Defending Capitalism

[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?