Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[bripat9643]

The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

You're assuming that the guy walking across your lawn doesn't employ an security agency for his protection. For thousands of years Ireland and Scotland had no formal government, yet they managed to resolve their disputes. How is that possible if lack of government always results in chaos?

They resolved disputes by the one walking away alive being the winner.

I never took you for an anarchist, guess just goes to show it is hard to know who we are dealing with.

That's not true. You're only demonstrating your ignorance.

I've said many times in this forum that I'm an anarchist.

Somehow I missed those times.

Funny as hell an anarchist also being a Trump worshiper who supports government sanctioned tariffs!

You have some crazy voices in that head of yours

I'm not a Trump worshipper. He's just 1000 times better than the alternative. Do you imagine we would have more freedom if Hillary had been elected?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.

That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.

The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.

You're assuming that the guy walking across your lawn doesn't employ an security agency for his protection. For thousands of years Ireland and Scotland had no formal government, yet they managed to resolve their disputes. How is that possible if lack of government always results in chaos?

They resolved disputes by the one walking away alive being the winner.

I never took you for an anarchist, guess just goes to show it is hard to know who we are dealing with.

That's not true. You're only demonstrating your ignorance.

I've said many times in this forum that I'm an anarchist.

Somehow I missed those times.

Funny as hell an anarchist also being a Trump worshiper who supports government sanctioned tariffs!

You have some crazy voices in that head of yours

I'm not a Trump worshipper. He's just 1000 times better than the alternative. Do you imagine we would have more freedom if Hillary had been elected?

But you do support tariffs, odd thing for an anarchist to favor.

The only change in my life had Hillary won would be that I would not have gotten a tax cut this year and we would not be in a trade war with most of the world. Other than that I cannot think of how my life would be different.

 

[ding]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

Hi ding. I agree that people get the government they deserve. The problem is that they impose it on those who don’t.

Bullshit. That is a textbook example of an external locus of control. I will take our fucked up government over the anarchy you desire. At least with our fucked up government we have a chance of avoiding anarchy.

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

 

[Oddball]

I'm not a Trump worshipper. He's just 1000 times better than the alternative. Do you imagine we would have more freedom if Hillary had been elected?

It truly grieves me to have to defend him from the insanity that is being heaped upon him...If the moonbats would be as concerned about bombing foreign nations without authorization, running more $1 trillion deficits, and bringing our troops home, maybe we could get somewhere.

 

[Oddball]

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

You sent in your income tax bill, didn't you?...You get looted every year.

 

[Oddball]

The problem with your theory is that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. The state you propose is purely a temporary phenomenon. It never lasts for more than a few decades before various malefactors get their hands on the machinery of government and engineer it to serve their own ends. The "limited state" always turns into the plunder state.

Only made it to the second president before they took to circumventing their own rules....But THIS time we'll limit The State!...Promise, cross my heart, and hope to die!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm LPUSA Libertarian, but that relationship is straining. The Chomsky faction, who are simply Marxists, have too much influence on the party.

 

[Oddball]

I'm LPUSA Libertarian, but that relationship is straining. The Chomsky faction, who are simply Marxists, have too much influence on the party.

I left after they nominated that carpetbagging GOP retread Bob Barr...Johnson and his horde of SJW fuaxbertarians were a stone embarrassment...It was after taking a step back that I recognized the illogic of The State altogether.

 

[ding]

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

You sent in your income tax bill, didn't you?...You get looted every year.

Pretty much. What are you going to do about it? Vote Libertarian and pretend like you are making a difference?

 

[bripat9643]

The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.

The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.

Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.

God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.

Hi ding. I agree that people get the government they deserve. The problem is that they impose it on those who don’t.

Bullshit. That is a textbook example of an external locus of control. I will take our fucked up government over the anarchy you desire. At least with our fucked up government we have a chance of avoiding anarchy.

Under our current system, the odds that you will be looted, robbed and possibly killed are 100%

That seems a little high to me.

But if you really felt that way, it seems to me that you should take up arms now, right?

The odds are 100%. Just look at your paystub if you don't believe it. Those deductions are all robbery.

 

[kaz]

I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

You said you hate government and keep repeating it. That's your whole argument.

I said I hate government and gave you a list of the several things that I see no other way to solve since they require general recognition and whatever form that general recognition takes, it's government.

You must for example have property lines that are respected by the community. There cannot be more than one arbiter of property lines.

You haven't for this example given a whiff of a solution to that problem.

I seriously doubt you hate government more than I do as someone who's owned five businesses. Maybe as much, but I loathe government.

However, that you hate government isn't an argument to specific issues as you seem to believe

He doesn't just say he hates government. He explains why government is evil, and you just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Explanations have been presented to you, but you refuse to read them. You expect us to regurgitate them in essays that are thousands of words long. That's the whole nut of your argument: you refuse to learn about any proposed alternatives. You're a waste of bandwidth.

I didn't dispute that government is evil, I agreed. What I said is saying government is evil is not a replacement for content and it isn't. All of the anarchists agree you can't answer questions either about how things will work and you can't address scenarios.

You're ideologues, I'm a pragmatist.

And saying I'm a waste of bandwidth because I want to talk real solutions and you want to talk philosophy is just a joke. Hey guys, let's remove government. No idea how it'll work, but let's do it anyway. Yeah, good luck with that. As I keep saying, I'm a short putt for you, I hate government. But no, you don't know how it will work isn't enough for me. You're taking out your big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees by refusing to get specific on anything with me

 

[bripat9643]

I'm LPUSA Libertarian, but that relationship is straining. The Chomsky faction, who are simply Marxists, have too much influence on the party.

I left after they nominated that carpetbagging GOP retread Bob Barr...Johnson and his horde of SJW fuaxbertarians were a stone embarrassment...It was after taking a step back that I recognized the illogic of The State altogether.

View attachment 190631

I have to agree. Not only was Johnson not a libertarian, he was a buffoon. The Libertarian Party did not shower itself in glory with that nomination.

 

[bripat9643]

I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.

Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

You said you hate government and keep repeating it. That's your whole argument.

I said I hate government and gave you a list of the several things that I see no other way to solve since they require general recognition and whatever form that general recognition takes, it's government.

You must for example have property lines that are respected by the community. There cannot be more than one arbiter of property lines.

You haven't for this example given a whiff of a solution to that problem.

I seriously doubt you hate government more than I do as someone who's owned five businesses. Maybe as much, but I loathe government.

However, that you hate government isn't an argument to specific issues as you seem to believe

He doesn't just say he hates government. He explains why government is evil, and you just dismiss it with a wave of your hand. Explanations have been presented to you, but you refuse to read them. You expect us to regurgitate them in essays that are thousands of words long. That's the whole nut of your argument: you refuse to learn about any proposed alternatives. You're a waste of bandwidth.

I didn't dispute that government is evil, I agreed. What I said is saying government is evil is not a replacement for content and it isn't. All of the anarchists agree you can't answer questions either about how things will work and you can't address scenarios.

You're ideologues, I'm a pragmatist.

And saying I'm a waste of bandwidth because I want to talk real solutions and you want to talk concepts is just a joke

I can answer the question in a few words. The solution to government is private security agenies. Of course, that answer isn't going to satisify you. You are going to point out all kinds of supposed problemes with it. Explaining why those criticisms are baseless would take thousands of words, which you obviously refuse to read. I'm pointed you to the information, and you refuse to go there and educate yourself. Then you claim no one has answered your question.

Please spare us another trip around your wheel of circular logic.

 

[kaz]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I never said that I am an anarchist.

That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.

I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.

He's been directed to several webpages where the alternatives are explained, but he refuses to go there. He wants to have it spoon fed to him. There's no point in continuing the discussion, given his attitude.

Yep. You gave me the standard anarchist, here, read this. I've done a lot of reading on anarchy. They make a lot of good points, but they aren't convincing to anyone who wants a reality based system to eliminate government.

If you haven't read it, Bastiat's "The Law" is an excellent example of that. A document that makes lots of great points, but no I don't buy that taxes for military or police is robbery

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.

Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?

The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.

The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.

I was talking about violence in response to fox’s post to that effect, but of course any infringement upon another’s rights is a matter for much concern.

You cite jail as the deterrent, not law, which is accurate. Cages and guns are the only deterrent, in other words, defensive force. These things do not require the authority of law, and are actually more of a deterrent in a free society. Just ask yourself the question, “Were I caught in the act of burglary, would I rather be caught by three armed police officers, or three armed hillbillies?” You can clearly see how an armed society is a polite society more respectful of people’s rights.

 

[kaz]

Basically my questions hit the two extremes. Legitimate disputes between honest citizens and criminals.

1) Your town is small. You have a house, fields, a pond and a patch of woods. You have a trail through the woods. You take a walk every day. You don't develop it because you want it the way it is. One day you're taking a walk and a new neighbor is cutting down your trees. You say it's your property, you use it. He says walking through it isn't using it, building houses and farming is and he is going to farm it. What do you do?

2) You go to bed early because you're tired. You wake up, go downstairs, and your wife and kids are dead. What do you do?

You know what? No. You don’t get to justify an inherently invalid and immoral system of coercive violence until someone on a message board satisfies your concerns about how to deal with life’s problems.

This ain’t a goddam sales call. I’ll talk with you all day long about these issues, but only after you understand and accept that full acknowledgement of man’s natural freedom is not optional, and not a moment before.

Saying you have no idea but government is evil is not an answer. Until you want to discuss specifics, I'll banter with you, but until anarchists are willing to do that, you're just pissing in the wind.

I say I want property rights to be respected. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I say I want my family protected from criminals. Your answer is I can't have that because government is evil.

I pick government in those. Fine, then I pick evil. At least I have a live family and clear property rights. You and oddball can live in the trees and pick flies off each other's coats

Private, voluntarily-funded defense organizations. Could be the same guys doing it now, with the same toys and everything, just no more exemption from morality (i.e. authority).

This is just fairy dust and hand waiving. You're going need to be a lot more specific than that. There are 2,000 obvious issues that would need to be overcome to have a military which is funded, staffed and armed without eminent domain or any other government capability

That would take a few chapters in a book to explain, and you don't want to read those. Your position is that you insist on remaining ignorant, and that your ignorance proves there are no alternatives.

Strawman. My position is that your saying to read a book because you can't explain shit yourself is lame

 

[kaz]

I wrote an OP which raised the points I have no solution for other than government. None of the anarchists will address how any of them could be done without government.

I'm a practical guy. I believe in free markets, they work. That will for example protects us from discrimination far better than government.

But there must be general agreement as to what constitutes property rights. I see no way for the "market" to solve that. You can't have competing arbiters of property rights because property is a limited resource.

You can't have competing militarizes or law enforcement over the same land. They'd end up fighting each other.

There must be criminal and civil courts to pursue justice, and their decisions must be binding.

Roads are impossible without government. Too many people, too much land.

Not one anarchist will step up and address any of those.

Oddball and Kevin Kennedy are the most moronic saying they can't say how that would work or could work or even have an idea how they would work because they aren't clairvoyant.

I have owned five businesses and I hate government to the level of few Americans. I consider the US government to have now consistently violated the rules the people gave it so repeatedly that I consider our government illegitimate.

I'm a tap in putt for any anarchist who can show me how practically it could actually work. But instead they are getting out their Big Bertha and driving the ball into the trees

They are offering zero content. They keep referring me to books that don't offer real world solutions to those things I haven't solved without government I listed above

We can give some suggestions about how to solve these problems, of course, but there are important reasons why the anarchist is reluctant to do this...

First of all, it's speculative and useless. None of us will claim centralized control over a free society, quite obviously, so what difference does it make what solutions we personally propose? When people say "I'm not clairvoyant" they're pointing to the fact that necessity will birth solutions unimaginable previous to that necessity arising. They're also citing how solutions will develop through consultation and cooperation, and may differ somewhat, in certain regards, from area to area, so asking one person to solve all these problems is unreasonable. And it's no more their responsibility to figure this stuff out than it is yours, so why don't you take a crack at these questions yourself?

It's also a question of morality, which you do not seem to care about at all. To be moral, you've got to take immoral solutions off the table, and think from that standpoint. Your questions are no different than the 19th century southerner who says, "Tell me how we will maintain our economy, and THEN I will consider the abolition of slavery." Um, no. You don't get to keep people in bondage because you don't know how to figure out another way. That's not reasonable practicality, that's simply immorality. Justifying government is no different than the justification for any other criminal act. There is always some benefit, some problem solved, by acting immorally - that's why people do it - so citing this as your justification is just called "being a bad person", just like any common purse-snatcher.

Finally, remember, that the only thing the anarchist is opposed to is authority, not cooperation and organization.

It's funny how you think not having any answers to how your ideology would work in the real world is a virtue. I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue. It's a failed argument

So, a "pragmatist" is someone who insists on remaining ignorant and shoving his ignorance down everyone's throat?

You're hallucinating now, no idea what you're talking about

 

[kaz]

All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...

All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.

How?

When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.

Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?

You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it

I gave you a link to a webpage that explains how, but you refuse to read it. You're complaining about your own stubborn ignorance.

That's just stupid. You can argue better than that, I've seen you do it

 

[kaz]

Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.

Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.

After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.

As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.

A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.

The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.

I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.

If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.

I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.

We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.

I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.

A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.

Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom

The problem with your theory is that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. The state you propose is purely a temporary phenomenon. It never lasts for more than a few decades before various malefactors get their hands on the machinery of government and engineer it to serve their own ends. The "limited state" always turns into the plunder state.

So does anarchy. We're going in circles now. Leftists have no desire to be individuals. They will join with warlords and form armies. You will either be conquered or form armies to fight back. Then you have government again, don't fool yourself

 

[kaz]

Saying that property recognition can be done privately as a solution to replacing government with no further description of how that would work is a logical fallacy called begging the question.

I'll ask you the obvious question, but I'm not going to keep doing your work for you.

Two companies decide to be property recognition companies. They draw different lines between you and your neighbor.

Now what?

Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.

Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...

Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...

Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.

So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.

The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.

So what do you do now?

My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?

Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.

Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.

Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.

All you said is "they will have to settle the dispute." You said nothing about how they do that. The world is filled with unreasonable people. Our whole current government is based on it. People are greedy, selfish, want other people's shit for free and vote for politicians who promise them that.

You thought that saying "they will have to settle the dispute" answered the question? Seriously?

The anwer you're looking for is here:

The Idea of a Private Law Society | Hans-Hermann Hoppe​

Educate yourself.

Disregarding everything else, would you read a link that was presented to you in that dickish way?