Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[gts476]

BCEmporium, you never go full retard.

When I say "me", "I", "you" or "we" that's figurative for the example... I'm assuming you can read that.
It doesn't mean ME robbing YOU where me and you are exactly "you and I". You can understand it, right?

But even with the current police forces we have robbers... now imagine without.

I give up, I can't communicate with Happy Jack.

[BCEmporium]

I give up, I can't communicate with Happy Jack.

Sorry, requirements for libertarians remains unmet. Your fantasy world has no value around and you still can't figure on how to do anything about that essential requirement.
Bitcoin at least sorted one of your old requirements, the issuing of currency. But that's just one of the many requirements libertarians would need to become viable.

[gts476]

I give up, I can't communicate with Happy Jack.

Sorry, requirements for libertarians remains unmet. Your fantasy world has no value around and you still can't figure on how to do anything about that essential requirement.
Bitcoin at least sorted one of your old requirements, the issuing of currency. But that's just one of the many requirements libertarians would need to become viable.

Yeah, No.

I gave a coherent answer for every problem you proposed and you have no response other than 'me and ma crew will take your shit y0 l0lz'.

You fundamentally fail to comprehend that there is no requirement for a central, single solution to any problem posed to a libertarian society, people are pretty switched on (well, some of them) and will solve any problem without the use of force against one another.

So.......... yeah, no.

[Jerome?]

Poverty will be forever

[BCEmporium]

Yeah, No.

I gave a coherent answer for every problem you proposed and you have no response other than 'me and ma crew will take your shit y0 l0lz'.

You fundamentally fail to comprehend that there is no requirement for a central, single solution to any problem posed to a libertarian society, people are pretty switched on (well, some of them) and will solve any problem without the use of force against one another.

So.......... yeah, no.

You don't like the message, so you keep bang the messenger!
You want to solve things without resource violence? Great! I really would hope and enjoy the World to be like you. But, flashnews! It isn't. You don't use force, someone will and you will be forced to comply against your will with whatever he says.
Right, there is not a central one point solution to anything, libertarian or not, but when something already bundles with construction flaws it will never fix itself. And your answer above about how "you will hurt yourself economically if you source violence" is just the long version of "just because". If you come to someone starving today saying that rob you may prove a wrong decision tomorrow, he won't listen for the very simple reason that if he doesn't he won't see tomorrow anyway.

[gts476]

Yeah, No.

I gave a coherent answer for every problem you proposed and you have no response other than 'me and ma crew will take your shit y0 l0lz'.

You fundamentally fail to comprehend that there is no requirement for a central, single solution to any problem posed to a libertarian society, people are pretty switched on (well, some of them) and will solve any problem without the use of force against one another.

So.......... yeah, no.

You don't like the message, so you keep bang the messenger!
You want to solve things without resource violence? Great! I really would hope and enjoy the World to be like you. But, flashnews! It isn't. You don't use force, someone will and you will be forced to comply against your will with whatever he says.
Right, there is not a central one point solution to anything, libertarian or not, but when something already bundles with construction flaws it will never fix itself. And your answer above about how "you will hurt yourself economically if you source violence" is just the long version of "just because". If you come to someone starving today saying that rob you may prove a wrong decision tomorrow, he won't listen for the very simple reason that if he doesn't he won't see tomorrow anyway.

That is presumptuous, I have had my house broken into when my girlfriend and I was home, yet here I am.

I'm arguing libertarianism which is the non initiation of force.

initiation.

not the non use of force, the non initiation of force.

When the guy broke into my home, he initiated force against me, my partner and my property. I then used force to negate said initiation, which is to say I defended myself, my partner and my property.

This is fine, non initiation of force is NOT the same as no force in self defence, you understand this don't you?

And the solution to prevent this and punish this is for the society to economically ostracise him which means all of society who have agreed to the non initiation of force will refuse to interact with him economicly.

[superresistant]

The more poor people, the richer you get.

[BCEmporium]

Sorry to know about what happened to you and your gf.
I understand the self defense concept, but that's just valid if you come to see the World as you and a robber, the issue is that soon that model tends to gangs, against who you can't do nothing. And most of common people isn't violent and will be intimidated by them, making it more likely of people to, due to intimation, not deal with you if the gang "advises them against it".

[gts476]

Sorry to know about what happened to you and your gf.
I understand the self defense concept, but that's just valid if you come to see the World as you and a robber, the issue is that soon that model tends to gangs, against who you can't do nothing. And most of common people isn't violent and will be intimidated by them, making it more likely of people to, due to intimation, not deal with you if the gang "advises them against it".

Don't be, physical assault isn't an issue and gf was hilarious, she went to boil the kettle whilst I dealt with the burglar, came into the room where I had the guy with a load of boiling water to burn him (wasn't needed to burn him but I lol'd)

This is not an insurmountable problem. As I stated, a solution to violation of private property is removal of the ability to interact economically with the society so these gangs can not exist as all property is private as they would be removed by force.

Here is a link to how a free society would deal with this in more detail.

https://freedomainradio.com/old-free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf

[BCEmporium]

tl;dr

But a quick overlook about how to solve conflicts and the off the mark consistent analogy between love and rape from the author, he doesn't quite give a solution just points out the government isn't a solution. Remaining the big question: Then what is?
The only solution to deal with gangs is to have another gang in your side, and normal people wants that gang to be more rational then a bunch of common robbers... that's what cops are; a gang with another set of rules. Yes about the rest, governments will use their power somewhat erratically... but that's for citizens to deal with and try to amend, that's what demonstrations, riots and so on are for.

The ultimate proof on how flawed that is, is ISIS' actions at Middle East. Of course those people deals with ISIS, they are scared to death of them, and of course, no matter how rightful a person sanctioned by ISIS can be, they won't deal with him.

[Erdogan]

Sorry to know about what happened to you and your gf.
I understand the self defense concept, but that's just valid if you come to see the World as you and a robber, the issue is that soon that model tends to gangs, against who you can't do nothing. And most of common people isn't violent and will be intimidated by them, making it more likely of people to, due to intimation, not deal with you if the gang "advises them against it".

Self defence is crucial. The gangs rely on cheap harvesting of the fear tax. Make it just a little more expensive to collect the taxes, and they evaporate. Look to the avocado farmers in Mexico. They got rid of the gangs by arming themselves. No shots fired, as far as is known.

[Erdogan]

Proof of necessity of self defense: 1 the right to protect yourself and your possessions. 2 the state officials can not have different rights than other individuals (that is the concept of individual rights, it is the same for everyone). 3 the public can not have no right to self defense, if so the state also would have no right. 4 You can not have noone defending rights, as the gangs would then have an easy way. 5 Thus it is proved that individuals must have the right to self defense.

[BCEmporium]

5 Thus it is proved that individuals communities must have the right to self defense.

Individuals with self-defense are an easy picking for gangs. We rely on community defense, but to rule this communitarian defense we need someone to call the shots on what's wrong and what's right... and there you go, the other name you give to the ones calling the shots is "Government".

These Governments just a need a trim now and then to not come to a point where they are already making rules on how you must wipe your own ass.

[Erdogan]

5 Thus it is proved that individuals communities must have the right to self defense.

Individuals with self-defense are an easy picking for gangs. We rely on community defense, but to rule this communitarian defense we need someone to call the shots on what's wrong and what's right... and there you go, the other name you give to the ones calling the shots is "Government".

These Governments just a need a trim now and then to not come to a point where they are already making rules on how you must wipe your own ass.

No, the right to self defense is individual, according to my proof, but you can by extension execute that right in an association.

In fact, what you call gangs is what I call gangs, governments and other mafias.

[gts476]

5 Thus it is proved that individuals communities must have the right to self defense.

Individuals with self-defense are an easy picking for gangs. We rely on community defense, but to rule this communitarian defense we need someone to call the shots on what's wrong and what's right... and there you go, the other name you give to the ones calling the shots is "Government".

These Governments just a need a trim now and then to not come to a point where they are already making rules on how you must wipe your own ass.

Almost.

What you started describing is a free association of people spontaneously organising to facilitate common defence against the initiation of force and violation of property and is not a government.

Someone organising defence against the initiation of force is not a government.

A government is an entity with the monopoly right to initiate force.
 

[thecast]

Solution to poverty = I dont know but automation will kill the current system.

[BCEmporium]

Individualism & the illusion of freedom... that's a nice title to a movie.

About "initiation of an aggression", that's soooo subjective! Let's say you own a bank and decided to froze my assets for any reason, that's initiation of an aggression. If my reply comes to be to beat the crap out of you, then it would be self-defense.
Or an aggression to the assets isn't violence?... But if isn't then if you engage a robber you're not self-defending, you're initiate the aggression, after all if you just handle him your stuff he wouldn't harm you.

[gts476]

Proof of necessity of self defense: 1 the right to protect yourself and your possessions. 2 the state officials can not have different rights than other individuals (that is the concept of individual rights, it is the same for everyone). 3 the public can not have no right to self defense, if so the state also would have no right. 4 You can not have noone defending rights, as the gangs would then have an easy way. 5 Thus it is proved that individuals must have the right to self defense.

+1

[gts476]

Individualism & the illusion of freedom... that's a nice title to a movie.

About "initiation of an aggression", that's soooo subjective! Let's say you own a bank and decided to froze my assets for any reason, that's initiation of an aggression. If my reply comes to be to beat the crap out of you, then it would be self-defense.
Or an aggression to the assets isn't violence?... But if isn't then if you engage a robber you're not self-defending, you're initiate the aggression, after all if you just handle him your stuff he wouldn't harm you.

It is not subjective at all.

Bank froze your assets? It absolutely is the initiation of force and I would support you beating the shit out of the banker to get back your money. That is self defence against aggression.

I dealt with this with my derivation of property rights.

You own yourself. (personal sovereignty)

Your labour is a function of your self.

Thus you own your labour as you own yourself.

Your property is a function of your labour.

Thus you own your property as you own your labour as you own yourself.

Taxation of labour is a claim of ownership of my labour which is thus a claim of ownership of me.

Seizure of my property is a claim of ownership of my property which is a claim of ownership of my labour which is a claim of ownership of me.

No one can own me thus Taxation and Seizure of property is a violation of my personal sovereignty! an act of war of you will.

(note by this reasoning all governments taxation of the labour of its citizens is expression its right of ownership of said citizens)

on an interesting side not I just realised this reasoning is why there is no law in US statutes which states the right of a fedral government to tax the income of its citizens because it would conflict with the abolition of slavery!

[DaveSaldana123]

Work is the solution of poverty