Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?

[DumbFruit]

You continue to harp on the election results for some reason..

You continue to harp on the election results for some reason, twisting my word ("So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities!") and went on to introduce Rockefellar into the discussion.

You understand for democracy to do what you want it to do 51% of people have be altruistic? Just because you can't see the link doesn't mean I'm arguing in a circle or diverting attention.

I corrected you.

You think you corrected me.

And went on to paint an utopian world that can be achieved via an anarchist regime.

I did not. There are real world examples of the effects anarcho-capitalism have on economies which are fantastic, but it is not a "utopia".

You proceeded to make the following shocking statement, clearly failing to notice the gap in logic there.
Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM
The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor

Do you understand that saying anarcho-capitalism helps the poor is not the same as saying that poor disappear under anarcho-capitalism?
Why do you keep saying I have some kind of logic gap by saying that the poor are helped, but not all poor are always helped?
Do you see that there is a spectrum of "helping the poor" where at one at there are no poor because it has been completely taken care of and on the other end of the spectrum everyone is poor?
You understand that I'm arguing that anarcho-capitalism places us in the spectrum closer to no poor than democracy?
This isn't a "logic gap". You are trying to paint me into some absolute position of "no poor utopia" that I didn't take.

Quote me in full, and respond to me in full instead of picking randoms bits of my post while ignoring portions you are unable to reconcile with your theory.

Rather than repeat my self, I'll just repost a few of my earlier posts which you chose to ignore.

I'm not ignoring anything that I think is relevant, if you think I missed something point it out specifically and I'll address it.

You ignored [my] point about Rockefeller,

What point? The point about Bill Gates? I did address it.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

"The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone else’s child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior."
The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earth

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?

Then fix it,

You mean "Fix it my way or move to a different country".

They didn't choose, because they didn't have a choice.

Why didn't they have a choice?

[1714679494]

1714679494

[1714679494]

1714679494

[rugrats]

You continue to harp on the election results for some reason..

You continue to harp on the election results for some reason, twisting my word ("So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities!") and went on to introduce Rockefellar into the discussion.

You understand for democracy to do what you want it to do 51% of people have be altruistic? Just because you can't see the link doesn't mean I'm arguing in a circle or diverting attention.

I corrected you.

You think you corrected me.

And went on to paint an utopian world that can be achieved via an anarchist regime.

I did not. There are real world examples of the effects anarcho-capitalism have on economies which are fantastic, but it is not a "utopia".

You proceeded to make the following shocking statement, clearly failing to notice the gap in logic there.
Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM
The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor

Do you understand that saying anarcho-capitalism helps the poor is not the same as saying that poor disappear under anarcho-capitalism?
Why do you keep saying I have some kind of logic gap by saying that the poor are helped, but not all poor are always helped?
Do you see that there is a spectrum of "helping the poor" where at one at there are no poor because it has been completely taken care of and on the other end of the spectrum everyone is poor?
You understand that I'm arguing that anarcho-capitalism places us in the spectrum closer to no poor than democracy?
This isn't a "logic gap". You are trying to paint me into some absolute position of "no poor utopia" that I didn't take.

Quote me in full, and respond to me in full instead of picking randoms bits of my post while ignoring portions you are unable to reconcile with your theory.

Rather than repeat my self, I'll just repost a few of my earlier posts which you chose to ignore.

I'm not ignoring anything that I think is relevant, if you think I missed something point it out specifically and I'll address it.

You ignored [my] point about Rockefeller,

What point? The point about Bill Gates? I did address it.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

"The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone else’s child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior."
The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earth

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?

Then fix it,

You mean "Fix it my way or move to a different country".

They didn't choose, because they didn't have a choice.

Why didn't they have a choice?

Stop sniping my post and cherry picking sentences to respond to. One more time.
Edit: Again, substantiate your position. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make your outrageous claims any more credible.

[DumbFruit]

The right way to defend your position is to respond to what I say and point out specifically how my arguments don't address your points. Not repeat yourself over and over again and pretend I haven't addressed anything. It's reminiscent of a child throwing a temper tantrum and just repeating what he wants over and over.

[rugrats]

The right way to defend your position is to respond to what I say and point out specifically how my arguments don't address your points. Not repeat yourself over and over again and pretend I haven't addressed anything. It's reminiscent of a child throwing a temper tantrum and just repeating what he wants over and over.

Why are you afraid to quote me in full?
I have responded to everything you've written, and have not once cowardly edited out your quote.
It's simple really.

[DumbFruit]

I have responded to everything you've written...

Here's a good example. I edited out the ad-hominems and left the relevant portion of your post.

You haven't provided evidence that my responses failed to address your points.

Edit: Better example.

[rugrats]

I have responded to everything you've written...

Here's a good example. I edited out the ad-hominems and left the relevant portion of your post.

You haven't provided evidence that my responses failed to address your points.

Edit: Better example.

My full quote, which I have no problem reposting.
And please, don't start hiding behind ad hominem accusations. You've been patronizing from the start.

Re editing: Just look at the way how you started by suggesting society and charities will emerge to take care of the weaker members of society, and then turn around denying saying so, just because you didn't use the word altruistic. You did that by carefully editing my posts after backing yourself into a corner.
I've specifically quoted what I wanted you to respond to, which you have avoided doing so - and I'm quoting it again below.

The right way to defend your position is to respond to what I say and point out specifically how my arguments don't address your points. Not repeat yourself over and over again and pretend I haven't addressed anything. It's reminiscent of a child throwing a temper tantrum and just repeating what he wants over and over.

Why are you afraid to quote me in full?
I have responded to everything you've written, and have not once cowardly edited out your quote.
It's simple really.

Rather than repeat my self, I'll just repost a few of my earlier posts which you chose to ignore. Respond to this with empirical data instead of rhetorics. I know all of your talking points; I've heard it all before. I even have a copy of the talking points prepared by Americans for Prosperity three years ago for Tea Party and paleolibertarian operatives, where words like theft and murder were highlight in bold. What I haven't seen/heard/read is, evidence that support these talking points. I sometimes laugh when people tell me they want a smaller government, but don't even know the size of the government. The first thing they always zoom in is on welfare for the needy, despite the fact that it constitutes less than 0.1% of the budget. They are just so eager to start slashing off the evil gubmen, as if there is some magic pill, a single, cure-all panacea for a series of complex issues (fyi, bashing the inefficiencies of the federal government is not evidence that income taxes should be abolished.) Anyway, here they are.

Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

When exactly will these mythical altruistic people emerge? By your own words, they won't suddenly emerge if we abolish taxation. I've also clearly addressed that altruism and altruistic people do not set conditions before helping people. Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."

Why? That's not altruism, which is the central core of your argument. Nevertheless, I'll bite, once again.

When former President Bush enacted his massive tax cuts in 2001 (effectively the largest since the Hoover days), the federal government lost about $6.6 trillion in revenue over an 11-year period. By your logic, shouldn't these extra income also resulted in an explosion of charitable contributions during the time? It didn't though. Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.

You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years. And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.

Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.

You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed; as if there have been occasions in history where fully functional anarchist geo states or communities exist; as if humans are not communal, social creatures that will naturally create a form of government. From the dawn of time, some form of government have always existed. This is an undeniable fact. From patriarchy and other forms of social hierarchy-based leadership, to tribalism, feudalism, warlords, aristocracy, monarcy (hereditary and later, divinely inspired), theocracy, democracy, republicanism, oligarchy, sultanate, caliphate, parliamentary monarchy, communism, socialism, Maoism - I could go on.

After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?

Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?

We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?

The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like ALEC write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.

And, in response to your aim of cutting welfare spending to zero and possessing "tremendous sympathy",

If you have heard a grown man crying because he can't feed his hungry child, then you wouldn't be so cavalier about cutting off aid to them.
If you have spent time with orphans, you would be filled with fear at the thought of them left unprotected, uneducated and unfed, and you wouldn't be so eager to stop money going to orphanages.
If you have spent time with an old woman left on the streets by her children, then you wouldn't begrudge the money spent giving them shelter and feeding, and you wouldn't be callously insisting we should stop paying taxes.
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.

Please, don't repeat your opinions or talking points again. Let's move this discussion forward instead of going round in circles.

ps: Read the Declaration of Independence again. This time, instead of focusing of specific words that you think supports your theories, focus on the message behind the entire declaration. Once you've done so, then you may once again condescendingly ask me to read the same document.

pps:

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?

Then fix it, as I've said twice before, instead of trying to replace everything with a logic-defying theory that cannot even stand scrutiny. And I literally spill cigarette ash on my keyboard reading your Somalia example.

[DumbFruit]

And please, don't start hiding behind ad hominem accusations.

I'm not hiding or accusing. I just edited it out of your post to demonstrate a good reason why I don't quote you in full.

Just look at the way how you started by suggesting society and charities will emerge to take care of the weaker members of society, and then turn around denying saying so, just because you didn't use the word altruistic. You did that by carefully editing my posts after backing yourself into a corner.

If I came off as saying that absent government all poor people will be taken care of by private charities that emerge, then I apologize. That was not my intention, but I think my position is now clearer. Throwing a tantrum about my position not being immediately clear and accusing me of doing it intentionally is a bit silly.

[rugrats]

And please, don't start hiding behind ad hominem accusations.

I'm not hiding or accusing. I just edited it out of your post to demonstrate a good reason why I don't quote you in full.

Just look at the way how you started by suggesting society and charities will emerge to take care of the weaker members of society, and then turn around denying saying so, just because you didn't use the word altruistic. You did that by carefully editing my posts after backing yourself into a corner.

If I came off as saying that absent government all poor people will be taken care of by private charities that emerge, then I apologize. That was not my intention, but I think my position is now clearer. Throwing a tantrum about my position not being immediately clear and accusing me of doing it intentionally is a bit silly.

How many times have I made "ad hominem" on your person, by your reckoning? Once? Twice?
How many times have you edited my quotes, lifting sentences from middle of paragraphs or avoided responding to questions? Twenty, thirty times?

Your apology is noted, and I also apologize if I have in any way insulted your person. However, your position is still vague.
Further, I have thrown two tantrums among my three hundred odd posts on Bitcointalk - my first one, to Cex.io, and the other, to C-Cex.
If you feel this is a tantrum, then I will try to be more gentle with you.

With that cleared, will you now respond the above so your position will be less vague - without editing my posts?

[DumbFruit]

If you feel this is a tantrum, then I will try to be more gentle with you.

It's not about "being gentle", the only thing I'm objecting to right now is going on a repeated rant about how I'm just ignoring everything instead of doing any counterarguments to the things I did address.

However, I will go back and specifically address the following stuff. In full context for some reason. Some if it I know I addressed already, some of it I ignored for good reason, but by golly if it's what you really want, I'll do it. I'm nothing if not an unrelentingly caring, helpful, generous, friendly, humble, gregarious, and all together decent, intelligent, and good looking individual.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9384022#msg9384022

[rugrats]

If you feel this is a tantrum, then I will try to be more gentle with you.

It's not about "being gentle", the only thing I'm objecting to right now is going on a repeated rant about how I'm just ignoring everything instead of doing any counterarguments to the things I did address.

However, I will go back and specifically address the following stuff. In full context for some reason. Some if it I know I addressed already, some of it I ignored for good reason, but by golly if it's what you really want, I'll do it. I'm nothing if not an unrelentingly caring, helpful, generous, friendly, humble, gregarious, and all together decent, intelligent, and good looking individual.

I feel I've addressed all of your arguments at least once already. Even if I hadn't, you can't demand that I did without addressing my earlier points.
How is that a rant? That is, as far as I know, reasonable decorum for discourse.

You can address those points tomorrow. I've spent too much time here as it is today.

[turvarya]

It's not about "being gentle", the only thing I'm objecting to right now is going on a repeated rant about how I'm just ignoring everything instead of doing any counterarguments to the things I did address.

So, address this

@DumbFruit
Are you also one of this pedophiles, who think sex with minors is ok, when they "choose" to do it?
So, are also minor sexworkers, ok?
If not, what is the difference to "choosing" to work in a mine?

[DumbFruit]

@DumbFruit
Are you also one of this pedophiles, who think sex with minors is ok, when they "choose" to do it?
So, are also minor sexworkers, ok?
If not, what is the difference to "choosing" to work in a mine?

I was hoping that I could lead you to water, but apparently you won't have any of that. I asked you, "Why do you suppose they don't have a choice?"

The answer is because they don't have schools. Why don't they have schools? Because they haven't accumulated enough capital to afford the free time in order to pay people in a service industry. Why don't they have capital? Because they haven't worked enough to accumulate it.

So there you go. They're choosing to work so that one day they, or their children, might be able to afford to go to school, by interfering with people in third world countries working, you are literally interfering with their ability to accumulate capital, and therefore to ever be able to afford to go to school.

I know that's very abstract, that's how I tend to start out for some reason. Lets break this whole problem down to a relate-able issue.

Suppose that Armageddon happened tomorrow and nearly everyone on the planet vaporized because of aliens or whatever (I told you this was going to be relate-able). So you get up in the morning and presumably you're very good at whatever it is you do, but the bottom line is unless you're a farmer, those skills are useless.

You would want a tractor, you would want a mechanical auger, you would want an elaborate water transportation and irrigation system, but even if these things were given to you you're only well off until they broke down. How would you get the parts to keep it repaired? How would you get the gasoline? How would you get the tools to make the parts, or the tools to get the gasoline?

The bottom line is you're pretty much hosed because the problem of getting a tractor is only scratching the surface of your problems. The real problem is the entire infrastructure of the world you knew has been obliterated and you alone could not hope to build it from scratch in your lifetime.

So what do you do? You work your ass off. You plow by hand, you plant by hand, your life sucks. Maybe eventually your children or your neighbors start mining coal, the conditions are terrible, the work is hard, and their life sucks (But it's better than working on the farm!). Eventually down the line maybe, just maybe, if enough knowledge is accumulated and enough people can get together, the world as we know it could be built back up. You and everyone you know will likely work in terrible conditions day in and day out, and you will be afflicted by diseases and famine and have nowhere to turn to. No amount of petitioning, or bellyaching, or unionizing, or protesting will help because the resources simply aren't there.

That's pretty much what the third world is. In the third world the resources simply aren't there. There is an entire infrastructure of skills and capital that simply doesn't exist. You cannot just wish it away, you can't just send them tools, and you can't even just give people knowledge. That will help if it's done right, but the bottom line is working your way out of third world status is in the hands of the third world. If they're going to do it, it's going to be through long, tedious, and dangerous hard work though it won't be nearly as bad as it was for my ancestors, because we've already shown them how it's done.

We can help the third world in two ways that come to mind;
1.) Careful, moderate, individual charity that succeeds in its goals but avoids dependence.
2.) Free trade. Free trade of knowledge and free trade of capital.

Charity must be done by individuals because government charity is enormously wasteful, badly targeted, fails at its objectives, and creates dependence.

Free trade should be free trade absolutely. No currency games, no sanctions, and no strings. As long as everyone follows the Non-Aggression Principle everyone should be free to make arrangements with each-other that are mutually beneficial even if other people might find them offensive.

How fast can a third world country make it to first-world status if we even approach these conditions? Possibly 35 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore

I know you will probably cry foul because Singapore is not an anarchist state, but crucially to succeed from an anarcho-capitalists perspective is to have economic freedom that approaches anarchy. You can tell that a society approaches anarchy when the regulations are almost nonexistent, and taxes are almost nonexistent.

The United States had these conditions until about the 1900's. Singapore, Hong Kong, the Dutch East India Company, Britain, and Rome all succeeded by adhering to these ideas. They all did or will fail as they succumb to socialism/statism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not a all-or-nothing philosophy like Communism. The closer you get to achieving it, the more prosperous you become.

[practicaldreamer]

There is so much wrong with what you have just posted that I wouldn't know, supposing I had the time,energy and inclination to try, where to start.

But do me a favour hey - drop the pretence of being an "anarchist".

You are, by its proper name, a neo conservative free market proponent/capitalism apologist, busy kissing arse of those you aspire to cosy up to, as they, meanwhile, deem it fitting to make tax deductible charitable donations that they might better be able to exercise control over that which isn't rightfully theirs anyway - and thereby manage, in the process of so doing, to frame themselves as some kind of inverse Robin Hood, to those of an impressionable age and suggestible temperamant like yourself :-





I know it might be cool to call yourself an anarchist and everything - your parents probably frown, in a loving and forgiving kind of way. And indeed, your heady idealism might well, I'm sure, remind them of themselves when they were once heady and, well, idealistic - but TBH, it doesn't quite cut the mustard on here.

You wouldn't know an anarchist if you tripped over one walking down the street FFS  

[turvarya]

@DumbFruit
Are you also one of this pedophiles, who think sex with minors is ok, when they "choose" to do it?
So, are also minor sexworkers, ok?
If not, what is the difference to "choosing" to work in a mine?

I was hoping that I could lead you to water, but apparently you won't have any of that. I asked you, "Why do you suppose they don't have a choice?"

The answer is because they don't have schools. Why don't they have schools? Because they haven't accumulated enough capital to afford the free time in order to pay people in a service industry. Why don't they have capital? Because they haven't worked enough to accumulate it.

So there you go. They're choosing to work so that one day they, or their children, might be able to afford to go to school, by interfering with people in third world countries working, you are literally interfering with their ability to accumulate capital, and therefore to ever be able to afford to go to school.

I know that's very abstract, that's how I tend to start out for some reason. Lets break this whole problem down to a relate-able issue.

Suppose that Armageddon happened tomorrow and nearly everyone on the planet vaporized because of aliens or whatever (I told you this was going to be relate-able). So you get up in the morning and presumably you're very good at whatever it is you do, but the bottom line is unless you're a farmer, those skills are useless.

You would want a tractor, you would want a mechanical auger, you would want an elaborate water transportation and irrigation system, but even if these things were given to you you're only well off until they broke down. How would you get the parts to keep it repaired? How would you get the gasoline? How would you get the tools to make the parts, or the tools to get the gasoline?

The bottom line is you're pretty much hosed because the problem of getting a tractor is only scratching the surface of your problems. The real problem is the entire infrastructure of the world you knew has been obliterated and you alone could not hope to build it from scratch in your lifetime.

So what do you do? You work your ass off. You plow by hand, you plant by hand, your life sucks. Maybe eventually your children or your neighbors start mining coal, the conditions are terrible, the work is hard, and their life sucks (But it's better than working on the farm!). Eventually down the line maybe, just maybe, if enough knowledge is accumulated and enough people can get together, the world as we know it could be built back up. You and everyone you know will likely work in terrible conditions day in and day out, and you will be afflicted by diseases and famine and have nowhere to turn to. No amount of petitioning, or bellyaching, or unionizing, or protesting will help because the resources simply aren't there.

That's pretty much what the third world is. In the third world the resources simply aren't there. There is an entire infrastructure of skills and capital that simply doesn't exist. You cannot just wish it away, you can't just send them tools, and you can't even just give people knowledge. That will help if it's done right, but the bottom line is working your way out of third world status is in the hands of the third world. If they're going to do it, it's going to be through long, tedious, and dangerous hard work though it won't be nearly as bad as it was for my ancestors, because we've already shown them how it's done.

We can help the third world in two ways that come to mind;
1.) Careful, moderate, individual charity that succeeds in its goals but avoids dependence.
2.) Free trade. Free trade of knowledge and free trade of capital.

Charity must be done by individuals because government charity is enormously wasteful, badly targeted, fails at its objectives, and creates dependence.

Free trade should be free trade absolutely. No currency games, no sanctions, and no strings. As long as everyone follows the Non-Aggression Principle everyone should be free to make arrangements with each-other that are mutually beneficial even if other people might find them offensive.

How fast can a third world country make it to first-world status if we even approach these conditions? Possibly 35 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore

I know you will probably cry foul because Singapore is not an anarchist state, but crucially to succeed from an anarcho-capitalists perspective is to have economic freedom that approaches anarchy. You can tell that a society approaches anarchy when the regulations are almost nonexistent, and taxes are almost nonexistent.

The United States had these conditions until about the 1900's. Singapore, Hong Kong, the Dutch East India Company, Britain, and Rome all succeeded by adhering to these ideas. They all did or will fail as they succumb to socialism/statism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not a all-or-nothing philosophy like Communism. The closer you get to achieving it, the more prosperous you become.

So, the best a kid can do, is over sex to tourists to make the most capital.
Ok, got it.

[DumbFruit]

Fair enough, nothing to see here...

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-6.htm

I'm an agnostic, I just admire that the bible describes people like you thousands of years before you were born.

But do me a favour hey - drop the pretence of being an "anarchist".

You are, by its proper name...

Anarcho-Capitalist or Anarcho-Libertarian, please.

Edit: Also! Even though the two posters above this obviously don't want to learn anything, to any other interested reader this is a great debate with Walter Block against a "real anarchist".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZS255rKC3M

[HELP.org]

 The closer you get to achieving it, the more prosperous you become.

No, there is balance between that is optimal.  If the State gets too large it damages the free market.  If the State gets too small markets can't operate and things degrade.  Many of the youngsters who call themselves "anarchists" and claim the blockchain will solve all the world's problems don't get this. 

[DumbFruit]

No, there is balance between that is optimal.  If the State gets too large it damages the free market.  If the State gets too small markets can't operate and things degrade.

This is an example of argumentum ad temperantiam.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argumentum_ad_temperantiam

You have asserted that when the state gets too small "things degrade". Defend your assertion.

[DumbFruit]

Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.
Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

I answered this twice.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9370403#msg9370403
This is a "Straw Man argument" because you're arguing a position that I didn't take. I never said that if we got rid of government all the sudden every single orphan would get adopted.

I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner.

When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

"The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone else’s child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior."

The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earth

When exactly will these mythical altruistic people emerge? By your own words, they won't suddenly emerge if we abolish taxation. I've also clearly addressed that altruism and altruistic people do not set conditions before helping people. Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."
Why? That's not altruism, which is the central core of your argument. Nevertheless, I'll bite, once again.
When former President Bush enacted his massive tax cuts in 2001 (effectively the largest since the Hoover days), the federal government lost about $6.6 trillion in revenue over an 11-year period. By your logic, shouldn't these extra income also resulted in an explosion of charitable contributions during the time? It didn't though. Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.
You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years. And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.

Answered this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Because the federal welfare state didn’t go anywhere in the meantime and because people can’t adjust their spending habits based on the perturbations of our aristocratic overlords.
Expanded point:
If I wasn’t being clear, I’m saying that people can’t make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year, and they especially don’t go out of their way to help people that should be being helped by the federal programs that they are funding with their taxes.
People in general don’t have the idea that they are going to spend their money on either taxes or charity. There is what is called in economics a “diminishing marginal utility”, which when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up, because people value charity at different levels subjectively.
For some people, they might put all the money they save in taxes directly into charity. For other people, they might value their own children’s education, or paying down their debts before they start putting money into charity.
The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely what’s going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare).
http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.

I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
This reminds me very much of the concept of the seen and the unseen that Bastiat wrote about. We can all see that Bill Gates exists today. We can’t see how many Rockefellers don’t exist today. I can’t rewind history and play it back like I’d like, I can just appeal to logic by stating that people like Bill Gates could always exist, but other people that would only have succeeded absent government intervention would not exist by definition.
Rockefeller’s rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion. You might try to argue that he’d have “given” more to the poor if it was taxed out of him, but that’s a hard case to make considering, again, he gave more to the poor than you or any of your ancestors combined even if you and all of your ancestors ate nothing but dirt and gave everything else to the poor. His contributions were also designed to be more effective than government schemes, which was only possible by virtue of the fact that it was his own money.

Expanded: I’m not interested in measuring how altruistic people are. It doesn’t concern me whether or not Bill Gates is a better guy any more than I care which of them had the bigger penis.
I’m concerned about which philosophy guides people closer to actually alleviating the suffering of the poor. Under anarcho-capitalism Bill Gates could still exist, in society today there could not exist people like Rockefeller, because they simply could not compete like they did in the 1800’s under low taxation and low regulation.
I am of course against anti-trust. I don’t see it as a benefit that it destroyed Standard Oil.

You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed; as if there have been occasions in history where fully functional anarchist geo states or communities exist; as if humans are not communal, social creatures that will naturally create a form of government. From the dawn of time, some form of government have always existed. This is an undeniable fact. From patriarchy and other forms of social hierarchy-based leadership, to tribalism, feudalism, warlords, aristocracy, monarcy (hereditary and later, divinely inspired), theocracy, democracy, republicanism, oligarchy, sultanate, caliphate, parliamentary monarchy, communism, socialism, Maoism - I could go on.
After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?

I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be the second largest economy in the world if it were measured as one.
Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior.
A good rule of thumb is the closer you get to 0% as GDP of taxation, the closer you get to anarchy and the more prosperous the underlying society given its previous condition.

http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somalia
Expanded:
You hemmed and hawed about Somalia, but the bottom line is that Somalia has done much better without a government than with one. It’s not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination, but again, that’s not my position.
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s still without a State.
http://mises.org/daily/2066
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?

Answered here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Charity is necessary even in an anarchist society, but the greatest contribution to the poor has always been businesses acting in their own self-interest.

We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?

Private charities do exist right now. We do not exist in a free market economy right now. Our economy is heavily controlled by both houses of congress, ill-concieved “free trade agreements”, as well as a central bank that manipulates interest rates (which are arguably the bedrock of business decisions).

The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like ALEC write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.

Anarcho-Libertarians like myself don’t believe old white men should have the authority to vote on whether or not we can keep our individual freedom, no matter how many votes they have, or how many mistresses.
On top of that, no one in Congress represents me, nor does any majority in in any state in the United States. I represent me, and in a just society, that would be enough.
Anyway; Hitler was elected, elections can be easily gamed, and the mob can’t be trusted. So your point is moot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIq2xeyal8

If you have heard a grown man crying because he can't feed his hungry child, then you wouldn't be so cavalier about cutting off aid to them.
If you have spent time with orphans, you would be filled with fear at the thought of them left unprotected, uneducated and unfed, and you wouldn't be so eager to stop money going to orphanages.
If you have spent time with an old woman left on the streets by her children, then you wouldn't begrudge the money spent giving them shelter and feeding, and you wouldn't be callously insisting we should stop paying taxes.
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.

Ugh. No. I’m not going to respond to this appeal to emotion again.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Answer to "There is absolute no justification at all to stop aiding people in need." here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?
I guess that’s just altruism existing outside of reality again.

[rugrats]

Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.
Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

I answered this twice.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9370403#msg9370403
This is a "Straw Man argument" because you're arguing a position that I didn't take. I never said that if we got rid of government all the sudden every single orphan would get adopted.

I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner.

When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

"The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone else’s child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior."

The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earth

You did.

I would suggest that maybe most people don't go out of their way to help people because they expect the government to take care of it.


Quote from: Cameltoemcgee on October 28, 2014, 11:44:39 PM
He's saying that the same people who are doing it now will continue to do it but instead of putting tenders to government for funding, they will be directly funded by people. The argument could be made that in the absence of a violent (and inefficient) monopoly claiming responsibility for remediation of a VERY important issue, the quality of care that underprivileged get will be significantly better without them.

Yes.

You also argued that: My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

This of course brings up the question - based on what actually, other than blind supposition? Has corporations made measurable charitable initiatives today that exceeds the government in terms of reach and effectiveness? Are we supposed to believe that corporations that routinely exploit communities will metamorphosize into entities with social conscience once we stop taxing them?

Further, your examples of the Banning is misleading because they certainly exist within a governmental framework. Where did you get the idea that they have "no government". The are semi-nomadic, but they are not cut off from society. Some of them even go to churches and mosques! Further, their adoption habit is based on a unique sexual taboo. It has nothing to do with anarcho capitalism.

When exactly will these mythical altruistic people emerge? By your own words, they won't suddenly emerge if we abolish taxation. I've also clearly addressed that altruism and altruistic people do not set conditions before helping people. Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."
Why? That's not altruism, which is the central core of your argument. Nevertheless, I'll bite, once again.
When former President Bush enacted his massive tax cuts in 2001 (effectively the largest since the Hoover days), the federal government lost about $6.6 trillion in revenue over an 11-year period. By your logic, shouldn't these extra income also resulted in an explosion of charitable contributions during the time? It didn't though. Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.
You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years. And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.

Answered this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Because the federal welfare state didn’t go anywhere in the meantime and because people can’t adjust their spending habits based on the perturbations of our aristocratic overlords.
Expanded point:
If I wasn’t being clear, I’m saying that people can’t make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year, and they especially don’t go out of their way to help people that should be being helped by the federal programs that they are funding with their taxes.
People in general don’t have the idea that they are going to spend their money on either taxes or charity. There is what is called in economics a “diminishing marginal utility”, which when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up, because people value charity at different levels subjectively.
For some people, they might put all the money they save in taxes directly into charity. For other people, they might value their own children’s education, or paying down their debts before they start putting money into charity.
The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely what’s going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare).
http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

No, you did not answer it earlier. You answered it now though, in your last sentence.
"The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely what’s going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare)."

But you can somehow predict their behavior post tax-abolishment? $6.6 trillion in liquidity and no discernible difference in charitable contributions, but we're supposed to accept there will be a difference if we stop taxing them entirely? Speaking of marginal utility, shouldn't private charitable contributions increase in light of the ever decreasing federal welfare funding relative to GDP? Or does that only work in favor of aggrieved taxpayers?

And just so we're clear, I don't have any "aristocratic overlords". You may imagine you do, but I don't. I don't consider government officials or politicians "aristocratic overlords. I've even yelled at a couple of your "aristocratic overlords".

Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.

I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
This reminds me very much of the concept of the seen and the unseen that Bastiat wrote about. We can all see that Bill Gates exists today. We can’t see how many Rockefellers don’t exist today. I can’t rewind history and play it back like I’d like, I can just appeal to logic by stating that people like Bill Gates could always exist, but other people that would only have succeeded absent government intervention would not exist by definition.
Rockefeller’s rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion. You might try to argue that he’d have “given” more to the poor if it was taxed out of him, but that’s a hard case to make considering, again, he gave more to the poor than you or any of your ancestors combined even if you and all of your ancestors ate nothing but dirt and gave everything else to the poor. His contributions were also designed to be more effective than government schemes, which was only possible by virtue of the fact that it was his own money.

Expanded: I’m not interested in measuring how altruistic people are. It doesn’t concern me whether or not Bill Gates is a better guy any more than I care which of them had the bigger penis.
I’m concerned about which philosophy guides people closer to actually alleviating the suffering of the poor. Under anarcho-capitalism Bill Gates could still exist, in society today there could not exist people like Rockefeller, because they simply could not compete like they did in the 1800’s under low taxation and low regulation.
I am of course against anti-trust. I don’t see it as a benefit that it destroyed Standard Oil.

Once again, you didn't answer that. Using your argument, altruistic people like Bill Gates shouldn't exists at all now. Remember your argument of “diminishing marginal utility” one paragraph above? Further, you seem unaware that Rockefeller and Standard Oil actually paid enormous amount of taxes in the form of import tariffs for their equipment and concession fees - not to mention systematic kickbacks to local, state and federal officials.

You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed; as if there have been occasions in history where fully functional anarchist geo states or communities exist; as if humans are not communal, social creatures that will naturally create a form of government. From the dawn of time, some form of government have always existed. This is an undeniable fact. From patriarchy and other forms of social hierarchy-based leadership, to tribalism, feudalism, warlords, aristocracy, monarcy (hereditary and later, divinely inspired), theocracy, democracy, republicanism, oligarchy, sultanate, caliphate, parliamentary monarchy, communism, socialism, Maoism - I could go on.
After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?

I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be the second largest economy in the world if it were measured as one.
Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior.
A good rule of thumb is the closer you get to 0% as GDP of taxation, the closer you get to anarchy and the more prosperous the underlying society given its previous condition.

http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somalia
Expanded:
You hemmed and hawed about Somalia, but the bottom line is that Somalia has done much better without a government than with one. It’s not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination, but again, that’s not my position.
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s still without a State.
http://mises.org/daily/2066
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Your definition of anarchy is, I'm sorry, just plain silly. Exercising my free will within the constraints of the law is not anarchy.
Your rule of thumb is also, I'm sorry again, just plain silly. You're just restating your opinion that abolishment of taxes will magically lead to prosperity for all, ignoring historical, social and economic precedents. Your rule of thumb is just another rephrasing of the Reagan's trickle down economic (Laffer Curve, anyone?), which has been proven to be false.

I wasn't hemming or hawing about Somalia. I told you I was laughing - I even spilled cigarette ash on my keyboard.
Most paleolibertarians steer clear of Somalia - not you though. Sorry, I'm laughing again.  

Somalia pre-anarchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drW5cmd-GQk
Somalia post-anarchy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac7_1321327107

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder...

Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?

Answered here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Charity is necessary even in an anarchist society, but the greatest contribution to the poor has always been businesses acting in their own self-interest.

We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?

Private charities do exist right now. We do not exist in a free market economy right now. Our economy is heavily controlled by both houses of congress, ill-concieved “free trade agreements”, as well as a central bank that manipulates interest rates (which are arguably the bedrock of business decisions).

Not answered, again. You didn't mention the agents or intermediary in your initial answer. But I knew you were going to say businesses/corporations. Sadly, corporatocracy has always acted in its own self interest, not society's. Do I really need to expand on this?

Private charities exists, yes, I have mentioned that myself. But the total number is practically insignificant.

Also, you are laboring under the impression that free market equals complete deregulation - something that the United States nor any other nation have ever tried nor experienced.

The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like ALEC write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.

Anarcho-Libertarians like myself don’t believe old white men should have the authority to vote on whether or not we can keep our individual freedom, no matter how many votes they have, or how many mistresses.
On top of that, no one in Congress represents me, nor does any majority in in any state in the United States. I represent me, and in a just society, that would be enough.
Anyway; Hitler was elected, elections can be easily gamed, and the mob can’t be trusted. So your point is moot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIq2xeyal8

You are not an anarcho-libertarian. Anarcho libertarians does not exist. Its philosphy is a half baked mutation of paleolibertarianism, which is a half-baked neo-confederate racist ideology, designed to justify social and economic extremism. It is just a label.

The beauty of democracy is, if there are enough people who share your beliefs, you can change the sociopolitical and socioeconomic system of this country.

You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy.

Elections cannot be easily gamed - gaming it requires resource, patience and most importantly, depends on the apathy of the citizens. Case in point, you - you refuse to do anything about Citizens United, but have no problem complaining endlessly about the government. You just want the whole thing abolished in favor of some half baked theories.

If you have heard a grown man crying because he can't feed his hungry child, then you wouldn't be so cavalier about cutting off aid to them.
If you have spent time with orphans, you would be filled with fear at the thought of them left unprotected, uneducated and unfed, and you wouldn't be so eager to stop money going to orphanages.
If you have spent time with an old woman left on the streets by her children, then you wouldn't begrudge the money spent giving them shelter and feeding, and you wouldn't be callously insisting we should stop paying taxes.
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.

Ugh. No. I’m not going to respond to this appeal to emotion again.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Why not? Didn't you say you were sympathetic? How do you reconcile your sympathy with your insistence on bringing welfare spending to zero?
Do you think people won't die when you do that? Do you think people won't suffer when you remove social safety nets?
Do you realize how many people who are just one paycheck away from poverty?
Is this truth too inconvenient for you?

Answer to "There is absolute no justification at all to stop aiding people in need." here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible aren’t actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it “collateral damage”?
I guess that’s just altruism existing outside of reality again.

You've asked me this earlier, and I've answered you.

8. The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like {url=http://www.alec.org/]ALEC [/url] write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.

ps: You do realize that most of the links you posted, especially the Mises ones, are merely opinions, not substantive facts?

[turvarya]

Fair enough, nothing to see here...

http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-6.htm

I'm an agnostic, I just admire that the bible describes people like you thousands of years before you were born.

Yeah, that is great, just don't answer my question, because it shows a big flaw in your argument of "free choice".
Going on an abstract level, when there is a concrete question is just weak.