Defending Capitalism

[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.

[1714921768]

1714921768

[1714921768]

1714921768

[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.