Defending Capitalism

[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