Polarizing America

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx
Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

You are basically saying that you find it comfortable to borrow from two absurd political ideologies. I actually find it much more comforting to be as you call it "on the extreme," as I believe in natural order (also called anarcho-capitalism or governmentless/stateless society). The reason why is that everyone else is out there, including yourself is basically trying to determine how much of your life the government owns, and what areas of your life the government is justified in invervening in. This I cannot accept, because I believe that people own 100% of themselves, and that the only time anyone is ever justified in having authority over another adult is when they directly consent to it. Any idea, no matter how little or far it deviates from this truth, to me is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and the theories as to how to determine how much of your life the government owns become more convoluted and complex.

The least complex of the theories, however, comes from the minarchists, who believe that government action is only justified in the protection of private property, but of course this view is still founded on the absurdity that the government should have a monopoly on this function.

The bottom line is that as long as the "extreme" is anarchy, then plenty good can come from the "extreme."

You are saying that you are an island, sounds like to me, which is, of course, a lie and a cute little philosophy for spoiled brat individualists.

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx
Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

You are basically saying that you find it comfortable to borrow from two absurd political ideologies. I actually find it much more comforting to be as you call it "on the extreme," as I believe in natural order (also called anarcho-capitalism or governmentless/stateless society). The reason why is that everyone else is out there, including yourself is basically trying to determine how much of your life the government owns, and what areas of your life the government is justified in invervening in. This I cannot accept, because I believe that people own 100% of themselves, and that the only time anyone is ever justified in having authority over another adult is when they directly consent to it. Any idea, no matter how little or far it deviates from this truth, to me is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and the theories as to how to determine how much of your life the government owns become more convoluted and complex.

The least complex of the theories, however, comes from the minarchists, who believe that government action is only justified in the protection of private property, but of course this view is still founded on the absurdity that the government should have a monopoly on this function.

The bottom line is that as long as the "extreme" is anarchy, then plenty good can come from the "extreme."

Did you actually just say that anarchy is a good thing? Wow, if you want to get really deep into this, lets get into the whole philosophy of freedom & authority. Don't we give consent to the government to have authority over us by: paying taxes, using public things such as roads, going to public schools, etc...In some way or another, everyone gives their consent for another to have power over him. If anarchy is the "natural order", how come human beings have organized into social structures (aka governments) since the beginning of history? There have always been leaders, whether it be in the family or in the form of a king. If you can name me 3 VALID goods that can come from anarchy, you get a cookie.

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Infohawk, why did you quote me and attack anyways... because you know my words apply to you?

I will admit I can sometimes attack people when their ideas are stupid, because... the sources are often stupid. I'm trying not to do that anymore. But let me clarify something about me again though... I am not moderate, and I have never said so. I am pretty far conservative on most political issues. What I have been saying though is I consider myself objective and can care less about political parties. This relates to the topic because if people just thought about ideas and went with their judgements instead of marrying their political party, then there wouldn't be such polarization. I suggest you listen to what I say, instead of what YOU think I -or want me to- say.

Moonbeam, I'll be happy to discuss that subject... but you were somewhat absent on the "Are all cultures equal?" topic.

I would not lose any sleep over something Infohawk said, he seems to quite literally live by Moonbeams " political truth": "YOU ARE A MORON AND AN IDIOT BECAUSE YOU THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN ME! ONLY MY POINT OF VIEW IS RIGHT, YOU BUTT-HEAD!" I agree with you, apparently, putting one's complete and total faith in one political party is the right and intelligent thing to do. Whatever.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sph1nx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx
Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

You are basically saying that you find it comfortable to borrow from two absurd political ideologies. I actually find it much more comforting to be as you call it "on the extreme," as I believe in natural order (also called anarcho-capitalism or governmentless/stateless society). The reason why is that everyone else is out there, including yourself is basically trying to determine how much of your life the government owns, and what areas of your life the government is justified in invervening in. This I cannot accept, because I believe that people own 100% of themselves, and that the only time anyone is ever justified in having authority over another adult is when they directly consent to it. Any idea, no matter how little or far it deviates from this truth, to me is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and the theories as to how to determine how much of your life the government owns become more convoluted and complex.

The least complex of the theories, however, comes from the minarchists, who believe that government action is only justified in the protection of private property, but of course this view is still founded on the absurdity that the government should have a monopoly on this function.

The bottom line is that as long as the "extreme" is anarchy, then plenty good can come from the "extreme."

Did you actually just say that anarchy is a good thing? Wow, if you want to get really deep into this, lets get into the whole philosophy of freedom & authority. Don't we give consent to the government to have authority over us by: paying taxes, using public things such as roads, going to public schools, etc...In some way or another, everyone gives their consent for another to have power over him in some way or another.

Absolutely not. Using something that was coercively instituted does not mean that you give "consent." When the government wants to build a road for instance, or a school, it does not ask everyone if they would like to pay for these things. It forcefully expropriates the wealth necessary to do so through taxation, and then to get the land to build them it uses eminent domain, and forcefully removes people from their homes.

If anarchy is the "natural order", how come human beings have organized into social structures (aka governments) since the beginning of history?

What you are referring to is the descriptive concept of the state. The descriptive concept of the state is basically where you point to instances of states in history and say "Look, there is a state!" What is at issue though, is whether there ought to be states i.e. the normative concept of the state. The mere fact that they exist and have existed does not answer this question.

There have always been leaders, whether it be in the family or in the form of a king. If you can name me 3 VALID goods that can come from anarchy, you get a cookie.



1. Free entry and competition into the production of security and defense (as well as numerous other industries). One of the main arguments in defense of the state is that it provides national defense and police protection, but no one brings up the fact that it has monopolized these industries, by forcefully levying a tax and then setting up police stations. Monopolies of course, create a situation in which one receives low quality and high prices for a particular good.

2. The elimination of involuntary association and forced integration. With all land privately held, criminals would no longer be able to roam freely wherever they please continuously harassing their victims. For instance, today the state will release pedophiles into the general population, and then just put dots on a map indicating the general location where pedophiles and sexual predators live. This is a piss poor way of "protecting" people from these predators. Under anarcho-capitalism, they could be completely banished from a particular area due to the fact that all land would be privately owned.

3. Expropriation of private property would finally be seen as a crime in all cases. This would have a profound effect on the process of civilization. Relentless expropriation of private property causes people's time preferences to increase, i.e. they value consumption over saving, causing crime to go up and society as a whole to degrade.

More on these topics here

 

[sph1nx]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx
Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

You are basically saying that you find it comfortable to borrow from two absurd political ideologies. I actually find it much more comforting to be as you call it "on the extreme," as I believe in natural order (also called anarcho-capitalism or governmentless/stateless society). The reason why is that everyone else is out there, including yourself is basically trying to determine how much of your life the government owns, and what areas of your life the government is justified in invervening in. This I cannot accept, because I believe that people own 100% of themselves, and that the only time anyone is ever justified in having authority over another adult is when they directly consent to it. Any idea, no matter how little or far it deviates from this truth, to me is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and the theories as to how to determine how much of your life the government owns become more convoluted and complex.

The least complex of the theories, however, comes from the minarchists, who believe that government action is only justified in the protection of private property, but of course this view is still founded on the absurdity that the government should have a monopoly on this function.

The bottom line is that as long as the "extreme" is anarchy, then plenty good can come from the "extreme."

Did you actually just say that anarchy is a good thing? Wow, if you want to get really deep into this, lets get into the whole philosophy of freedom & authority. Don't we give consent to the government to have authority over us by: paying taxes, using public things such as roads, going to public schools, etc...In some way or another, everyone gives their consent for another to have power over him in some way or another.

Absolutely not. Using something that was coercively instituted does not mean that you give "consent." When the government wants to build a road for instance, or a school, it does not ask everyone if they would like to pay for these things. It forcefully expropriates the wealth necessary to do so through taxation, and then to get the land to build them it uses eminent domain, and forcefully removes people from their homes.

If anarchy is the "natural order", how come human beings have organized into social structures (aka governments) since the beginning of history?

What you are referring to is the descriptive concept of the state. The descriptive concept of the state is basically where you point to instances of states in history and say "Look, there is a state!" What is at issue though, is whether there ought to be states i.e. the normative concept of the state. The mere fact that they exist and have existed does not answer this question.

There have always been leaders, whether it be in the family or in the form of a king. If you can name me 3 VALID goods that can come from anarchy, you get a cookie.



1. Free entry and competition into the production of security and defense (as well as numerous other industries). One of the main arguments in defense of the state is that it provides national defense and police protection, but no one brings up the fact that it has monopolized these industries, by forcefully levying a tax and then setting up police stations. Monopolies of course, create a situation in which one receives low quality and high prices for a particular good.

2. The elimination of involuntary association and forced integration. With all land privately held, criminals would no longer be able to roam freely wherever they please continuously harassing their victims. For instance, today the state will release pedophiles into the general population, and then just put dots on a map indicating the general location where pedophiles and sexual predators live. This is a piss poor way of "protecting" people from these predators. Under anarcho-capitalism, they could be completely banished from a particular area due to the fact that all land would be privately owned.

3. Expropriation of private property would finally be seen as a crime in all cases. This would have a profound effect on the process of civilization. Relentless expropriation of private property causes people's time preferences to increase, i.e. they value consumption over saving, causing crime to go up and society as a whole to degrade.

More on these topics here

Alright, you aparently missed the point. The government can't force you to do anything, you CHOOSE to pay those taxes. Even if you face jail time you still have the choice whether to pay or go to jail, it sucks, but there is never a time when once does not face choice. I am curious, obviously I have never read the book that you read, but what do you mean by anarcho-capitalism. I admit, I don't know much about it, so go easy on me. However, it from what I can tell, this seems to put too much trust in human nature. If all land is privately owned, what happens if there is an effect like we see in corporations - someone buying all the property, and therefore in essence reverting back to a dictatorship/monarchy. I take it that this is "anarchy" strictly in an economic sense, or is it in the sense of laws and law enforcement as well? Without laws or the means and RIGHT to enforce those laws, how can something be criminal? I am genuinely interested in this stance being that I have never heard it before. I am not saying you did this before, but please just tell me what you think and don't cut and paste out of the book, if I wanted to read it I would.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sph1nx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sph1nx
Well, I find it comfortable in the middle. Quite liberating actually, I can believe whatever I want without conforming to the right or the left . I just want to know if anyone else feels this way. IMO nothing good will ever come from either extreme. People seem to just loose their minds at some point, maybe it is the water or something.

You are basically saying that you find it comfortable to borrow from two absurd political ideologies. I actually find it much more comforting to be as you call it "on the extreme," as I believe in natural order (also called anarcho-capitalism or governmentless/stateless society). The reason why is that everyone else is out there, including yourself is basically trying to determine how much of your life the government owns, and what areas of your life the government is justified in invervening in. This I cannot accept, because I believe that people own 100% of themselves, and that the only time anyone is ever justified in having authority over another adult is when they directly consent to it. Any idea, no matter how little or far it deviates from this truth, to me is a very uncomfortable position to be in, and the theories as to how to determine how much of your life the government owns become more convoluted and complex.

The least complex of the theories, however, comes from the minarchists, who believe that government action is only justified in the protection of private property, but of course this view is still founded on the absurdity that the government should have a monopoly on this function.

The bottom line is that as long as the "extreme" is anarchy, then plenty good can come from the "extreme."

Did you actually just say that anarchy is a good thing? Wow, if you want to get really deep into this, lets get into the whole philosophy of freedom & authority. Don't we give consent to the government to have authority over us by: paying taxes, using public things such as roads, going to public schools, etc...In some way or another, everyone gives their consent for another to have power over him in some way or another.

Absolutely not. Using something that was coercively instituted does not mean that you give "consent." When the government wants to build a road for instance, or a school, it does not ask everyone if they would like to pay for these things. It forcefully expropriates the wealth necessary to do so through taxation, and then to get the land to build them it uses eminent domain, and forcefully removes people from their homes.

If anarchy is the "natural order", how come human beings have organized into social structures (aka governments) since the beginning of history?

What you are referring to is the descriptive concept of the state. The descriptive concept of the state is basically where you point to instances of states in history and say "Look, there is a state!" What is at issue though, is whether there ought to be states i.e. the normative concept of the state. The mere fact that they exist and have existed does not answer this question.

There have always been leaders, whether it be in the family or in the form of a king. If you can name me 3 VALID goods that can come from anarchy, you get a cookie.



1. Free entry and competition into the production of security and defense (as well as numerous other industries). One of the main arguments in defense of the state is that it provides national defense and police protection, but no one brings up the fact that it has monopolized these industries, by forcefully levying a tax and then setting up police stations. Monopolies of course, create a situation in which one receives low quality and high prices for a particular good.

2. The elimination of involuntary association and forced integration. With all land privately held, criminals would no longer be able to roam freely wherever they please continuously harassing their victims. For instance, today the state will release pedophiles into the general population, and then just put dots on a map indicating the general location where pedophiles and sexual predators live. This is a piss poor way of "protecting" people from these predators. Under anarcho-capitalism, they could be completely banished from a particular area due to the fact that all land would be privately owned.

3. Expropriation of private property would finally be seen as a crime in all cases. This would have a profound effect on the process of civilization. Relentless expropriation of private property causes people's time preferences to increase, i.e. they value consumption over saving, causing crime to go up and society as a whole to degrade.

More on these topics here

Alright, you aparently missed the point. The government can't force you to do anything, you CHOOSE to pay those taxes. Even if you face jail time you still have the choice whether to pay or go to jail, it sucks, but there is never a time when once does not face choice. I am curious, obviously I have never read the book that you read, but what do you mean by anarcho-capitalism.



Yes, technically we have the option of not paying taxes, just as if I got out a gun and put it to your head and told you to give me all your money, you would still have the option of not giving me your money, whereupon I might shoot you in the head. The fact that choices always exist, does not preclude the fact that some actions are inherently immoral. Also, in the above scenario, if you hand over your wallet is that "consent"? Absolutely not. You just don't want to be murdered, and the same with taxation. People pay taxes because they don't want armed IRS agents taking away their home, all their possessions, and emptying their bank accounts.

By anarcho-capitalism, I mean a transition from a state filled society to a stateless society. A transition from a society that violates private property rights on a daily basis, to a society that is allowed to maintain private property rights as it naturally would in the absence of government.

I admit, I don't know much about it, so go easy on me. However, it from what I can tell, this seems to put too much trust in human nature.

Trust in human nature is precisely what we have granted people in government. We have entrusted them with many critical aspects of our daily lives, such as our medium of exchange. They have violated that trust on a grand scale. Anarcho-capitalism does not put too much trust in human nature, on the contrary it is a social system that helps remove instances in which human nature leads to exploitation.

If all land is privately owned, what happens if there is an effect like we see in corporations - someone buying all the property, and therefore in essence reverting back to a dictatorship/monarchy.

Actually, monarchy, as Hans-Hoppe explains in the book I linked to, is more desirable than democracy, but natural order is more desirable than either democracy or monarchy (natrual order > monarchy > democracy). However, what you speak of would not happen, there is far too much land in the U.S. for any one corporation or entity to own it all.

I take it that this is "anarchy" strictly in an economic sense, or is it in the sense of laws and law enforcement as well? Without laws or the means and RIGHT to enforce those laws, how can something be criminal?

Well, as I said before, there is an instance in which one man is allowed to have authority over another, and that is through direct consent. Under anarcho-capitalism, societies would form in which there were laws (which everyone consented to i.e. in writing), but the enforcement of those laws would not be a monopoly, different firms would compete for that enforcement, maximizing quality and reducing prices.

I am genuinely interested in this stance being that I have never heard it before. I am not saying you did this before, but please just tell me what you think and don't cut and paste out of the book, if I wanted to read it I would.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Robots are comming and they will end polarization when they end work and private property. The only wealth you will have will be the degree to which you self-actualize.