Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[kaz]

So you're doing exactly what I said in the beginning. You're assuming that everyone wants to be free and everyone wants to resolve issues.

From your post "In this case, what they would do is they would appeal to independent third parties."

And suppose instead your neighbor tells you to go fuck yourself. He already built a fence and is digging his new pool in the disputed property. Next step you interfere and he starts shooting.

Your neighbors are still telling you that you were screwed, guy. But he scares them and they aren't getting involved. You say they get in a dispute with them and you won't be there either. They say fair enough, but you are his neighbor and they aren't and they'll risk that.

What now?

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

 

[kaz]

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.

"How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery." Now that's a load of crap. Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may or may not be justified, but redistribution of wealth is wrong 100% of the time. Of course it is, what a load of crap. And BTW, you're not an anarchist, at least you said you're not

It all goes into the same pot, so what it's spent on is irrelevant.

Sure, spending money on defending the country is the same as giving it to an illegal alien who walked across the border. Got it.

Wow, that's stupid. Even for you

The way the money is obtained is exactly the same. How it's spent isn't under discussion here.

According to what?

 

[kaz]

No, the word deem implies that you regard some taxes as theft, while others you freely consent to.

deem
dēm/
verb
past tense: deemed; past participle: deemed

1. regard or consider in a specified way.
   "the event was deemed a great success"

You're right about that. His position isn't consistent.

Yours is. You're committing the fallacy of assuming that men want to be free and reach reasonable agreements. They don't.

And I've clearly stated my standard. Tell me where I have contradicted it.

Hint. Disagreeing with you is not contradicting my standard

I've already explained how unreasonable people are dealt with. You simply refuse to comprehend it. You aren't convincing anyone of the rightness of your position by playing stupid.

You stated that his security agency will dump him. But you are begging the question as to how you know that.

Since you're not very smart, that means you didn't answer the question, you just repeated they will dump him.

How are you going to ensure they do that? Notice you haven't answered that

Again, playing stupid isn't an effective debate tactic. I already posted the answer to your question.

No, you just claimed they will drop him. You offered nothing to back that up.

There are some well funded jerks out there. You have no idea that security agencies will all want to get along and will do so with nothing to compel them to do that. Yes, there can be only one arbiter of property

 

[kaz]

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.

"How the money is spent is not a factor in evaluating whether or not taxation is robbery." Now that's a load of crap. Redistribution of wealth is fundamentally different from other taxes. Other taxes may or may not be justified, but redistribution of wealth is wrong 100% of the time. Of course it is, what a load of crap. And BTW, you're not an anarchist, at least you said you're not

Ok, a bit of a misunderstanding here. Yes, redistribution is wrong, and no it is not the same as taxation for police in that you derive direct benefit from police. But it IS the same in the way that matters most - it’s extortion, and thus immoral. This point stands no matter how you spend the money.

I don’t know what you mean by “you’re not an anarchist, at least you said you’re not”. But we can drop that if you’d like, as the only thing I care about is achieving logical consistency regarding what we condone.

Oh My God. You're right! Life isn't perfect! There is no ideal solution that solves everything for everyone! So we all need to have no freedom at all and live our lives within a half mile of where we are born!

Sure, Brian. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water

 

[kaz]

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.

I have trouble understanding or accepting how someone can be motivated to a position by personal preference or perceived benefit, even in the face of ironclad logic to the contrary. That’s just not how my brain works, I guess.

When I heard someone describe how external authority is slavery, I immediately saw the validity of the claim, emptied my pockets of everything I believed in opposition to that information and thought, “Fuck - I’m an anarchist”.

It took me a month to get over it. I was excited by the discovery, but scared of the implications. I had all the same questions statists do. But I saw that I was on a crumbling iceberg and there was only one ship taking people off. So I struggled with these questions from on-deck as the ship pulled out; I didn’t refuse to board just because I didn’t know where it was headed.

Self-respect demands that one accept truth when recognized, so I hope that they have no inkling; because to see even a glimmer and remain stubbornly planted as misunderstanding transforms into willful ignorance is a discrace no man should abide.

Apparently you were a lot less logical than I am.

My positions are consistent that the only government I support is government where there can be only one. There can be only one military, police department, civil and criminal courts, set of roads, recognition of property rights and management of limited resources.

That's where anarchy falls apart. For everything else it holds, which is why we agree on everything else. You guys jump through big hoops to justify how things where there can be only one would work without there being only one, and you fall flat on your face every time

Being logically consistent with a false premise isn’t laudable. You fail to acknowledge that supporting governmental authority is an inherent violation of natural law rights, and is thus immoral and ultimately destructive, regardless of any other considerations.

If you had rent due and didn’t have the money, you would sit down at the table and try to figure out a plan. You would think of any way to get that money without simply going to your neighbor’s house with a gun and robbing him. You would hopefully move back with your parents before doing that. Maybe even be homeless.

And yet when it comes to this, it’s just a matter of course. “Yeah, we gotta extort people, ya know, no biggie, just the cost of doing business in a “civilized” society.”

No. It’s not ok because there’s a parchment somewhere, or because of a series of religious rituals that promise to cleanse the bloody hands. It’s wrong. That should matter. And if it doesn’t, then have some self-respect and quit the charade. Get out there and really DO it. Bags on heads, everyone in the corner, don’t move bitch or I’ll shoot you, the whole thing.

A bit hyperbolic, perhaps, but I’m tryjng to get through to you - what you’re condoning is not Ok.

Yes, hyperbolic and pointless to life which isn't about committing hari kari with our freedom in the failed attempt to turn gray into black and white. Life isn't black and white. It's just not

 

[kaz]

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.

If you want to call a small government libertarian a statist and lump us with Marxists, then your words lose all meaning as they are simply hyperbole

You endorse the state, so by definition you are a statist.

That isn't what statist means. Apparently in your anarchy world they don't have dictionaries either?

Why do people always do this? Terms like this evolve, and the guy is telling you what he means when he uses it, so there’s no confusion anyway. In anarchist circles, “statist” means anyone who supports government. I know it originally had a more radical connotation, but anarchists rightly perceive any support of violent coercion as radical, and thus use the term more broadly now than in the past.

There are anarchists and statists. Got it. Actually NO ONE uses the word that way except anarchists

 

[Some Guy]

Not sure the science analogy is a good one. Morals are not science, they will always be subjectiveness to them. They will always be based upon the society the is setting them. And are the morals of the past really "wrong", or were they right for the time given the knowledge and situation?

It's a great example. The earth was never flat no matter what people ever thought at any point in history. Just like some morals are never correct no matter people ever thought. It doesn't mean we have all the right answers right now or ever will, but again, the whole pursuit of them and all.

Do you really think they have been proven wrong or that even very many people disagree? This country has been in a state of war for 16 years, with lots of killing going on. Not long ago we invaded a country that was no threat to us at all killing thousands of people and bringing about the death of hundreds of thousands of people. I would say the majority of our society would say it was no immoral to do so.

Which would make them wrong. It's never ok to aggress someone unless it's in self defense. Doing it in the name of spreading our own morals or protecting our interests or something arguably makes it even worse. Of course, there's no definitive way to prove it, but like a lot of things, you'll probably see people continue to progress to the point where they look back and go "wow we sure came a long way." Just like if you look back at Hitler, or beyond that to Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Alexander the Great, etc.

It is not inconceivable that in the future "critical thought and science" might bring us to a Logan's run situation where people past a certain age are killed off as logically they are no longer as productive as they were. This is the downside of critical thought and science, there is no emotion involved. Morals based purely on critical thought and science will be a hard mistress.

Again, killing off old people doesn't make it right. It could be deemed necessary for the survival of others but that doesn't make it a moral thing to do. Your point is that a given society might deem something moral at a given time, and i'm saying that time, experience and knowledge will eventually prove them right or wrong, either definitively through science or universal acceptance and subsequent practice.

And here is the rub, those people do not think they are immoral for espousing such a view, so who is to say who is right? You seem to think that your view is more moral than theirs, but can you prove it is via science? I do not think so...morals can never be proven...that is why they can never be absolute.

You're right in that something may not ever be able to be definitively proven, but society can progress to a point where they realize the error of their ways. Like the example above, you can tell me all day long that slavery was considered acceptable at the time and therefore it was moral. Humans progressed to a point where the vast majority of people came to realize that it's very immoral and eliminated the practice almost universally. You'd be hard pressed to find a single person left that thinks slavery is a moral practice. Sure, not definitive proof, just incredibly well informed opinion by years of experience and enlightenment.

Much to agree on here!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Yes, there are many variables that could alter the scenario. At the most fundamental level, making a chair for an employer who can sell it for $20 but will only pay you $10 for the time it took to make it means that the employee's labor has been devalued by 50%. But perhaps the employer has inroads into markets you do not have access to, and you would not be able to get more than $10 on your own; or maybe he has tools and machinery that enables you to make a chair in half the time, etc. I was speaking on the principle level - employment is exploitation by definition, regardless of other factors like the employer's risk - but there can be ways in which employment would be the best option available to the laborer, short of starting his own business. If averting the risk of forming your own business is worth being devalued to you, then the arrangement is preferable. You are effectually paying the employer the amount of your devaluation for that desirable element.

If you're referring to exploitation in the more pure sense of the word, which is basically a synonym for "use", then yea. At my job, i'm basically considered a "resource" and the managers and executives above me will figure out how to use their resources (i.e. skilled man hours) at hand for the initiatives requested by our business stakeholders. From a resource allocation standpoint, i've never heard someone say (for example) "here's how we plan to exploit our resources to get that software project done." It's more use, allocate, deploy, etc.

So i think we're saying the same thing here. Just that when someone uses the word "exploit" or "exploitation" today, it's suggestive of some nefarious underpinning.

That’s the very thing. Much obliged for your respectful consideration. This stuff is easy when everybody’s earnestly trying to understand each other. Way t’ be. You set a fine example.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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.

If you want to call a small government libertarian a statist and lump us with Marxists, then your words lose all meaning as they are simply hyperbole

You endorse the state, so by definition you are a statist.

That isn't what statist means. Apparently in your anarchy world they don't have dictionaries either?

Why do people always do this? Terms like this evolve, and the guy is telling you what he means when he uses it, so there’s no confusion anyway. In anarchist circles, “statist” means anyone who supports government. I know it originally had a more radical connotation, but anarchists rightly perceive any support of violent coercion as radical, and thus use the term more broadly now than in the past.

There are anarchists and statists. Got it. Actually NO ONE uses the word that way except anarchists

Fair enough, a bit of jargon there then.

 

[flacaltenn]

We deny ceding any function of power (authority) because it is impossible to do so, and to pretend otherwise is immoral. Unalienable rights means they cannot be removed from the being, even by their own consent. This is key.

In addition, we don't even have the power we delegate to representatives ourselves (the right to tax, the right to make law which others must obey under threat of violence), so delegation of such power is impossible; demonstrably invalid.

That's a pretty narrow view of sanctity of individual rights. We enter in contracts and agreements ALL the time. Some of them are VOLUNTARILY pretty restrictive. Like marriage for instance, or taking on business partners. As long as it's limited, succinctly put on paper, and VOLUNTARY -- it's part of social interaction.

It's NOT impossible to cede some power. You need to do that for mutual defense. For medical advice. For delegating others to handle your affairs. Sorry man -- but even hard core anarchists cede rights if they want to survive.

And then there's the fact that ALL authority is definitively immoral. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. Authority is only needed to do what he does not have a right to do, and things we do not have a right to do are called "wrongs".

Use of FORCE by authority when it becomes a primary tool is wrong. It's not immoral to cede authority to a surgeon. You sign your literal life AWAY to that person. Your family has recourse to recover damages if the team screw up --- but there WOULDN'T BE surgical teams if they couldn't ask the patients to "cede authority" to them.

I think what Anarchists need is a couple 600 page romantic novels about the BEAUTY and RIGHTEOUSNESS of anarchy to play out how this really works. You folks need an Ayn Rand who was a VICTIM of abuse of ceded power to WRITE how stuff REALLY WORKS. Not just make blanket statements about how any societal organization arrangements are immoral.

Do you have ONE person who has written a fictional validation of Anarchy? Anything LIKE "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountain Head"?? No you don't. And there's a good reason for that. Anarchy is NOT a natural state for society..

 

[bripat9643]

Alright, first of all, I’m trying to oblige you by addressing your speculative concerns,

This whole discussion is a exercise in speculation, nothing more. The only example in this world we have of an area with no government has not turned out the way you say things will here.

So, there are no examples you can point to and use to support your views, they are all just speculation at best in just wishful thinking in my opinion.

but let us not forget the main point here: The authority you support is demonstrably invalid and immoral, immensely dangerous, and invariably in the hands of psychopaths.

Yep, that is what mankind is. The authority I support reigns that in better than any system tried so far. Humans were once as you say we should be again, without governmental authority. I do not find any evidence it was the utopia you claim it will be and if it were, why did they change.

To unleash it upon the world just so you can abdicate your natural self-responsibility and feel safe within a hallucination of security, is selfish, cowardly, and just downright slimy.

It is already there, it is not being unleashed, it is already done and we know the result. There is no evidence that what you support is superior, in fact all of recorded history would suggest you are misguided.

That being said, most people are normal and not trying to build an army to steal your house. Your irrational fears don’t justify giving the next Stalin a throne to sit upon.

It does not take most people, it only take a few. It did not take most people ,it took one human to convince more than 900 people to leave their homes and live in a government free society with him. And it only took one man to persuade them to drink poisoned kool aide.

You call my fears irrational, which means you ignore what you see going on around you. You ignore the riots and the looting and the con artist cheating elderly out of their life savings and the flooded out of everything they own. You ignore the world around you and tell yourself if only they had the mythical "freedom" they would instantly turn good and would all stand in a circle singing kumbaya. It is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that.

Humans at their core are not good or benevolent like you claim, we are selfish, cruel and greedy for the most part. That will not change when you change the system of authority over them.

Plus the Fed already owns your house - whether you understand that or not - so you’ve got nothing to lose.

Sure I do, at least they let me live in it, there is no promise of that in your anarchist utopia.

You're just repeating the same talking points. That's all you do. Repeat, repeat, repeat. You don't even address the points other people make.

 

[bripat9643]

You obviously didn't read what I posted. The insurance companies appeal to the independent third party, not the customers involved in the dispute. If the guy digging the pool doesn't want to comply with that decision, then his security agency will drop him as a customer. Then he will have no one taking his side of the dispute, and the other party's security agency will step in and prevent him from building his pool. End of story.

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

 

[kaz]

OK, so your neighbor's security company tells your security company to go fuck themselves.

If you feel that's a different question, fine. So address that one

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Alright, first of all, I’m trying to oblige you by addressing your speculative concerns,

This whole discussion is a exercise in speculation, nothing more. The only example in this world we have of an area with no government has not turned out the way you say things will here.

So, there are no examples you can point to and use to support your views, they are all just speculation at best in just wishful thinking in my opinion.

but let us not forget the main point here: The authority you support is demonstrably invalid and immoral, immensely dangerous, and invariably in the hands of psychopaths.

Yep, that is what mankind is. The authority I support reigns that in better than any system tried so far. Humans were once as you say we should be again, without governmental authority. I do not find any evidence it was the utopia you claim it will be and if it were, why did they change.

To unleash it upon the world just so you can abdicate your natural self-responsibility and feel safe within a hallucination of security, is selfish, cowardly, and just downright slimy.

It is already there, it is not being unleashed, it is already done and we know the result. There is no evidence that what you support is superior, in fact all of recorded history would suggest you are misguided.

That being said, most people are normal and not trying to build an army to steal your house. Your irrational fears don’t justify giving the next Stalin a throne to sit upon.

It does not take most people, it only take a few. It did not take most people ,it took one human to convince more than 900 people to leave their homes and live in a government free society with him. And it only took one man to persuade them to drink poisoned kool aide.

You call my fears irrational, which means you ignore what you see going on around you. You ignore the riots and the looting and the con artist cheating elderly out of their life savings and the flooded out of everything they own. You ignore the world around you and tell yourself if only they had the mythical "freedom" they would instantly turn good and would all stand in a circle singing kumbaya. It is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that.

Humans at their core are not good or benevolent like you claim, we are selfish, cruel and greedy for the most part. That will not change when you change the system of authority over them.

Plus the Fed already owns your house - whether you understand that or not - so you’ve got nothing to lose.

Sure I do, at least they let me live in it, there is no promise of that in your anarchist utopia.

You're just repeating the same talking points. That's all you do. Repeat, repeat, repeat. You don't even address the points other people make.

Oh fucking grow up you moronic child. I assessed each point. Do you have anything to add or are you just going to keep on humpping my leg


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bripat9643]

I just posted the answer. The matter goes to an arbitrator. If the guy building the pool refuses to comply with the aritrator's decision, then his security agency will drop him. Security agencies are not going to go to war with each other for the sake of recalitrant clients. Once his security agency drops him, then he is helpless before the plaintiff's security agency. They will impose whatever they like on him.

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Alright, first of all, I’m trying to oblige you by addressing your speculative concerns,

This whole discussion is a exercise in speculation, nothing more. The only example in this world we have of an area with no government has not turned out the way you say things will here.

So, there are no examples you can point to and use to support your views, they are all just speculation at best in just wishful thinking in my opinion.

but let us not forget the main point here: The authority you support is demonstrably invalid and immoral, immensely dangerous, and invariably in the hands of psychopaths.

Yep, that is what mankind is. The authority I support reigns that in better than any system tried so far. Humans were once as you say we should be again, without governmental authority. I do not find any evidence it was the utopia you claim it will be and if it were, why did they change.

To unleash it upon the world just so you can abdicate your natural self-responsibility and feel safe within a hallucination of security, is selfish, cowardly, and just downright slimy.

It is already there, it is not being unleashed, it is already done and we know the result. There is no evidence that what you support is superior, in fact all of recorded history would suggest you are misguided.

That being said, most people are normal and not trying to build an army to steal your house. Your irrational fears don’t justify giving the next Stalin a throne to sit upon.

It does not take most people, it only take a few. It did not take most people ,it took one human to convince more than 900 people to leave their homes and live in a government free society with him. And it only took one man to persuade them to drink poisoned kool aide.

You call my fears irrational, which means you ignore what you see going on around you. You ignore the riots and the looting and the con artist cheating elderly out of their life savings and the flooded out of everything they own. You ignore the world around you and tell yourself if only they had the mythical "freedom" they would instantly turn good and would all stand in a circle singing kumbaya. It is a pipe dream, and a dangerous one at that.

Humans at their core are not good or benevolent like you claim, we are selfish, cruel and greedy for the most part. That will not change when you change the system of authority over them.

Plus the Fed already owns your house - whether you understand that or not - so you’ve got nothing to lose.

Sure I do, at least they let me live in it, there is no promise of that in your anarchist utopia.

You're just repeating the same talking points. That's all you do. Repeat, repeat, repeat. You don't even address the points other people make.

Oh fucking grow up you moronic child. I assessed each point. Do you have anything to add or are you just going to keep on humpping my leg


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You regurgitated the same talking points since the beginning of this thread.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Most people dont feel that way, but those that do can do that, sure. And it doesnt mean we cant trade if its mutually agreeable, but why cant the white power types all move to the same neighborhood and choose not to sell their homes to non-whites? Like a racist Free State Project. Hahaha

I disagree that most people do not feel this way, I think just looking around you shows that most do.

While I do not think that anarchy can ever lead to anything but chaos, I know that it can never work for large groups of people. Essentially all of humankind would have to be divided in to tiny subgroups. The problem with this of course is that eventually one or two of the groups will get bigger and better armed than the rest and decided to impose their will on the others close to them.

Human nature cannot be denied.

Who are these people that you're talking about??? I live in NYC - there are tons of people here of all varieties, and pretty much all of them are just running around trying to get money to buy stuff. You think most of these people feel strongly enough about one particular idea to uproot their lives and join a commune over it? You think in a free society, they'd be building armies to attack New Jersey? The irony of you saying "Human nature cannot be denied" in the midst of doing that very thing is bewildering.

What you're missing is that they're not thinking about government most of the day. They're not including that in their daily motivations. What they're doing now is what they'll be doing in a free society. Despite the lie that government is the glue that holds everything together, almost everything happening within human society is just freedom operating in spite of governmental authority, not because of it, like a river's water running between the stones.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

That’s why it’s gotta be done the right way. A society of people who understand their self-ownership and dissolve government on that basis will not succumb to the lie again.

This is where I think you live in a dream world with no tether to reality.

Imagine someone suggesting African American slavery again. People would laugh them down, and eventually, shoot them down. We’ve moved past it in the cultural consciousness.

But it is going on right now in parts of the world and nobody is laughing and nobody is stopping it. I think there is a pretty good portion of the population in this country that would be just fine with a return to the Old South.

You're just being contrary; this isn't an honest evaluation of what I've said. Even if there are people who would like a return to the Old South, the idea lacks widespread support - the overall cultural consciousness has moved beyond the idea of outright chattel slavery in the modern west. There is absolutely no reason why other ideas can't be changed in the same way; in fact, it's inevitable. Little by little, throughout history, truth has emerged and gained a foothold as discoveries become widely recognized.

Authority is slavery. It will be recognized as such, whether that takes 25 years, 250 years, or 2,500 years. The people who recognize it are persistently trying to make that discovery known, and in an age of information travelling at the speed of light, the odds are in favor of sooner rather than later.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I do not put a supernatural connotation on natural law, that is you when you say things like there is absolute morality. Morality is just the current human view of how things should be and it changes over time.

Morality and nature has no connection, they are two separate realms.

I do have a question for you. A long time ago before there were government or even societies man was totally free, it was what you say we need to get to now. If that was the most natural state for man to be in, which you seem to claim, why did mankind move away from that? Why would we move from the perfect to the evil? That makes no sense.

Fear --> Ignorance --> Confusion --> Control --> Chaos.

This was not understood, so we fell victim to it. The discovery has been made. As it permeates the consciousness of the species, the error will be rectified; just as we realized that the Earth moves around the Sun, and adjusted to account for that new information.

Morality does not change over time; our understanding of it does.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who are these people that you're talking about??? I live in NYC - there are tons of people here of all varieties, and pretty much all of them are just running around trying to get money to buy stuff. You think most of these people feel strongly enough about one particular idea to uproot their lives and join a commune over it? You think in a free society, they'd be building armies to attack New Jersey? The irony of you saying "Human nature cannot be denied" in the midst of doing that very thing is bewildering.

No, I do not think these people feel strongly enough about one particular idea to do anything unless they are forced. In your utopian fantasy these are the people are you counting on to come to your aide when someone does not follow the rules. That will never happen until someone does something to them directly.

It never takes "most" people to make things happen as most people are too self absorbed to care about you or anyone but themselves. Do you think that most people in Germany thought it was a good idea to gas the Jews? Yet they let it happen because it did not affect them personally.

So, no most people will not be building an army to invade New Jersey, but all it takes is one person to choose to raise an army while the rest sit back and care about nothing.

What you're missing is that they're not thinking about government most of the day. They're not including that in their daily motivations. What they're doing now is what they'll be doing in a free society. Despite the lie that government is the glue that holds everything together, almost everything happening within human society is just freedom operating in spite of governmental authority, not because of it, like a river's water running between the stones.

I am not missing that at all. I agree 100% they do not include it in their daily motivations, which is why your utopian fantasy can never come true. They go about their daily lives because they know that the government will put bad people in jail, will pave their roads and keep food in the grocery store. They do not want to do those things for themselves, and in your utopian fantasy they would have to as there would be no central authority to do such things. People do not want to do those things, they don't even want to worry about those things. They want to do their jobs, come home and watch Real Housewives on the TV and then go to bed.

That is why your fantasy will never come true.