They just like the colors... probably... or the father was of that team, or the best friend. But there's no rational/philosophical grounds about that. I don't say is that irrational groups aren't ok...
OTH, yes, the group has to change for its members to change, at least if such change requires core modifications. If you don't manage to do the change in a group level individuals from such group will simply ignore you - no matter how right or wrong you may be.

As for Capitalism, it's not "just trade between two or more people", for that many other economic theories can apply, specially because all of them are designed exactly to conduct trade between people.
The differences are set on other grounds; i.e. Communism and Socialism decides you shouldn't keep what you don't need if some else needs it, Capitalism has a straight view on property, you "own" and it's "yours", regardless if you need it or not, Distributism sets limits to property, you can own with some surplus but not accumulate as in Capitalism, ancient American indigenous people totally lacked the sense of property, you belong to the land not the land to you. Who's wrong, who's right... hard to tell.
Anyway, Capitalism is more than just a "free market" or A trading with B, Capitalism per definition is an economy based on the strength of the capital. We can say however that free market is the major improvement from Capitalism's predecessor, Mercantilism, by causing the guilds to become extinct.

Groups DO interact with groups and individuals. Wars are exactly the proof of such, group leaders disagreed and their groups goes after them against each other. Reason why it turns easier when a group has a known leader, you just need to change the leader's view for change almost everybody within it - at this point you'll have dissidents; people for which one of the main reasons to be in the group was exactly the one that changed.

Never underestimate the power of groups... they're the reason we've a society in the first place.

[TiagoTiago]

...

OK, say that I've the bike and accept those 500 bucks, because I'm up to buy a skate for 250 later on. Now... what are or how much worth 500 bucks? In the current status of capitalism, they're just printed paper issued by a private bank, the FED, not indexed to anything at all (In God we trust... and we better because on the notes you're wasting your time). Back on Mercantilism, trade was ruled by bullion; silver, gold...; now it's ruled by worthless paper.
Back on our business, I said I want to buy a skate for 250, but... my bad... I let it pass one month and now they sale for 550. As you see, by holding worthless paper the values float without much control as you can never redeem such paper for nothing.

...

Say you mowed our neighbour's lawn for the extra 50 bucks you needed and bought the skate, but the day after that some volcano chain started erupting and dipped the world in volcanic winter,  covering all the parks, ramps, sidewalks etc with snow so you can't use your skate in most places you would; now your skate isn't worth all that much for anyone. You mentioned backing by metals, tomorrow someone could find a vein of gold of continental proportions and and the price of the gram would drop so much you would make more money selling a gram of cancerigenous air out of the exhaust from a old poluting combustion engine.

It's pretty hard to find somthing that has an "inherent" value that can't be changed drasticly.

[NghtRppr]

Anyone asking how things get their prices is pretty much asking a question with a known answer. It's not how much it costs to produce or obtain X. It's not how important X is to general human welfare. It's based on marginal utility. Let's say you have 3 loaves of bread and you have different goals you'd like to accomplish with that bread in order of importance to you. Maybe you want to eat the first one, give the second one to your family and sell the third. If you're forced to give up a loaf of bread, you're going to have to give up one of your goals. Which goal? The least important goal. The value you place on achieving that last goal is the value you place on a loaf of bread. As you have fewer loaves of bread, you can achieve fewer goals and the value increases on the remaining loaves. Nothing has intrinsic value. All values are subjective but are reflected in prices which are objective, we can observe prices, not values.

[JA37]

Selfish meaning they care about themselves first and others second. Who would deny that?

Selfish, as defined by Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish
": concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others"

My emphasis. Clearly noone denies your definition, but what I was saying was that people aren't selfish according do Marriam-Websters definition. People DO care about others. More than they have to. And it's a good thing imho.

[benjamindees]

The fact that price has nothing to do with value doesn't mean that there is no such thing as intrinsic value.

[BCEmporium]

Say you mowed our neighbour's lawn for the extra 50 bucks you needed and bought the skate, but the day after that some volcano chain started erupting and dipped the world in volcanic winter,  covering all the parks, ramps, sidewalks etc with snow so you can't use your skate in most places you would; now your skate isn't worth all that much for anyone. You mentioned backing by metals, tomorrow someone could find a vein of gold of continental proportions and and the price of the gram would drop so much you would make more money selling a gram of cancerigenous air out of the exhaust from a old poluting combustion engine.

It's pretty hard to find somthing that has an "inherent" value that can't be changed drasticly.

You're adding fatalism to the equation. By that point of view anything can happen on any economic system. However within Capitalism those values may float for no catastrophic events.

You see... people tend to look to the immediate; "I earn X"  / "It costs Y". Pretty often you listen politicians bullshit-loading people with arguments such as "I rather raise the taxes than lower the wages" or vice-versa. Well, that's baloney! Regardless what they do on such it renders the same; you end up with less money available for yourself.
Adding to the Capitalist monetary system and the politicians have yet another way to raise taxes and lower wages without people even notice it: Print more currency and generate inflation. Well... people will notice, when they figure out everything get more expensive and the money they wage is barely enough for a kg of rice or potatoes, but for their immediate view the politician has nothing to do with it, as he didn't either lowered the wages or raised the taxes.

[jpent]

If I may, I'd like to suggest that everyone in this thread take the time to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h36Dni1ZPX0

It explains the meaning of the terms 'value', 'utility' and 'price' as used by Austrian economics. I think it is very relevant to this thread, and should hopefully get everyone on the same baseline.

[benjamindees]

That video is metaphysical hogwash.  Value is only subjective when it is arbitrarily bound up with separate concepts such as human work and action.  Intrinsic, objective value exists irrespective of humans altogether.  The fact that Austrian (or any other) economics has no connection to physical reality doesn't mean that everything is inherently subjective.

[BitterTea]

Intrinsic, objective value exists irrespective of humans altogether.

Ok. Name two things with intrinsic value, and state their value in relation to each other, intrinsically.

[benjamindees]

Two apple trees have more intrinsic value than one apple tree.

[BCEmporium]

Two apple trees have more intrinsic value than one apple tree.

That relative, if one gives out outstanding apples and the two together bring lesser quality/grade ones, then that single apple tree has more intrinsic value than the other two together.

[benjamindees]

Yeah well obviously I was assuming identical apple trees.

Two ounces of gold have more intrinsic value than one ounce of gold.

A ton of carbon has more intrinsic value than a ton of carbon dioxide.

A ton of hydrogen has more intrinsic value than a ton of iron.

A ton of iron has more intrinsic value than a ton of iron oxide.

[da2ce7]

Yeah well obviously I was assuming identical apple trees.

Two ounces of gold have more intrinsic value than one ounce of gold.

A ton of carbon has more intrinsic value than a ton of carbon dioxide.

A ton of hydrogen has more intrinsic value than a ton of iron.

A ton of iron has more intrinsic value than a ton of iron oxide.

If apple trees were a pest and destroying your solar array, then no.

See, everything in life is relative. Even in physics there is nothing 'intrinsic' (that we know of)... everything has to be measured by it's relationship to something else.

[BCEmporium]

Ultimately, nothing has a "value" other than relative because its value depends on how much we valuate it. This alone makes everything relative. You can't say gold is more valuable than silver, because both just have value "relative to humans" and our purposes, other animals don't eat metals or even know what to do with them.  

If for what ever you produce you need carbon dioxide but not carbon, than carbon is worthless to you and its dioxide is more valuable.
And even on your statement about quantity,

Even for your given example, 1 apple tree has more value than 2 apple trees, but the 2 apple trees by piece would have less value than that apple tree alone. One would be a high valuable unique piece, whereas the other 2 weren't unique.

Also the value is relative to places, 1 liter of water in a rain forest worth nothing, the same liter of water in a desert worth whatever the seller wants to ask for it.

[benjamindees]

If apple trees were a pest and destroying your solar array, then no.

"No" what?  Your assertion has nothing to do with the value of apple trees in relation to one another, but the value of apple trees relative to solar panels.

If for what ever you produce you need carbon dioxide but not carbon, than carbon is worthless to you and its dioxide is more valuable.

It is possible to make carbon dioxide from carbon.  In fact, it is possible to make carbon dioxide from *only* carbon, and to do so profitably.  Regardless, I probably should have said instead that one ton of carbon and oxygen in 1:2 molar ratio has more intrinsic value than one ton of carbon dioxide.

Also the value is relative to places, 1 liter of water in a rain forest worth nothing, the same liter of water in a desert worth whatever the seller wants to ask for it.

Subjective "value" to humans perhaps, but not intrinsic value.

[TiagoTiago]

Yeah well obviously I was assuming identical apple trees.

Two ounces of gold have more intrinsic value than one ounce of gold.

A ton of carbon has more intrinsic value than a ton of carbon dioxide.

A ton of hydrogen has more intrinsic value than a ton of iron.

A ton of iron has more intrinsic value than a ton of iron oxide.

If you get free electricity and free water, but you live on a cruiseship, hydrogen is pretty much free, while you need to pay to get more iron  (you got only a limited amount of it avaiable for extracting from the ship itself).


If you're gonna live in space, i imagine you would value raw matterial that comes with oxygen more.

[jpent]

I think you've both missed the point of the video. The point wasn't to tell people what this 'value' thing they've been taking about was, but rather to give a useful and consistent definition of value which can be used in logical reasoning. The reason I linked to it is because everyone seems to have different definitions of terms which lead to unnecessary arguments.

Value can mean, for example, the physical properties of an object which give it characteristics to be used for a certain purpose. For example, two logs on a fire can provide more heat when burned than one. There is clearly nothing subjective about this definition of value. Austrians economists choose, however, to use the word 'utility' to describe this phenomenon.

Value, as used in the video, essentially refers to how much a person values a particular means of achieving of a particular end. In this case, two logs on a fire may be less valuable than one, because I personally find the resulting temperature to be too high. However, for other uses, such as boiling water, two logs may be preferable.

No matter what definitions we use, we can see that there are two mutually exclusive concepts at play here. So saying 'value can both be subjective and objective' is nonsensical.

The term value is also commonly used as a synonym for price. Of course, people may use whatever definitions of terms they like, but in general it is best when having a debate to have consistent definitions for terms, and have different terms for different meanings.

[benjamindees]

If you get free electricity and free water, but you live on a cruiseship, hydrogen is pretty much free, while you need to pay to get more iron  (you got only a limited amount of it avaiable for extracting from the ship itself).

If I live on a cruise ship and I get free electricity, I can extract iron from seawater for free.  Or, I can fuse my free hydrogen into iron.  I would have an infinite amount.

As to Austrian economists, "utility" is a loaded term that implies usefulness to humans.  So, if you've been brainwashed into believing that "value" has no meaning, fine.  But I prefer to use terms according to their colloquial meanings.

[rezin777]

So, if you've been brainwashed into believing that "value" has no meaning, fine.

I hardly see how you can come to that conclusion from his post.

[jpent]

I prefer to use terms according to their colloquial meanings.

I'm just trying to say that there are many mutually exclusive things that the term 'value' can be used mean, and to use it without stating what definition you are using only leads to confusion - as demonstrated by this thread.

[benjamindees]

I hardly see how you can come to that conclusion from his post.

Sorry if that sounded harsh but it was actually more of a hypothetical than an accusation.

But it does need to be pointed out that Austrians explicitly re-define and shift terms in order to justify the notion that all value exists solely in terms of immediate human preference.

On the other hand, I finally finished that video and he waits until the final two minutes to deliver the punchline:  "It (Mengerian analysis) is not about explaining long run prices... what prices will tend to be after all adjustments take place in the market."

[BCEmporium]

So, if you've been brainwashed into believing that "value" has no meaning, fine.

Calm down! The assortment that "value" has no meaning - at least alone and without stating relatively to who or what - doesn't mean "everything for free" or the "dead of economics". That one is a "base" of rational thinking, you always must START (and not end, this is important) from there to build a rational decision about the value of something.
Equivalent on lawmaking would be the statement that «there's no right or wrong, so everything is allowed, nothing is forbidden». It's a good start place (obviously an obnoxious end point if used as so). 

[BitterTea]

It seems to me that the main difference between "anarcho-capitalism" (non-state capitalism, market anarchism) and "anarcho-socialism" (non-state socialism, anarchism) is that one system allows for the private ownership of capital (means of production) and the other does not. It seems all other differences can be derived from this one. The right to the product of ones labor derives from the idea that ownership of capital occurs by making use of such capital. The immorality of rent and wages derives from the idea that one owns the product of one's labor.

So, if you want to convince me that capitalism is immoral and that one should own the product of one's labor, put forth an argument against the private ownership of capital. Here are some questions to get you started.

How do you define capital?

Do your argument against private ownership of capital also apply to other private ownership? If so, do you also argue against all private ownership, or do you reconcile this somehow?

[jpent]

Austrians explicitly re-define and shift terms in order to justify the notion that all value exists solely in terms of immediate human preference.

This is not the purpose of the Austrian definition of value. The purpose is to provide a definition which is internally consistent, and robust enough to build a theory of economics on. I cannot tell you whether "all value exists solely in terms of immediate human preference" because you still haven't given a consistent definition of the term as you are using it.

[LMGTFY]

It seems to me that the main difference between "anarcho-capitalism" (non-state capitalism, market anarchism) and "anarcho-socialism" (non-state socialism, anarchism) is that one system allows for the private ownership of capital (means of production) and the other does not. It seems all other differences can be derived from this one. The right to the product of ones labor derives from the idea that ownership of capital occurs by making use of such capital. The immorality of rent and wages derives from the idea that one owns the product of one's labor.

That may be correct for some varieties of collectivist anarchists, but I think it's an over-simplification. On the whole, it isn't that "anarcho-socialists" prohibit the private ownership of capital - at least on a small scale - but rather their economic focus is on collective work. I don't regard small-scale capitalism as incompatible with that.

Personally, I think the division into individualist and collectivist varieties of anarchist is an interesting academic exercise, but from a practical standpoint not hugely useful. I'd take anarchism slightly more seriously (I do take it seriously, just not seriously enough to identify as an anarchist myself) if the focus was on political action first, and then, once we're free to make decisions for ourselves, at that point deciding how to run our respective economies. Anarcho-communism, say, seems to me to be like saying "I want you to be free to decide how to run the economy. And the economy will be a communist economy". The same applies, obviously, to anarcho-capitalists. By all means have a preference, but the first step has to be ensuring that everyone is politically free.

[BitterTea]

That may be correct for some varieties of collectivist anarchists, but I think it's an over-simplification. On the whole, it isn't that "anarcho-socialists" prohibit the private ownership of capital - at least on a small scale - but rather their economic focus is on collective work. I don't regard small-scale capitalism as incompatible with that.

In my experience, most people who call themselves anarchists (which seems preferred to, but interchangeable with,  anarcho-socialist) believe that private ownership of capital should be discouraged through social institutions, or responded to with theft or violence.

Personally, I think the division into individualist and collectivist varieties of anarchist is an interesting academic exercise, but from a practical standpoint not hugely useful. I'd take anarchism slightly more seriously (I do take it seriously, just not seriously enough to identify as an anarchist myself) if the focus was on political action first, and then, once we're free to make decisions for ourselves, at that point deciding how to run our respective economies.

I consider myself a market anarchist, or voluntaryist. I seek to erode support for States, as they are fundamentally at odds with what I consider moral behavior. I make no claims as to what society should look like post-statism, as long as it is as free from violence and coercion as possible.

Anarcho-communism, say, seems to me to be like saying "I want you to be free to decide how to run the economy. And the economy will be a communist economy". The same applies, obviously, to anarcho-capitalists. By all means have a preference, but the first step has to be ensuring that everyone is politically free.

I agree, but it seems to me that an anarcho-capitalist community would accept an anarcho-socialist one, while the reverse is not necessarily true.

[LMGTFY]

In my experience, most people who call themselves anarchists (which seems preferred to, but interchangeable with,  anarcho-socialist) believe that private ownership of capital should be discouraged through social institutions, or responded to with theft or violence.

Well, there's a big potential difference between "discourage" and "theft and violence". Certainly some (many?) collectivist anarchists would take the latter approach, but many wouldn't and believe that collective workplaces and distribution centres would naturally win out against market-orientated workplaces and shops, so resorting to theft and violence is pointless (as well as being incompatible with their beliefs).

I consider myself a market anarchist, or voluntaryist. I seek to erode support for States, as they are fundamentally at odds with what I consider moral behavior. I make no claims as to what society should look like post-statism, as long as it is as free from violence and coercion as possible.

That seems to me to be the generic definition of anarchism :-) i.e. you could remove "market" and it would still hold true. Beyond that, no argument from me.

I agree, but it seems to me that an anarcho-capitalist community would accept an anarcho-socialist one, while the reverse is not necessarily true.

Historically, that's not correct. Small-scale capitalism continued to exist in Anarchist Catalonia, for example (collectives even traded between themselves, as well as small landowners, shops, etc). I believe that may be true for Ukraine in the 1920s, despite the clear communist sympathies of the anarchists.

[MoonShadow]

In my experience, most people who call themselves anarchists (which seems preferred to, but interchangeable with,  anarcho-socialist) believe that private ownership of capital should be discouraged through social institutions, or responded to with theft or violence.

Well, there's a big potential difference between "discourage" and "theft and violence". Certainly some (many?) collectivist anarchists would take the latter approach, but many wouldn't and believe that collective workplaces and distribution centres would naturally win out against market-orientated workplaces and shops, so resorting to theft and violence is pointless (as well as being incompatible with their beliefs).

It only took 3% of the population to fight the Revolutionary War and defeat the British Army.  Anyone who believes that theft and violence is incompatible with their beliefs must also be willing to use violence in kind in order to prevent same.  Anyone who believes that violence have never solved anything isn't a student of history.

That said, my own experiences with anyone who is willing to self-identify as any form of anarchist is anti-this-state, not necessarily anti-state.  The vast majority of whom wouldn't know how to act in a real condition of anarchy, while the majority of the remainder of the population probably would.  The sudden absence of the state is only dangerous because of the kind of people that don't have the will or capacity to govern themselves.

[BCEmporium]

It seems to me that the main difference between "anarcho-capitalism" (non-state capitalism, market anarchism) and "anarcho-socialism" (non-state socialism, anarchism) is that one system allows for the private ownership of capital (means of production) and the other does not.

Within Anarcho-Socialism stealing is OK, scamming is not, within Anarcho-Capitalism scamming is OK, stealing is not.
Is what it sums up to be.

[NghtRppr]

It seems to me that the main difference between "anarcho-capitalism" (non-state capitalism, market anarchism) and "anarcho-socialism" (non-state socialism, anarchism) is that one system allows for the private ownership of capital (means of production) and the other does not.

Within Anarcho-Socialism stealing is OK, scamming is not, within Anarcho-Capitalism scamming is OK, stealing is not.
Is what it sums up to be.

No, fraud is still unacceptable.

People DO care about others. More than they have to. And it's a good thing imho.

I agree, that's a good thing. However, even if you want to help other people, you're still doing that based on your own value scale. You're still trying to achieve your highest goal, even if that goal is helping your neighbor. In that sense we are all selfish.

[BitterTea]

It only took 3% of the population to fight the Revolutionary War and defeat the British Army.  Anyone who believes that theft and violence is incompatible with their beliefs must also be willing to use violence in kind in order to prevent same.  Anyone who believes that violence have never solved anything isn't a student of history.

The means must be compatible with the ends. If I seek a society where aggression is unacceptable, I cannot use aggression to bring change.

That said, my own experiences with anyone who is willing to self-identify as any form of anarchist is anti-this-state, not necessarily anti-state.  The vast majority of whom wouldn't know how to act in a real condition of anarchy, while the majority of the remainder of the population probably would.  The sudden absence of the state is only dangerous because of the kind of people that don't have the will or capacity to govern themselves.

For clarification, are you saying that in general, statists (those who support the institution of States) are better suited to adapting to life without a state than anti-statists (those who abhor the State on moral grounds)?

[BCEmporium]

No, fraud is still unacceptable.

And who will enforce that? I guess "enforce" is the key word here.

[NghtRppr]

No, fraud is still unacceptable.

And who will enforce that? I guess "enforce" is the key word here.

If you obtain my property by fraud, the contract is invalid so it's still my property and I can reobtain it, by force if necessary just as if you stole it outright. Who will use that force? Either me or my agents acting on my behalf.

Let me guess, you think that in order to crack skulls of the guilty we need the state to exist so it can crack skulls of the innocent as well?

[MoonShadow]

It only took 3% of the population to fight the Revolutionary War and defeat the British Army.  Anyone who believes that theft and violence is incompatible with their beliefs must also be willing to use violence in kind in order to prevent same.  Anyone who believes that violence have never solved anything isn't a student of history.

The means must be compatible with the ends. If I seek a society where aggression is unacceptable, I cannot use aggression to bring change.

And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible.  And that, right there, is why I am not an anarchist.  Not because I don't believe that 99.9% of the human race can co-exist in an entirely peaceful manner sans Big Brother, but because the remaining 0.1% will refuse to comply.

That said, my own experiences with anyone who is willing to self-identify as any form of anarchist is anti-this-state, not necessarily anti-state.  The vast majority of whom wouldn't know how to act in a real condition of anarchy, while the majority of the remainder of the population probably would.  The sudden absence of the state is only dangerous because of the kind of people that don't have the will or capacity to govern themselves.

For clarification, are you saying that in general, statists (those who support the institution of States) are better suited to adapting to life without a state than anti-statists (those who abhor the State on moral grounds)?

Yes, exactly.  The reason for this is that the majority of the population are already functioning peacefully in society regardless of the nature of the state; and would, therefore, readily adapt to the absence of the state.  Their own political viewpoints concerning the utility of the state notwithstanding.

[BitterTea]

And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible.  And that, right there, is why I am not an anarchist.  Not because I don't believe that 99.9% of the human race can co-exist in an entirely peaceful manner sans Big Brother, but because the remaining 0.1% will refuse to comply.

You make the assumption that States (monopolies, in a given geographical area, on legitimate aggression) are necessary in order to protect the 99.9% against the 0.1%. I believe this to be an incorrect assumption. If I am correct, I don't need to wipe out the 0.1%, just prove to the 99.% that the assumption is wrong, and show them alternatives that don't require such a large price to be paid for security.

Yes, exactly.  The reason for this is that the majority of the population are already functioning peacefully in society regardless of the nature of the state; and would, therefore, readily adapt to the absence of the state.  Their own political viewpoints concerning the utility of the state notwithstanding.

If this were the case, normal people wouldn't have such a strong negative reaction to the idea of living without government.

[BCEmporium]

No, fraud is still unacceptable.

And who will enforce that? I guess "enforce" is the key word here.

If you obtain my property by fraud, the contract is invalid so it's still my property and I can reobtain it, by force if necessary just as if you stole it outright. Who will use that force? Either me or my agents acting on my behalf.

Let me guess, you think that in order to crack skulls of the guilty we need the state to exist so it can crack skulls of the innocent as well?

You bring your thugs (agents), I bring mine and who wins "is right", that's what such thing means. A gang-style society.
Sorry, it has to be, at the current state, an organized and responsible police force and laws to go along in determine who is or isn't right.

[NghtRppr]

And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible.

Isn't that like saying we should allow rape because there will always be rapists and therefore a rape-free society is impossible?

Sorry, it has to be, at the current state, an organized and responsible police force and laws to go along in determine who is or isn't right.

All states employ taxation which is immoral. All states outlaw some form of drug use which is immoral. Therefore, your system of right and wrong is already broken.

[BCEmporium]

Sorry, it has to be, at the current state, an organized and responsible police force and laws to go along in determine who is or isn't right.

All states employ taxation which is immoral, all states outlaw some form of drug use which is immoral, therefore your system of right and wrong is already broken.

It's not "my system" on the first place, I didn't create it, was already around when I born.
But this is the place to move; set what's right or wrong; not come up with an idea of society nearly caveman-age that would result in thugs and gangs.

[NghtRppr]

Sorry, it has to be, at the current state, an organized and responsible police force and laws to go along in determine who is or isn't right.

All states employ taxation which is immoral, all states outlaw some form of drug use which is immoral, therefore your system of right and wrong is already broken.

It's not "my system" on the first place, I didn't create it, was already around when I born.
But this is the place to move; set what's right or wrong; not come up with an idea of society nearly caveman-age that would result in thugs and gangs.

Our society is already full of thugs and gangs, the police and politicians. Go ask some poor bastard sitting in prison being tortured, locked away from his family, his livelihood taken away from him because he refused to pay taxes or had the audacity to smoke a joint. The difference is that our current system necessarily promotes abuse and injustice. At least we have a fighting chance with anarchism.

[MoonShadow]

And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible.  And that, right there, is why I am not an anarchist.  Not because I don't believe that 99.9% of the human race can co-exist in an entirely peaceful manner sans Big Brother, but because the remaining 0.1% will refuse to comply.

You make the assumption that States (monopolies, in a given geographical area, on legitimate aggression) are necessary in order to protect the 99.9% against the 0.1%. I believe this to be an incorrect assumption. If I am correct, I don't need to wipe out the 0.1%, just prove to the 99.% that the assumption is wrong, and show them alternatives that don't require such a large price to be paid for security.

Well, I use the term "state" a bit more generally than that, but would be open to the evidence that such a non-state society could actually exist, and that a path of change to that end could exist.  I've read much, and seen much, that supporters of such a society have presented; and have yet to see an argument that I couldn't undermine.  And if I can undermine the theory, a sociopath could undermine the reality for fun and profit.

Yes, exactly.  The reason for this is that the majority of the population are already functioning peacefully in society regardless of the nature of the state; and would, therefore, readily adapt to the absence of the state.  Their own political viewpoints concerning the utility of the state notwithstanding.

If this were the case, normal people wouldn't have such a strong negative reaction to the idea of living without government.

This is the case, it's just that very few people realize that it's the case.

[MoonShadow]

And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible.

Isn't that like saying we should allow rape because there will always be rapists and therefore a rape-free society is impossible?

Only if the pro-rapists in the argument were the pacifistic anarchists.

Which, BTW, is pretty much the Brady Campaign's argument against the licensing of firearms for young women; that since rapists exist, the presence of a firearm only increases the odds of death.

To which I would respond, damn right it does.

[BitterTea]

Well, I use the term "state" a bit more generally than that, but would be open to the evidence that such a non-state society could actually exist, and that a path of change to that end could exist.  I've read much, and seen much, that supporters of such a society have presented; and have yet to see an argument that I couldn't undermine.  And if I can undermine the theory, a sociopath could undermine the reality for fun and profit.

Would you mind giving a definition of what you consider a state to be, and why you believe it is necessary in order to (in plain language) protect the good people from the bad people? This seems more fruitful than me guessing which arguments against the state with which you are familiar.

This is the case, it's just that very few people realize that it's the case.

I really don't get what you're saying here. Why do you think that "sheep" (those who think they need the state, but don't) would more readily adapt to life without a state than those who oppose the state?

[NghtRppr]

And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible.

Isn't that like saying we should allow rape because there will always be rapists and therefore a rape-free society is impossible?

Only if the pro-rapists in the argument were the pacifistic anarchists.

Which, BTW, is pretty much the Brady Campaign's argument against the licensing of firearms for young women; that since rapists exist, the presence of a firearm only increases the odds of death.

To which I would respond, damn right it does.

Then your argument is reduced to absurdity. It doesn't matter if there will always be rapists, we should still strive towards a maximally rape-free society, just like we should strive towards a maximally aggression-free society. The fact that neither will ever exist completely is absolutely irrelevant.

By the way, where do you get the idea that anarchists are pacifists? That would imply that we don't see self-defense as legitimate and I haven't met one yet that believes that. We're against aggression, not violence.

[JA37]

Our society is already full of thugs and gangs, the police and politicians. Go ask some poor bastard sitting in prison being tortured, locked away from his family, his livelihood taken away from him because he refused to pay taxes or had the audacity to smoke a joint. The difference is that our current system necessarily promotes abuse and injustice. At least we have a fighting chance with anarchism.

Yeah, "fighting chance" is about right. Have you seen anarchistic societies?
Afghanistan, where the state doesn't have control, which is just about everywhere. Not a good place, but quite close to anarchy.
Iraq, same thing, although a semi-functional state is about to get some control in certain areas.
Somalia, quite a "shitty place" (creightos words form another thread) for a long time, and no state to speak of.
Mexico, in the cartel areas. Not good places to be if you plan for a long and happy life.

Please explain to me how anarchism will prevent such things.
I think I'd rather have a state, governed by rule of law. That said, I don't live in the US so I can't really relate. Where I live you don't go to jail for smoking a joint. Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But atleast there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors".

Oh and the "I agree, that's a good thing. However, even if you want to help other people, you're still doing that based on your own value scale. You're still trying to achieve your highest goal, even if that goal is helping your neighbor. In that sense we are all selfish." from a comment above. That's just mental masturbation and is probably fun if you're around 20 years old. Not anymore. Not for me. It's the equivalent of "Can you prove you're just not a brain in a jar" argument.

[MoonShadow]

Well, I use the term "state" a bit more generally than that, but would be open to the evidence that such a non-state society could actually exist, and that a path of change to that end could exist.  I've read much, and seen much, that supporters of such a society have presented; and have yet to see an argument that I couldn't undermine.  And if I can undermine the theory, a sociopath could undermine the reality for fun and profit.

Would you mind giving a definition of what you consider a state to be, and why you believe it is necessary in order to (in plain language) protect the good people from the bad people? This seems more fruitful than me guessing which arguments against the state with which you are familiar.

By "state" I mean any collection of people that form a collective form of security for themselves, and either offer or force others to contribute resources to that security.  It may, or may not, be based upon geography; and may or may not be coerced.  So I would consider a phyle to be a state, even if citizenship is voluntary and services are not dependent upon a citizen's geographical location.

As for considering it necessary, I don't consider it necessary.  I believe that others will consider it necessary, for protection against threats both real and imagined.

I addressed that comment directly towards the prior post that suggested that an anarchist society consisting of members who were all morally opposed to the use of force could exist.  Basicly, I believe that this is a contradiction, for no other fact than that sociopaths willing to use violence exist; and therefore such a society could never arise in the first place.

This is the case, it's just that very few people realize that it's the case.

I really don't get what you're saying here. Why do you think that "sheep" (those who think they need the state, but don't) would more readily adapt to life without a state than those who oppose the state?

I'm saying that most people are actually indifferent to the state, and very few people are actually dependent upon the state as a matter of practicality.  These people would adapt to the disappearance of the state better than the average statist primarily because the average anarchist is not a threat to a dying state, and therefore will be much better able to stay out of the mad arm of the state.  Also, in part, because most anarchists that I know believe in forming a stateless society rather than simply allow one to evolve naturally, and so (by my own definition above) are really intent upon co-opting the state, not abolishing it.

EDIT:  I ment tht the average statist is not a threat to a dying state

[BCEmporium]

Sorry, it has to be, at the current state, an organized and responsible police force and laws to go along in determine who is or isn't right.

All states employ taxation which is immoral, all states outlaw some form of drug use which is immoral, therefore your system of right and wrong is already broken.

It's not "my system" on the first place, I didn't create it, was already around when I born.
But this is the place to move; set what's right or wrong; not come up with an idea of society nearly caveman-age that would result in thugs and gangs.

Our society is already full of thugs and gangs, the police and politicians. Go ask some poor bastard sitting in prison being tortured, locked away from his family, his livelihood taken away from him because he refused to pay taxes or had the audacity to smoke a joint. The difference is that our current system necessarily promotes abuse and injustice. At least we have a fighting chance with anarchism.

Sorry, drugs have to be illegal otherwise drug dealers would run out of business with a kg of coke to roundabout the price of a kg of sugar.
But that's the realm of corruption, democracy gives you weapons to deal with it by not keep voting in cycles in the same bunch of corrupts.
And by democracy you already get the legitimacy of the majority... which you don't on anarchy, so you would want to impose anarchy on your own over others. Like I said, there's no anarchy and pretty often the anarchists sounds like a group of pure autocratic fascists. Think about it!

[BitterTea]

Yeah, "fighting chance" is about right. Have you seen anarchistic societies?
Afghanistan, where the state doesn't have control, which is just about everywhere. Not a good place, but quite close to anarchy.
Iraq, same thing, although a semi-functional state is about to get some control in certain areas.
Somalia, quite a "shitty place" (creightos words form another thread) for a long time, and no state to speak of.
Mexico, in the cartel areas. Not good places to be if you plan for a long and happy life.

All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.

[NghtRppr]

Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But at least there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors".

No, they just shoot you in the head or lock you in a rape dungeon. That's much better!

By the way, when you go to a loan shark they are up front with you. They say, "We'll loan you this money but if you don't pay up then we'll break your thumbs." If you don't like that deal, don't take it! Are you seriously expecting me to feel sorry for someone that voluntarily enters into an agreement and then is surprised when the other party keeps their word?

Again, at least with a loan shark you can agree to their terms or walk away. With the government there is no option. Pay up or we'll take your stuff. If you try to defend yourself, we'll kill you or beat you into submission and lock you in a rape dungeon. That's somehow better?

Sorry, drugs have to be illegal otherwise drug dealers would run out of business with a kg of coke to roundabout the price of a kg of sugar.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If drugs were legal, they'd be cheap and nobody would be killing each other over them. Do you see people shooting each other in the streets over alcohol? Not anymore but during prohibition they were. Of course, let's not do anything intelligent like drawing a lesson from that.

[BCEmporium]

You got some points btc2cash, like the state to be a "Protection Racket" business... and banks to be sort of loan sharks either.
It's hard to say which came first anyway, if the "state" or the protection rackets, if banks or loan sharks... anyway, one, state, is a civilized (or an attempt to) way of the other 2.
Plus smuggling, assaulting... gosh! Does Rockstar have plans for a GTA White House?

[MoonShadow]

In my experience, most people who call themselves anarchists (which seems preferred to, but interchangeable with,  anarcho-socialist) believe that private ownership of capital should be discouraged through social institutions, or responded to with theft or violence.

Well, there's a big potential difference between "discourage" and "theft and violence". Certainly some (many?) collectivist anarchists would take the latter approach, but many wouldn't and believe that collective workplaces and distribution centres would naturally win out against market-orientated workplaces and shops, so resorting to theft and violence is pointless (as well as being incompatible with their beliefs).

By the way, where do you get the idea that anarchists are pacifists? That would imply that we don't see self-defense as legitimate and I haven't met one yet that believes that. We're against aggression, not violence.

See the quote above yours.  That is what I was responding to.

[JA37]

All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.

Yeah, they're all examples of what happens when a state fails. Special interest groups take over, the most violent ones.
I am however intrigued by the comment "nor is chaos anarchy". Could you please elaborate?

[BitterTea]

Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But at least there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors".

Thought experiment:

A man shows up at your home with a gun and demands money. He says that if you don't give him money, he will kidnap you and lock you in a cell for as long as he wishes. You hold your ground, refusing to comply with his demands. Can he legitimately use violence against you to get his way?

He can if he is an agent of the state.

What happens if you refuse to be kidnapped by the state? They will escalate the use of force until you are dead.

[BitterTea]

All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.

Yeah, they're all examples of what happens when a state fails. Special interest groups take over, the most violent ones.
I am however intrigued by the comment "nor is chaos anarchy". Could you please elaborate?

Chaos is a lack of order. Anarchy is a lack of rulers. There can be order without rulers. Bitcoin is example of order, and rules, without rulers.

I don't want states to fail, I want people to realize that states are not necessary.

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

edit... That's from here

[JA37]

No, they just shoot you in the head or lock you in a rape dungeon. That's much better!

By the way, when you go to a loan shark they are up front with you. They say, "We'll loan you this money but if you don't pay up then we'll break your thumbs." If you don't like that deal, don't take it! Are you seriously expecting me to feel sorry for someone that voluntarily enters into an agreement and then is surprised when the other party keeps their word?

Again, at least with a loan shark you can agree to their terms or walk away. With the government there is no option. Pay up or we'll take your stuff. If you try to defend yourself, we'll kill you or beat you into submission and lock you in a rape dungeon. That's somehow better?

I'm not expecting you to feel sorry for someone in the scenario above. I'm expecting you to be human enough to understand that a contract of that kind isn't valid. Or would you prefer that the state said "Pay your taxes or we'll break your legs"? Where I'm at jail is always the last resort and mainly used to protect society from dangerous people. Tax evaders will have plenty of opportunities to be honorable.

With the government you have the chance of walking away. It's called moving to a different country that better suit your preference. And you have a very romantic view of criminals. Many, if not most, of the debts that they collect are not real debts. They'll approach you, tell you that you somehow owe them this much money and that you have 7 days to pay, or else. Try walking away from that. Atleast when you move from a country they won't tax you in the new country. Hells Angels aren't that picky. They'll collect anywhere.
Oh, and if your country beats you, or puts you in a rape dungeon I suggest you move. We don't have that here. Even our prisons are quite nice, except from the "you are now in jail" bit.

[NghtRppr]

I'm expecting you to be human enough to understand that a contract of that kind isn't valid.

Of course it's valid. All voluntary agreements are valid.

With the government you have the chance of walking away. It's called moving to a different country that better suit your preference.

Here's what David Hume thinks of such an assertion:

Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artizan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves her.

Many, if not most, of the debts that they collect are not real debts.

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

[BCEmporium]

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

Nope... that's just reality. Maybe reality is absurd, but that's another issue.

[BitterTea]

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

Nope... that's just reality. Maybe reality is absurd, but that's another issue.

Do you feel comfortable claiming that it is not possible to protect against extortion without the use extortion?

If no, then you are open to methods of doing so other than using the state.

[JA37]

Thought experiment:
A man shows up at your home with a gun and demands money. He says that if you don't give him money, he will kidnap you and lock you in a cell for as long as he wishes. You hold your ground, refusing to comply with his demands. Can he legitimately use violence against you to get his way?
He can if he is an agent of the state.
What happens if you refuse to be kidnapped by the state? They will escalate the use of force until you are dead.


Chaos is a lack of order. Anarchy is a lack of rulers. There can be order without rulers. Bitcoin is example of order, and rules, without rulers.

I don't want states to fail, I want people to realize that states are not necessary.

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

edit... That's from here

Your thought experiment implies that there is no real debt to be settled. If so, then no, he can't, not even if he's an agent of the state.
If there is a debt, meaning that you have used any of the state provided commodities, such as roads, money, police protection, fire protection, education... the list goes on, then yes, he can, if you by violence means that he'll drag you through the legal system where you will have several opportunities to explain yourself and then subject yourself to the ruling, whatever that might be. You don't get that chance with criminals, and they change the rules mid game.

Thanks for the explaination about chaos and anarchy. And I agree that there can be order/rules without rulers, in very small and well defined areas, such as bitcoin. Computers are very good at enforcing rules. So, how does that work in a society? Who'll do the enforcing there?

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[JA37]

Of course it's valid. All voluntary agreements are valid.

Here's what David Hume thinks of such an assertion:

Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artizan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves her.

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid.  Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.

[NghtRppr]

So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid.  Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?

Yes, I think it should be honored. There's a difference between going on board a ship voluntarily and being kidnapped and carried on board, just like there is a difference between voluntarily immigrating to a country and being born there. The former implies consent to the laws of the land while the latter does not, even if you remain there instead of moving. That's the extent to which that analogy is relevant. Don't read more into it than that.

If I don't offer the guy the deal, his family starves anyways. Somehow by giving him the means to save them I'm harming him?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.

So, if the cable company starts sending you a bill even though you didn't request their services and don't intend to use them, you're going to pay it? Also, money can exist privately without government. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange and stored value longer than fiat currency. I feel sorry for people that can't even conceive of a system not based on aggression and coercion. The fact we're on the Bitcoin forums where you make the claim that money only has value because of the government is very ironic.

[BitterTea]

So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid.  Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?

Yes. Here are his options...

Accept Deal: Peasant dies, family lives
Reject deal: Peasant dies, family dies

What's the problem? Nobody if forcing the peasant to accept your deal, but it's the only option that makes sense.

I feel like you're appealing to emotion because you can't make a logical argument against voluntary contracts.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.

Are you arguing than an individual can accrue debts for the provision of services of which they never consented?

[NghtRppr]

Are you arguing than an individual can accrue debts for the provision of services of which they never consented?

If he is then I'll be sending him my bill for "B2C's house waving service" whereby I drive by his house, wave at it and he owes me a million dollars.

[wb3]

There is a principle that piling on debt to a debtor, it will become the lenders fault not the debtors. Due diligence, mitigate damages, etc...

You must not lend more than you are willing to forgive. If the loan and/or contract is written correctly it will hurt the debtor as much as the creditor.

Credit Card companies don't get any sympathy from me, because they use a trick of math to keep people in debt. They use statistical behavior models to determine payment schedules.  They go into the contract fully aware that they don't expect people to pay their bills in whole at the end of the month. They even punish those who do, by adding a surcharge for paperwork processing.

[JA37]

Yes, I think it should be honored. There's a difference between going on board a ship voluntarily and being kidnapped and carried on board, just like there is a difference between voluntarily immigrating to a country and being born there. The former implies consent to the laws of the land while the latter does not, even if you remain there instead of moving. That's the extent to which that analogy is relevant. Don't read more into it than that.

If I don't offer the guy the deal, his family starves anyways. Somehow by giving him the means to save them I'm harming him?

So, if the cable company starts sending you a bill even though you didn't request their services and don't intend to use them, you're going to pay it? Also, money can exist privately without government. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange and stored value longer than fiat currency. I feel sorry for people that can't even conceive of a system not based on aggression and coercion. The fact we're on the Bitcoin forums where you make the claim that money only has value because of the government is very ironic.

You're exploiting the situatioin and his misfortune. There's only one option he can take and you know it too. It's not a free choice, it's coersion.

If I live in a house that had cable before I moved in, and I knew that when I moved in, I can't really refuse to pay, can I? Regardless if I use it or not.
Yes, money can exist without government, I agree to that. I'm saying that the money that you claim as yours (fiat money) has value because of the government and the taxes that they take. That money is guaranteed to have some value by the government. Where I'm at the inflation target is about 2%, so I have reason to assume that the value won't drop by much more than that. And that inflation gives me incentive to invest my money in business that pays more.
I like the technical merits of bitcoin although I'm not quite sure what it's useful for, and I also recognize that it is VERY high risk. There is nothing backing bitcoin.

[NghtRppr]

You're exploiting the situatioin and his misfortune. There's only one option he can take and you know it too. It's not a free choice, it's coersion.

So, you're saying that it's alright if I let him and his family starve but it's not alright to make him an offer whereby he is able to save his family? That really makes no sense to me.

If I live in a house that had cable before I moved in, and I knew that when I moved in, I can't really refuse to pay, can I? Regardless if I use it or not.

I don't see how this is analogous to my situation. Are you saying that before I exited my mother's birth canal I knew that I was going to be subject to taxes and therefore I shouldn't have been born if I didn't agree to it? That's plainly false. I'm not some guy moving into a house. I'm a guy kidnapped and taken on board a ship while asleep.

[JA37]

So, you're saying that it's alright if I let him and his family starve but it's not alright to make him an offer whereby he is able to save his family? That really makes no sense to me.

I don't see how this is analogous to my situation. Are you saying that before I exited my mother's birth canal I knew that I was going to be subject to taxes and therefore I shouldn't have been born if I didn't agree to it? That's plainly false. I'm not some guy moving into a house. I'm a guy kidnapped and taken on board a ship while asleep.

No, I'm not saying that it's alright to let him starve. Far from it, if you have the means to prevent it. But exploiting is something else than indifference.

Again, I don't live where you live, but where I'm at you don't start paying taxes until you start earning money over a certain threshold. That usually doesn't happen until you get a full time job, which is after mandatory school. So you're at least 16 when you get your first chance of paying taxes.
You've been living in the "house" for at least 16 years. If you don't like the bills that will come you know what to do.

[BitterTea]

No, I'm not saying that it's alright to let him starve. Far from it, if you have the means to prevent it. But exploiting is something else than indifference.

If I refuse to help him, is it acceptable if he or someone else holds a gun to my head until I agree to help him?

Again, I don't live where you live, but where I'm at you don't start paying taxes until you start earning money over a certain threshold. That usually doesn't happen until you get a full time job, which is after mandatory school. So you're at least 16 when you get your first chance of paying taxes.
You've been living in the "house" for at least 16 years. If you don't like the bills that will come you know what to do.

Ah, except my parents were forced to send me to state run education, where I was told over and over again that government was good. It wasn't until much later that I was able to come to the realization on my own, that it is not.

[NghtRppr]

No, I'm not saying that it's alright to let him starve. Far from it, if you have the means to prevent it.

Then why would anybody bother to work when people like you will clothe and feed them? I'm sorry but I don't owe anyone anything like that. If you want to survive, do it yourself.

You've been living in the "house" for at least 16 years. If you don't like the bills that will come you know what to do.

Ignore them? Jump in the ocean and drown? By the way, my bill to you is in the mail. If you keep living in your house then I'll assume you agree that it's legitimate.

[benjamindees]

Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?

[BCEmporium]

This is somewhat funny to discuss anarchy rules.  

Well... I'm on the safe side anyway, almost 2 mts tall, military training... just tip me of before you go on that "lack of state model" so I can gather the guys to run a protection racket (you don't want nothing bad to happen to you, do you?).  

«I'm calling 911»... go for it... you dismissed the police, so what good will that do?  

Then you can talk about not paying taxes to the government... as long as you pay them for me, be my guests... and if you don't I'll send Toni. Toni is a bit... retarded and slow, but has quite a good aim and can break bones with his bare hands. Handy guy!  

And it could even be the first protection racket running on bitcoins

[benjamindees]

Based on your English and the fact that you know a man named Toni, I'm guessing your military training was something like this.

[BCEmporium]

Based on your English and the fact that you know a man named Toni, I'm guessing your military training was something like this.

Sergei! Quite a Tovarichtch! 

[NghtRppr]

you dismissed the police, so what good will that do?

Where would you rather spend the night, in a public park or Disney World? In a public park you are protected by the police but at Disney World you are protected by security guards. Somehow, I think I would feel safer at Disney World, especially once it gets dark.

[BCEmporium]

you dismissed the police, so what good will that do?

Where would you rather spend the night, in a public park or Disney World? In a public park you are protected by the police but at Disney World you are protected by security guards. Somehow, I think I would feel safer at Disney World, especially once it gets dark.

I do believe however that's due to DW security to has to do its job to get paid, whereas police force will paid anyway; if they actually do the dirty job or just pass parking tickets.

[NghtRppr]

you dismissed the police, so what good will that do?

Where would you rather spend the night, in a public park or Disney World? In a public park you are protected by the police but at Disney World you are protected by security guards. Somehow, I think I would feel safer at Disney World, especially once it gets dark.

I do believe however that's due to DW security to has to do its job to get paid, whereas police force will paid anyway; if they actually do the dirty job or just pass parking tickets.

Ding, ding. We have a winner.

Competition good! Monopolies bad!

That's just my unfrozen caveman lawyer interpretation of it though.

[BCEmporium]

Not quite.
Without regulation you can get cartels. And taken you're talking about those who bears the force in the society it could be a very good business and outcome. In fact police acts as concurrence on those grounds too, it works to say to private muscles if they get too pushy there's always an alternative to deal with them.

[wb3]

Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?

I guess he really believes in the idea. Pay other peoples bills. I would be surprise if the old tenant is getting free cable from the generosity of the bill payer.

Can I send you my bills? Cable=$106, Power=$400, Phone=$50 ?  I will take BitCoin.

[JA37]

If I refuse to help him, is it acceptable if he or someone else holds a gun to my head until I agree to help him?

Ah, except my parents were forced to send me to state run education, where I was told over and over again that government was good. It wasn't until much later that I was able to come to the realization on my own, that it is not.

I don't understand the fetish for guns, but as a general rule no. If however the village you live in and enjoys the benefits from together decides in a democratic fashion to collectivly help the unfortunate person, and you refuse, then yes, I do believe that they have the right to use certain means to make you pay.

Perhaps your parents believed that it was a good deal and wanted you to share their values. That's what parents do.

[JA37]

Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?

No, I'm saying that if you move to a house where cable is a part of the rent, and you knew this moving in, you can't really complain.

[­­­Atlas_]

If I refuse to help him, is it acceptable if he or someone else holds a gun to my head until I agree to help him?

Ah, except my parents were forced to send me to state run education, where I was told over and over again that government was good. It wasn't until much later that I was able to come to the realization on my own, that it is not.

I don't understand the fetish for guns, but as a general rule no. If however the village you live in and enjoys the benefits from together decides in a democratic fashion to collectivly help the unfortunate person, and you refuse, then yes, I do believe that they have the right to use certain means to make you pay.

Perhaps your parents believed that it was a good deal and wanted you to share their values. That's what parents do.

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature and we all have to decide what we are going to do tonight. I want to watch Republican Party Reservation. They want to fuck me with switchblades and sexual organs I never knew existed. So I vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck me with switchblades. People have the right to do this?

[­­­Atlas_]

Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?

No, I'm saying that if you move to a house where cable is a part of the rent, and you knew this moving in, you can't really complain.

You mean "move" as in "forced out of your mother's womb" into a reality with rules you never agreed to?

[kiba]

You mean "move" as in "forced out of your mother's womb" into a reality with rules you never agreed to?

Technically, you can't disagree or agree with anything when you're born.

[JA37]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature and we all have to decide what we are going to do tonight. I want to watch Republican Party Reservation. They want to fuck me with switchblades and sexual organs I never knew existed. So I vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck me with switchblades. People have the right to do this?

No. You can't put a rape to a vote. Don't be silly.

[JA37]

You mean "move" as in "forced out of your mother's womb" into a reality with rules you never agreed to?

Like I stated above. You had at least 16 years to figure out the rules, probably more. Counted from the time you were "forced out of your mothers womb".

[­­­Atlas_]

...but my property/money can be put up for vote?

[wb3]

Wait so your house had cable hooked up when you moved in so you just kept paying the bill?

No, I'm saying that if you move to a house where cable is a part of the rent, and you knew this moving in, you can't really complain.

Oh, I see. That make more sense. As part of the rent.  But that cuts both ways, some leases include heating, electricity, etc... If you have a six month or year lease and power rates go up, the landlord is stuck with the difference. You have a lease, but it will go up on the next signing.

My niece, living up north had a good deal. She was paying $450/month. But her apartment was above a pizza parlor. She pain next to nothing in heating, and going for a pizza was a snap.

[JA37]

Yes, in certain cases. Obviously the example was simplified, and it doesn't happen like that in real life.
I'm going to assume that you've had enough schooling to know how laws comes into form.

[wb3]

Yes, in certain cases. Obviously the example was simplified, and it doesn't happen like that in real life.
I'm going to assume that you've had enough schooling to know how laws comes into form.

There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.

Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws?  Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.

Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.

No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.

[benjamindees]

Don't forget Maritime/Admiralty Law, Equity Law, Commercial Law, Contract Law, Employment Law, Civil Law, Natural Law, and Family Law.

[MoonShadow]

And merchant law.

[BCEmporium]

...and the laws of physics... 

[JA37]

There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.

Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws?  Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.

Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.

No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.

Yes, please try to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm sure we're all helped by that.
Why not try to define what "is" is while we're at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[wb3]

There isn't anyone educated enough to answer that one.

Which Laws, the Common Laws, the Local Laws, the State Laws, the Federal Laws, and now the International Laws?  Each with their own flavor of birth to adulthood to the final adoption. And then to the exceptions granted, backdown to where no one listens to them anyway.

Or the Laws that are interpreted differently by every judge as it works its way to the Supreme Court, which will later overrule its own decisions depending on the popularity.

No, I most definitely have not had enough "education" on that system.

Yes, please try to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm sure we're all helped by that.
Why not try to define what "is" is while we're at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

No problem,

It is what it is   

[benjamindees]

And Brannigan's Law.

[NghtRppr]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature and we all have to decide what we are going to do tonight. I want to watch Republican Party Reservation. They want to fuck me with switchblades and sexual organs I never knew existed. So I vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck me with switchblades. People have the right to do this?

No. You can't put a rape to a vote. Don't be silly.

Why not? You are agreeing to put theft to a vote. Please come up with some sort of principled argument instead of ad hoc assertions. Why is one immoral act up for vote but not another?

[BCEmporium]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature...

No need to say more! Bough! Just tell me where is that village and I'm moving! 

[rezin777]

Okay, let's say I live in a democratic village full of sinners, whores and other freaks of nature...

No need to say more! Bough! Just tell me where is that village and I'm moving! 

I'll pay for gas on the way!   

[wb3]

Vegas ...  Here we come....


Viva Los Vegas....

[JA37]

Why not? You are agreeing to put theft to a vote. Please come up with some sort of principled argument instead of ad hoc assertions. Why is one immoral act up for vote but not another?

Except that it isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered.

I quite enjoy Article 3 of the UN declaration of human rights.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

[bittersweet]

Except that it isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered.

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

[JA37]

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

[Gluskab]

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

The citizens of a country cannot confer a right to their government that an individual citizen does not have themselves.  If an ordinary individual walked through a suburb at night, washed everyone’s cars, and left a bill attached to the windshield, would the owners of the cars be obligated to pay the charges billed?  As there was no meeting of the minds here, there is no contract and no obligation to pay for services rendered; and since no individual has the right to force these bills upon any other individual, individuals who have costumes and work for the government are under no exception.

One final effort at claiming you need taxes to have a functioning society is that there are certain activities which have positive externalities.  The argument is that if someone benefits from something without paying for it, they're a thief.  The most common example provided is usually either education or parks, but if you take this argument to its logical endpoint, you can see it doesn't hold up.  For example, the people I interact with on a day to day basis benefit from the fact that I shower every morning, but would I be able to lay a claim on those people since they received a benefit from something I provided?  Benefit does not equate debt, and you cannot force a service or good upon someone and force them to pay you what you tell them it is worth.

You cannot steal from someone, tell them they're better off because of it, and claim legitimacy because you can see a benefit to the 'service' you provided.  It's also ridiculous to say someone gives consent by using services that a.) are paid for with money stolen from them and b.) have no viable alternative because government granted themselves a monopoly.  Once money is stolen, it lies in a state of nature, and no one should be begrudged for trying to take back what little portion they will be able to get of what was wrongfully taken from them in the first place.

[The Script]

If I will rape you and then provide you some services in return it will be OK? Maybe I like to get payment in sex.

Services can't be involuntary. No, it's not theft. But it's a robbery or extortion.

I even made the relevant part bold in the answer above. "...security of person." Is rape compatible with that?
Agreed, services can't be involuntary, but if you benefit from them you should pay for them. And using services is the same as giving your consent, and in democratic societies you also agree to pay for services that benefits the society, if that's what the vote sais. If you stop using each and every service that the state provides to you, and get this accepted by the majority in your society, then you can stop paying taxes. IMHO.

The citizens of a country cannot confer a right to their government that an individual citizen does not have themselves.  If an ordinary individual walked through a suburb at night, washed everyone’s cars, and left a bill attached to the windshield, would the owners of the cars be obligated to pay the charges billed?  As there was no meeting of the minds here, there is no contract and no obligation to pay for services rendered; and since no individual has the right to force these bills upon any other individual, individuals who have costumes and work for the government are under no exception.

One final effort at claiming you need taxes to have a functioning society is that there are certain activities which have positive externalities.  The argument is that if someone benefits from something without paying for it, they're a thief.  The most common example provided is usually either education or parks, but if you take this argument to its logical endpoint, you can see it doesn't hold up.  For example, the people I interact with on a day to day basis benefit from the fact that I shower every morning, but would I be able to lay a claim on those people since they received a benefit from something I provided?  Benefit does not equate debt, and you cannot force a service or good upon someone and force them to pay you what you tell them it is worth.

You cannot steal from someone, tell them they're better off because of it, and claim legitimacy because you can see a benefit to the 'service' you provided.  It's also ridiculous to say someone gives consent by using services that a.) are paid for with money stolen from them and b.) have no viable alternative because government granted themselves a monopoly.  Once money is stolen, it lies in a state of nature, and no one should be begrudged for trying to take back what little portion they will be able to get of what was wrongfully taken from them in the first place.

I was just debating this with a friend the other day.  I was criticizing government and advocating abstention from the political process rather than trying to change it from within.  My friend accused me of being a hypocrite because I am currently working at a University to pay my way through Grad School, and thus am the beneficiary of government grants.  I can see his point, but at the same time there's not much choice for education with the virtual government monopoly on higher education, and as you stated, if it's stolen money is it really wrong to try to get it back? 

I certainly don't plan on making a career out of government leeching, however.  I plan on finding employment in the private sector, and hopefully at some point will be able to start my own company or consulting firm.

[BCEmporium]

Well, if you put to concept "leeching government's money" is what "Anarcho-Socialists" are dreaming of.

If you remove the crap, and scratch it well, out of anarchists you come to realize they're as different as water from wine by whatever is in front of the hyphen.

Anarcho-Capitalists:

The ones that believe on the worth of working. However they tend to overrate their own work and underrate others'.
They go pretty well with rules, actually, as long as they are the ones dictating it there is.
Have a somewhat obnoxious point of view on the humanity levels also, as they would do anything to not aid anyone (even if the poor bastard has no arms and legs).

Anarcho-Socialists:

The good for nothing folks waiting and wanting to live at someone else's expenses. Just a bunch of social leeches. They dream of a society where they can pick whatever they want for free... nothing else.
They don't get along with rules, as they just follow what suits them and such "as we go" rules keeps changing.
Have however a better humanity level, would aid anyone (or ask/force someone else - more likely - to aid someone in need).

[BitterTea]

Well, if you put to concept "leeching government's money" is what "Anarcho-Socialists" are dreaming of.

If you remove the crap, and scratch it well, out of anarchists you come to realize they're as different as water from wine by whatever is in front of the hyphen.

Anarcho-Capitalists:

The ones that believe on the worth of working. However they tend to overrate their own work and underrate others'.
They go pretty well with rules, actually, as long as they are the ones dictating it there is.
Have a somewhat obnoxious point of view on the humanity levels also, as they would do anything to not aid anyone (even if the poor bastard has no arms and legs).

Anarcho-Socialists:

The good for nothing folks waiting and wanting to live at someone else's expenses. Just a bunch of social leeches. They dream of a society where they can pick whatever they want for free... nothing else.
They don't get along with rules, as they just follow what suits them and such "as we go" rules keeps changing.
Have however a better humanity level, would aid anyone (or ask/force someone else - more likely - to aid someone in need).

Who needs facts or logic when you have grand generalizations?!

[BCEmporium]

Who needs facts or logic when you have grand generalizations?!

Just talk about "logic" in anarchy is already a joke, pushing it further is... ridiculous. Nothing else!

Then the usual "modern line insults. Guess what, most of people in France speaks French. Wow! Another generalization! Take generalization for wrong is as illogical as it is to believe it always work. Anyway when you're talking about a HUGE load of individuals you need to go on generalizations, it would painfully senseless to go by individual by individual; as generalization is just what the majority want or do... and the majority will always prevail.

[BitterTea]

Just talk about "logic" in anarchy is already a joke, pushing it further is... ridiculous. Nothing else!

Again, your lips are moving and you're making noises, but you're not actually saying anything.

Why is it a joke to talk about logic and anarchism together? Does the idea of not having rulers frighten you?

[BCEmporium]

Again, your lips are moving and you're making noises, but you're not actually saying anything.

Why is it a joke to talk about logic and anarchism together? Does the idea of not having rulers frighten you?

Anarchy is illogical on any social animal, even wolves have group leaders... accept or think for a second as anarchy being anything close to viable is to deny the entire nature of the human species.
We all have a bit of anarchist, is true, we dream to can do whatever we want without bother with social rules, other folks and so on... but that's just a wish as good as to gain wings and fly (by own means, not using devices to fly). No more than a wish...

[BitterTea]

Anarchy is illogical on any social animal, even wolves have group leaders... accept or think for a second as anarchy being anything close to viable is to deny the entire nature of the human species.
We all have a bit of anarchist, is true, we dream to can do whatever we want without bother with social rules, other folks and so on... but that's just a wish as good as to gain wings and fly (by own means, not using devices to fly). No more than a wish...

A state is an entity which is granted a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggression in a geographical area. That means that the state is the only entity which is allowed to initiate the use of force. All I'm saying is that having such a monopoly is detrimental. You're saying that is the nature of human beings? That's fucking pathetic, and I disagree.

Anyway, you still haven't given anything other than emotional reasons that anarchism is undesirable. How about some logic up in this bitch? By the way, using logic to prove a point is not the same as stating that something is illogical. You have to show it to be true.

[BCEmporium]

"Aggression"... listen to you folks and it looks like the State is up to beat anybody at will or for pleasure!
Depends on what you consider "aggression", and if you take it by being forced to pay taxes or to drive by the right side of the road I don't see much aggression on such. You'll always be targeted by "aggression", if not by the state - or even when not by the state - by your relatives, by your friends and by all of those who will bend you on decisions you wouldn't want to take on the first place.
Being a social animal has this burden. If you're not ok with it, you can commit suicide, if you believe on Hinduism or Buddhism, and maybe on the next life you can come as any other sort of more lonely animal.

And this isn't "emotional", this is "rational". Emotional is the wish for some "Anarchy" - under rational analysis, it renders mostly by my previous generalization.

[Gluskab]

Yes, families, government, bad friends, and any other person or group of people who burden you with unchosen, positive obligations are using coercion, at best, to manipulate you.  Government is a symptom of bad parenting and other abuse against individuals.  People's experience early in life with authoritarian figures who don't listen to their preferences is what sets them up to not be able to see the violence the state implies with every dictate.

The beauty, for the state, is that they rarely need to actually use physical force; they can count on the groans and dirty looks to quell any serious conversation regarding the state in most social settings and can count on the vast majority to be apologists for government force and never question the nature of the organization that intrudes into their lives an increasing amount on a daily basis.

Ruling people based on horizontal pressure and giving them enough freedom to make them productive is the reason current states became as large as they are.  It is almost something that could be admired, in a perverse way; but those freedoms are not for the good of the citizen, much as the food in the trough is not for the good of the cow.

Keeping an unruly cow chained up is much cheaper when you can get the other cows to box him in.

[BCEmporium]

and never question the nature of the organization that intrudes into their lives an increasing amount on a daily basis.

Oh yes they do. However you can have two choices there; a practical one, as the state will not vanish, is to demand less intrusion or set limits to intrusion, demand to be listen and to be part of the State. The alternative is to dream in a World where no Governments exists and suddenly out of the blue everybody is a Tibetan Monk up to oppose violence and generate self-contention...

[Gluskab]

and never question the nature of the organization that intrudes into their lives an increasing amount on a daily basis.

Oh yes they do. However you can have two choices there; a practical one, as the state will not vanish, is to demand less intrusion or set limits to intrusion, demand to be listen and to be part of the State. The alternative is to dream in a World where no Governments exists and suddenly out of the blue everybody is a Tibetan Monk up to oppose violence and generate self-contention...

The state will vanish when people no longer see a need for it.  Once enough people realize that violence is not a good way to solve complex social problems and that voluntary solutions inevitably lead to better results, the state will disappear overnight.  The only way to accomplish that is through education and proof-of-concepts that certain functions (held in the collective zeitgeist as necessary for the government to provide) can be provided voluntarily.

Joining the government to try to shrink the government just leads to:
http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=17630&thumb=1&d=1262222109

[BitterTea]

"Aggression"... listen to you folks and it looks like the State is up to beat anybody at will or for pleasure!

You have yet, in my opinion, to actually respond to anything I've said.

First, let's define aggression. I consider aggression to be the initiation of the use of force. Only the first entity to use force in a situation is the aggressor, responding to force with force is self defense.

So, is "not paying taxes" an act of aggression? I would say no.

Is putting someone in jail for not paying taxes an act of aggression? Yes.

Is using force to defend yourself from being put in jail an act of aggression? No.

When you're killed for defending yourself against aggression, is that an act of aggression. Yes.

[Gluskab]

Also remember that jail, taxes, and murder are only differences in degree, not in kind.

[BCEmporium]

So, is "not paying taxes" an act of aggression? I would say no.

Is putting someone in jail for not paying taxes an act of aggression? Yes.

Do you benefit from taxes? Yes... you use roads, clean streets, public parks, public services... so either you want to live in a cave, or you've to pay for the commodity. If you're not happy with it, you can either stop to use all civilization benefits or suffer the consequences of being using it for free.
Not paying taxes is primarily an aggression towards the community.

Gluskab... just can say one thing to that; keep dreaming. The only "voluntaries" you would get will be to take a nap under a tree.

[JA37]

A state is an entity which is granted a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggression in a geographical area.

Right. So who would you like to have the legal use of agression in your area?

[NghtRppr]

Why not? You are agreeing to put theft to a vote. Please come up with some sort of principled argument instead of ad hoc assertions. Why is one immoral act up for vote but not another?

Except that it isn't theft. Its payment for services rendered.

I quite enjoy Article 3 of the UN declaration of human rights.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Article 17.

    * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

What could be more arbitrary than mob rule? By the way, you keep ignoring my bill for services rendered of my "house waving service". I've been by your house several times and waved at it therefore you owe me a million dollars. You've had plenty of time to move so you obviously want my services according to your logic. What gives? Please show me how you intend to weasel out of this bill.

So, is "not paying taxes" an act of aggression? I would say no.

Is putting someone in jail for not paying taxes an act of aggression? Yes.

Do you benefit from taxes? Yes... you use roads, clean streets, public parks, public services... so either you want to live in a cave, or you've to pay for the commodity. If you're not happy with it, you can either stop to use all civilization benefits or suffer the consequences of being using it for free.
Not paying taxes is primarily an aggression towards the community.

Gluskab... just can say one thing to that; keep dreaming. The only "voluntaries" you would get will be to take a nap under a tree.

If you don't like my house waving service, stop using it. Oh that's right, I don't allow you to cancel my services, too bad.

A state is an entity which is granted a monopoly on the legitimate use of aggression in a geographical area.

Right. So who would you like to have the legal use of agression in your area?

Brinks. ADT. Any number of private security firms.

[MoonShadow]

The state will vanish when people no longer see a need for it.  Once enough people realize that violence is not a good way to solve complex social problems and that voluntary solutions inevitably lead to better results, the state will disappear overnight.  The only way to accomplish that is through education and proof-of-concepts that certain functions (held in the collective zeitgeist as necessary for the government to provide) can be provided voluntarily.

I agree with this statement on principle, but this is exactly why I consider anarchy an unsustainable political condition.  Even if you could convince the majority of the people that they do not need the state, which is already true in reality; the need for the collective use of force will shortly present itself again due to the minority of sociopaths that will take advantage of the absence of a state.  Nor are the odds that an anarcy will beget a peaceful republic particularly favorable, as the vast majority of anarchies result in a more authoritarian state rising up to gain control.

Personally, I don't consider the possible gains worth the risk.  At least not until there is some place to escape towards.  And if there were, those who seek freedom would desire to move to the escape society in order to experience freedom in their own lifetimes; rather than work within their own society for the future chance at freedom.  This is why we have seen so much immigration towards Western societies over the past 30 years.

[JA37]

... the need for the collective use of force will shortly present itself again due to the minority of sociopaths that will take advantage of the absence of a state.  Nor are the odds that an anarcy will beget a peaceful republic particularly favorable, as the vast majority of anarchies result in a more authoritarian state rising up to gain control.

Personally, I don't consider the possible gains worth the risk.  At least not until there is some place to escape towards.  And if there were, those who seek freedom would desire to move to the escape society in order to experience freedom in their own lifetimes; rather than work within their own society for the future chance at freedom.  This is why we have seen so much immigration towards Western societies over the past 30 years.

My point exactly. We're in agreement about something. Isn't it great? 

[NghtRppr]

Even if you could convince the majority of the people that they do not need the state, which is already true in reality; the need for the collective use of force will shortly present itself again due to the minority of sociopaths that will take advantage of the absence of a state.

Collective self-defense is not the same as a state. You clearly don't understand anarchism. You think it amounts to pacificism. It does not.

[Gluskab]

The state will vanish when people no longer see a need for it.  Once enough people realize that violence is not a good way to solve complex social problems and that voluntary solutions inevitably lead to better results, the state will disappear overnight.  The only way to accomplish that is through education and proof-of-concepts that certain functions (held in the collective zeitgeist as necessary for the government to provide) can be provided voluntarily.

I agree with this statement on principle, but this is exactly why I consider anarchy an unsustainable political condition.  Even if you could convince the majority of the people that they do not need the state, which is already true in reality; the need for the collective use of force will shortly present itself again due to the minority of sociopaths that will take advantage of the absence of a state.  Nor are the odds that an anarcy will beget a peaceful republic particularly favorable, as the vast majority of anarchies result in a more authoritarian state rising up to gain control.

Personally, I don't consider the possible gains worth the risk.  At least not until there is some place to escape towards.  And if there were, those who seek freedom would desire to move to the escape society in order to experience freedom in their own lifetimes; rather than work within their own society for the future chance at freedom.  This is why we have seen so much immigration towards Western societies over the past 30 years.

Sociopaths face far fewer obstacles now than they would in a stateless society with competing measures of defense.  Positions of power also tend to foster sociopathic behaviors in well-intentioned people.

[Gluskab]

BCEmporium:  If you're going to just continue saying you don't want to see a world where you don't have the chance of enforcing your opinion at the point of a gun, there is no further conversation.

[Gluskab]

Even if you could convince the majority of the people that they do not need the state, which is already true in reality; the need for the collective use of force will shortly present itself again due to the minority of sociopaths that will take advantage of the absence of a state.

Collective self-defense is not the same as a state. You clearly don't understand anarchism. You think it amounts to pacificism. It does not.

This.  Voluntary and peaceful does not mean you let people run you over.  That's more the mentality of a statist serf.

[BCEmporium]

BCEmporium:  If you're going to just continue saying you don't want to see a world where you don't have the chance of enforcing your opinion at the point of a gun, there is no further conversation.

"Enforcing your opinion at the point of a gun" is what this statement of yours is.
You see... you tend to not look in a mirror, and blame on others to be doing exactly the same sort of s*** you're up or already doing yourself.

[NghtRppr]

Sociopaths face far fewer obstacles now than they would in a stateless society with competing measures of defense.  Positions of power also tend to foster sociopathic behaviors in well-intentioned people.

Exactly. If we concentrate all the authority into the hands of a few people it makes it easier for the sociopaths to gain control of it and do that much more damage. Whereas, under anarchism, they would be limited in the amount of damage they could do by using their own resources or those they could grab from others.

[wb3]

Sociopaths face far fewer obstacles now than they would in a stateless society with competing measures of defense.  Positions of power also tend to foster sociopathic behaviors in well-intentioned people.

Competing measures of defense

What is that?  You mean different people will group together to protect themselves. Like forming Law Enforcement based on the groups ideals. And then forming a military, to protect from outside forces that are against the group.

Sounds like the "Stateless Society" is forming a State with its own rules.

From your point of view; Please define: Sociopathic Behavior

[JA37]

Article 17.

    * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

What could be more arbitrary than mob rule? By the way, you keep ignoring my bill for services rendered of my "house waving service". I've been by your house several times and waved at it therefore you owe me a million dollars. You've had plenty of time to move so you obviously want my services according to your logic. What gives? Please show me how you intend to weasel out of this bill.

If you don't like my house waving service, stop using it. Oh that's right, I don't allow you to cancel my services, too bad.


Brinks. ADT. Any number of private security firms.

What you call mob rule is what I call democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it beats every other system out there right now. Including anarchy.
Your example with your "house waving" service is hilarious but not really intellectually honest. You know, as well as I do, that the services that is provided to you are democratically decided and applies to everyone, no specific individual. So if you can get support from enough people in your community that certain house types should be waved to by... ah screw it. It's too silly. Why bother.

So basically you suggest that anyone should be allowed to initiate violence? Sounds like fun. Well, not really.

[Gluskab]

BCEmporium:  If you're going to just continue saying you don't want to see a world where you don't have the chance of enforcing your opinion at the point of a gun, there is no further conversation.

"Enforcing your opinion at the point of a gun" is what this statement of yours is.
You see... you tend to not look in a mirror, and blame on others to be doing exactly the same sort of s*** you're up or already doing yourself.

Just because you fail to see the implicit gun in the ideas you are implementing does not mean it doesn't exist.  At some point, you either have to say you are willing to take from me what you wish with force or you have to walk away and let me live my own life as long as I don't infringe upon yours.  My ideas carry no such edict.

[Gluskab]

Sociopaths face far fewer obstacles now than they would in a stateless society with competing measures of defense.  Positions of power also tend to foster sociopathic behaviors in well-intentioned people.

Competing measures of defense

What is that?  You mean different people will group together to protect themselves. Like forming Law Enforcement based on the groups ideals. And then forming a military, to protect from outside forces that are against the group.

Sounds like the "Stateless Society" is forming a State with its own rules.

From your point of view; Please define: Sociopathic Behavior

A standing military is only profitable when you can force others to pay for it through force.

It takes literally 100s of times more money to successfully attack a country in this day and age than it does to defend one.

There is no incentive to attack an anarchist 'country' both for the reasons above and for the reason that unless those people respond to whoever they are told is 'in charge,' a country can never be conquered.

[BCEmporium]

Gluskab,

Egocentric... normal for an anarchist. "Me", "you", "me", "you"... as if you were the center of the universe or if I was taking anything from you; by force or other means...
Stop with that egocentric God-like bs! When we talk about the State we talk about millions and none in particular, not you, not me, not your neighbor and not your dog.
I simply put it to the practical terms. If you rather live in a society where you pack a 6 shooter on the belt, go look for one. I never liked Westerns other than Bud Spencer ones.

[NghtRppr]

What you call mob rule is what I call democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it beats every other system out there right now. Including anarchy.

I'm glad you have a different label for mob rule. That makes it completely different! Though, beats it out how? It clearly isn't more moral. Maybe you mean that it's more practical? Ah, but slavery was practical too so practicality is not an argument for doing anything.

Your example with your "house waving" service is hilarious but not really intellectually honest. You know, as well as I do, that the services that is provided to you are democratically decided and applies to everyone, no specific individual. So if you can get support from enough people in your community that certain house types should be waved to by... ah screw it. It's too silly. Why bother.

Oh no, you almost made the mistake of following your logic to its absurd conclusion. Don't do that!

If everyone votes that my house waving service is legitimate then guess what, you're screwed. If you don't like it, move. By the way, it applies to just your type of house, which only a minority of people own, just like certain higher tax rates only apply to a certain minority of people.

It is silly but it's YOUR logic, not mine. That means your reasoning is silly.

So basically you suggest that anyone should be allowed to initiate violence? Sounds like fun. Well, not really.

How can you be so completely ignorant of anarchist philosophy? I'm against the initiation of violence (that's called aggression) which is why I'm against statism. Taxation is aggression. I'm against it. So, obviously I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence. I believe only in violence as self-defense.

[Gluskab]

Article 17.

    * (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    * (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

What could be more arbitrary than mob rule? By the way, you keep ignoring my bill for services rendered of my "house waving service". I've been by your house several times and waved at it therefore you owe me a million dollars. You've had plenty of time to move so you obviously want my services according to your logic. What gives? Please show me how you intend to weasel out of this bill.

If you don't like my house waving service, stop using it. Oh that's right, I don't allow you to cancel my services, too bad.


Brinks. ADT. Any number of private security firms.

What you call mob rule is what I call democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it beats every other system out there right now. Including anarchy.
Your example with your "house waving" service is hilarious but not really intellectually honest. You know, as well as I do, that the services that is provided to you are democratically decided and applies to everyone, no specific individual. So if you can get support from enough people in your community that certain house types should be waved to by... ah screw it. It's too silly. Why bother.

So basically you suggest that anyone should be allowed to initiate violence? Sounds like fun. Well, not really.

No one should be allowed to initiate violence.  However, if violence is initiated against you, you are free to defend yourself and your property as you see fit.  If that means your homeowner's insurance hires a security firm to respond to emergency calls, that is one possible solution.

Only in the paradigm where one feels he not only has all the answers, but that he can back those answers up with force is there an attempt to use a one-size-fits-all solution to a complex social issue.

[Gluskab]

Gluskab,

Egocentric... normal for an anarchist. "Me", "you", "me", "you"... as if you were the center of the universe or if I was taking anything from you; by force or other means...
Stop with that egocentric God-like bs! When we talk about the State we talk about millions and none in particular, not you, not me, not your neighbor and not your dog.
I simply put it to the practical terms. If you rather live in a society where you pack a 6 shooter on the belt, go look for one. I never liked Westerns other than Bud Spencer ones.

I don't feel I can speak for those millions of people, and I don't think I have the answers to how their lives should be structured better than they do.  It is not I who has the god complex, it is the person who thinks they know what is best, and if someone disagrees with them, they will use force to get their way because it is the one way to run a society in their mind.

Here's a hint:  Start responding to steps in logic rather than asserting conclusions.  If you're tied to any one conclusion, you're doing it wrong.

Also, feel free to read up on history if you'd like to use it to off-handedly dismiss arguments without addressing their core logic.

[Gluskab]

It's also important to frame these issues in personal terms when you're talking philosophically.  Otherwise, you may be tempted to treat people like statistics or make wild assumption regarding outcomes.

If you're willing to advocate for these ideas, it's important to understand what they mean in reality, for individuals, not in some toy world where Santa and the Easter Bunny give out Free Ponies™ and hidden costs can always be ignored if we have a Free Pony™ to show for it.

[BCEmporium]

Sorry, you're resuming the State for me and you. And certainly the State ain't it.
Other than that upon that "anarchy" you seek to bend others to your opinion without the rules of Democracy - means you don't give a damn whether the majority of the people agrees with you or not. So... that whole thing stinks like communism «hey! Stop being explored by the Capitalism... let me explore you instead».

it is the person who thinks they know what is best, and if someone disagrees with them, they will use force to get their way

Again... mirrors must be a rare item where you're... I don't see you call up for a voting, but to an utopia where people get there by themselves... if that's so why arguing? Let people arrive there if they will, if they won't, too bad for you. I'm not pointing any gun, literally or figurative, on people who decided to join that community.

And I'm a bit tired anyway with this "anarchist" bs. You're funny but... Be happy kids!

[wb3]

Sociopaths face far fewer obstacles now than they would in a stateless society with competing measures of defense.  Positions of power also tend to foster sociopathic behaviors in well-intentioned people.

Competing measures of defense

What is that?  You mean different people will group together to protect themselves. Like forming Law Enforcement based on the groups ideals. And then forming a military, to protect from outside forces that are against the group.

Sounds like the "Stateless Society" is forming a State with its own rules.

From your point of view; Please define: Sociopathic Behavior

A standing military is only profitable when you can force others to pay for it through force.

It takes literally 100s of times more money to successfully attack a country in this day and age than it does to defend one.

There is no incentive to attack an anarchist 'country' both for the reasons above and for the reason that unless those people respond to whoever they are told is 'in charge,' a country can never be conquered.

Well sort of, the population might not be able to be conquered, but that usually isn't the reason.

So you have no standing military, your neighbor does, you have food and material resources. Your neighbor country is running out or wants more.

Yea, your right, they will just come in move you to reservations so you can continue your lifestyle and proceed to ignore you.

Kind of sounds familiar, oh yea, didn't the indians have that type of society?  How did it work out for them?

[TiagoTiago]

What if instead of getting arrested  when you don't pay taxes, you only got demoted from the citizen status kinda like in some sci-fi and ancient cultures, no longer being allowed to walk on the streets, drive your cars, use state money and standins (credit cards, cheques etc), no longer being accepted in public hospitals, no longer covered by the state's justice systems (no court appointed lawyer, no right to a trial with ajuri of your pears etc) and so on? Would that still make taxes an agression?

[BitterTea]

Sorry, you're resuming the State for me and you. And certainly the State ain't it.
Other than that upon that "anarchy" you seek to bend others to your opinion without the rules of Democracy - means you don't give a damn whether the majority of the people agrees with you or not. So... that whole thing stinks like communism «hey! Stop being explored by the Capitalism... let me explore you instead».

it is the person who thinks they know what is best, and if someone disagrees with them, they will use force to get their way

Again... mirrors must be a rare item where you're... I don't see you call up for a voting, but to an utopia where people get there by themselves... if that's so why arguing? Let people arrive there if they will, if they won't, too bad for you. I'm not pointing any gun, literally or figurative, on people who decided to join that community.

And I'm a bit tired anyway with this "anarchist" bs. You're funny but... Be happy kids!

What the fuck are you on man? Can you make a single coherent point?

[Gluskab]

Sorry, you're resuming the State for me and you. And certainly the State ain't it.
Other than that upon that "anarchy" you seek to bend others to your opinion without the rules of Democracy - means you don't give a damn whether the majority of the people agrees with you or not. So... that whole thing stinks like communism «hey! Stop being explored by the Capitalism... let me explore you instead».

it is the person who thinks they know what is best, and if someone disagrees with them, they will use force to get their way

Again... mirrors must be a rare item where you're... I don't see you call up for a voting, but to an utopia where people get there by themselves... if that's so why arguing? Let people arrive there if they will, if they won't, too bad for you. I'm not pointing any gun, literally or figurative, on people who decided to join that community.

And I'm a bit tired anyway with this "anarchist" bs. You're funny but... Be happy kids!

Again, you're not responding with arguments, you're responding with conclusions and strawmen.

I think my points stand for themselves, and I'll repeat what I said earlier that there has been no discussion here; there have only been assertions that allude to something like the status quo being optimal, re-framing my argument that violence is bad as a call to violence, and proclaiming that the state isn't backed up by force when even the most ardent statists admit that government backs up what it says through force.  If that wasn't the case, it could be called an advisory committee or something equally banal.

If you (or anyone else) feels like responding to the actual content of my posts with logical steps instead of asserting conclusions, I'll be happy to pick the conversation up again.  Until then, I won't pretend that this has been a discussion or that you haven't ignored literally every argument I have put forth ITT.

[MoonShadow]

What you call mob rule is what I call democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it beats every other system out there right now. Including anarchy.

Ironicly, I'm on your side in this debate.  However, I feel the need to point out that the United States is not a democracy, it's a federated republic.  That may seem like semantics, but it's not.  The framers considered democracy carefully, and intentionally rejected it as a model to be emulated; precisely because of the ills of mob rule.  As far as I know, there is no true democracy at any nation-state level anywhere in the world. In part, because it's no more scalable than communism.  Both can work very well at the size of a small town or large church, but both break down at larger member sizes.  The effective limit on any parlimentary democracy making a decision is roughly 800 voting members, and anything over 500 is in gridlock territory.

A democracy is one citizen, one vote.  The US doesn't even have a direct vote on the President's office, much less the decisions of Congress.

[BitterTea]

What if instead of getting arrested  when you don't pay taxes, you only got demoted from the citizen status kinda like in some sci-fi and ancient cultures, no longer being allowed to walk on the streets, drive your cars, use state money and standins (credit cards, cheques etc), no longer being accepted in public hospitals, no longer covered by the state's justice systems (no court appointed lawyer, no right to a trial with ajuri of your pears etc) and so on? Would that still make taxes an agression?

I think being able to opt-out of state provided services would be a huge step in the right direction. It would create a market for private entities to provide those services, probably at a higher quality and lower cost.

I disagree with many of your examples, though, as walking on the street, using fiat currency, etc are not affecting anybody else's ability to do the same.

To answer your question, if I am free to continue my life while not paying taxes, they are voluntary and not aggressive.

[NghtRppr]

What if instead of getting arrested  when you don't pay taxes, you only got demoted from the citizen status kinda like in some sci-fi and ancient cultures, no longer being allowed to walk on the streets, drive your cars, use state money and standins (credit cards, cheques etc), no longer being accepted in public hospitals, no longer covered by the state's justice systems (no court appointed lawyer, no right to a trial with ajuri of your pears etc) and so on? Would that still make taxes an agression?

What if taxes are voluntary? Great. I'm all for it. By the way, that land that those roads occupy that you're driving on, doesn't belong to the state. That land was stolen through a form of justification known as eminent domain. That's got to go too. Of course, the same argument goes for everything bought with stolen money so really the government owns nothing. Dismantle the state, refund everyone's money or where not possible give them shares in whatever was bought, hospitals or whatever and rebuild it on a voluntary basis. Oh wait that's anarchism. That's exactly what I've been arguing for.

[JA37]

I'm glad you have a different label for mob rule. That makes it completely different! Though, beats it out how? It clearly isn't more moral. Maybe you mean that it's more practical? Ah, but slavery was practical too so practicality is not an argument for doing anything.

Oh no, you almost made the mistake of following your logic to its absurd conclusion. Don't do that!

If everyone votes that my house waving service is legitimate then guess what, you're screwed. If you don't like it, move. By the way, it applies to just your type of house, which only a minority of people own, just like certain higher tax rates only apply to a certain minority of people.

It is silly but it's YOUR logic, not mine. That means your reasoning is silly.

How can you be so completely ignorant of anarchist philosophy? I'm against the initiation of violence (that's called aggression) which is why I'm against statism. Taxation is aggression. I'm against it. So, obviously I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence. I believe only in violence as self-defense.

Agreed, practicality isn't an argument. On person one vote. We decide together. That's more moral than "whoever has the most money decides" or "the most violent decides", which is the end result of anarchism.

No, I decided that your example was intellectually dishonest and not worth refuting. Laws aren't retroactive. New law, applies to those who buys such a house AFTER the law came into effect. Those who buys a house after that can't complain. You know all this. Yes, certain tax rates only applies to certain people, like if you make more than a certain amount. If you don't like that, don't make that amount of money. Do something else with your time. You know this beforehand.

Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression?
I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway.

[Gluskab]

What if instead of getting arrested  when you don't pay taxes, you only got demoted from the citizen status kinda like in some sci-fi and ancient cultures, no longer being allowed to walk on the streets, drive your cars, use state money and standins (credit cards, cheques etc), no longer being accepted in public hospitals, no longer covered by the state's justice systems (no court appointed lawyer, no right to a trial with ajuri of your pears etc) and so on? Would that still make taxes an agression?

I'd say, in 'effect' this is still aggressive and intimidating for a number of reasons; and is, at best, worthless in analyzing any sort of moral precepts.  "If we take this immoral system and then effectively imprison and make all assets worthless of anyone that wants to take a stand against us, then we can say with a straight face that we're not 'forcing' anyone to do anything. ah har har har."

A hundred and fifty years ago this was closer to being some warped version of 'fair;' you could always find new wilderness not under state control.  However, there is currently no place you can reasonably move to in this world where you will be free from government taxation or onerous regulation.  There is no land left that is not under sovereign control of a nation, and every nation in the world treats their citizens like commodities that are there for the benefit of the state or society.  This lies at the very bottom of the issue of taxation.

Governments implicitly affirm they lay legitimate claim to your entire income, but they are generous enough to let you keep a portion of it because that's what you need to survive and not revolt in this 4 year period.  This is what taxation effectively is.  It is government saying you do not own your own labor.  You do not have the freedom to make a voluntary transaction with another individual without rendering a portion unto Caesar, and there is nowhere on earth where you have that freedom.  Not only is there nowhere you can go, but if that place did exist, the U.S. government lays claim on an expatriate's worldwide income for up to 10 years if they suspect you are moving for tax purposes, and you are subject to an assets tax at the time you leave the country.  In fact, it is against the law to leave the United States for tax purposes. http://www.taxmeless.com/page4.html

Regardless of how enticing finding a non-invasive government system would be, it is entirely impractical to even attempt to set one up until a sufficient number of people are educated about the philosophy of liberty to instill a real change in the mindset of the general populace.  Until that happens, one will never be free to leave if that really is what he wants to do; and even if a group of enterprising individuals did set up their own sovereign nation committed to upholding the ideals of liberty, how long do you think it will be before that nation has 'democracy' brought to it?

In addition, government impedes progress by definition as it takes money from those who have found productive use for it and gives it to those who will consume more wealth than they create.  So, we're already living in a world where we don't know what we don't have because of government, and every person alive today has had much more taken away from him or her by virtue of that fact than the worth of any 'services' they will ever use in their lifetimes.

In reality, a rule like this would be no change at all as most people ideologically opposed to taxes would still pay them where they had to do so, just as I and multitudes of others do today because we realize we'll be kidnapped and sent to a torture-rape camp if we don't.

Just because you're pointing out the gun in the room doesn't mean you're necessarily placing your mouth on the trigger.

[BitterTea]

Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression?

The two are not the same. No entity other than the state can force you to pay for its services, even if you don't want them. In fact, the state can force you to pay for its services even if you don't use them.

I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway.

But you think the state should be allowed to initiate violence. That's what forcing someone to pay for a service they neither want nor use is.

[NghtRppr]

New law, applies to those who buys such a house AFTER the law came into effect. Those who buys a house after that can't complain.

You claimed that after birth I had a period of time to decide if I wanted to be a victim of taxation and if I didn't like it I'm free to leave the country. Now I'm claiming that after you move into your house you have a period of time to decide if you want to be a victim of house waving service and if you don't like it you're free to leave the country. Where's the difference?

[Gluskab]

Laws aren't retroactive.

What world do you live in?  Not only is this not true on paper in some very egregious accounts (and yes, eminent domain does count.  Theft is theft), but it's true in effect so many more times over when there are so many laws that cover every single possible human action that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, and there is no way for them to avoid this or even know exactly what laws they are breaking in the first place; there's just too many of them..

Taxation is agression? Paying for services is agression?

Services are voluntary, not forced upon you.  Perceived benefit does not equal debt.  Taxation BY DEFINITION is agression.  Any definition of taxation that ignores the compulsory aspect is intellectually dishonest.

I agree with you though. I don't think anyone at all should be allowed to initiate violence either. That's what the police is there to prevent. To handle those who do anyway.

There are a lot of things wrong with this assertion.  The first is that you can use violence to fund protection from violence.  The second is the myth that the police are there to protect you (Hint:  They're there to collect revenue and fill out crime reports, after the fact).  The third is that if you're saying (which it seems like you are) that you don't have a right to defend yourself against aggression, then the police don't either because you cannot confer onto a third party a right which you do not possess yourself.

[BCEmporium]

What the fuck are you on man? Can you make a single coherent point?

Tired to go around and end up in the same place. What coherent point? Do ANY of your so called anarchists believe to make a point on anything up to so far? If so... you're high!
All you keep going around is that taxes is paying for "unwanted services", looks like the "tax evasion joblot" complaining. Go complaint on the IRS!
Then sort out a sort of hippie tax-free society, anarchy with rules and all load of baloney one can buy. Makes it hard to take you serious!

[JA37]

You claimed that after birth I had a period of time to decide if I wanted to be a victim of taxation and if I didn't like it I'm free to leave the country. Now I'm claiming that after you move into your house you have a period of time to decide if you want to be a victim of house waving service and if you don't like it you're free to leave the country. Where's the difference?

The fact that the laws were in effect before you were born, decided by those who lived before you.
If you can convince enough people that your service somehow benefits society and make this into law it still wouldn't apply retroactivly.

There's the difference.

[benjamindees]

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

[JA37]

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

[BitterTea]

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

[NghtRppr]

You claimed that after birth I had a period of time to decide if I wanted to be a victim of taxation and if I didn't like it I'm free to leave the country. Now I'm claiming that after you move into your house you have a period of time to decide if you want to be a victim of house waving service and if you don't like it you're free to leave the country. Where's the difference?

The fact that the laws were in effect before you were born, decided by those who lived before you.
If you can convince enough people that your service somehow benefits society and make this into law it still wouldn't apply retroactivly.

There's the difference.

That's nonsense. Being born doesn't imply consent. You yourself said that it's only after we are born that we are given the real chance to opt out, by leaving the country. So I am posing it to you in the same way but you reject it. You're being inconsistent.

So you'll start paying for the house waving service the next time you move?

If enough people vote for it, and it becomes a law, yes. And if it applies to me and the house I buy. I doubt that I will buy such a house though.

The law applies to only you and 99 other people, no matter what house you buy. If you don't like it, don't buy a house.

[BCEmporium]

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

Stop being a lunatic! Fuck! Enough is enough! If enough people (and even fewer than it would take within a voting round) within your "pathetic anarchy" decides to take 50, or even 100% of your income they will simply do it. Don't like? Too bad! They're more than you, stronger as such and you're not superman!

Stop roaming around the very same pathetic arguments as if you have any shade of reasoning!

[NghtRppr]

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

Stop being a lunatic! Fuck! Enough is enough! If enough people (and even fewer than it would take within a voting round) within your "pathetic anarchy" decides to take 50, or even 100% of your income they will simply do it. Don't like? Too bad! They're more than you, stronger as such and you're not superman!

Stop roaming around the very same pathetic arguments as if you have any shade of reasoning!

You're missing the point. If the strong decide to dominate the weak, it will happen. There's no illusion about that. However, your system not only allows for it but it also says that it's LEGITIMATE. That's the key difference.

[Gluskab]

If enough people vote to take 50% of your income for the rest of your life, is that ok with you? You have no problem with others enforcing their will upon you, as long as a large enough majority do so?

Stop being a lunatic! Fuck! Enough is enough! If enough people (and even fewer than it would take within a voting round) within your "pathetic anarchy" decides to take 50, or even 100% of your income they will simply do it. Don't like? Too bad! They're more than you, stronger as such and you're not superman!

Stop roaming around the very same pathetic arguments as if you have any shade of reasoning!

Well, now you're starting to be honest.

Why do you think I said I pay my taxes every year?  It wasn't because I'm on board with them philosophically.

[BCEmporium]

In Democracy there's one rule that makes it LEGIT; nobody will ever vote for YOUR life (or at least targeting directly and only your life), reciprocity means that all votes for subjects related to all and are affected by the outcome of the ballots equally.
So if people come to vote to take out 50% of your income, then 50% of their income is at stake either.
As if people votes that rape is ok, they will be raped too... and so on.

[NghtRppr]

So if people come to vote to take out 50% of your income, then 50% of their income is at stake either.

Unfortunately, that's not true. The more money you make, the more percentage of your income is taken. There are different laws for different groups.

Also, even if everyone paid the same percentage of their income, it's still unfair (not to mention stealing) because 10% of nothing is nothing but 10% of a billion dollars is quite a bit. We should all pay the same amount of money, say $50, assuming we agree to pay taxes in the first place, which I do not.

[JA37]

That's nonsense. Being born doesn't imply consent. You yourself said that it's only after we are born that we are given the real chance to opt out, by leaving the country. So I am posing it to you in the same way but you reject it. You're being inconsistent.


The law applies to only you and 99 other people, no matter what house you buy. If you don't like it, don't buy a house.

Well, you could try to change the law. You just need to get enough people to see things your way. No need to leave if you can do that.  And being born doesn't imply consent. Using services that you know the cost for does. And some services are bundled.
I don't see how I'm being inconsistant. Please explain again.

If the law targets me specifically it's arbitrary. If by some chance it would apply to me and 99 others because of something we do or have, then, it would suck to be us.

[benjamindees]

It applies to everyone who tries to philosophically justify stupid laws.  Looks like that's you.

[Gluskab]

In Democracy there's one rule that makes it LEGIT; nobody will ever vote for YOUR life (or at least targeting directly and only your life), reciprocity means that all votes for subjects related to all and are affected by the outcome of the ballots equally.
So if people come to vote to take out 50% of your income, then 50% of their income is at stake either.
As if people votes that rape is ok, they will be raped too... and so on.

Difference in degree, not difference in kind.

Murdering someone is taking away every hour of time they had left alive.

Stealing 50% of their income is taking away 50% of the time they perform certain duties.

Putting other restrictions on his movement and liberty will also steal part of his time and his ability to enjoy the remaining time that is his.

All of these are differences in degree as all of them implicitly lay ownership claim on that person's life; it just so happens that the three decisions take a different proportion.

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

[Gluskab]

Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

[BCEmporium]

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

Morality is the highest of relative values. If by any reason a society believes to rape is ok, then it's not immoral there. Might be hard is to find rational reasons for such for any one pushing for it.

@bitcoin2cash

That "feature" you're stating is part of the Socialism... for the sake of justice and taken taxes are percentages they should be flat rates, so everybody would pay according to his income. Socialists however think otherwise, but not a Democracy's fault.

[Gluskab]

Morality is not relative.

If this applies to a group of millions, it applies to a group of three.

Any two guys cannot corner a girl, gang-rape her and slit her throat and claim they were morally justified because they held a majority.

In your POV, the holocaust was just because 'a society' allowed it to happen.

You own your actions as well as your body and your property.

[BCEmporium]

Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

I'm not up to bully anyone... and your concept of voting ad hominem really gives me the creeps! As if people go voting for a particular person's fate...

As for truth and reality; what reality is that "anarchy"? Russia in 91? Somalia?

[NghtRppr]

If by some chance it would apply to me and 99 others because of something we do or have, then, it would suck to be us.

Well, at least you're being consistent enough to fall on your own sword. Of course, it's easy to do that when it's just a hypothetical sword. That's good enough for me, though, since now everyone else can see what your position entails.

It applies to everyone who tries to philosophically justify stupid laws.  Looks like that's you.

ZING!

[BCEmporium]

Morality is not relative.

Morality is all relative!
Take for an instance Islam, it's not immoral to kill a non-believer (kafir) for their religion. Pedophilia, being the youngest of crimes, wasn't anything immoral up to not so long ago. Ever read Romeo & Juliet? Juliet was 13... pretty much within moral standards to get married at Shakespeare time.

You may say, and due to our kind of rational society that I couldn't find rational arguments to support rape; and there I agree with you. If a less rational society can, then those in that society will see nothing wrong in rape (say their God said that rape is cool).

[Gluskab]

Also, it looks like we've pretty well established what I've been saying all along.  BCE isn't interested in a discussion of morality, truth, or reality; he's here to bully and assert, and if a contradiction is pointed out or some moral horror is pointed out, there's simply a shrug of, 'well, I imagine >50% of people voted for that.'

I'm not up to bully anyone... and your concept of voting ad hominem really gives me the creeps! As if people go voting for a particular person's fate...

As for truth and reality; what reality is that "anarchy"? Russia in 91? Somalia?

Just because you want to ignore the real consequences that ideas and actions have on real people, doesn't mean I should ignore them as well.

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

If you didn't notice, fewer Russians are starving now than they were under the rule of the USSR.

Go back and read that .pdf I linked earlier titled, 'The Not So Wild West,' and do some research on these examples of yours before you use them to justify the assertions you use to shift goalposts every time your 'moral' argument fails.

[Gluskab]

Morality is not relative.

Morality is all relative!
Take for an instance Islam, it's not immoral to kill a non-believer (kafir) for their religion. Pedophilia, being the youngest of crimes, wasn't anything immoral up to not so long ago. Ever read Romeo & Juliet? Juliet was 13... pretty much within moral standards to get married at Shakespeare time.

You may say, and due to our kind of rational society that I couldn't find rational arguments to support rape; and there I agree with you. If a less rational society can, then those in that society will see nothing wrong in rape (say their God said that rape is cool).

All major religions are barbaric and call for numerous barbaric and highly morally reprehensible acts of violence.  That doesn't mean that morality is relative.  Religion doesn't cause morality.  Religion only amplifies characteristics people already hold in themselves (because every holy text is full of evil and contradictory passages that can be interpreted to mean anything) and makes believers easier to control.

ALL YOU HAVE DONE THIS ENTIRE TIME IS SAY HERE ARE THINGS FROM THE STATUS QUO!

I'm not interested in the status quo, and I'm not interested in your form of debate which is 'deny idea posited without reason or analysis, then blindly assert random thing about majority rule.'

[BCEmporium]

Guess you're wrong... I don't vouch for this Democracy, however I seek into thinking on ways to move it to the next level, not some chaotic pre-caveman ages. The system status quo is outdated, yet, and upon an outdated Playstation you here are presenting me with a rotten ZX Spectrum to replace it!

If you don't see the relativeness of morality, than you'll have several issues with History books, taken without relativeness of the actions to the time they happened than they would sound like a bunch of barbaric retards... as we probably will sound to generations 100 years from now.

BTW: I said Russia in 91, right after the fall of USSR when it was a Mafia-controlled country.

[BitterTea]

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

That does sound like what he's saying.

But it actually reminds me of a justification for rule enforcement (say, by competing private entities) that I like.

Let's say I enter your house and take your TV. Assuming it is known by all parties that I did do such a thing, I see only two possibilities for my response. Either I agree that theft is unacceptable, or argue that it is acceptable. If the first, then I am agreeing that I infringed upon your rights, and restitution is in order. If the second, then I am implicitly agreeing that I allow such a thing to be done to me.

This is demonstrated much more succinctly in Withur We. The main character starts a private security agency, and one of his first adjudications is done for a client that was beaten by a larger man.

“Mr. Rachmann, we don’t anticipate needing to use a jail very often. We offer a different service here, and now we are going to deliver the justice Mr. Hassan has paid for. First of all, you have physically assaulted Mr. Hassan without his permission. This action on your part is a declaration that you consider such violence permissible. As a first course, Mr. Hassan has the right to do to you what you did to him, or to hire someone to do it. Taribo will be doing the honors today, unless Mr. Hassan wishes to do it himself.”

“It is demonstrably untrue that we cannot beat you, Mr. Rachmann,” Alistair said with the flat tone of a lecturer. “Just as you beat Mr. Hassan, we can beat you. Whether or not this is a proper course of action is, ultimately, Mr. Hassan’s decision, but you certainly have no room to argue you should be treated more gently than you treated Mr. Hassan.

“In our justice system, after a neutral party determines guilt, the aggrieved party determines the punishment, the maximum permissible extent of which the perpetrator himself determines at the moment he commits his crime. You determined the type, intensity, duration and amount of the beating the moment you delivered such to Mr. Hassan. While you wait for your beating, Mr. Mpala will consult with Dr. Lushington so that an accurate punishment may be administered.”

“But that is just the beginning. We beat you with the permission of Mr. Hassan, a permission he received from you when, by your actions, you declared such things permissible. But when you beat Mr. Hassan, you acted without permission. In other words, our beating is a response and yours was an initiation. The pain to follow is a consequence of your own actions, but the pain Mr. Hassan must endure is unjust, something he should never have had to go through in the first place. You will therefore be made to pay a fine upon which interest will accrue for every moment it remains unpaid. This will be compensation for Mr. Hassan’s unnecessary suffering.”

“If you refuse to pay the fine, your property will be taken from you and its title transferred to Yusuf until the debt is cleared. If you do not have property enough to settle the debt, and if no one will lend or give you their property to help you, you will be forced to work off the debt. However, in such a case that you refuse to pay the debt on your own, we will be forced to charge you for the trouble of having to force you to work off the debt. This will only make it more expensive, and the accrued interest will be much greater as well. You may at any time, of course, reach an agreement with Mr. Hassan to settle the debt, both the money or property owed and the beating.”

[benjamindees]

To be fair, the "majority rules" argument is a moral argument.  It is based on utilitarianism along with the (flawed) assumption that the majority is stronger or more powerful than the minority, and therefore can and will do whatever it wants by force if necessary.

[Gluskab]

Guess you're wrong... I don't vouch for this Democracy, however I seek into thinking on ways to move it to the next level, not some chaotic pre-caveman ages. The system status quo is outdated, yet, and upon an outdated Playstation you here are presenting me with a rotten ZX Spectrum to replace it!

If you don't see the relativeness of morality, than you'll have several issues with History books, taken without relativeness of the actions to the time they happened than they would sound like a bunch of barbaric retards... as we probably will sound to generations 100 years from now.

Of course they were a bunch of barbaric retards, just like the earliest humans were for thinking trees were gods or that Zeus impregnated human females while taking the form of a badger.

Every moral revolution in history was preceded by utter incomprehension and followed by utter incomprehension.

Only a very few people understood the moral underpinnings of certain acts; such as the removal of the church from absolute power, the moral horrors of burning suspected witches at the stake, and the freeing of the slaves; while everyone else reacted with incomprehension that life should be any other way.

Then once those evil things are abolished, society looks back in incomprehension at the horror of what people did to their fellow man, not understanding (with the exception of a few sociopaths) how anyone could have ever committed such atrocities.

The same will be true of the state once it is abolished.  People will look back in horror that they supported mass-genocides, the looting of nations, the effective slavery of entire populations, and the incalculable loss of progress that was made, all in the name of letting a small percentage of the population have a good power trip.

If you would not kill another human being in cold blood, and if you would not kill another human being for a difference in opinion; everything else follows.  If you think murder or the threat of murder is okay in the pursuit of what you want, there is no conversation, and the morality is very clearcut.

You may be able to live that, but I'm already on the other side of the incomprehension divide.

[Gluskab]

Edit: Holy crap!  Did I skim over the part where you said if over 50% of a group says it's okay to rape someone in that group, you're, in the most charitable interpretation, not morally condemning that?!?!

That does sound like what he's saying.

But it actually reminds me of a justification for rule enforcement (say, by competing private entities) that I like.

Look a little bit at the DRO model and think of them as kind of 'incentive-balancing-insurance firms.'  Most crime can be dissuaded by simple changes to technology that renders it useless in the hands of a criminal and by social or economic ostracism (ignoring the person) if they commit a crime.  Of course there's a lot more to it, but I'm not going to teach a class on DROs here.

[JA37]

Well, at least you're being consistent enough to fall on your own sword. Of course, it's easy to do that when it's just a hypothetical sword. That's good enough for me, though, since now everyone else can see what your position entails.

It applies to everyone who tries to philosophically justify stupid laws.  Looks like that's you.

ZING!

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

I pay over 50% in taxes, because of democracy. The sword isn't that hypothetical to me. Although I must admit that it's not literal. That would hurt.
The reason for my high tax is that I make more than the average person. Poor me.

But I'm still curious about those violent special interest groups that should take over when the police goes away. Should I go with Al-Shabab Security, or Aryan enforcement Inc? I can't really decide which rules I like best.

If your parents lived in a gated community, and when you turned 18 set you up with a flat there, would the community fee be an act of violence against you? Where's the difference from a state? I don't see it.

[JA37]

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

[MoonShadow]

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

In the modern world, nothing.  That is unless someone intends to settle Antartica.

[Gluskab]

My philosophy has led me closest to the Agorist school which theorizes these groups would only be there to take over if they were already mostly present as insurance companies or security firms, operating peacefully while the state was still dying, and Anarchy would only come about if enough people were sufficiently educated on how effective non-violent solutions are to these problems you're posing, even the non-existent wouldn't happen in a million years problems.

In addition to that, violence is not profitable without a centralized state.  It just doesn't happen in a non-negligible fashion outside of state-esque entities.

Any any security group starting up would have a major competitive advantage if they could somehow guarantee they weren't starting an army to try to take over as a state.  If I were starting a security firm, I'd probably make sure a third party firm had access to all my warehouses and headquarters and could perform random audits to make sure I wasn't doing anything nefarious whenever they wanted, and then I'd put a huge amount of money into escrow, payable to my subscribers if any wrongdoing on my part was found.  Presto! instant, major economic incentive to toe the line and provide a good service, and major incentive for people to sign up for my DRO/Insurance Company.

[Gluskab]

Somalia doesn't have anarchy, it has a failed state and chaos.  Even so, it's doing better since the state collapsed than it was under a despot.

What's the difference between a failed state and a non existing state?

a non-failed state isn't referred to as Anarchy.

[NghtRppr]

I pay over 50% in taxes, because of democracy. The sword isn't that hypothetical to me. Although I must admit that it's not literal. That would hurt.
The reason for my high tax is that I make more than the average person. Poor me.

I'm glad that you willingly pay your taxes but what does that have to do with the rest of us that are unwilling? Also, you seem to be confusing hypothetical with metaphorical. Nobody ever implied it would be a literal sword. Your attempt at sarcasm fails.

But I'm still curious about those violent special interest groups that should take over when the police goes away. Should I go with Al-Shabab Security, or Aryan enforcement Inc? I can't really decide which rules I like best.

How about Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc? That's most likely going to be the largest firm since all those other groups you mention are just as minor as they are extreme.

If your parents lived in a gated community, and when you turned 18 set you up with a flat there, would the community fee be an act of violence against you? Where's the difference from a state? I don't see it.

The difference is that the gated community is private property. The entire United States of America is not. I think you should read up on homesteading.

[JA37]

I'm glad that you willingly pay your taxes but what does that have to do with the rest of us that are unwilling? Also, you seem to be confusing hypothetical with metaphorical. Nobody ever implied it would be a literal sword. Your attempt at sarcasm fails.

How about Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc? That's most likely going to be the largest firm since all those other groups you mention are just as minor as they are extreme.

The difference is that the gated community is private property. The entire United States of America is not. I think you should read up on homesteading.

English is my second language, so I might not find the proper english word at all times. I'm glad you're not being a jerk about it though.
I'm unwilling to do some things at my job, still have to do it, because what I get out of doing it is greater than what I put in.
Same things with taxes.

Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc won't be funded by fundies from around the globe. Criminals have a lot of money to spend. I'm not so sure a honest company would have a chance if there isn't a rule enforcer around.

I might have to read up on homesteading. So the tax from the gated community isn't an act of violence, even though being born isn't consent, but tax from the state is?

[BCEmporium]

Sorry Gluskab, but you give for granted things that took millenniums to develop.
If happens that Hitler won WW2, you would be very proud if your kid come home saying he shot a Jew on the school playground. Your moral grounds would be totally different and you wouldn't see nothing wrong about it.

Also you imply continuous moral development, yet Dark Ages proves us otherwise, the Roman Empire was more developed than the times after its fall. Some of the morality you assume today was already set on Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire under Stoicism philosophy... but on 400 a.C. the Pope forbid Philosophy and it went down the toilet, so to say.
Human Rights also date back from the Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great on the 5th Century b.C.... yet look at Iran today, 2500 years after and it is now less philosophically developed than under Cyrus.

I said before that generations 100 years from now will look at us as a bunch of barbaric retards, but forgot to add that I hope they do it out of development, because they made it a better place than we do and not because, for an instance, we get along with black people whereas they found it better to use them for target practicing.


a better place than we do -> Outcome drives morality, not the other way around.

[Gluskab]

Criminals only have money to spend because gambling, drugs, and prostitution are illegal in many places.

When you criminalize them, the providers must become violent because they have no legitimate dispute resolution.

Profits also skyrocket because the goods are artificially scarce.

Hence, if those things weren't illegal in most places, crime would be a net negative for most people to try their hand.

[wb3]

How about the Babylon 5 model? You will have the Religious Caste, Worker Caste, Warrior Caste, ruled by the Grey Council, 5 representing the Worker Caste, 2 for the Religious, and 2 for the Warrior.  Since the worker "little" guy pays the price for the "big guys" decisions.

Seems fair, albeit futuristic.

[NghtRppr]

I'm unwilling to do some things at my job, still have to do it, because what I get out of doing it is greater than what I put in.

You have the option of not doing your job and finding some alternative way to support yourself. It's not analogous to taxation at all. If it were, I'd be able to refuse to pay taxes and find some other way of obtaining those services.

Average Peaceful Citizen Security Inc won't be funded by fundies from around the globe. Criminals have a lot of money to spend. I'm not so sure a honest company would have a chance if there isn't a rule enforcer around.

Criminals have a lot of wealth to spend but not as much as productive peaceful people, aka, the average person.

I might have to read up on homesteading. So the tax from the gated community isn't an act of violence, even though being born isn't consent, but tax from the state is?

You agree to the rules by moving in, not by being born. If you refuse to follow the rules set forth by the property owner, you can be evicted. Simply remaining there isn't an act of consent though.

[MoonShadow]

I might have to read up on homesteading. So the tax from the gated community isn't an act of violence, even though being born isn't consent, but tax from the state is?

The defining characteristic is this...

If you refuse to pay the gated communities fee, what happens?

If, at any point, you risk physical harm done to you by officials of the gated community, or incarceration, then the gated community is a government and the fee a tax.

If, instead, everyone you know simply asks you to contribute or leave, then it isn't.  Consent implies the practical ability to withdraw consent, in which case the community can withdraw the benefits of consent.  The worst form of punishment that a non-state could impose upon you is to walk you to the front gate, and insist that you pay your dues if you desire to re-enter.  This is exactly how it works if you don't pay your condo fee in a secured urban condo building.  Anyone who enters the building does so with the invitation of a member in good standing, whether the person is a vistor, a family member or the dues paying member himself.  Even the employees of the building manager doesn't enter without the implict invitation of the condo association.

[MoonShadow]

How about the Babylon 5 model? You will have the Religious Caste, Worker Caste, Warrior Caste, ruled by the Grey Council, 5 representing the Worker Caste, 2 for the Religious, and 2 for the Warrior.  Since the worker "little" guy pays the price for the "big guys" decisions.

Seems fair, albeit futuristic.

Since we're being silly, this is how I see myself in my ideal future.



I want to be badass metal skeleton. Fucking hardcore.

I can't see this.

[BitterTea]

The defining characteristic is this...

If you refuse to pay the gated communities fee, what happens?

If, at any point, you risk physical harm done to you by officials of the gated community, or incarceration, then the gated community is a government and the fee a tax.

I would argue that the risk of physical harm or incarceration must be legitimized and institutionalized in order for it to be considered state-like behavior. If the gated community claims the sole authority to use whatever physical force necessary to retrieve money money from you, then sure, it's a state or state-like entity.

[NghtRppr]

How about the Babylon 5 model? You will have the Religious Caste, Worker Caste, Warrior Caste, ruled by the Grey Council, 5 representing the Worker Caste, 2 for the Religious, and 2 for the Warrior.  Since the worker "little" guy pays the price for the "big guys" decisions.

Seems fair, albeit futuristic.

Since we're being silly, this is how I see myself in my ideal future.



I want to be badass metal skeleton. Fucking hardcore.

[Gluskab]

Sorry Gluskab, but you give for granted things that took millenniums to develop.
If happens that Hitler won WW2, you would be very proud if your kid come home saying he shot a Jew on the school playground. Your moral grounds would be totally different and you wouldn't see nothing wrong about it.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS BEEN ARGUING THAT WINNER MAKES THE MORAL PRECEPTS, NOT ME!

Also you imply continuous moral development, yet Dark Ages proves us otherwise, the Roman Empire was more developed than the times after its fall. Some of the morality you assume today was already set on Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire under Stoicism philosophy... but on 400 a.C. the Pope forbid Philosophy and it went down the toilet, so to say.
Human Rights also date back from the Persian Emperor Cyrus the Great on the 5th Century b.C.... yet look at Iran today, 2500 years after and it is now less philosophically developed than under Cyrus.

I never implied a continuous moral development.  Evidence shows, for example that the industrial revolution almost happened in Ancient Greece until some of the best thinkers of the time were assassinated.

All I implied was that once you unleash the genie of exposing evil, it's almost impossible to put it back in.  All you have to do to destroy evil is bring it into the light.  Evil only survives because those who perpetrate it are able to convince people it's good.

And all of those bad things were done by churces and states, both things I have argued do exactly what you just said they do!

I said before that generations 100 years from now will look at us as a bunch of barbaric retards, but forgot to add that I hope they do it out of development, because they made it a better place than we do and not because, for an instance, we get along with black people whereas they found it better to use them for target practicing.

Because realizing that skin color doesn't matter and that we shouldn't kill people over that wasn't a good thing?  What the fuck are you even arguing?

Not to mention, I've been saying all along that I firmly believe (because I've actually looked at these historical examples that you keep bringing up thinking they're proving something, but time and time again they actually fit into the narrative I've been telling.

You don't even have a point of view.  You're not putting forth ideas, you're just trying to put down anyone who might put one out there.  If you want to either study some things about any of those historical situations or actually analyze any of the IDEAS (NOT CONCLUSIONS) put forth ITT, I'll respond.  Until then, have a nice life.  I'm not wasting it trying to convince someone who displays an alarming disregard for human life that I should be able to have freedom of assembly.

[BCEmporium]

Gluskab,

You keep taking everything ad hominem  

Just because I state that one thing happened or may happen, does it mean I agree with it?!

There's no "good or evil nor wrong or right", when you come to realize what this means maybe you can see how wise those words are.
By now you've this world, however you can't tell the future. You give this world for granted, forgetting for an instance that your stomach is full, on the day it isn't you may well flush down the toilet all of your "philosophical disgusting" and go on a rampage. And as you others, and the World can have another step back on its evolution process...

BTW, because you're unable to distinguish between hypothetical scenarios and "my personal opinion" - as you take both as being the same - I rather state that I'm AGAINST rampages... Oh! And I also don't disregard human life.

[NghtRppr]

There's no "good or evil nor wrong or right", when you come to realize what this means maybe you can see how wise those words are.

I'm actually with you on this to the extent that there are no moral facts, only moral opinions. I'm even willing to begrudge you your opinion even if it's incompatible with mine, for example, you think murder is a fine hobby and I think it's an abomination. However, as soon as you initiate violence, all discourse ceases and we are at a state of war. So, to argue for the legitimacy of the initiation of violence is pointless. Just shoot me in the head and demonstrate exactly what you're all about, if that's your will.

[Gluskab]

You don't offer any argument except presenting these examples as to why you think I'm wrong, but they prove the opposite of what you think because you haven't studied history in great enough detail.

Just because I state that one thing happened or may happen, does it mean I agree with it?!

You've stated as much several times.

You're just trolling.

Trying to take on the 'I have such a nuanced view of the world because I deny the existence of moral precepts so I'm going to try to convey a smug attitude while subtly lecturing you' is pretty rich considering you said you wouldn't fault 2 guys raping and killing a helpless girl if they were the only ones in their geographical area.

your stomach is full, on the day it isn't you may well flush down the toilet all of your "philosophical disgusting"

Even though you're incredibly unclear here, you're describing a state of emergency, a lifeboat scenario.  Traditional morality does not apply there very well as morality is a soft science, much like biology, which gets soft and fuzzy around the edges, like trying to decide whether a horse born with six legs and half a wing is still a horse or not.

[Gluskab]

There's no "good or evil nor wrong or right", when you come to realize what this means maybe you can see how wise those words are.

I'm actually with you on this to the extent that there are no moral facts, only moral opinions. I'm even willing to begrudge you your opinion even if it's incompatible with mine, for example, you think rape is a fine hobby and I think it's an abomination. However, as soon as you initiate violence, all discourse ceases and we are at a state of war. So, to argue for the legitimacy of the initiation of violence is pointless. Just shoot me in the head and demonstrate exactly what you're all about, if that's your will.

But if that's your argument, say so instead of pretending to have a conversation.

[BCEmporium]

I'm just pointing the flaws of the anarchic theory, specially under the basis that it resembles more a group of Tibetan monks than anything else.

As for the state of emergency... Earth has finite resources and we're already 6 bln and growing... you do the math!

[wb3]

There's no "good or evil nor wrong or right", when you come to realize what this means maybe you can see how wise those words are.

That is the crux of it, isn't it. The trouble is once the liberals and/or conservatives really understand it, they have to have the Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, cause it is just to darn scary without them.

Nature in its truest form is one mean machine trying to kill you. But letting you try to survive by any-means you can achieve. Unfortunately for our psyche that is "Survival of the Fittest", group together and beat each other down until you dominate.

[Anonymous]

If you dont like what BCEmporium stands for then boycott his business.

Unlike the government we aren't forced to use his services.


 


Protip-dont be an asshole to your potential customers.

[benjamindees]

Careful.  Anarchists may just as easily be Zen monks as Tibetan monks.

[Anonymous]

Rape cage or death are your choices if you dont comply.

You cant even leave the country without permission....

[Anonymous]

Again, your lips are moving and you're making noises, but you're not actually saying anything.

Why is it a joke to talk about logic and anarchism together? Does the idea of not having rulers frighten you?

Anarchy is illogical on any social animal, even wolves have group leaders... accept or think for a second as anarchy being anything close to viable is to deny the entire nature of the human species.
We all have a bit of anarchist, is true, we dream to can do whatever we want without bother with social rules, other folks and so on... but that's just a wish as good as to gain wings and fly (by own means, not using devices to fly). No more than a wish...

The state is logical?

I live by RULES not RULERS.

They are vastly different animals.

The state makes nature illegal. That is illogical.

[ben bernank]

Dont steal. The government hates competition.

[JA37]

You have the option of not doing your job and finding some alternative way to support yourself. It's not analogous to taxation at all. If it were, I'd be able to refuse to pay taxes and find some other way of obtaining those services.

Criminals have a lot of wealth to spend but not as much as productive peaceful people, aka, the average person.

You agree to the rules by moving in, not by being born. If you refuse to follow the rules set forth by the property owner, you can be evicted. Simply remaining there isn't an act of consent though.

I like my job, I don't want another way to support myself. I don't like ALL aspect of my job, but I still have to do them. The benefits of having a fun job outweighs the boring parts of it. What I was saying is that we all have to do things we don't like at some point, and it's not because of acts of violence or coersion.

Criminal organizations have a focus that a group of average persons doesn't have. They can put a lot of money into making their protection agency the monopoly in a market, both by legal and illegal means. You will most likely never be able to organize something that can compete with that.

What if the rules are that each member of a household above the age of 18, and with an income, must pay the fee. For this they get all the benefits of the gated community, including a parking spot, even if you don't have a car. Is it an act of violence yet?
Oh, and forcefully being separated from your loved ones isn't an act of violence if done by a private firm?

If you don't pay state tax, would you prefer that they would strip you of your citizenship and put you on a plane to Al-Shabab controlled areas of Somalia who gratiously agreed both to take you in and not to tax you. Is that less violent than putting your ass in jail? After all "If you refuse to follow the rules set forth by the property owner, you can be evicted.", and since we all own the property (land) and have agreed to certain rules which you refuse to follow, we could just evict you? No?
I'm not seriously suggesting this. Are you?

We can call the enforcements of rules violence if you like, and the state and private companies are equally guilty of it, if you see it that way.

[NghtRppr]

What I was saying is that we all have to do things we don't like at some point, and it's not because of acts of violence or coersion.

Does your job seize your property or lock you in prison if you don't do your job? The government does which is why it's coercion.

Criminal organizations have a focus that a group of average persons doesn't have. They can put a lot of money into making their protection agency the monopoly in a market, both by legal and illegal means. You will most likely never be able to organize something that can compete with that.

Criminals have a focus of making profit. Average people have the focus of defending their lives and property. Which do you think is more motivating? The thing you are forgetting is that most criminal organizations are committing crimes that simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the state. Do you see people shooting each other in the street over alcohol? No. You wouldn't see that over drugs either if they weren't illegal. So, take away all the money from drugs, prostitution, etc and what exactly are you left with? Theft, extortion and murder. Please show me a single criminal organization that makes massive amounts of profits off of those things, enough to fight millions of people.

What if the rules are that each member of a household above the age of 18, and with an income, must pay the fee. For this they get all the benefits of the gated community, including a parking spot, even if you don't have a car. Is it an act of violence yet?
Oh, and forcefully being separated from your loved ones isn't an act of violence if done by a private firm?

If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

If you don't pay state tax, would you prefer that they would strip you of your citizenship and put you on a plane to Al-Shabab controlled areas of Somalia who gratiously agreed both to take you in and not to tax you. Is that less violent than putting your ass in jail? After all "If you refuse to follow the rules set forth by the property owner, you can be evicted.", and since we all own the property (land) and have agreed to certain rules which you refuse to follow, we could just evict you? No?
I'm not seriously suggesting this. Are you?

I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property. Fortunately for me there is still plenty of unowned land in this country. Go read up on homesteading if you wish to argue effectively with me.

[bittersweet]

what exactly are you left with? Theft, extortion and murder. Please show me a single criminal organization that makes massive amounts of profits off of those things, enough to fight millions of people.

governments  

[JA37]

Does your job seize your property or lock you in prison if you don't do your job? The government does which is why it's coercion.

Criminals have a focus of making profit. Average people have the focus of defending their lives and property. Which do you think is more motivating? The thing you are forgetting is that most criminal organizations are committing crimes that simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the state. Do you see people shooting each other in the street over alcohol? No. You wouldn't see that over drugs either if they weren't illegal. So, take away all the money from drugs, prostitution, etc and what exactly are you left with? Theft, extortion and murder. Please show me a single criminal organization that makes massive amounts of profits off of those things, enough to fight millions of people.

If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.
I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property. Fortunately for me there is still plenty of unowned land in this country. Go read up on homesteading if you wish to argue effectively with me.

You're completly missing my point. I was talking about doing things I don't like because the benefit is greater than the discomfort.

Human trafficking is quite profitable. Would you like to legalize that too? Child prostitution? When it comes to drugs I think the profit per sale will go down but the market will grow enough to make up for it, and they already have their organization in place to corner the market if it becomes legal. But I think you're right. They will move to the more profitable areas if others diminsih.
Defending life and property are great motivators. That's why I expect most people will choose my company when I show up at their door with an offer of "Choose my company or else...". The prices are about the same as the competition.
It should also be fun living in your area, with drug addicts running around looking for another hit. They'll either be dangerous on the street looking for money since they can't hold a job, or dangerous at work because of their addiction. Not to mention the people driving. A problem today, worse with increased supply.

The land isn't unowned. We, the people own it, it's governed by the state. Would you like an "eviction law" for tax evaders?
Homesteading sounds nice but isn't really practical is it. With that I would like to clarify a previous statement. Practicality IS a reason for doing things. It's not a reason for doing unethical things, but we all do things just because they're practical. Like buy food in a store instead of growing it ourselves, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And what about that gated community example. Was it violence to have you pay when you turn 18 and have an income? Or tossing you out? Or is it only violent when the state does it?

[BCEmporium]

If you dont like what BCEmporium stands for then boycott his business.

Unlike the government we aren't forced to use his services.


 


Protip-dont be an asshole to your potential customers.

I don't bother much... those who don't agree will not use, those who agree will... that's life.  
Either way I'm not counting on make a living out of bitcoins or that site. And still, even if I not agree much with btc2cash I don't see why to not use his service... one thing is political opinion, the other to take things personally. 

[JA37]

...even if I not agree much with btc2cash I don't see why to not use his service... one thing is political opinion, the other to take things personally. 

Same here. I don't think any less of those who have a different opinion. They're just wrong and can't help it. 

[Anonymous]

...even if I not agree much with btc2cash I don't see why to not use his service... one thing is political opinion, the other to take things personally. 

Same here. I don't think any less of those who have a different opinion. They're just wrong and can't help it. 

lol.

Im glad you see it that way.

[BCEmporium]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlGZxJTZAK0&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4esoN9FsGFw&NR=1

  

[BitterTea]

Since we're doing Youtube videos...

George Ought to Help

The Story of Your Enslavement

[BCEmporium]

Yammm!
But just get videos of crackpots who actually believe in the so called "Tibetan monk stateless society" (and even those have a Dalai Lama). And to the worse, they're not funny but overwhelming boring! I'm not charging you for my time wasted this time, but on the next non-funny video I'll.

If George's lack of voluntarism and selfishness got to be much noticed, people from that utopia would simply hang him in a tree without charges or trial. This is also another BIG (to not say HUGE) issue of your conception; Justice. Justice in anarchy is street/popular justice, known to be exactly the most intrusive, most obnoxious, most irrational and insane form of Justice known by man.

[NghtRppr]

I was talking about doing things I don't like because the benefit is greater than the discomfort.

That's up for each person to decide what's in their best interest though, not forced at gunpoint. Going to work is still voluntary, taxation is not.

Human trafficking is quite profitable. Would you like to legalize that too? Child prostitution?

No, that wouldn't be legal. It also wouldn't make enough money to build an army.

When it comes to drugs I think the profit per sale will go down but the market will grow enough to make up for it, and they already have their organization in place to corner the market if it becomes legal.

You can't corner markets through competition. You can only do that with the use of laws, which requires an existing army. It would therefore be impossible to build an army to accomplish that.

But I think you're right. They will move to the more profitable areas if others diminsih.

What areas? You're being vague. Don't pretend like you can make a point without actually being specific.

Defending life and property are great motivators. That's why I expect most people will choose my company when I show up at their door with an offer of "Choose my company or else...". The prices are about the same as the competition.

While you're wasting money trying to strong-arm customers, other firms will be more profitable because they won't have that extra expense plus people will be flocking to those firms seeking protection from your small band of thugs.

It should also be fun living in your area, with drug addicts running around looking for another hit. They'll either be dangerous on the street looking for money since they can't hold a job, or dangerous at work because of their addiction. Not to mention the people driving. A problem today, worse with increased supply.

If all drugs are legal, all drugs will be cheap. Do you see alcoholics stabbing old ladies for their next shot of whiskey? No, because alcohol is dirt cheap compared to illegal drugs. As for driving under the influence, again that's yet another problem with our government. They have absolutely no incentive to find a solution to drunk drivers because no matter how many people die on the roads a year, they get to keep managing the roads without going out of business.

The land isn't unowned. We, the people own it, it's governed by the state. Would you like an "eviction law" for tax evaders?

No, you don't own it. All the land hasn't been homesteaded. There are huge swaths of land with nobody living on it.

Homesteading sounds nice but isn't really practical is it. With that I would like to clarify a previous statement. Practicality IS a reason for doing things. It's not a reason for doing unethical things, but we all do things just because they're practical. Like buy food in a store instead of growing it ourselves, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Taxation is unethical and as you just admitted, practicality is no reason to do unethical things.

And what about that gated community example. Was it violence to have you pay when you turn 18 and have an income? Or tossing you out? Or is it only violent when the state does it?

Private property.

[JA37]

That's up for each person to decide what's in their best interest though, not forced at gunpoint. Going to work is still voluntary, taxation is not.

No, that wouldn't be legal. It also wouldn't make enough money to build an army.

You can't corner markets through competition. You can only do that with the use of laws, which requires an existing army. It would therefore be impossible to build an army to accomplish that.

What areas? You're being vague. Don't pretend like you can make a point without actually being specific.

While you're wasting money trying to strong-arm customers, other firms will be more profitable because they won't have that extra expense plus people will be flocking to those firms seeking protection from your small band of thugs.

If all drugs are legal, all drugs will be cheap. Do you see alcoholics stabbing old ladies for their next shot of whiskey? No, because alcohol is dirt cheap compared to illegal drugs. As for driving under the influence, again that's yet another problem with our government. They have absolutely no incentive to find a solution to drunk drivers because no matter how many people die on the roads a year, they get to keep managing the roads without going out of business.

No, you don't own it. All the land hasn't been homesteaded. There are huge swaths of land with nobody living on it.

Taxation is unethical and as you just admitted, practicality is no reason to do unethical things.


Private property.

Again, missing the point. Never mind though.

Glad to hear that some things shouldn't be allowed.

I can't corner a market through competition? Really? Tell that to Microsoft. They have what, 95% of the market?

Yes I'm being vague. I'm not a criminal organization and don't know which areas will be profitable. But you can be sure that there will be such areas.

Would you concider the italian mafia a small band of thugs? That's the people you'll be competing with. Not me.

If we disregard all the violence caused by alcohol you mean? No, they don't generally do that. Alcohol isn't addictive the way crack-cocaine is either. That might have something to do with it. I can't really say since I don't know enough about addiction.
I'm not sure you know how prices are being set though. Drugs will be dirt cheap? Not really. They will have a price that the market will bear. That will not be "dirt cheap". You will still have a lot of crack-heads who won't have enough money to buy drugs.
Are you serious about government having no incentive to reduce drunk driving? Do you have any idea on how much a traffic accident cost? Lost revenue/taxes. You must be mad if you don't think they have an incentive.
Where I'm at roads are constantly being rebuilt according to the latest safety standards. Perhaps you have a shitty government that needs to be voted out at the next election? Some people say you get the leaders you deserve. I won't go that far though.

If you see taxation as theft, then yes it is unethical. If you see it as payment of services rendered it's not. I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

Private property isn't an answer to the question weather or not something is violence or not. Violence is violence. It's either violence when both do it, or neither. Make up your mind.

[BitterTea]

If you see taxation as theft, then yes it is unethical. If you see it as payment of services rendered it's not. I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

If I am correct, you are saying that the obligation to pay comes not from the agreement to pay, but the receipt of services? If you never agreed to pay for some services for some price, how can you know what is a "fair" payment? As far as I can tell, it's whatever the guy with the gun to your head says.

If I mow your lawn without your consent, I am still providing a service to you. Do you owe me money? Should I be able to collect that money using the threat of force? If you resist my threats of force, can I use actual force against you?

To clarify, I am not saying that scenarios like this will not happen in an anarchy. There are some bad people in the world, for sure. The difference is that states requires this behavior in order to function, it is legitimized and institutionalized.

[MoonShadow]

I can't corner a market through competition? Really? Tell that to Microsoft. They have what, 95% of the market?

Microsoft has 95% of the desktop market, not the software market, nor even the operating system market.  Once upon a time, MS was a market maker in software, but if they were ever really a monopoly it was one founded upon copyrights, which is a government supported monopoly by definition.  Microsoft is still a major player, but is no longer the only market maker.  Linux is the big dog now.  Everyone uses Linux, whether you know it or not.  The vast majority of Internet servers, smartphones and embedded devices (such as Tivo) are Linux devices.

If we disregard all the violence caused by alcohol you mean? No, they don't generally do that. Alcohol isn't addictive the way crack-cocaine is either.

Nicotine is, however.  We don't see people knocking over convience stores for a nic-fit, either.

[benjamindees]

I like this hypothetical example.  Let's flesh it out:

If your parents lived in a gated community, and when you turned 18 set you up with a flat there, would the community fee be an act of violence against you?

You agree to the rules by moving in, not by being born.

What if the rules are that each member of a household above the age of 18, and with an income, must pay the fee.

Simply remaining there isn't an act of consent

JA37, do you disagree with this?

Was it violence to have you pay when you turn 18 and have an income? Or tossing you out? Or is it only violent when the state does it?

I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property.  If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

[MoonShadow]

I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property.  If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

Yes it does.  Cruel as that might be.  Do I smell straw burning?

[benjamindees]

Yes it does.  Cruel as that might be.

Good, now please answer this question.

[MoonShadow]

Yes it does.  Cruel as that might be.

Good, now please answer this question.

"What about stray dogs?  Are those a negative externality?"

I don't understand the question.

[benjamindees]

Seems pretty simple to me, so I'm not sure what you don't understand.

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

[MoonShadow]

Seems pretty simple to me, so I'm not sure what you don't understand.

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

[JA37]

If I am correct, you are saying that the obligation to pay comes not from the agreement to pay, but the receipt of services? If you never agreed to pay for some services for some price, how can you know what is a "fair" payment? As far as I can tell, it's whatever the guy with the gun to your head says.

If I mow your lawn without your consent, I am still providing a service to you. Do you owe me money? Should I be able to collect that money using the threat of force? If you resist my threats of force, can I use actual force against you?

To clarify, I am not saying that scenarios like this will not happen in an anarchy. There are some bad people in the world, for sure. The difference is that states requires this behavior in order to function, it is legitimized and institutionalized.

That was covered in the thread previously about a house waveing service. Go back a few posts.

[BitterTea]

That was covered in the thread previously about a house waveing service. Go back a few posts.

Nice try, but you just made the argument that benefiting from services obligates you to pay, regardless of consent. How is my surprise lawn mowing service different from taxes, specifically?

[JA37]

Microsoft has 95% of the desktop market, not the software market, nor even the operating system market.  Once upon a time, MS was a market maker in software, but if they were ever really a monopoly it was one founded upon copyrights, which is a government supported monopoly by definition.  Microsoft is still a major player, but is no longer the only market maker.  Linux is the big dog now.  Everyone uses Linux, whether you know it or not.  The vast majority of Internet servers, smartphones and embedded devices (such as Tivo) are Linux devices.

Nicotine is, however.  We don't see people knocking over convience stores for a nic-fit, either.

I never said software market. I was responding to the claim that you can't corner a market through competition. I would argue that Microsoft has managed to do just that.
And I agree with your assertion that linux is the winner, and as an ex-nerd with +10yrs experience in HPC Unix/Linux I couldn't be happier.  

Somehow I doubt that the withdrawl from nicotine is as bad as the ones from other, more serious, drugs. I don't think I've ever seen anyone hallucinate when they hadn't had a smoke. Irritated and twitchy yes, but that's about as far as it goes. Withdrawl form other drugs makes people go batshit crazy.

Edit: What, copyrights are bad? What about patents? Also bad?

[JA37]

Nice try, but you just made the argument that benefiting from services obligates you to pay, regardless of consent. How is my surprise lawn mowing service different from taxes, specifically?

I'm pretty sure I said the same thing in a previous post. Have a look.
Taxes aren't a surprise. They are known well in advance. If your service is known in advance I accept it when I move to your area. Something like that.

[benjamindees]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

[NghtRppr]

I can't corner a market through competition? Really? Tell that to Microsoft. They have what, 95% of the market?

Then why doesn't Microsoft charge $10,000 or $100,000 for their operating system? If they truly have the market cornered then they could do that and they would do that. Obviously, they don't. The fact is, if they were to start charging absorbent prices people would switch to Apple or Linux. Just because everyone likes a certain brand at a certain price doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly implies you can charge whatever you like and people will pay it. Even though Microsoft dominates the desktop market the mere threat of competition is enough to keep them in line. They want to keep their dominant position and part of doing that is not charging ridiculous prices. You really need to read more about economics since it's clear that you're just regurgitating misinformation.

Yes I'm being vague. I'm not a criminal organization and don't know which areas will be profitable. But you can be sure that there will be such areas.

That's an argument from ignorance.

Would you concider the italian mafia a small band of thugs? That's the people you'll be competing with. Not me.

Again, where does their money come from? Drugs? Prostitution? Gambling? Please explain to me how they are going to keep making lots of money when all that will be legal?

Drugs will be dirt cheap? Not really.

Yes really. Anyone that charges substantially more than it costs to produce drugs is inviting competition to undercut them. If someone sells crack for $100 a unit and it only costs $10 to make, someone else can sell it for $90, attract away their business and still make a tidy profit. The same argument then applies to the person selling for $90 which encourages someone to sell it for $80 and so on. The price will tend to shift towards cost plus a small profit. The larger the profit, the more incentive there is for others to enter the market. This is basic economics of which you are clearly ignorant.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -Rothbard

Are you serious about government having no incentive to reduce drunk driving? Do you have any idea on how much a traffic accident cost? Lost revenue/taxes. You must be mad if you don't think they have an incentive.
Where I'm at roads are constantly being rebuilt according to the latest safety standards. Perhaps you have a shitty government that needs to be voted out at the next election? Some people say you get the leaders you deserve. I won't go that far though.

Lost taxes aren't immediately felt and can't be directly attributed to that. That's no feedback mechanism. If private firms manage the roads and do poorly, they lose money and eventually go out of business. The firms that remain are necessarily doing a better job. I covered this in my first post so there's little point in repeating it here. Markets weed out incompetence. Governments aren't subject to market forces.

If you see taxation as theft, then yes it is unethical. If you see it as payment of services rendered it's not. I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

I see it as unethical to force me to pay for a service that I neither requested nor desire.

Private property isn't an answer to the question weather or not something is violence or not. Violence is violence. It's either violence when both do it, or neither. Make up your mind.

Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.

[BitterTea]

Nice try, but you just made the argument that benefiting from services obligates you to pay, regardless of consent. How is my surprise lawn mowing service different from taxes, specifically?

I'm pretty sure I said the same thing in a previous post. Have a look.
Taxes aren't a surprise. They are known well in advance. If your service is known in advance I accept it when I move to your area. Something like that.

Here is what I was responding to:

I see it as unethical to not pay for the services you use and benefit from.

Before I was born, I was not aware that entities called states, which claim the right to do things we would consider immoral if done by individuals, controlled almost all of the populated land on this planet. I was not aware that in order to stay out of prison, I would be forced at gunpoint (figuratively, though sometimes literally) to give up a large portion of my earned money, effectively making me a part time slave. If I had known these things, perhaps I would have made the decision to stay in the womb.

Since that's rather silly, at what point do you claim that I "knew in advance" that I would be stolen from for the rest of my life, and what action should I have taken to avoid it? When did I consent to be a slave?

[Anonymous]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

The stray dogs dont hold you down and apply a taser to your balls.

I dont want freedom from the government I want competition WITH the government.

A bit of market pressure might prevent abuses such as putting people in a rape cage when there is no victim.

[NghtRppr]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.

Free meat.

[MoonShadow]

If someone abandons their pets in your neighborhood, is that an un-accounted-for cost that you must bear?

How does that affect me?

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

Sure.  But they are just as likely to eat each other, and after I shoot the first one, the survivors are going to be very wary of me.

Anyway, why would that be an issue?

[Anonymous]

cat-herding (verb) : Persuading a group of independently minded people to go in the same direction; (alt): a difficult, frequently failing enterprise in leadership.

The state doesn't LEAD it FORCES.

A group of people when lead properly will succeed far more readily than one that has guns pointed at it.

Or are human motivations beside the point ?

A more useful government would be one which only leads the population with moral authority not because the population fears them. If politicians are corrupt and show obvious psycopathy tendencies why do they wonder when the poopulation models the behaviour ?

[benjamindees]

Let's say it's a thousand stray dogs.  And they might bite you, or eat your cat.  Negative externality?

Sure.  But they are just as likely to eat each other, and after I shoot the first one, the survivors are going to be very wary of me.

And let's say someone deliberately bred these dogs and released them into your neighborhood.

So, if one of them bit you, who would be responsible?

[JA37]

Then why doesn't Microsoft charge $10,000 or $100,000 for their operating system? If they truly have the market cornered then they could do that and they would do that. Obviously, they don't. The fact is, if they were to start charging absorbent prices people would switch to Apple or Linux. Just because everyone likes a certain brand at a certain price doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly implies you can charge whatever you like and people will pay it. Even though Microsoft dominates the desktop market the mere threat of competition is enough to keep them in line. They want to keep their dominant position and part of doing that is not charging ridiculous prices. You really need to read more about economics since it's clear that you're just regurgitating misinformation.

You have a very narrow definition of monopoly. Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly (or natural monopoly) on the desktop. Please note that there's nothing wrong with that. If you provide a service or product that is far superior to everything else out there and everyone buys it, you have a monopoly. How do you keep such a monopoly? By charging a little less than the "pain threshold" of switching to something else. Have a look here for more information about monopolies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
I don't think that it's me who need to read more ...

That's an argument from ignorance.

Well what do you know. I can't forsee the future. Imagine that. I can make predictions and educated guesses though, but those are "too vague" for you.

Again, where does their money come from? Drugs? Prostitution? Gambling? Please explain to me how they are going to keep making lots of money when all that will be legal?

Because they already have the structure in place and will most likely be the dominant player in those areas if they are legalized, and with an increased supply they can keep their margins even with falling prices? Perhaps?

Yes really. Anyone that charges substantially more than it costs to produce drugs is inviting competition to undercut them. If someone sells crack for $100 a unit and it only costs $10 to make, someone else can sell it for $90, attract away their business and still make a tidy profit. The same argument then applies to the person selling for $90 which encourages someone to sell it for $80 and so on. The price will tend to shift towards cost plus a small profit. The larger the profit, the more incentive there is for others to enter the market. This is basic economics of which you are clearly ignorant.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." -Rothbard

The same is true today, even with drugs being illegal. They make profits that are unimaginable. Why isn't someone trying to "undercut" them? What you're talking about is economic theory and how things work in a "perfect market". There aren't any perfect markets in the real world. I'm not ignorant, I'm just not naive.

Lost taxes aren't immediately felt and can't be directly attributed to that. That's no feedback mechanism. If private firms manage the roads and do poorly, they lose money and eventually go out of business. The firms that remain are necessarily doing a better job. I covered this in my first post so there's little point in repeating it here. Markets weed out incompetence. Governments aren't subject to market forces.

I agree that the market is great at some things, but you have a very idealistic view of things. Lost taxes are felt in the same way as lost revenue is felt. There's not a big difference there. And healthcare/IC is a very direct cost that is quite obvious, just like a burned down store would be for a private company.

I see it as unethical to force me to pay for a service that I neither requested nor desire.

But you feel that you can use them and benefit from them without paying?

Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.

Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house.

[JA37]

Before I was born, I was not aware that entities called states, which claim the right to do things we would consider immoral if done by individuals, controlled almost all of the populated land on this planet. I was not aware that in order to stay out of prison, I would be forced at gunpoint (figuratively, though sometimes literally) to give up a large portion of my earned money, effectively making me a part time slave. If I had known these things, perhaps I would have made the decision to stay in the womb.

Since that's rather silly, at what point do you claim that I "knew in advance" that I would be stolen from for the rest of my life, and what action should I have taken to avoid it? When did I consent to be a slave?

Asked and answered. You don't start paying taxes the second you leave the birth canal. It takes a while. Enough time to figure out what a state is and what comes with it.
Like stated above, Somalia is a very good place to be if you don't like the state interfering with your personal freedoms. You'll have Al-Shabab instead, but atleast that's not the state, right?

[The Script]

Stop confusing violence with aggression. There's nothing wrong with violently defending yourself against a mugger or rapist. If you're against violence then you might as well lay down and die. I'm against aggression and private property is the central issue of what constitutes aggression. If I take the shirt off your back, it's not instantly clear that it's an act of aggression. After all, what if you stole the shirt from me yesterday and I'm just reclaiming my property? In that case, you're the aggressor, for stealing my property, not me.

Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house.

Is that how gated communities work?  They take a percentage of the income of everyone who lives in them?  I thought they charged you for renting a house within it and also for some specific fees (per household).  If you don't like it in the gated community you can go to another one.  If you don't like gated communities you can rent an apartment or buy a house and the gated community will not send men to your door with guns to collect their fees still.  I don't think gated communities are analogous with the State.

[The Script]

The State has a coercive monopoly, a gated community does not.  A gated community is private property and does not have a coercive monopoly on anyone, not even the people who choose to live within it.  Yes, you can be kicked out of a gated community for not paying, but that is because you are renting on someone's property and can be evicted just like any other rental.

[NghtRppr]

Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly (or natural monopoly) on the desktop. Please note that there's nothing wrong with that.

Then why did you bring it up as an example? You're trying to be smug but it just shows that you have no plan of attack and are pulling arguments out of your ass.

Well what do you know. I can't forsee the future. Imagine that. I can make predictions and educated guesses though, but those are "too vague" for you.

It's called FUD. While you're educating yourself on Wikipedia, look that up too.

Because they already have the structure in place and will most likely be the dominant player in those areas if they are legalized, and with an increased supply they can keep their margins even with falling prices? Perhaps?

That will ensure only that they are in the market. It doesn't ensure that they will be able to charge whatever they want and start a private army. It doesn't even ensure they will remain the dominate player. Did the moonshine makers dominate the market after prohibition ended? No. Is the mob still selling us liquor? No. Illegal rackets are so profitable because they are illegal. Take that away and it's just another industry charging market prices.

The same is true today, even with drugs being illegal. They make profits that are unimaginable.

No, they are making profits that represent the potential risks of death, incarceration, etc.

Lost taxes are felt in the same way as lost revenue is felt. There's not a big difference there. And healthcare/IC is a very direct cost that is quite obvious, just like a burned down store would be for a private company.

The response is just to raise taxes so they can stay in business. There's no incentive to improve. The government can do as shitty job as they want and nothing happens. Oh, well you get to vote in another four years which changes little to nothing.

But you feel that you can use them and benefit from them without paying?

If I'm benefiting, it's against my will. That's like shoving an ice cream sundae down my throat and saying I'm benefiting. Thanks but no thanks.

Yes yes, defence good. Fine. How about answering the question. Is it an act of agression to toss you out of our gated community when you refuse to pay the fee that everyone above 18 with income must pay? After all, you were just born here and wish to remain with your parents in their house.

If I own property, you have to follow my rules or leave. Am I required to let people live in my house? Why should I be required to let them live in my gated community?

[JA37]

Then why did you bring it up as an example? You're trying to be smug but it just shows that you have no plan of attack and are pulling arguments out of your ass.

You claimed that it wasn't possible to corner a market through competition. Clearly it is. Microsoft is a good example. Monopolies aren't inherintly bad, however they tend to abuse the power. That's where we agree, and all your examples comes from. Abuse of monopoly power.

It's called FUD. While you're educating yourself on Wikipedia, look that up too.

No it's called an educated guess. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it FUD. I wasn't educating me, I was educating you. 

That will ensure only that they are in the market. It doesn't ensure that they will be able to charge whatever they want and start a private army. It doesn't even ensure they will remain the dominate player. Did the moonshine makers dominate the market after prohibition ended? No. Is the mob still selling us liquor? No. Illegal rackets are so profitable because they are illegal. Take that away and it's just another industry charging market prices.

No, they are making profits that represent the potential risks of death, incarceration, etc.

Yes, scarsity drives up prices, we estabished that, and you can make up for price drop with volume. Is the mob selling liquor? Probably. It's a profitable business and they like profit. And they are criminals, often violent, so how keen are you in competing with them? I pulled out of the bar business just because there are too many criminals there, and you don't want to associate with them at all. Implied threats are used to make sure you buy from the "right" supplier. Again you're back to the perfect market.

The response is just to raise taxes so they can stay in business. There's no incentive to improve. The government can do as shitty job as they want and nothing happens. Oh, well you get to vote in another four years which changes little to nothing.

Why not do both? There's always an incentive, you just don't want to see it.
Didn't the governor of Wisconsin change things quite a lot. I seem to remember seeing it on the tv.

If I'm benefiting, it's against my will. That's like shoving an ice cream sundae down my throat and saying I'm benefiting. Thanks but no thanks.

Or in the example with the gated community, you benefit from low crime rates, but still don't want to pay for it.

If I own property, you have to follow my rules or leave. Am I required to let people live in my house? Why should I be required to let them live in my gated community?

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. You're saying no? Correct? Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression?

[NghtRppr]

You claimed that it wasn't possible to corner a market through competition. Clearly it is.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. If a market is cornered then you can charge ridiculous prices. Why else would we give a shit? If there is only one brand of shoes but everyone is happy with that, why are you complaining? You're so desperate to be right about something, anything, that you resort to childish word games.

So, to keep you honest, let me rephrase. It is impossible to create an abusive monopoly through competition, which is what the issue really is. Now, argue against that instead of going off on irrelevant tangents.

[BCEmporium]

#1 Your "private property" is just "private property" as long as you've the means to keep it that way.
#2 You "money" just have "value" because the State grants it.
...
bottom line, you complaint on the charges the State applies to actually grant you the money you've on the first place. It's a funny circle, uh?

To the #1 you can say "I hire security", well, but having property may not mean you're monetarily rich enough to pay some folks to hang around, and as without state #2 takes over, even if you do, it's worthless now.
Also the State allows you to have far away property, you can live in Florida and have a house on Seattle or Boston. Without anyone to keep it for you that would not be your property anymore. Say you rented your Boston house, after the first rent you didn't get any more. You go there to evict the tenant, however the tenant is part of that community whereas you're not, so his reasons will sound by affinity more reasonable than yours... so you rather come with an army, as the locals will help your faulty tenant and you probably won't come back alive at all of such journey.

Bitcoin2cash, it is possible to create abusive monopolies in open markets, that's what cartels do.

[NghtRppr]

Considering the website we're on, what am I supposed to make of someone that claims fiat currency is the only possible way for currency to exist?

[BCEmporium]

Considering the website we're on, what am I supposed to make of someone that claims fiat currency is the only possible way for currency to exist?

No, it's not... but the one on your wallet is fiat currency, not bullion or virtual.
Still wouldn't grant you ownership...

[JA37]

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. If a market is cornered then you can charge ridiculous prices. Why else would we give a shit? If there is only one brand of shoes but everyone is happy with that, why are you complaining? You're so desperate to be right about something, anything, that you resort to childish word games.

So, to keep you honest, let me rephrase. It is impossible to create an abusive monopoly through competition, which is what the issue really is. Now, argue against that instead of going off on irrelevant tangents.

I wasn't complaining. You were the one implying that monopolies are always bad and always an effect of government intervention.

Again, no it's not. First of all, charging ridiculos prices is bad business practice and nothing you do, even if you have a monopoly. If you do, people will find alternative ways of doing things. You don't want to kill your market.
If your maket has high barriers of entry, say cost, and you're the first in on that market you can charge very high prices since you're the first mover. Then when someone else tries to enter the same market I can lower prices through economics of scale to put them out of business and then raise the prices again. Is this an abusive monopoly to you? It is to me. Is it done through competition, I would say yes.

[NghtRppr]

From: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html

The question is often asked: What if a large, rich company kept buying out its smaller competitors or kept forcing them out of business by means of undercutting prices and selling at a loss—would it not be able to gain control of a given field and then start charging high prices and be free to stagnate with no fear of competition? The answer is: No, it would not be able to do it. If a company assumed heavy losses in order to drive out competitors then began to charge high prices to regain what it had lost, this would serve as an incentive for new competitors to enter the field and take advantage of the high profitability, without any losses to recoup. The new competitors would force prices down to the market level. The large company would have either to abandon its attempt to establish monopoly prices—or else go bankrupt fighting off the competitors its own polices would attract.

It is a matter of historical fact that no “price war” has ever succeeded in establishing a monopoly or in maintaining prices above the market level, outside the law of supply and demand. (“Price wars” have, however, acted as spurs to the economic efficiency of competing companies—and have thereby resulted in enormous benefits to the public, in terms of better products at lower prices.)

In other words, it will never happen.

[­­­Atlas_]

The closest thing to such a monopoly was Standard Oil but even that was affected by state laws preventing the formation of national companies. In addition, it gave us the lowest oil prices ever. So, it was a natural and quite healthy monopoly.

[MoonShadow]

Then why doesn't Microsoft charge $10,000 or $100,000 for their operating system? If they truly have the market cornered then they could do that and they would do that. Obviously, they don't. The fact is, if they were to start charging absorbent prices people would switch to Apple or Linux. Just because everyone likes a certain brand at a certain price doesn't mean they have a monopoly. A monopoly implies you can charge whatever you like and people will pay it. Even though Microsoft dominates the desktop market the mere threat of competition is enough to keep them in line. They want to keep their dominant position and part of doing that is not charging ridiculous prices. You really need to read more about economics since it's clear that you're just regurgitating misinformation.

You have a very narrow definition of monopoly. Microsoft is a de-facto monopoly (or natural monopoly) on the desktop. Please note that there's nothing wrong with that. If you provide a service or product that is far superior to everything else out there and everyone buys it, you have a monopoly. How do you keep such a monopoly? By charging a little less than the "pain threshold" of switching to something else.

Charging what the market will bear (before customers switch) is not the hallmark of a monopoly.  In a true monopoly, customers cannot switch.  Once upon a time, this may have been practically true with Microsoft, but it was a temporary monopoly permitted only because of copyright laws.  It's obviously no longer true regardless.

[JA37]

From: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/question_of_monopolies.html

The question is often asked: What if a large, rich company kept buying out its smaller competitors or kept forcing them out of business by means of undercutting prices and selling at a loss—would it not be able to gain control of a given field and then start charging high prices and be free to stagnate with no fear of competition? The answer is: No, it would not be able to do it. If a company assumed heavy losses in order to drive out competitors then began to charge high prices to regain what it had lost, this would serve as an incentive for new competitors to enter the field and take advantage of the high profitability, without any losses to recoup. The new competitors would force prices down to the market level. The large company would have either to abandon its attempt to establish monopoly prices—or else go bankrupt fighting off the competitors its own polices would attract.

It is a matter of historical fact that no “price war” has ever succeeded in establishing a monopoly or in maintaining prices above the market level, outside the law of supply and demand. (“Price wars” have, however, acted as spurs to the economic efficiency of competing companies—and have thereby resulted in enormous benefits to the public, in terms of better products at lower prices.)

In other words, it will never happen.

Who said anything about selling at a loss? I was talking about reducing profit to make sure that you can't get your investment back. With economic of scale I should be able to undercut you and still sell at a profit, unless I'm utterly incompetent. You assume that anyone with a monopoly will charge unreasonably much. They won't unless they're morons. They will charge just below what incentivices others from entering the market.

I agree with you if the barriers of entry are low. Then it's not possible to undercut and create/maintain a monopoly.

[JA37]

Charging what the market will bear (before customers switch) is not the hallmark of a monopoly.  In a true monopoly, customers cannot switch.  Once upon a time, this may have been practically true with Microsoft, but it was a temporary monopoly permitted only because of copyright laws.  It's obviously no longer true regardless.

That's a very narrow definition of a monopoly. If there's only one player in a given market, that player has a monopoly. Also if there's no real competition even if there are other players, that would also be concidered a monopoly. Like Microsofts dominance in the desktop market.

Please explain how it was only possible through copyright laws. I don't quite understand that.

[NghtRppr]

They will charge just below what incentivices others from entering the market.

Then obviously that's not an abusive monopoly since the only way to do that will be to charge the going rate of return which is between 5% and 10%. Also, you keep talking about economies of scale as if that doesn't apply to anyone else. It's just as easy for someone to get investors to raise the funds to do the same thing. Can you give me an example where that's impossible? You're going so far off the deep end that even if you are right, which hasn't been demonstrated yet, that it would at most apply to one or two markets which are likely to have substitutes. Oh no, someone has cornered the grape soda market! I guess I'll just drink orange soda. That's hardly something worthy of immoral practices such as taxation, coercive laws, etc.

If there's only one player in a given market, that player has a monopoly.

So what? A small town may have only one drug store but unless they're charging $100 per aspirin then who cares? If they do that then it will make sense to open a second drug store. You keep switching back and forth between monopolies (who cares?) and abusive monopolies (can't exist in a free market) just like you keep switching between violence (again, violence self-defense is fine) and aggression (not cool). Please stick to the real issues. I'm glad you can read a dictionary but a single seller is not necessarily a problem.

[BCEmporium]

Violence/Aggression... everybody speaks of it as if it was something defined "per se".
Pearl Harbor, a few days before US froze Japan's funds, so was it a Japanese aggression or self-defending?
Like anything else it just depends on which side of the barricade you're. In the "right side" you're a "Freedom Fighter self-defending", in the "wrong side", you're an "Aggressive Terrorist".
Reason why anarchy doesn't go; we need some sort of "objective morality", Religion used to do that job in the past, but was doing quite a lousy job, so now we've Governments for such job.

[NghtRppr]

Reason why anarchy doesn't go; we need some sort of "objective morality", Religion used to do that job in the past, but was doing quite a lousy job, so now we've Governments for such job.

Your way of thinking scares me.

[BCEmporium]

Reason why anarchy doesn't go; we need some sort of "objective morality", Religion used to do that job in the past, but was doing quite a lousy job, so now we've Governments for such job.

Your way of thinking scares me.

I'm pragmatic and realist. Just that.
I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will. People is greedy and will follow that greed no matter what. Twisted logics, manipulation, violence, everything is out there and will remain.
And looking at the World today and looking at the World back on the 90's, when you could experience a much better society and freedom than today, I may say it is getting worse. Now every shit is a business, then you got every shit full of insane rules because "it's a business"... fucking World! Governments have some guilt, but so do we. Confucius said «A gentleman blames himself while a common man blames others»; that's what we mostly are... "Common man".

[NghtRppr]

I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will.

I don't expect everyone to be peaceful, just most people. If most people aren't peaceful then we're all fucked no matter what ideology we cling to.

[BCEmporium]

I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will.

I don't expect everyone to be peaceful just most people. If most people aren't peaceful then we're all fucked no matter what ideology we cling to.

And aren't we? By day, specially since 9/11, you see Fascism moving from the Government sphere to the mentality sphere. People is getting fascist by the day, afraid of everything and up to give away their freedom out of fear of poltergeist attacks. Ghosts implanted on the mind of people preventing them from living!
We'd never been further of your dream society.

[MoonShadow]

I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will.

I don't expect everyone to be peaceful just most people. If most people aren't peaceful then we're all fucked no matter what ideology we cling to.

And aren't we? By day, specially since 9/11, you see Fascism moving from the Government sphere to the mentality sphere. People is getting fascist by the day, afraid of everything and up to give away their freedom out of fear of poltergeist attacks. Ghosts implanted on the mind of people preventing them from living!
We'd never been further of your dream society.

I think that might be just your perspectives.  I don't see real people becoming more fascist, just government and media.

[BCEmporium]

If people wouldn't be becoming more fascist, they would be rioting by now... yet they don't. They started to accept to trade their will for "security" and all that governments have to do is to put up a terrorist attack now an then.
Also many people is more and more convinced to be eternal, put death to a bigger tragedy than what it already is.
"You can't smoke near me because that kills me"... does it? So does many things else, yet if you keep running away of everything that may kill you at long term you don't live at all and in the end will die anyway.

It's a utter truth to our kind; «who controls the fear of death, controls humanity».

[Anonymous]

I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will.

I don't expect everyone to be peaceful just most people. If most people aren't peaceful then we're all fucked no matter what ideology we cling to.

And aren't we? By day, specially since 9/11, you see Fascism moving from the Government sphere to the mentality sphere. People is getting fascist by the day, afraid of everything and up to give away their freedom out of fear of poltergeist attacks. Ghosts implanted on the mind of people preventing them from living!
We'd never been further of your dream society.

That is true.

Notice that googles eric schmidt is touted as the next commerce secretary?

If thats not fascism i dont know what is....

[MoonShadow]

If people wouldn't be becoming more fascist, they would be rioting by now... yet they don't.

Nonsense.  Do libertarians riot?  No, socialists do; and fascists are socialists.

[MoonShadow]

I'll not go dream on a place where everyone is "peaceful" because there's no such place and never will.

I don't expect everyone to be peaceful just most people. If most people aren't peaceful then we're all fucked no matter what ideology we cling to.

And aren't we? By day, specially since 9/11, you see Fascism moving from the Government sphere to the mentality sphere. People is getting fascist by the day, afraid of everything and up to give away their freedom out of fear of poltergeist attacks. Ghosts implanted on the mind of people preventing them from living!
We'd never been further of your dream society.

That is true.

Notice that googles eric schmidt is touted as the next commerce secretary?

If thats not fascism i dont know what is....

Fascism is single party political control over a heavily regulated marketplace. 

Okay, you're right, the US is now fascist.

[benjamindees]

poltergeist attacks

SPECTRE

[BCEmporium]

Fascism is when the "Government" take the "State" as the main entity in the society, being so the "State" can then interfere on all issues of individuals, be their private or not. This extents obviously to markets.
Within Fascism is legit to regulate or forbid even masturbation if the "State" decides so (say the State needs more natality), as the individual has no rights or his rights get void when colliding with the "State" for any reason. The "State" is the primarily thing to defend, no matter what that may cost to individuals or how many have to be wiped out.

This is what means Mussolini's words, and the best yet to define fascism: «All in the State, all with the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State».

[JA37]

Then obviously that's not an abusive monopoly since the only way to do that will be to charge the going rate of return which is between 5% and 10%. Also, you keep talking about economies of scale as if that doesn't apply to anyone else. It's just as easy for someone to get investors to raise the funds to do the same thing. Can you give me an example where that's impossible? You're going so far off the deep end that even if you are right, which hasn't been demonstrated yet, that it would at most apply to one or two markets which are likely to have substitutes. Oh no, someone has cornered the grape soda market! I guess I'll just drink orange soda. That's hardly something worthy of immoral practices such as taxation, coercive laws, etc.

So what? A small town may have only one drug store but unless they're charging $100 per aspirin then who cares? If they do that then it will make sense to open a second drug store. You keep switching back and forth between monopolies (who cares?) and abusive monopolies (can't exist in a free market) just like you keep switching between violence (again, violence self-defense is fine) and aggression (not cool). Please stick to the real issues. I'm glad you can read a dictionary but a single seller is not necessarily a problem.

How about gas prices? Technically an oligopoly but still. Concidering the profits they make they're overcharging, but there's no competition.

And what happened to this question about our gated community?

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. You're saying no? Correct? Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression?

[benjamindees]

And what happened to this question about our gated community?

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?

[JA37]

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?

In this hypothetical example my parents liked this community so much that they moved there, and then had children who were born into it.
We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

Not unless it was my kid.

[MoonShadow]

How about gas prices? Technically an oligopoly but still. Concidering the profits they make they're overcharging, but there's no competition.

Whoa!  Hold on there!  You're going to have to support that statement, I will not accept it as a given that gas companies overcharge you.  And by what logic do you claim that there is no competition?  And which companies are we talking about, exactly?  The oil companies that pump it out of the ground, transport it from angry & sandy locales, convert it to petrol, transport it to your local station, or sell it to you at the station?

[benjamindees]

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?  The property owner?

If someone puts a kid in your backyard, are you obligated to let it stay there?

In this hypothetical example my parents liked this community so much that they moved there, and then had children who were born into it.
We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

Not unless it was my kid.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

[NghtRppr]

It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

[benjamindees]

I'm sure there will always be some swath of desert somewhere that remains un-owned.

Would it be reasonable for the rest of us to demand that you either give us all of your possessions or move there?

[NghtRppr]

I'm sure there will always be some swath of desert somewhere that remains un-owned.

Would it be reasonable for the rest of us to demand that you either give us all of your possessions or move there?

There's something like 7 billion acres of land that can be used for growing crops on the planet. That's a little over an acre of arable land per person. However, to answer your question, assuming all that land is owned, yes. Of course, Las Vegas was built in the middle of a desert. So, it's really all about how you put the land to use.

[benjamindees]

Great, so then you're not only for slavery.  You're for sex slavery.  Fantastic argument.  I can't imagine why everyone isn't rushing to sign up for your "evict your kids so they can whore themselves out in a desert wasteland to survive" philosophy.

[NghtRppr]

Great, so then you're not only for slavery.  You're for sex slavery.  Fantastic argument.  I can't imagine why everyone isn't rushing to sign up for your "evict your kids so they can whore themselves out in a desert wasteland to survive" philosophy.

What the fuck are you talking about? Slavery? Sex slavery? I think you've gotten me confused with someone else. Put down the crack pipe and talk to me when you're sober.

[benjamindees]

How do you think Las Vegas was built?  It was built by criminals and gangsters.  And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.  Do you see any manufacturing plants or farms to produce goods for export?  How would you earn a living in a desert?

You haven't really thought through the consequences of your philosophy in a world of finite resources.  "Homesteading" is not some universal answer to everything.  Are you really under the impression that the vast majority of productive property on Earth is not already owned, or soon will be?  Should people homestead the moon?

It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

So please address this question.

I can be evicted by the owner of any owned property.  If you're on my property and refuse to leave after being asked, you're trespassing. You're the aggressor, not me.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

[MoonShadow]

How do you think Las Vegas was built?  It was built by criminals and gangsters.  And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.

This is generally true with just about every city.  Those things are illegal in Vegas as well.

[NghtRppr]

And it's maintained by activities which are illegal most other places.

Cirque du Soleil is a crime? Damn, you must hate anything cultural. What the hell does that have to do with slavery though? Like I said, put down the crack pipe. Also, please stop pretending that Las Vegas is the model for all desert cities that are flourishing. It was a just a single example.

How would you earn a living in a desert?

I'm a computer programmer. I can work from anywhere. There are lots of ways to work from home. There's also the possibility of commuting. Of course, how you survive isn't my concern. You're a big boy. You figure it out. What's the alternative? Do you think I should provide you a way to survive?

Are you really under the impression that the vast majority of productive property on Earth is not already owned, or soon will be?

Go read up on homesteading. Simply saying "I own sea to shining sea" isn't enough to homestead it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of land hasn't been homesteaded. I don't actually know that though since I haven't done the research. I'm betting you haven't either. Let me know if you have then you can make some meaningful claim.

Should people homestead the moon?

Eventually.

What if you are a child and the owner is your family?  Still apply?

Of course it applies. Nobody is forced to care for their children, even with our current system.

[MoonShadow]

Go read up on homesteading. Simply saying "I own sea to shining sea" isn't enough to homestead it. I'm willing to bet that the majority of land hasn't been homesteaded. I don't actually know that though since I haven't done the research. I'm betting you haven't either. Let me know if you have then you can make some meaningful claim.

Well, that's not true with the US as a whole, but more than half of Utah, by area, is "legally" the property of the Federal government.  This sounds rediculous, but it is so.

[benjamindees]

Nobody is forced to care for their children, even with our current system.

And you think that's a good thing?  So what makes you think anyone would choose to homestead the moon over, say, your back yard?

Have I not made this argument perfectly clear by now, or are you just that dense?  You support slavery.  You want future generations to have to do something ludicrous, like colonizing a desert or the moon, by force, so that current generations can benefit by not having to care for them or compete with them for scarce resources.  That's the philosophy that you are advocating, taken to it's logical conclusion -- inter-generational slavery -- disguised as "anarcho-capitalism".  In actuality, it's the opposite of capitalism.  Since, what you advocate has only ever led to the destruction of capital throughout history.  But it's in your immediate interest and it produces "profit" on paper so you can find ways to intellectually justify it.

Also,
http://www.theonion.com/articles/al-gore-places-infant-son-in-rocket-to-escape-dyin,2495/

[TiagoTiago]

Just wait till global warming triggers the next ice age and you will have enough solid surface for every individual to live the rest of their lifes without bumping on anyone else

[BCEmporium]

Just wait till global warming triggers the next ice age and you will have enough solid surface for every individual to live the rest of their lifes without bumping on anyone else

Doesn't work! There's a bunch of folks who always seams to be out of parking space and therefore just keep pushing to create a bigger Empire...

[NghtRppr]

Well, that's not true with the US as a whole, but more than half of Utah, by area, is "legally" the property of the Federal government.

Is it homesteaded? No? Then it's not owned. Chattel slavery was also once legal. So, it seems to me whether or not something is legal is a fairly worthless concept.

And you think that's a good thing?

Yes. It's unwise to force people to be responsible for children they don't want. It's better for a child to be with a family that will love and care for them.

So what makes you think anyone would choose homestead the moon over, say, your back yard?

My backyard is already homesteaded. You can only homestead unowned property. If you took the time to educate yourself on homesteading then we could avoid wasting time with pointless questions like this.

You support slavery.  You want future generations to have to do something ludicrous, like colonizing a desert or the moon, by force, so that current generations can benefit by not having to care for them or compete with them for scarce resources.

That's not slavery. Also, nobody is likely to be forced to go to the moon. People could buy a condo in a skyscraper and get an ordinary job. As long as humans have desires, there will be jobs. The problem is, you're not actually looking for solutions. You're just looking for objections, even if they are ridiculous and take only a few seconds to come up with a reasonable answer.

Are you related to JA37?

[benjamindees]

Of course no one is likely to go to the moon.  That's the point.  They're likely to just kill you and take your property instead, regardless of what claim you think you have to it.  And, of course, this is likely to happen after you're dead and gone anyways, so it will be some other poor sucker who receives the blowback from your ill-thought-out political philosophy.  You're writing a mortgage that you know will blow up on some future sucker.

What makes you think "ordinary jobs" pay for condos in skyscrapers?  Are you living in some economic fantasyland, like New York?

Forcing others to work for your benefit is not slavery?  Really?  What do you call that then?

What makes you think there will always be jobs for humans?  In case you haven't noticed, Cirque du Soleil and Vegas aren't doing so hot lately.  Neither is Detroit.  Of all the professions that can be more effectively done by humans than by machines, only a handful qualify as productive work.

Have you ever studied history?  Physics?  I already know what the solution is.  And I'm trying to point it out to you.

[NghtRppr]

Forcing others to work for your benefit is not slavery?

The only way anyone is ever forced to work is by threat of violence. Simply saying, "I won't feed your lazy ass for nothing." isn't slavery. It's time for the children of the world to grow up and learn to take care of themselves. Mommy and daddy aren't always going to be around to feed you and wipe your ass.

What makes you think there will always be jobs for humans?

"There is as much work to be done as there are unfulfilled desires. Since human desires are, for all practical purposes, limitless, the amount of work to be done is also limitless. Therefore, no matter how much work the eager young man completes, he cannot possibly exhaust or even make an appreciable dent in the amount of work to be done.

To assume that human desires can be fully and finally satisfied is to assume that we can reach a point at which human perfection — material, intellectual, and aesthetic — has been fully realized. Paradise? Perhaps. If it were somehow achieved, then certainly there would be no "unemployment" problem — for who would need a job?" --Block

In other words, the only way that there could be no jobs is if all human desires are satisfied, in which case, nobody needs a job. I'm not saying it will never happen but it's unlikely to be an issue for a very long time.

Physics? History? How about learning some economics since you seem to be fairly ignorant of that.

[benjamindees]

The only way anyone is ever forced to work is by threat of violence.

So, you would consider exposing a child on a mountaintop to be an act of violence?  Or you think the child would not be forced to work to survive?

"There is as much work to be done as there are unfulfilled desires. Since human desires are, for all practical purposes, limitless, the amount of work to be done is also limitless. Therefore, no matter how much work the eager young man completes, he cannot possibly exhaust or even make an appreciable dent in the amount of work to be done.

To assume that human desires can be fully and finally satisfied is to assume that we can reach a point at which human perfection — material, intellectual, and aesthetic — has been fully realized. Paradise? Perhaps. If it were somehow achieved, then certainly there would be no "unemployment" problem — for who would need a job?" --Block

Yeah, this is a completely nonsense definition of work.  Digging holes only to fill them back up again is not work.  And productive work is thermodynamically limited.  Resources are finite.  Infinite amounts of human labor won't change that fact.

I've studied economics.  On the whole, I found it to be a rather unimpressive collection of unrealistic false assumptions and deliberate mangling of common terms put to fraudulent ends.

[NghtRppr]

So, you would consider exposing a child on a mountaintop to be an act of violence?  Or you think the child would not be forced to work to survive?

Are you so hysterical that all you can think about are extreme cases? I would personally volunteer to take in a single child and care for him or her if someone abandons them on a mountaintop. I'm sure millions of childless couples would do the same. The point is, such choices regarding charity should be voluntary and not done at gun point or with threats of imprisonment.

Yeah, this is a completely nonsense definition of work.  Digging holes only to fill them back up again is not work.

I just got done explaining to you that jobs are created by human desires. Who the fuck desires a hole to be dug up and then refilled? Nobody, except maybe government agencies trying to create "job programs". The things you're saying are becoming more idiotic with every post. If you don't smarten up, I'm just going to ignore you.

[benjamindees]

This would be easy if you could simply answer a straightforward, yes-or-no question without erecting endless strawmen.  Child exposure is not a hypothetical extreme case.  It has existed in large, successful societies in the past.  Abortion, an almost morally identical practice, is common today.  Whether you personally would adopt a single child for a few years changes none of the large scale dynamics of the issue.

But clearly you are more interested in maintaining your little inconsistent, incomplete political philosophy rather than learning how the world works or improving it.

[NghtRppr]

Whether you personally would adopt a single child for a few years changes none of the large scale dynamics of the issue.

So, you're just going ignore the part where I said that millions of childless couples would likely do the same?

[benjamindees]

Whether you personally would adopt a single child for a few years changes none of the large scale dynamics of the issue.

So, you're just going ignore the part where I said that millions of childless couples would likely do the same?

Yes, because it's nonsense.  There are a billion starving, uncared-for people on the planet.  No one is adopting all of them.

This is just pointless rhetoric that you would like to use to justify your contrived moral philosophy.

I've asked you questions that have to do with extreme cases, because they are the easiest questions to answer.  Since you can't answer them with a straightforward "yes" or "no", discussing more common cases would be pointless.

[NghtRppr]

There are a billion starving, uncared-for people on the planet.  No one is adopting all of them.

Yes, especially since they aren't all children. I didn't know we were adopting adults too.

[JA37]

It doesn't really matter since the entire country hasn't been homesteaded therefore it isn't owned, collectively or otherwise.

Was that the answer to the question about the gated community? Homesteading? Seriously?

So  what if I "homestead" this bit of land, set up that gated community that we've been discussing. It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up. The problems that I pointed out still remains. The agression is still there. Or is it? I don't think you answered that question. Is locking you up only agression if the state does it, not if a private property owner does it (if they can't throw you out for the reason mentioned above). Is forcefully separating you from your friends and loved ones agression when the state does it, but defence when a private property owner does it?

Or is it that when you have rules there is someone who has to enforce them? Perhaps that's just standard operating procedure when dealing with humans in a non trivial system? Call it agression if you like, but don't pretend that the state is the only one that does it.

[JA37]

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
But in the example I mentioned then each member of the community had an equal share of ownership and being born in that was given a share. Dying would relieve you of a share.
I don't understand how you understood that to be collective responsibility for children. I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children.

[NghtRppr]

It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up.

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[JA37]

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

That bit is crystal clear. And we agree on it, believe it or not. Now answer the questions in the stated example.

[BCEmporium]

It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up.

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Wrong! If someone happens to be born within your property and now grew up to be an adult, he didn't choose to born in your property, he also owns you nothing... if you come to charge or evict him you're committing yourself the very same aggression you complaint so much the State does to you.
Funny, eh?

Your arguments are of too "inter-personal" issues/businesses, too narrow vision. You've to wider your vision to have a notion of what is "a State", a "State" isn't you and more two or three guys, not even there's ground to say that everyone will act like you, or as you think you would act.

[NghtRppr]

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

That bit is crystal clear. And we agree on it, believe it or not. Now answer the questions in the stated example.

I must admit, I'm shocked that you agree with me but how is the question in your example any different? Is it because there are several partial owners instead of a single complete owner? What complications am I missing? What questions haven't I answered?

[JA37]

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there. You didn't sign anything. Is it an act of agression to toss you out. Can we keep some of your stuff as payment for services already provided that you decided not to pay for? Is that agresson?
Even more fun, let's say you get a share just by being born there, and the rules say we can't take that share away form you by force, so we can't throw you out unless you give up that share of your own free will. How can we get you to pay the fee? Can we lock you up until you agree to the rules, and pay? Is that agression?

Let's also say that it's homesteaded.

This is from a few posts ago. I deleted a misunderstanding from my side, just the questions remain.
Please let me know how you think.

From your latest post I gather that you think it's agression if the government puts you in jail for not paying taxes, but not if they strip you of your citizenship and put you on the next boat to wherever.

[NghtRppr]

All of the land in the USA hasn't been homesteaded. However, let's just say that for the sake of argument that the entire USA has been homesteaded and then all those people voluntarily pooled their ownership of their property together to create the government. Then I would have absolutely no problem with being deported, by force if necessary. You don't even need to put me on a boat. Just boot my ass into the ocean and tell me to sink or swim.

[The Script]

It's homesteaded, private property, owned by those who live there by the rules we set up.

If you come onto my property and refuse to leave when asked, you're the one committing aggression, not me. I'm justified in evicting you, by force if necessary. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Wrong! If someone happens to be born within your property and now grew up to be an adult, he didn't choose to born in your property, he also owns you nothing... if you come to charge or evict him you're committing yourself the very same aggression you complaint so much the State does to you.
Funny, eh?

Your arguments are of too "inter-personal" issues/businesses, too narrow vision. You've to wider your vision to have a notion of what is "a State", a "State" isn't you and more two or three guys, not even there's ground to say that everyone will act like you, or as you think you would act.

So you are saying that the State owns all the land within its borders?  No private property exists? 

[BCEmporium]

So you are saying that the State owns all the land within its borders?  No private property exists?  

"The State" is a collective body representing everybody living within its borders. This "collective body" actually is the primary proprietary of anything within its borders. To the end... yes.
However there're a few differences, this proprietary doesn't evict people, because that's impossible - say you don't pay your taxes and are evicted to...? Mexico? Canada? the ocean? the moon? - instead it has to use coercive methods to get people to pay the "rental".

Private property is a sub-property of the State. You can't kill anyone inside your house and don't let the cops come in because "you own it"... however you can commit a crime in the US and run to Mexico or vice-versa, as neither US owns Mexico nor Mexico US... they can have arrangements and agreements to deal with running criminals, but it's not like your sheriff picking you up on Mexico City.

[benjamindees]

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there.

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?

We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children.

It's a good thing none of you are actually in charge of a government/gated community, because it would be the most incompetently-run bureaucratic mess on earth.

It took six replies to establish that parents are responsible for their children.  Tax the fucking parents.

[JA37]

It's private property. Everyone who lives there own an equal share and we set the rules by 2/3 majority vote. We decided that everyone +18 with income should pay. Could you refuse, after all you're just born there.

Who put you in this hypothetical gated community?  Who is responsible?

We own the community together so I guess "we"'re responsible.

So, you're not responsible for kids born on your property, unless they're your kids.  But collective owners of a gated community are collectively responsible for kids born on their property?

I also don't think I put the responsibility of the children anywhere special, but parents are generally responsible for their children.

It's a good thing none of you are actually in charge of a government/gated community, because it would be the most incompetently-run bureaucratic mess on earth.

It took six replies to establish that parents are responsible for their children.  Tax the fucking parents.

Have you thought that through? You're saying that I'm somehow responsible for the debts of my grown children?  The example was an +18 child with income, but still you want to make the parents responsible? For an adult? Somehow I still think that it's more fair to make everyone accountable for their own actions after they are mature enough to understand consequenses, which happens to be set at 18 in most places.

As long as we're making obnoxious points. I'm glad you're not in charge either, because your rules would suck.

[NghtRppr]

If I'm in charge, it's the gas chamber for the lot of you. It's a good thing I don't want me or anyone else to be in charge! 

[JA37]

All of the land in the USA hasn't been homesteaded. However, let's just say that for the sake of argument that the entire USA has been homesteaded and then all those people voluntarily pooled their ownership of their property together to create the government. Then I would have absolutely no problem with being deported, by force if necessary. You don't even need to put me on a boat. Just boot my ass into the ocean and tell me to sink or swim.

I don't really see what homesteading have to do with anything really. You live in a geographical area, state or gated community doesn't matter, and there are certain rules to follow. If you don't follow them there will be concequenses.

Now I think BCEmporium put is quite well in a post above.

And no, we're not related. Not that I know of anyway. I don't think any of my friends have any interest in Bitcoin. We do seem to share world view to some degree though, me and BCEmporium.

[NghtRppr]

I don't really see what homesteading have to do with anything really. You live in a geographical area, state or gated community doesn't matter, and there are certain rules to follow.

It matters because your rules only apply to the usage of your property. You don't get to tell me how I use my own property. That's the entire point of it being my property. I get to control it. If you own a gated community. Fine, make whatever rules you like. However, unowned or other people's property isn't subject to your rules.

[benjamindees]

You're saying that I'm somehow responsible for the debts of my grown children?  The example was an +18 child with income, but still you want to make the parents responsible? For an adult? Somehow I still think that it's more fair to make everyone accountable for their own actions after they are mature enough to understand consequenses, which happens to be set at 18 in most places.

I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.

But, yes, there should be a cost to having children -- a large cost.  And it is morally abhorrent, fraudulent un-physical nonsense to believe that this cost can be placed on the children themselves.  Literally every social ill would be substantially reduced and probably eliminated by forcibly preventing penniless, irresponsible jackasses from siring countless resourceless children and then sending them out into the world to terrorize the rest of us.

[NghtRppr]

But, yes, there should be a cost to having children -- a large cost.  And it is morally abhorrent, fraudulent un-physical nonsense to believe that this cost can be placed on the children themselves.  Literally every social ill would be substantially reduced and probably eliminated by forcibly preventing penniless, irresponsible jackasses from siring countless resourceless children and then sending them out into the world to terrorize the rest of us.

I'm sure people will be lining up for your eugenic sterilization program. Sieg Heil!

[TiagoTiago]

...

... Who the fuck desires a hole to be dug up and then refilled? Nobody...

Who desires a hole to be dug up and then filled? People with a religious belief in the ritual of burying their dead for example...

[benjamindees]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.  They are created by thermodynamic potential.  You can wish for jobs all day long.

[NghtRppr]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.  They are created by thermodynamic potential.  You can wish for jobs all day long.

Holy fuck. I've seen scientistic reductionism before but you've made it into an art form. Unfortunately, it's refrigerator art.

It's sad that we've got so many crackpots/trolls on these forums but I guess that's what happens when you live on the fringes of society. Welcome to ignoreland, population you.

[MoonShadow]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires. 

Wow.

That's so contradictory to evidence I can't even imagine how you arrived here.

So, in this theory, how does the character actor at Walt Disney World fit in?

[wb3]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.  They are created by thermodynamic potential.  You can wish for jobs all day long.

That is an interesting perspective. Thinking about it, jobs would apply to the laws of thermodynamics. You just won't like the definition of "Job".  You don't get paid for your "job" in thermodynamics with money, and sometimes your "job" costs you.(negative reward).

But the Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to apply to jobs.  The question is did we have "to many Jobs" and nature is equalizing. Or did we just inappropriately apply the energy and need to come up with a new and better way.

Or were we just supposed to "Eat and Propagate" efficiently.?

[JA37]

I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.

Please tell me what you think the difference is. I think that would be more efficient than me trying to guess. 

[benjamindees]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.

Wow.

That's so contradictory to evidence I can't even imagine how you arrived here.

So, in this theory, how does the character actor at Walt Disney World fit in?

Character actors attract people who bring money to the park.  Money is exchanged for energy and resources which are consumed.  If those resources didn't exist, no one would be able to fly 2000 miles to visit Disney World.  If the money couldn't be exchanged for energy and resources, Disney would go under.  Disney World requires a constant inflow of potential energy in the form of electricity and physical materials in order to exist.

If the resources and energy weren't consumed, people wouldn't have to dress up as cartoon characters and walk around in 100 degree humid swampland pandering to six year olds.  Likewise if everyone had their own personal replicators and fusion generators.  Saying "human needs create jobs" is only a tiny sliver of truth.  Jobs don't exist unless the resources necessary to meet human needs exist.  And if the resources necessary to meet human needs exist in abundance, then there is no need for jobs whatsoever.

I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.

Please tell me what you think the difference is. I think that would be more efficient than me trying to guess.  

Contract.  Consent.  Saying "you consent to this by living" is not sufficient.  It is literally equivalent to kidnapping someone, taking them to an oasis in the middle of a desert, and then saying "you consent to be a servant by staying here".  You can leave at any time.  Start walking.  It's not really a choice;  it's contrived nonsense.  It's also equivalent to hooking a child on drugs, and then charging him once he turns 18.  Same thing.  Not a contract.  No consent.  Not a choice.  Not a debt.

[JA37]

Contract.  Consent.  Saying "you consent to this by living" is not sufficient.  It is literally equivalent to kidnapping someone, taking them to an oasis in the middle of a desert, and then saying "you consent to be a servant by staying here".  You can leave at any time.  But it's not really a choice;  it's contrived nonsense.  It's also equivalent to hooking a child on drugs, and then charging him once he turns 18.  Same thing.  Not a contract.  No consent.  Not a choice.  Not a debt.

Tell me, is there such a thing as an implicit contract? Or do every contract have to be explicit?
Is having children "literally" the same as kidnapping someone? It just struck me that libertarians must concider every birth an act of agression since noone has agreed to being born. Odd way of looking at things. Back to your desert example, it's not really the same is it? You can leave a gated community. You can leave a country. Neither is generally life threatening to do. And kidnapping is agression and "not cool", isn't it?
If none of the other communities/countries live up to your standard of freedom or safety it's not really our problem is it? Everyone has to make compromises. Or you suck it down for now and try to change the rules where you are.

[TiagoTiago]

Paraphrasing Budha, "to live is to suffer"; if you agree with that, then the obvious conclusion is that giving someone life is an act of aggression; you're making them suffer, suffering they wouldn't otherwise endure if it wasn't by your actions..... <.<

[Anonymous]

There is no objective basis for the government-enforced societal system or any for that matter.

Here's the facts: Progressive/statist political structures have hardly proved themselves to be prosperous or efficients way of living over the past several centuries of their existence. No state-based society has sustained itself without catastrophic failure. I have no tangible citations but elementary history ought to suffice.

To deny libertarian, nihilist or other systems any probability of success isn't exactly rational considering they have yet to be tested in reality, while statism has seen failure countless times.

To stay within the context of the thread, true free-market Capitalism has only been destroyed by statist political structures. It has never destroyed itself, unless, of course, a free-market society is always doomed to be sucked into this vacuum of power.

[MoonShadow]

To stay within the context of the thread, true free-market Capitalism has only been destroyed by statist political structures. It has never destroyed itself, unless, of course, a free-market society is always doomed to be sucked into this vacuum of power.

I'm on another forum, where this exact concept came up.  The idea was presented in the context of a human future similar to Serenity wherein a true free market exists on the leading edge of an ever expanding front of human occupation.  The theory being that those who seek freedom are always leaving the comforts of society and venturing outward to found new colonies, and for several generations those new colonies function as anarchist societies in a similar vein to the "Wild West" Western territories of the US before they were states; but eventually as the population grows on the colony, the society becomes ever more statist until those who seek freedom are driven outward in search of a new colony.

[benjamindees]

Tell me, is there such a thing as an implicit contract? Or do every contract have to be explicit?

Every contract has implicit elements.  And ultimately there is a fine line.  But what you're arguing is simply ludicrous and comes nowhere close to being reasonable.  I would have thought that the house-waving service would have made this clear.  Do you want to offer some argument as to what might constitute an implicit contract?  I think if you stop by your friend's house while he's out of town and borrow his lawnmower, then you implicitly agree to return it.  But this isn't really a contract so I fail to see what might distinguish between an implicit contract and made-up nonsense.

Is having children "literally" the same as kidnapping someone?

For the purposes of the example I gave, the outcome is the same from the child's perspective, but obviously it's a somewhat contrived example.

You can leave a gated community. You can leave a country. Neither is generally life threatening to do.

You can leave your house if you don't want to pay for the house waving service.  Slavery isn't life threatening either if that's the argument you want to make.  This is an idiotic point.

And kidnapping is agression and "not cool", isn't it?

I'm really not going to answer retarded questions.

If none of the other communities/countries live up to your standard of freedom or safety it's not really our problem is it? Everyone has to make compromises. Or you suck it down for now and try to change the rules where you are.

If you'd like to argue on the basis of "rules" that have some type of legitimacy other than through force, feel free.  It's a difficult argument to make.  And just saying "implied contract" doesn't cut it.  If you'd like to argue that rules have legitimacy that derives from force, then feel free to watch your rules get ignored.

[JA37]

Every contract has implicit elements.  And ultimately there is a fine line.  But what you're arguing is simply ludicrous and comes nowhere close to being reasonable.  I would have thought that the house-waving service would have made this clear.  Do you want to offer some argument as to what might constitute an implicit contract?  I think if you stop by your friend's house while he's out of town and borrow his lawnmower, then you implicitly agree to return it.  But this isn't really a contract so I fail to see what might distinguish between an implicit contract and made-up nonsense.

Why not steal from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
"when a patient goes to a doctor's appointment, his actions indicate he intends to receive treatment in exchange for paying reasonable/fair doctor's fees. Likewise, by seeing the patient, the doctor's actions indicate he intends to treat the patient in exchange for payment of the bill. Therefore, it seems that a contract actually existed between the doctor and the patient, even though nobody spoke any words of agreement."
Or, perhaps, remaining in a country/gated community after you understood the rules.

For the purposes of the example I gave, the outcome is the same from the child's perspective, but obviously it's a somewhat contrived example.

Why is it the same from the childs perspective? Are they somehow prevented to leave? Or do they just have to decide which is more important, family or the imposed rules of the community they live in?

You can leave your house if you don't want to pay for the house waving service.  Slavery isn't life threatening either if that's the argument you want to make.  This is an idiotic point.

Leaving the only housing in the middle of the desert could be. I thought that was the point you were trying to make? The fact that there wasn't a real choice. And I will pay for the service if this is a collective service that the community I live in has decided is useful. I think we already covered this.

I'm really not going to answer retarded questions.

Rethorical question. And Bitcoin2cash's words. No answer required.

If you'd like to argue on the basis of "rules" that have some type of legitimacy other than through force, feel free.  It's a difficult argument to make.  And just saying "implied contract" doesn't cut it.  If you'd like to argue that rules have legitimacy that derives from force, then feel free to watch your rules get ignored.

How about democracy? That's what we generally use to give legitimacy to rules.
Or didn't I understand the question? You still want rules right?

[benjamindees]

The point I was making is that there is a cost imposed on a person whether he is kidnapped into slavery or born into it.  None of this has to do with anything being "life threatening" so I'm not sure why you keep saying that.

I think we've established that you are a collectivist.  Frankly, this point of view has no legitimacy whatsoever, especially not in any political system that respects human rights.

And I'm really not sure how you can fail to see the difference between actively soliciting a service (doctor's appt) and being forced to pay for something you don't even want (house-waving, gov't).

[JA37]

The point I was making is that there is a cost imposed on a person whether he is kidnapped into slavery or born into it.  None of this has to do with anything being "life threatening" so I'm not sure why you keep saying that.

I think we've established that you are a collectivist.  Frankly, this point of view has no legitimacy whatsoever, especially not in any political system that respects human rights.

And I'm really not sure how you can fail to see the difference between actively soliciting a service (doctor's appt) and being forced to pay for something you don't even want (house-waving, gov't).

I thought the example with the desert was to imply that there isn't a real choice. Agree or die of thirst when you try to leave. Again, sorry if I misunderstood you. Slavery you say? So you get freebie after freebie and when it's time to start doing your part it's suddenly slavery? Sure, you didn't ask to be born in the safety of a hospital with educated staff. You didn't ask to grow up in safe streets where there's law and order. You get clean water, parks to play in, safe food in the stores. You get lots of things for free, because others pay for it. But you don't want to. You got these things for free because your parents thought it was a good deal. You're not a slave, you're a freeloader.
Not you specifically, I have no idea about your special conditions, I'm talking generally here.

If collectivist is a name for "a person who sees his part in a society" then yes. I am because we are. No man is an island. You know all that stuff. If you're all alone somewhere far away from everyone else you can do whatever you want as long as they don't impact anyone else. When your actions start affecting others you no longer can.

You wanted an example of an implicit contract. That's one. Or, if you were a guest in my apt, but now you've stayed there for 3 months. I'll tell you that you need to pay your share of the rent or get out by monday. If you remain you've agreed to an implicit contract, wouldn't you say? Or could you say "No, I don't really want to live here, but since I haven't found my own place yet I'm forced to live here. I don't think I should pay any rent."

[NghtRppr]

You're not a slave, you're a freeloader.

Well, it is kind of idiotic to render services before the other person agrees to pay you for said services.