More government = more corporatism

[kaz]

So you side with the guy who extended his property. The guy always had access to the water, by what right is he shut off now?

Because the property is recognized as being his

By who? It was woods. One is saying the path to the creek is his, the other is saying he planted crops on that land and it's his. So each recognizes himself as the rightful owner and the rest of the community is saying to both, I see your point, but I see the other side too. I'm staying out of it.

This and the rest of your posts is just the typical handwaiving anarchists always engage in. You can't describe a system that is logical and makes sense to even someone like me who literally hates government. I was a small business owner and when Obama says he cares about jobs, I want to punch him in the face as the liar that he is.

But I don't want to live in chaos either. So I've listed the things that I think government should do to avoid chaos. But you can't remotely explain a system that would work, and we're not even dealing with any complex cases yet. I have no idea how you even decided the guy who wanted to plant crops had the right to shut off the guy already using the land as access to the creek.

Here's a more complete statement of my views on what government should do:

What is a small government libertarian?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

It was genocide and slavery son, Jesus.

The question was, how's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies? As in right now.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

I'm not up on "soominating".

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

If you didn't know what that word was supposed to be then it's not name calling, you're actually stupid

No when you insult him, even with truth, he expects a trigger warning!

 

[Fenton Lum]

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

It was genocide and slavery son, Jesus.

Soominating a half dozen justices changing the size of the Supreme Court is the same as waiting until after a bitterly partisan election? Sure it is

I'm not up on "soominating".

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

If you didn't know what that word was supposed to be then it's not name calling, you're actually stupid

No when you insult him, even with truth, he expects a trigger warning!

It's kinda funny when frenetic zealots get too excited to make sense, meaning even less than usual. But that's what happens when you run on emotional programming.

 

[Onyx]

By who? It was woods. One is saying the path to the creek is his, the other is saying he planted crops on that land and it's his. So each recognizes himself as the rightful owner and the rest of the community is saying to both, I see your point, but I see the other side too. I'm staying out of it.

So what is the point you are getting at? That government is needed to settle the dispute?

It should be noted that I oppose the state, and not governance. Community councils and cooperatives are consistent with most anarchist philosophy as a means of resolving disputes and manufacturing public goods.

Personally, I believe the scenario you presented is not very realistic, unless both sides had a visceral hate for each other - Like Israel/Palestine.

Even so, minor civil disputes ending in minor violence is a small price to pay for true freedom.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

It was genocide and slavery son, Jesus.

I'm not up on "soominating".

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

If you didn't know what that word was supposed to be then it's not name calling, you're actually stupid

No when you insult him, even with truth, he expects a trigger warning!

It's kinda funny when frenetic zealots get too excited to make sense, meaning even less than usual. But that's what happens when you run on emotional programming.

The only one talking about emotions is you, girlfriend

 

[kaz]

By who? It was woods. One is saying the path to the creek is his, the other is saying he planted crops on that land and it's his. So each recognizes himself as the rightful owner and the rest of the community is saying to both, I see your point, but I see the other side too. I'm staying out of it.

So what is the point you are getting at? That government is needed to settle the dispute?

It should be noted that I oppose the state, and not governance. Community councils and cooperatives are consistent with most anarchist philosophy as a means of resolving disputes and manufacturing public goods.

Personally, I believe the scenario you presented is not very realistic, unless both sides had a visceral hate for each other - Like Israel/Palestine.

Even so, minor civil disputes ending in minor violence is a small price to pay for true freedom.

Seriously, you think property disputes are "unrealistic." Incredible. People, including reasonable people, are biased to their own views. There are a plethora of reasons people dispute property rights. I just gave one scenario

 

[Onyx]

Seriously, you think property disputes are "unrealistic." Incredible

I believe the specific scenario you presented is unrealistic, conditional on both property owners not having visceral hate for each other.

Otherwise they would of negotiated a simple solution, like a trade for keeping the water turned on. The quick turn towards violence seems rather silly.

Anyways, I will restate the part you skipped of my previous post

So what is the point you are getting at? That government is needed to settle the dispute?

It should be noted that I oppose the state, and not governance. Community councils and cooperatives are consistent with most anarchist philosophy as a means of resolving disputes and manufacturing public goods.

 

[Onyx]

There are a plethora of reasons people dispute property rights. I just gave one scenario

Okay, and yet I am still left wondering what your point is.

Almost every proposed anarchist community has voluntary councils for settling these kinds of disputes. If it comes to violence, you always support the side operating in self defense based on principal.

What exactly are you trying to prove here?

 

[Fenton Lum]

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

It was genocide and slavery son, Jesus.

If you were't stupid based on the context you'd know it was "nominating"

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

If you didn't know what that word was supposed to be then it's not name calling, you're actually stupid

No when you insult him, even with truth, he expects a trigger warning!

It's kinda funny when frenetic zealots get too excited to make sense, meaning even less than usual. But that's what happens when you run on emotional programming.

The only one talking about emotions is you, girlfriend

Still awaiting you locating that "evidence" of my supporting democrats shoog.

 

[Fenton Lum]

By who? It was woods. One is saying the path to the creek is his, the other is saying he planted crops on that land and it's his. So each recognizes himself as the rightful owner and the rest of the community is saying to both, I see your point, but I see the other side too. I'm staying out of it.

So what is the point you are getting at? That government is needed to settle the dispute?

It should be noted that I oppose the state, and not governance. Community councils and cooperatives are consistent with most anarchist philosophy as a means of resolving disputes and manufacturing public goods.

Personally, I believe the scenario you presented is not very realistic, unless both sides had a visceral hate for each other - Like Israel/Palestine.

Even so, minor civil disputes ending in minor violence is a small price to pay for true freedom.

Seriously, you think property disputes are "unrealistic." Incredible. People, including reasonable people, are biased to their own views. There are a plethora of reasons people dispute property rights. I just gave one scenario

People, including reasonable people, are biased to their own views.

Good for you, step one.

 

[kaz]

Seriously, you think property disputes are "unrealistic." Incredible

I believe the specific scenario you presented is unrealistic, conditional on both property owners not having visceral hate for each other.

Otherwise they would of negotiated a simple solution, like a trade for keeping the water turned on. The quick turn towards violence seems rather silly.

Anyways, I will restate the part you skipped of my previous post

So what is the point you are getting at? That government is needed to settle the dispute?

It should be noted that I oppose the state, and not governance. Community councils and cooperatives are consistent with most anarchist philosophy as a means of resolving disputes and manufacturing public goods.

Yes, the world if full of nothing but reasonable people who just want to compromise and get along. Great point

 

[kaz]

There are a plethora of reasons people dispute property rights. I just gave one scenario

Okay, and yet I am still left wondering what your point is.

Almost every proposed anarchist community has voluntary councils for settling these kinds of disputes. If it comes to violence, you always support the side operating in self defense based on principal.

What exactly are you trying to prove here?

You're a waste of time. I'm tired of the dancing. Typical anarchist

 

[kaz]

No, it wasn't. There was a military and law enforcement. It wasn't just anarchy

It was genocide and slavery son, Jesus.

Oh, so now you're reduced to name calling.

If you didn't know what that word was supposed to be then it's not name calling, you're actually stupid

No when you insult him, even with truth, he expects a trigger warning!

It's kinda funny when frenetic zealots get too excited to make sense, meaning even less than usual. But that's what happens when you run on emotional programming.

The only one talking about emotions is you, girlfriend

Still awaiting you locating that "evidence" of my supporting democrats shoog.

I'm not playing your game. You're arguing for Democrats in thread after thread

 

[kaz]

By who? It was woods. One is saying the path to the creek is his, the other is saying he planted crops on that land and it's his. So each recognizes himself as the rightful owner and the rest of the community is saying to both, I see your point, but I see the other side too. I'm staying out of it.

So what is the point you are getting at? That government is needed to settle the dispute?

It should be noted that I oppose the state, and not governance. Community councils and cooperatives are consistent with most anarchist philosophy as a means of resolving disputes and manufacturing public goods.

Personally, I believe the scenario you presented is not very realistic, unless both sides had a visceral hate for each other - Like Israel/Palestine.

Even so, minor civil disputes ending in minor violence is a small price to pay for true freedom.

Seriously, you think property disputes are "unrealistic." Incredible. People, including reasonable people, are biased to their own views. There are a plethora of reasons people dispute property rights. I just gave one scenario

People, including reasonable people, are biased to their own views.

Good for you, step one.

To what?

 

[Onyx]

You're a waste of time. I'm tired of the dancing. Typical anarchist

Uh, okay...

I accept your deflection.

 

[Onyx]

Yes, the world if full of nothing but reasonable people who just want to compromise and get along. Great point

The world is full of reasonable people, but that does not mean unreasonable people do not exist.

A public and common defense needs to exist to prevent those sorts of people from harming others.

 

[Tehon]

Pretty self explanatory.

As the roles of government expand, so does the corruption corporations instigate through their lobbyists. Nearly every major regulation or shift in economic policy has been selectively advantageous to one group of corporations over another.

It is no secret that big money has infested both the left and right. How can you justify expanding the roles of government?

Expanded government is a symptom of the corporate takeover of government. Not the reverse. The solution is to eliminate corporate influence on the people's government.

 

[Onyx]

Expanded government is a symptom of the corporate takeover of government. Not the reverse. The solution is to eliminate corporate influence on the people's government.

That is a pretty old fallacy.

Opportunity creates *insert*. Rarely is it the other way around.

Here is a history lesson. Every government throughout history, no matter how big or small, was dominated by aristocrats and big money. Including the United States during the foundation of the constitution.

 

[jillian]

Pretty self explanatory.

As the roles of government expand, so does the corruption corporations instigate through their lobbyists. Nearly every major regulation or shift in economic policy has been selectively advantageous to one group of corporations over another.

It is no secret that big money has infested both the left and right. How can you justify expanding the roles of government?

the more you privatize the more that is corporatist.

you seem to have things backwards.

 

[gipper]

Pretty self explanatory.

As the roles of government expand, so does the corruption corporations instigate through their lobbyists. Nearly every major regulation or shift in economic policy has been selectively advantageous to one group of corporations over another.

It is no secret that big money has infested both the left and right. How can you justify expanding the roles of government?

Many leftists and statists want this to happen. Rule by the whims of the elite, is okay by them.