Defending Capitalism

[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.

[1713552794]

1713552794

[1713552794]

1713552794

[1713552794]

1713552794

[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.