Rock the non-vote

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Dude, I can go all day, no matter what you say I can poke a hole in it. When will you just figure out anarchism is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

If it wasn't then we would have all been dead long ago.

If it wasn't impossible we'd all be dead?

Well, might be true. but no way to know since it is.

I highly doubt that cavemen had 'government.'

Even dogs have government. Put a group of dogs together and they will quickly determine who is the alpha male. cavemen may have not had government, that is until 2 or more of them got together and tried to accomplish anything, at which point someone became the alpha male.

You argument that I didnt sign the constitution is weak, of course I didnt, it was created by people who lived here long before I did. The only way everyone alive today could have signed it is if every US citizen that ever existed was born at the same time. drop the dream scenarios. At least this way everyone, young and old, is under the same contract, But I can change it if I want to, along with other people within this country.

do you think your HOA is going to have the same contract with everyone? probably not, and think about the pitfalls of that. What if you got a nice contract and decided to move in, and pay a resonable amount of "rent". Then 10 other poeple move in, thier contract is more mercenary like, and the HOA owner tells them to seize all your assets and they do. You dont have the means to move away, or may be outright forced to stay. He then decalres your contract null and void, and 100% of your productivity is now focused on serving him. Say hello to your new warlord.

As George Orwell deduced in his book "1984", even the best intentions of anarchism inevitably lead to the worst type of totalitarianism.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Dude, I can go all day, no matter what you say I can poke a hole in it. When will you just figure out anarchism is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

If it wasn't then we would have all been dead long ago.

If it wasn't impossible we'd all be dead?

Well, might be true. but no way to know since it is.

I highly doubt that cavemen had 'government.'

Even dogs have government. Put a group of dogs together and they will quickly determine who is the alpha male. cavemen may have not had government, that is until 2 or more of them got together and tried to accomplish anything, at which point someone became the alpha male.

You are conflating government with social elites. I never said a social elite/leader couldn't exist in anarchy.

You argument that I didnt sign the constitution is weak, of course I didnt, it was created by people who lived here long before I did. The only way everyone alive today could have signed it is if every US citizen that ever existed was born at the same time. drop the dream scenarios. At least this way everyone, young and old, is under the same contract, But I can change it if I want to, along with other people within this country.

Too bad it is the very government that interprets this 'contract.' How would the 'people' know when it had been violated and what are the official procedures when it has? Where the hell is my gold and silver coin that it explicitly says shall be the money of the U.S.?

do you think your HOA is going to have the same contract with everyone? probably not, and think about the pitfalls of that. What if you got a nice contract and decided to move in, and pay a resonable amount of "rent". Then 10 other poeple move in, thier contract is more mercenary like, and the HOA owner tells them to seize all your assets and they do. You dont have the means to move away, or may be outright forced to stay. He then decalres your contract null and void, and 100% of your productivity is now focused on serving him. Say hello to your new warlord.

I would have a million HOAs to choose from. If there was a rogue HOA, I wouldn't join it. My question to you is, what if the government decides to seize all of my assets? Oh wait, it practically already has! At least 40% of the GDP goes to the state now, and that doesn't include costs of business regulations.

As George Orwell deduced in his book "1984", even the best intentions of anarchism inevitably lead to the worst type of totalitarianism.

Huh? Orwell's book was about the state, not anarchy.

 

[Train]

Social elites? What do you think warlords are?

And no you wouldnt have millions of HOA's, youd have about 2 or 3, becuase they woud all merge through a competitive effort to be the leader, as warlords do. You would likely not be allowed to leave the geographic area dominated by your warlord, so you can't aid a rival one. Like I said, say hello to the exact opposite of what you wanted, totalitarianism.

 

[Train]

Yes, Orwells book was about the state, but he notes Totalitarianism almost always follows attempts at anarchy, as proven through history:

These two opposite dangers??tyranny and anarchy??bear other complex and curious relationships to one another. In the first place, each tendency thrives by preying on its opposite. Thus a growing tyranny (as Orwell understood so well) marks out instances of excessive individualism as the gravest threat to its continuation, while a growing anarchy becomes increasingly impatient with governmental regulation. In the second place, history offers numerous examples of the way in which "corrections" to perceived situations are conditioned by what has gone before. Thus, in this country for example, the relatively weak centralization under George III led Americans, after the Revolutionary War, to the Articles of Confederation, an ineffective form of government characterized by a relatively weakened central authority. On the other hand, the more rigorous centralization of France in the eighteenth century, or of Italy under Mussolini in the twentieth, led to deeper suspicions of centralized authority, to more spirited attacks upon it, and to forms of government, characterized by wild confusion and the inability to conduct the public business. Similarly, moments of anarchical confusion??as in France before Napoleon, in Italy before Mussolini, or in Germany before Hitler??can lead to "corrections" of quite extreme centralization and tyranny.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
Social elites? What do you think warlords are?

A warlord could potentially be a social elite, but most likely one of a short lifespan. A social elite is someone whose leadership attracts people to follow them in some way. This could be a pastor at a church, a football coach or anyone else people look up to. But the critical difference between a regular social elite and say a politician is that a non-coercive social elite must attract people on an individual basis to their leadership. If I am a pastor at a church and one Sunday I start preaching about the virtues of Satan, you can probably kiss my congregation goodbye. No one has any obligation to be there or pay heed to my 'wisdom.'

On the contrary, a politician only needs to get a majority of voters to force you to be a part of their cause. If I want nothing to do with their 'leadership,' but they win the election then tough luck for me under democracy. I could soon be starring down the barrel of a gun when I don't wish to go along with their plan for 'society.'

And no you wouldnt have millions of HOA's, youd have about 2 or 3, becuase they woud all merge through a competitive effort to be the leader, as warlords do.

Monopolies never emerge under the free market. They only come from government, so you are wrong.

You would likely not be allowed to leave the geographic area dominated by your warlord, so you can't aid a rival one. Like I said, say hello to the exact opposite of what you wanted, totalitarianism.

If what you say about human nature is true, then government would have never been able to form in the first place. Do pessimistic assumptions about human behavior justify government?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The fact that I can move away doesn't excuse the fact that the government unjustly rules a good portion of north America. If there is a group of thugs violating people's rights somewhere are you going to tell them: "Well, you could always move away." No, the violators should be exiled. Where did the U.S. government get the initial right to rule North America? Nowhere from what I can see.

Sure - the US government is a conglomeration of states that decided to band together in a type of federalism. If the federal government has overstepped it's original mandate (which many Americans believe to be the case) then correct this problem; that can be done from within the system.

Who said states were legitimate?

If your HOA (which you have admitted would be controlled by the owner) chose to merge with a neighboring one, and harmonize rules, would that be 'not allowed' under anarchy? I think not.

My parents (the authoritarians that they are) didn't choose the U.S. government.

Yes they did. More importantly, they chose to live in the US; under an HOA system, they would still have chosen to live somewhere; there may be a difference of scale (and then again, there may not) but the choice is fundamentally the same.

Not really. What HOA taxes people's incomes or forces young people to fight overseas?

If I'm not mistaken, states were set up, generally, with minimal control; certainly 'state' governments were more livable than the private equivalents, like the Hudson's Bay Company. That being said, you don't have a right, under anarchy, to live anywhere you want AND choose the terms of living there;

You can choose your terms by selecting which one you want to live at.

any HOA is going to have membership dues, (or they'll be hidden in the rent) to cover the arbitration and other services they need to provide.

Exactly. They are going to bundle public goods with the private ones. You are catchig on. :thumbsup:

There are plenty of countries that have low tax rates and provide little or no service to their citizens. For the most part these countries are extremely poor; you may think this a coincidence.

Those countries' politicians just don't have much to tax in the first place. The UAE and Hong Kong are two wealthy parts of the world with relatively low tax rates. How it ended up that way is a miracle, for it shows that these countries somehow have staved off the public goods problem of government.

Very few countries force people to fight overseas; that part is ridiculous.

You have never heard of the Vietnam War?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
Yes, Orwells book was about the state, but he notes Totalitarianism almost always follows attempts at anarchy, as proven through history:

These two opposite dangers??tyranny and anarchy??bear other complex and curious relationships to one another. In the first place, each tendency thrives by preying on its opposite. Thus a growing tyranny (as Orwell understood so well) marks out instances of excessive individualism as the gravest threat to its continuation, while a growing anarchy becomes increasingly impatient with governmental regulation. In the second place, history offers numerous examples of the way in which "corrections" to perceived situations are conditioned by what has gone before. Thus, in this country for example, the relatively weak centralization under George III led Americans, after the Revolutionary War, to the Articles of Confederation, an ineffective form of government characterized by a relatively weakened central authority. On the other hand, the more rigorous centralization of France in the eighteenth century, or of Italy under Mussolini in the twentieth, led to deeper suspicions of centralized authority, to more spirited attacks upon it, and to forms of government, characterized by wild confusion and the inability to conduct the public business. Similarly, moments of anarchical confusion??as in France before Napoleon, in Italy before Mussolini, or in Germany before Hitler??can lead to "corrections" of quite extreme centralization and tyranny.

That doesn't surprise me. I never heard of Orwell to be referred to as an anarchist.

To me minarchists are people who know there is something wrong with authoritarianism, but they just aren't willing to give up the whole religion. It is a lot like someone knowing that there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, and simply cutting out the parts that they don't like.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
you don't have a right, under anarchy, to live anywhere you want AND choose the terms of living there;

You can choose your terms by selecting which one you want to live at.

Please read again - there is no difference between this and nations with relatively lax immigration policies.

any HOA is going to have membership dues, (or they'll be hidden in the rent) to cover the arbitration and other services they need to provide.

Exactly. They are going to bundle public goods with the private ones. You are catchig on. :thumbsup:

So government will be provately owned. Hmm, that doesn't seem so different from the way it is now.

There are plenty of countries that have low tax rates and provide little or no service to their citizens. For the most part these countries are extremely poor; you may think this a coincidence.

Those countries' politicians just don't have much to tax in the first place. The UAE and Hong Kong are two wealthy parts of the world with relatively low tax rates. How it ended up that way is a miracle, for it shows that these countries somehow have staved off the public goods problem of government.

Hong Kong? are you serious? You really think Hong Kong is an example of anything - it's much too 'special case' in too many ways.

Very few countries force people to fight overseas; that part is ridiculous.

You have never heard of the Vietnam War?

Yes, that was a travesty, but have you ever looked at the history of mercantilists?

Many countries have never had conscription, or had it only during one or the other of the world wars in the 20th century. This can hardly be called unreasonable.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
you don't have a right, under anarchy, to live anywhere you want AND choose the terms of living there;

You can choose your terms by selecting which one you want to live at.

Please read again - there is no difference between this and nations with relatively lax immigration policies.

any HOA is going to have membership dues, (or they'll be hidden in the rent) to cover the arbitration and other services they need to provide.

Exactly. They are going to bundle public goods with the private ones. You are catchig on. :thumbsup:

So government will be provately owned. Hmm, that doesn't seem so different from the way it is now.

As it is now, I could end up paying for someone's public goods in Timbuktu. Some guy I have never even met. Under anarcho-capitalism, all costs for public goods will be internalized amongst much smaller communities.

There are plenty of countries that have low tax rates and provide little or no service to their citizens. For the most part these countries are extremely poor; you may think this a coincidence.

Those countries' politicians just don't have much to tax in the first place. The UAE and Hong Kong are two wealthy parts of the world with relatively low tax rates. How it ended up that way is a miracle, for it shows that these countries somehow have staved off the public goods problem of government.

Hong Kong? are you serious? You really think Hong Kong is an example of anything - it's much too 'special case' in too many ways.

I gave you two examples. Good to know one of them stuck.

Very few countries force people to fight overseas; that part is ridiculous.

You have never heard of the Vietnam War?

Yes, that was a travesty, but have you ever looked at the history of mercantilists?

Many countries have never had conscription, or had it only during one or the other of the world wars in the 20th century. This can hardly be called unreasonable.

Conscription is unreasonable no matter where or which state does it under what circumstances. I as an individual human being retain the right to decide when and where I should put my life on the line for a cause. You can be sure it won't be for the state.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Monopolies never emerge under the free market. They only come from government, so you are wrong.

Prove it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
you don't have a right, under anarchy, to live anywhere you want AND choose the terms of living there;

You can choose your terms by selecting which one you want to live at.

Please read again - there is no difference between this and nations with relatively lax immigration policies.

I want a 0 tax rate in America right now. I'm entitled to this because the state is is not legitimate.

any HOA is going to have membership dues, (or they'll be hidden in the rent) to cover the arbitration and other services they need to provide.

Exactly. They are going to bundle public goods with the private ones. You are catchig on. :thumbsup:

So government will be provately owned. Hmm, that doesn't seem so different from the way it is now.

As it is now, I could end up paying for someone's public goods in Timbuktu. Some guy I have never even met. Under anarcho-capitalism, all costs for public goods will be internalized amongst much smaller communities.

There are plenty of countries that have low tax rates and provide little or no service to their citizens. For the most part these countries are extremely poor; you may think this a coincidence.

Those countries' politicians just don't have much to tax in the first place. The UAE and Hong Kong are two wealthy parts of the world with relatively low tax rates. How it ended up that way is a miracle, for it shows that these countries somehow have staved off the public goods problem of government.

Hong Kong? are you serious? You really think Hong Kong is an example of anything - it's much too 'special case' in too many ways.

I gave you two examples. Good to know one of them stuck.

Very few countries force people to fight overseas; that part is ridiculous.

You have never heard of the Vietnam War?

Yes, that was a travesty, but have you ever looked at the history of mercantilists?

Many countries have never had conscription, or had it only during one or the other of the world wars in the 20th century. This can hardly be called unreasonable.

Conscription is unreasonable no matter where or which state does it under what circumstances. I as an individual human being retain the right to decide when and where I should put my life on the line for a cause. You can be sure it won't be for the state.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

As it is now, I could end up paying for someone's public goods in Timbuktu. Some guy I have never even met. Under anarcho-capitalism, all costs for public goods will be internalized amongst much smaller communities.

So if countries were the size of small cities, government would be okay? BS. Mergers are still efficient, you might not get 'communities' the size of the US, but you'll damn sure get ones as big as California.

I gave you two examples. Good to know one of them stuck.

Sorry, I thought you were joking about the UAE.

Do you have any concept of the reason the UAE is wealthy?

Here:

"Since 1973, the UAE has undergone a profound transformation from an impoverished region of small desert principalities to a modern state with a high standard of living. At present levels of production, oil and gas reserves should last for over 100 years. Despite higher oil revenues in 1999, the government has not drawn back from the economic reforms implemented during the 1998 oil price depression. The government has increased spending on job creation and infrastructure expansion and is opening up its utilities to greater private-sector involvement."

Does this sound like minimal government? Like an economy built on economic freedom, rather than a windfall?

Again, this is a terrible example!

Conscription is unreasonable no matter where or which state does it under what circumstances. I as an individual human being retain the right to decide when and where I should put my life on the line for a cause. You can be sure it won't be for the state.

Your HOA will require this service, unless you are very wealthy, it will be in your contract (either that or a clause absolving the HOA from actually protecting your property rights in any manner).

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

As it is now, I could end up paying for someone's public goods in Timbuktu. Some guy I have never even met. Under anarcho-capitalism, all costs for public goods will be internalized amongst much smaller communities.

So if countries were the size of small cities, government would be okay? BS. Mergers are still efficient, you might not get 'communities' the size of the US, but you'll damn sure get ones as big as California.

I see apartment complexes and HOA communities offering public goods to their customers every day. I see community pools, community centers, networks of roads etc. And I don't see this massive merger phenomenon you claim would occur i.e. it is not occurring.

I gave you two examples. Good to know one of them stuck.

Sorry, I thought you were joking about the UAE.

Do you have any concept of the reason the UAE is wealthy?

Here:

"Since 1973, the UAE has undergone a profound transformation from an impoverished region of small desert principalities to a modern state with a high standard of living. At present levels of production, oil and gas reserves should last for over 100 years. Despite higher oil revenues in 1999, the government has not drawn back from the economic reforms implemented during the 1998 oil price depression. The government has increased spending on job creation and infrastructure expansion and is opening up its utilities to greater private-sector involvement."

Does this sound like minimal government? Like an economy built on economic freedom, rather than a windfall?

Maybe it was a windfall, maybe it wasn't. All I know is that the UAE (or at least Dubai) is a country that has a lot of capitalism going on and is quite wealthy.

Again, this is a terrible example!

Conscription is unreasonable no matter where or which state does it under what circumstances. I as an individual human being retain the right to decide when and where I should put my life on the line for a cause. You can be sure it won't be for the state.

Your HOA will require this service, unless you are very wealthy, it will be in your contract (either that or a clause absolving the HOA from actually protecting your property rights in any manner).

I highly doubt it. Most likely defense would be run by large insurance companies that offer services to a number of communities. They would pay full wages to their security personnel. Conscription would be way too inefficient for their taste. What business would want totally unqualified workers?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Maybe it was a windfall, maybe it wasn't. All I know is that the UAE (or at least Dubai) is a country that has a lot of capitalism going on and is quite wealthy.

Even as part of the UAE, Dubai is a truly awful example of capitalism 'working'. It's a cesspool of poverty.

I highly doubt it. Most likely defense would be run by large insurance companies that offer services to a number of communities. They would pay full wages to their security personnel. Conscription would be way too inefficient for their taste. What business would want totally unqualified workers?

Ahh, so there would be no poor communities? Or poor communities would have no defense at all? Which is it?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Maybe it was a windfall, maybe it wasn't. All I know is that the UAE (or at least Dubai) is a country that has a lot of capitalism going on and is quite wealthy.

Even as part of the UAE, Dubai is a truly awful example of capitalism 'working'. It's a cesspool of poverty.

It's funny how those who are in poverty flock to capitalist countries.

I highly doubt it. Most likely defense would be run by large insurance companies that offer services to a number of communities. They would pay full wages to their security personnel. Conscription would be way too inefficient for their taste. What business would want totally unqualified workers?

Ahh, so there would be no poor communities? Or poor communities would have no defense at all? Which is it?

What do you mean no defense? You can buy a handgun for $100. False dichotomy alert. Defense is not some homogeneous good. Defense and security can be a lot of different things. I can't get the level of protection that Bill Gates can afford. Does this justify government intervention so that I too can have a full staff of body guards?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It's funny how those who are in poverty flock to capitalist countries.

Like Canada and the United States? These would be capitalist countries with social programs designed to alleviate poverty. Well, America's systems have been under seige for the better part of three decades, and Canada's for more than 10 years, but they're still light-years ahead of Dubai.

What do you mean no defense? You can buy a handgun for $100. False dichotomy alert. Defense is not some homogeneous good. Defense and security can be a lot of different things. I can't get the level of protection that Bill Gates can afford. Does this justify government intervention so that I too can have a full staff of body guards?

No, but you are entitled to have your personal liberty and property protected by a system not dependent on your income. You've just admitted that the only thing keeping your property safe is the 'worthwhile-ness' of someone more wealthy making the effort to take it.

 

[herm0016]

the right to vote is also compared to the right to complain about the countrys situation. if you do not take part in the decision making you have no right to criticize those who did. for those who do not vote, do not express there opinion, they are relying on the opinion of others for there own decision making and should vote to try to change things instead of just complaining and criticizing and bad mouthing.

 

[sandorski]

The OP has certainly traveled a great distance in this thread. From a true Individualistic Anarchy all the way to re-creating localized Governmental Institutions. From Voting as an act of Tyranny, to almost re-instituting it in his re-constituted Government. Seems to me the OP is realizing the impossibility of Anarchy without actually admitting to it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It's funny how those who are in poverty flock to capitalist countries.

Like Canada and the United States? These would be capitalist countries with social programs designed to alleviate poverty. Well, America's systems have been under seige for the better part of three decades, and Canada's for more than 10 years, but they're still light-years ahead of Dubai.

No, they are actually way behind Dubai. The U.S. and Canada certainly have programs designed to alleviate poverty. It is called capitalism, and yes, capitalism has been under seige in the U.S. and Canada for decades (especially starting at around the 1900s in the U.S.).

What do you mean no defense? You can buy a handgun for $100. False dichotomy alert. Defense is not some homogeneous good. Defense and security can be a lot of different things. I can't get the level of protection that Bill Gates can afford. Does this justify government intervention so that I too can have a full staff of body guards?

No, but you are entitled to have your personal liberty and property protected by a system not dependent on your income.

I think not. Your philosophical principles are askew. But in any event, I do not believe that communities would be left defenseless under anarcho-capitalism. You and other socialists see society as inherently stingy and that society would break down into a situation where everyone only cared about their immediate friends and family, as if people would pass by each other like strangers in the night. You perceive altruism and a moral society to be a thin veneer upheld by a strong state. This could not be further from the truth, and your idea of morals and the enforcement thereof are @ss backwards. I do not believe that wealthy communities would allow neighboring poor communities to be invaded by some foreign force.

You've just admitted that the only thing keeping your property safe is the 'worthwhile-ness' of someone more wealthy making the effort to take it.

No, you have just admitted that you believe that civil society is a thin veneer created by massive government intervention and legislation.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OP has certainly traveled a great distance in this thread. From a true Individualistic Anarchy all the way to re-creating localized Governmental Institutions.

For reasons I have explained above, these localized institutions would be a far cry from 'government.' For instance, I wouldn't be taxed to build a bridge in Alaska that I would never use under my system. All public goods would be internalized and I would be bound by no law without my express consent. In other words there would be a totally free market for law.

From Voting as an act of Tyranny, to almost re-instituting it in his re-constituted Government.

Sure, voting could be instituted within private communities. Just because it is does not make the community less private since everyone within that community agreed to that form of decision making. There are private clubs that operate on voting, would you call a private club 'government?'

Seems to me the OP is realizing the impossibility of Anarchy without actually admitting to it.

I do not believe that anarchy is currently possible, or will be any time soon. That is only because I do not believe that people are ready to give up their authoritarian religion. There are too many people (such as 3chord) who truly believe the state is the last line of defense against terrorism and immoral behavior. They see the state as the only means of enforcing moral ideals. But, I believe there is hope. Societies evolve, and it was not too long ago that people believed that the state (or the king/emperor) was a direct representative of God. So I think we are making progress in that respect. Now we just need to get rid of these mystical notions instilled upon us by political philosophers regarding the 'will of the people' and the 'sovereign.' Unfortunately, some people think Bush is a representative of God, but that's a different story.

So we have gone from the state being the will of God, to the state being the will of the people. When we at last arrivate at the state being the will of politicians and bureaucrats, we could very well end up with anarchy.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

No, they are actually way behind Dubai. The U.S. and Canada certainly have programs designed to alleviate poverty. It is called capitalism, and yes, capitalism has been under seige in the U.S. and Canada for decades (especially starting at around the 1900s in the U.S.).

Funny then, that only the very richest of the oil-lottery winners are as well off in Dubai as their counterparts in America. If this is what pure capitalism is about (and it is - I can work the models and the real data quite comfortably), I want no part of it.

I think not. Your philosophical principles are askew. But in any event, I do not believe that communities would be left defenseless under anarcho-capitalism. You and other socialists see society as inherently stingy and that society would break down into a situation where everyone only cared about their immediate friends and family, as if people would pass by each other like strangers in the night. You perceive altruism and a moral society to be a thin veneer upheld by a strong state. This could not be further from the truth, and your idea of morals and the enforcement thereof are @ss backwards. I do not believe that wealthy communities would allow neighboring poor communities to be invaded by some foreign force.

You're right - they won't allow them to be invaded by a foreign force. If there's anything worth taking, they'll take it themselves. Despite moments of individual compassion, the human race is not altruistic, and never has been. Without an external force to protect individual rights, those rights will not be respected. Human behaviour can best be described as 'greedy' and corporate behaviour can best be described as 'rent-seeking'. Either way, there is no reason to expect the strong to engage in 'fair' exchange with the weak, if they don't have to.

No, you have just admitted that you believe that civil society is a thin veneer created by massive government intervention and legislation.

Close - I think with no government at all, civil society would break down into anarchy, but being considerably less an ideologue than yourself, I expect the outcome to be a rather miserable mix of corporate governance, and nietzschean violence against the masses. Not being a supprter of these things, I prefer something closer to the status quo.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

No, they are actually way behind Dubai. The U.S. and Canada certainly have programs designed to alleviate poverty. It is called capitalism, and yes, capitalism has been under seige in the U.S. and Canada for decades (especially starting at around the 1900s in the U.S.).

Funny then, that only the very richest of the oil-lottery winners are as well off in Dubai as their counterparts in America. If this is what pure capitalism is about (and it is - I can work the models and the real data quite comfortably), I want no part of it.

Well I'll be damned. I guess it really was government that got us out of the Stone Age and invented all these standard of living improving technologies. Where did you get those models from? Let me guess, straight out of your neo-Keynesian textbooks?

I think not. Your philosophical principles are askew. But in any event, I do not believe that communities would be left defenseless under anarcho-capitalism. You and other socialists see society as inherently stingy and that society would break down into a situation where everyone only cared about their immediate friends and family, as if people would pass by each other like strangers in the night. You perceive altruism and a moral society to be a thin veneer upheld by a strong state. This could not be further from the truth, and your idea of morals and the enforcement thereof are @ss backwards. I do not believe that wealthy communities would allow neighboring poor communities to be invaded by some foreign force.

You're right - they won't allow them to be invaded by a foreign force. If there's anything worth taking, they'll take it themselves.

Psst, the wealthy use the state to steal from the poor every day.

Despite moments of individual compassion, the human race is not altruistic, and never has been.

But the state is??

Without an external force to protect individual rights, those rights will not be respected. Human behaviour can best be described as 'greedy' and corporate behaviour can best be described as 'rent-seeking'. Either way, there is no reason to expect the strong to engage in 'fair' exchange with the weak, if they don't have to.

I see fair exchange between the weak and strong through capitalism every day.

No, you have just admitted that you believe that civil society is a thin veneer created by massive government intervention and legislation.

Close - I think with no government at all, civil society would break down into anarchy, but being considerably less an ideologue than yourself, I expect the outcome to be a rather miserable mix of corporate governance, and nietzschean violence against the masses.

Oh, I get it. I'm an 'idealogue' because I don't believe in the tenets of your depraved authoritarian religion. :roll:

Not being a supprter of these things, I prefer something closer to the status quo.

Take a look at what the 'status quo' has gotten us. It has gotten us nothing but a government that has spiraled out of control over the past century. The state is no one's friend, it takes what it wants for itself and forces us to bow to the whims of megalomaniacs(i.e. Bush and his regime of shameless liars) and fraud artists (central banks).

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OP has certainly traveled a great distance in this thread. From a true Individualistic Anarchy all the way to re-creating localized Governmental Institutions. From Voting as an act of Tyranny, to almost re-instituting it in his re-constituted Government. Seems to me the OP is realizing the impossibility of Anarchy without actually admitting to it.

I've been trying to get him to realize that for over a year now. He's literally talked himself in a circle more than once. He will counter my argument A with argument B, then later on counter my argument Z with argument A, only to start the run around again. He won't give in though, his ramblings follow cult like patterns.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OP has certainly traveled a great distance in this thread. From a true Individualistic Anarchy all the way to re-creating localized Governmental Institutions. From Voting as an act of Tyranny, to almost re-instituting it in his re-constituted Government. Seems to me the OP is realizing the impossibility of Anarchy without actually admitting to it.

I've been trying to get him to realize that for over a year now. He's literally talked himself in a circle more than once. He will counter my argument A with argument B, then later on counter my argument Z with argument A, only to start the run around again. He won't give in though, his ramblings follow cult like patterns.

HuH? Me following cult like patterns? No, that would be people who go into a voting booth and actually believe that dropping a piece of paper in a box creates the 'right to rule' for some politician.

Authoritarianism has all the makings of a cult. You just can't really call it a cult because it is so pervasive and widespread (I can't even get my girlfriend to stop voting). Hence, I call it a religion with cult like rituals and beliefs.

Authoritarianism has produced awful results all over the world for thousands of years. Everyone from Hitler, to Stalin to Fidel Castro. All of them rule(d) because of authoritarian beliefs. You think you are safe because you live in a 'democracy?' Ha, think again bucko. This 'democracy' is always one step away from a total state, where you could be swinging from the trees in short order in the name of the war on 'terror.' There are people out there who literally think that Bush is 'doing the lord's work.' They don't care how many coffins come back from Iraq, or how many billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars are spent on this overseas adventure. Their belief that Bush is their chosen leader is cemented in their twisted authoritarian/religious ideology. And whatever Bush does here at home to destroy the last vestiges of freedom via the Patriot Act is fully justified.

And if you think some relic pieces of paper in a glass case are going to save you, then that's the most delusional/cult like belief of all. You call me a 'dreamer' and a 'utopianist.' But you still haven't yet been able to explain how your authoritarian belief system isn't based on anything but mysticism and fairy tales. And you still haven't explained how belief in absolute governmental authority is somehow 'safe,' especially when over 100 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OP has certainly traveled a great distance in this thread. From a true Individualistic Anarchy all the way to re-creating localized Governmental Institutions. From Voting as an act of Tyranny, to almost re-instituting it in his re-constituted Government. Seems to me the OP is realizing the impossibility of Anarchy without actually admitting to it.

I've been trying to get him to realize that for over a year now. He's literally talked himself in a circle more than once. He will counter my argument A with argument B, then later on counter my argument Z with argument A, only to start the run around again. He won't give in though, his ramblings follow cult like patterns.

HuH? Me following cult like patterns? No, that would be people who go into a voting booth and actually believe that dropping a piece of paper in a box creates the 'right to rule' for some politician.

Authoritarianism has all the makings of a cult. You just can't really call it a cult because it is so pervasive and widespread (I can't even get my girlfriend to stop voting). Hence, I call it a religion with cult like rituals and beliefs.

Authoritarianism has produced awful results all over the world for thousands of years. Everyone from Hitler, to Stalin to Fidel Castro. All of them rule(d) because of authoritarian beliefs. You think you are safe because you live in a 'democracy?' Ha, think again bucko. This 'democracy' is always one step away from a total state, where you could be swinging from the trees in short order in the name of the war on 'terror.' There are people out there who literally think that Bush is 'doing the lord's work.' They don't care how many coffins come back from Iraq, or how many billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars are spent on this overseas adventure. Their belief that Bush is their chosen leader is cemented in their twisted authoritarian/religious ideology. And whatever Bush does here at home to destroy the last vestiges of freedom via the Patriot Act is fully justified.

And if you think some relic pieces of paper in a glass case are going to save you, then that's the most delusional/cult like belief of all. You call me a 'dreamer' and a 'utopianist.' But you still haven't yet been able to explain how your authoritarian belief system isn't based on anything but mysticism and fairy tales. And you still haven't explained how belief in absolute governmental authority is somehow 'safe,' especially when over 100 million people have been murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone.

Has anyone in here expressed a belief in "absolute governmental authority"? No, your trying to make it a black and white issue. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were bad? Gee no sh:t, has anyone argued that? Does that make all govts bad? No. Why have you completely ignored that fact that all three of those dictators rose to power from thier society's attempts at anarchism? Even getting close to anarchism just creats the oppurtunity for the dictator, or "warlord", to seize control

I have explained quite well that societies, even animal societies, always have a form of "government" So no, its not based on mysticism, its based on the natural interaction of animals. One animal having authority, even in the slightest degree, over another is as natural as gravity. Anarchism INEVITABLY forms a government. If your LUCKY, you'll get a democracy, but as history PROVES, you usually get the exact opposite of what you want, which is totalitarianism. Evil dictators such as Hitler and Mussolini swarm to fill the vaccum created when people try to destroy a common law.

I've been going easy on you so far, mostly for entertainment purposes. I've been letting a lot (most) of your baseless assertions slide. If you really break your arguments down, theres no foundation for them, you dont have a leg to stand on. Wishful thinking.