Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[kaz]

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?

I've posted the same link to you several times, and each time you come up with some excuse for refusing to read it.

Same excuses:

1) You don't provide any content, you just say read this

2) You present it each time wrapped in dickish context

Those are the same two things every time

 

[Foxfyre]

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended.

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

There were numerous cities and towns for thousands of years before the state came into existence. According to you, that should be impossible. The fact is that society came first, and then the state latched onto it like a tick latches onto a bull's testicles.

I know when somebody starts engaging in argumentum adsurdum, non sequitur, and personal insults, they have no clue what they are arguing.

 

[Norman]

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?

I've posted the same link to you several times, and each time you come up with some excuse for refusing to read it.

Same excuses:

1) You don't provide any content, you just say read this

2) You present it each time wrapped in dickish context

Those are the same two things every time

So what's your argument for why anarchy can't work? There is more than one law agency? Brilliant retort, because currently as we know, common law doesn't exist and there is only one court...

Basically you are asking of the impossible from the anarchists while asking of no standards from the government crowd. Let's review how ironic it was to talk about the barriers of your property while the government is taking over 40% of your stuff and handing it to someone you disagree with in every way. Once you deal with your impossible double standard all the questions will be answered.

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.

The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.

That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

 

[Norman]

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

Or why don't YOU show me this contract and the exact place where I signed it? If it truly exists as a contract and I consented to it, then this should be an easy task.

Absolute maddening stupidity. This person clearly took the class, because no one could come to conclusions as silly as this if they actually thought with their own brain for a minute.



Next they will tell you to take it up the ass, after all you consented. It's written in the skies.

 

[bripat9643]

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

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

A gave you the answer. It's private security agencies.

That isn't even a 50K foot answer, it's a 50K mile answer.

1) What happens when you and your neighbor hires different private security agencies who disagree what the lines between your property should be?

2) What happens when you and your daughter says your neighbor's son raped her and he said she consented and each of your private security agencies agree with their customer?

3) What happens when your private security agency can't get to your house because it goes through your neighbor's yard?

4) What happens when your neighbor's private security agency says you owe him $10K for services rendered you didn't know he provided you?

I look forward to your not addressing any of these questions either

Answer to #1, #2 and #4:

https://mises-media.s3.amazonaws.com/The Private Production of Defense_3.pdf?file=1&type=document​

Now we come to the most complicated but, in a way, the most interesting case. So what would happen in the case that two people are insured with a different company, have a conflict and they come to different judgments? That is, my company says I’m right, and your company says I’m right; my client is in the right. Well, they then shoot it out. Again, everybody knows, of course, that such a situation can arise and, again, each company will have an incentive, so to speak, to say exactly what will happen in this case. We do not agree who is right and who is wrong, what do we do in this case? Now, would the company then say, OK, in that case, one company decides, has the ultimate say, and the other company will be overruled? No company would offer any contract like this. Nobody would want to be insured with a company that comes out always as a loser. No. In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties. That is, to arbitration agencies that also compete on the market, who offer precisely this service, who are neither, so to speak, part of Company A, nor part of Company B, but an entirely independent party. They would now take on this type of case. And there might be different layers of this, but what would be the incentive of such an independent third-party arbitrator, what would be the financial incentive for them to do? The answer is no independent third-party arbitration agency has a guarantee that they will be called upon again in the next instance. In order to stay in business, what they must do is they must come up with a judgment that is considered to be a fair judgment by both insurance companies and, by implication, also by the clients of both insurance companies. And this means, of course, that what the judgment will be is a judgment that does, indeed, incorporate, so to speak, the highest possible degree of consensus on principles of justice.​

To illustrate this a little bit more, we can imagine, for instance, that we have agencies that adhere internally to Canonical law or to Mosaic Law or to Islamic law or whatever it is. This refers only to people who are both members of this group. Now, what happens if there’s a conflict between, whatever, Christian and somebody who is insured by a Muslim – an Islamic organization, or somebody who is Canonical law as compared to Mosaic Law? The answer is, of course, that the arbitration agencies that deal with such cases then must come up with principles of justice that are generally universal; that is, that are so general that all of these, in their internal law code, different agencies and clients could possibly agree to. So we would have a larger variety of law, plus a constant tendency to work out a universal legal – universal law code. And this universal law code would most likely be precisely this type of law code as the greatest common denominator of all different legal systems that might exist.

I should mention, you know, when I end, that when it comes to international relationships, there is already something like this to a certain extent. What, for instance, if a Canadian has a conflict with an American? Realize that sometimes Canadians and Americans can live very close together? It’s just across the street, so to speak. Or a conflict between a Swiss and a German? Just one street separates these two people. There is no monopoly judge in this case. That is, these people, the German and the Swiss, the Canadian and the American live in a state of anarchy vis’ a vis’ each other. The first observation, is there more conflict between Canadians and Americans living in close proximity to each other than there is conflict between Americans, two Americans living in close proximity to each other? I’m not aware of it. Is there more conflict between Swiss citizens and German citizens who live in close proximity to each other than there is between Swiss people, two Swiss guys living in close proximity, or two German guys? I’m not aware of this. What do they – what happens in this case? The Swiss goes to the Swiss Court. The German goes to the German court. If they agree, no problem. If they don’t agree, again, arbitration will set in in this case. And this arbitration in the current system is, of course, also semi-state arbitration courts because, after all, even these supranational courts are, again, manned by people that this state or that state sends into these courts. But nonetheless, you can see that, at least as far as the frequency and smoothness of operations is concerned, the fact that there is no monopoly judge does not cause any problems whatsoever. And what I’m proposing, the same sort of thing could, of course, work also within any given country.

​

 

[bripat9643]

Again, we're not actually disagreeing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is and I'm talking about how it's used by the enemies of freedom to justify confiscating and redistributing income because most people don't know what it actually is

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

I've already explained why the soc-alled "social contract is not a real contract." You haven't even attempted to refute it. Why would I need to get the opinion of a bunch of political hacks who have a vested interest in maintaining the status que?

 

[bripat9643]

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

There you go, trying to take us on another ride around your wheel of circular logic. If you read the article about the private law society, then where do you find fault with it? I know you can't answer that question because answer it wold require you to actually read it. Instead you will pontificate from ignorance.

I've read "The Law" by the way.

Robbery is taking something from the person who rightfully owns it without their permission. How do does any form of taxation not fit that description?

Tell me how if someone presented you with reading and acted like the dick you are about it that you would read it.

My objection is not that you provide sources, it's that you provide sources in place of content. What is effective is making an argument and saying here's more information to expand on it. Saying here, read this, to every question is just lame

A gave you the answer. It's private security agencies.

That isn't even a 50K foot answer, it's a 50K mile answer.

1) What happens when you and your neighbor hires different private security agencies who disagree what the lines between your property should be?

2) What happens when you and your daughter says your neighbor's son raped her and he said she consented and each of your private security agencies agree with their customer?

3) What happens when your private security agency can't get to your house because it goes through your neighbor's yard?

4) What happens when your neighbor's private security agency says you owe him $10K for services rendered you didn't know he provided you?

I look forward to your not addressing any of these questions either

The answer to #3 is if you can get to your house, then why wouldn't a private security agency be able to get to it?

 

[bripat9643]

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended.

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

The first flaw in your theory is that all didn't agree. It's not a valid contract.

You know, insisting that that something does not exist that quite clearly exists reminds me of the King of Siam's children who refused to believe there was such a thing as snow.

It clearly doesn't exist. The Constitution fits no legal definition of a contract. So where is this so-called "social contract" that I agreed to?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I've posted the same link to you several times, and each time you come up with some excuse for refusing to read it.

Same excuses:

1) You don't provide any content, you just say read this

2) You present it each time wrapped in dickish context

Those are the same two things every time

So what's your argument for why anarchy can't work? There is more than one law agency? Brilliant retort, because currently as we know, common law doesn't exist and there is only one court...

Basically you are asking of the impossible from the anarchists while asking of no standards from the government crowd. Let's review how ironic it was to talk about the barriers of your property while the government is taking over 40% of your stuff and handing it to someone you disagree with in every way. Once you deal with your impossible double standard all the questions will be answered.

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

Kaz is strangely silent since I posted the explanation of how private security agencies would work.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

 

[Foxfyre]

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

Or why don't YOU show me this contract and the exact place where I signed it? If it truly exists as a contract and I consented to it, then this should be an easy task.

Absolute maddening stupidity. This person clearly took the class, because no one could come to conclusions as silly as this if they actually thought with their own brain for a minute.



Next they will tell you to take it up the ass, after all you consented. It's written in the skies.

Thanks but I learned a long time ago that those who refuse to educate themselves cannot be educated on concepts or principles. Instead they will make silly demands as you just did.

 

[Foxfyre]

All I am saying is that if the society affected does not agree to it, it is not social contract. It doesn't matter when the social contract was made or who has since joined the society. The society chooses to live under the existing social contract, or it can mutually choose to change it, amend it, add to it. Anything outside of that mutual agreement is not social contract at all.

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

I've already explained why the soc-alled "social contract is not a real contract." You haven't even attempted to refute it. Why would I need to get the opinion of a bunch of political hacks who have a vested interest in maintaining the status que?

And I have provided example after example and definition after definition of why you are arguing something you obviously do not understand. If you will not educate yourself on what social contract is, I won't waste any more time attempting to do so. Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am 100% certain that social contract is not only real, but valid, has been practiced for millenia, and is the ONLY means by which a people can govern themselves as our Founders intended.

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

The first flaw in your theory is that all didn't agree. It's not a valid contract.

You know, insisting that that something does not exist that quite clearly exists reminds me of the King of Siam's children who refused to believe there was such a thing as snow.

It clearly doesn't exist. The Constitution fits no legal definition of a contract. So where is this so-called "social contract" that I agreed to?

Already asked and answered. Again have a pleasant evening.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

 

[bripat9643]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

Hmmm, wrong. We had civilization before we had government. The later is a parasite on the former.

 

[bripat9643]

Could you be a dear and scare up a copy of it for us?...I'd like to get a look at the terms and conditions, along with the defaults that let me out of it if the other party fails to live up to their end of the deal.

I can refer you to the Declaration of Independence and all the other documents that testify to the debates, discussions, and rationale that eventually--it took 11 years and a long bloody war to accomplish--resulted in the social contract all could agree to and live with. It required much compromise, give and take, but they got there.

It was a social contract/agreement of how the new nation would be organized and structured. It was unique in that for the first (and only) time in the entire human history of the world, the people would govern themselves and assign the government the authority it would be allowed instead of the other way around.

It was not bad government that turned that concept on its head, but it was the people themselves who abdicated their responsibility for self governance.

I propose a return to the social contract that the Constitution is intended to be.

You and Bripat seem to want anarchy which you describe as: (dictionary definition) "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

The truth is though, that what you would have is the rest of that dictionary definition: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." synonyms: lawlessness · absence of government · nihilism · mobocracy · revolution · insurrection · riot ·
rebellion · mutiny · disorder · disorganization · misrule · chaos ·
tumult · turmoil ·

Anarchy creates a terrible society in which the strong/cruel prey upon the weak, and sooner or later the strong/cruel assume dictatorship and there is no more liberty other than what such dictator allows.

I prefer a liberty in which my rights stop precisely where yours begin, and that requires laws and a means of enforcing them, i.e. some form of government.

The first flaw in your theory is that all didn't agree. It's not a valid contract.

You know, insisting that that something does not exist that quite clearly exists reminds me of the King of Siam's children who refused to believe there was such a thing as snow.

It clearly doesn't exist. The Constitution fits no legal definition of a contract. So where is this so-called "social contract" that I agreed to?

Already asked and answered. Again have a pleasant evening.

"Nuh uhn!" isn't an answer.

 

[bripat9643]

To be a valid contract, every individual would have to agree to it. You admit that doesn't happen. Some guy born 200 years ago doesn't have the moral authority to agree for me. Furthermore, the reality is that a small group of men agreed to the Constitution, not "society." Your premise is pure bullshit. It's based on a fantasy.

Only if you refuse to look up the definition for social contract and insist that it be no different than a real estate contract or construction contract or some such. Only if you refuse to study the great minds like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau et al. Only if you never took a comprehensive class in political science, Constitution, and/or government.

Yes, according to you, the social contract is a contract that fits no legal definition of a contract. Political science is not science. It's propaganda, and the social contract is also propaganda.

Why don't you do us both a favor and simply google 'social contract' and read up? And maybe you will then appear somewhat more educated on the subject and perhaps be able to make an intelligent argument for why it does or does not exist.

I've already explained why the soc-alled "social contract is not a real contract." You haven't even attempted to refute it. Why would I need to get the opinion of a bunch of political hacks who have a vested interest in maintaining the status que?

And I have provided example after example and definition after definition of why you are arguing something you obviously do not understand. If you will not educate yourself on what social contract is, I won't waste any more time attempting to do so. Do have a pleasant evening.

Your definitions are obviously wrong. You've been saying the so-called "social contract" is not a contract.

 

[bripat9643]

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

This last statement could be pointing to the problem. If I’m reading you correctly, you’re saying that taxation for military or police is not robbery, but taxation for other purposes (like perhaps welfare) is potentially robbery. Correct me if I’m wrong.

This cannot be the case. How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery (theft, extortion, whatever). Even if every dollar taken was spent to directly benefit the individual it was taken from, even if that benefit was 100 times better than what the individual could have achieved if he spent the money on his own, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of taxation’s moral status. The threat of punishment, the coercion, is the only relevant factor.

If I’m interpreting your statement incorrectly, then you are not citing how the money is spent as a relevant factor, but still saying taxation is not robbery. This means that even if the money is spent to the direct detriment of the individual, it’s still not robbery; which is to say that government is morally justified in taking your money and spending it however they want, even on coke and hookers for themselves.

I don’t believe you think this, and the other option is logically invalid. So something is amiss here either way. The thought process is broken somewhere.

The statists have never really thought about why they believe what they believe. Thus, they have no answers when you point out the flaws in their arguments.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Fact is no one has tried anarchism yet (apart from maybe some not so significant cases), and likely won't in our lifetimes. So the discussion at this point is rather moot.

anarchism is what we had before there was civilization, it sucked so we became civilized.

anarchism and civilization are not compatible.

you cannot have a society of anarchist, that is an oxymoron.

Hmmm, wrong. We had civilization before we had government. The later is a parasite on the former.

Anarchy and civilization do not mix, pick one or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com