Minarchy (Badnarik) vs Anarchy (Molyneux) debate TODAY!

[brandon]

How much government is necessary?
Debate today at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Free entry. 1:00 - 5:00
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=93036828379

If you cant make it watch it on online at http://freedomainradio.com



We are honored to be joined by Stefan Molyneux (philosopher/voluntaryist/anarchist) of Onatario, Canada and Michael Badnarik (2004 Libertarian presidential candidate) of Austin, Texas for a debate of anarchy vs minarchy on Independence weekend in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

This will be the clash of the individual freedom titans!

Stefan Molyneux is author of several books and host of the most popular philosophy show on the internet at http://freedomainradio.com.

Michael Badnarik is a nationally renowned constitution scholar and 2004 Libertarian presidential candidate; his website is http://constitutionpreservation.org.

Wary of a 'debate' on the 5th, in favor of more entertaining activities? This will be quite far from boring! You will find our guests to be highly entertaining and enlightening. You will not want to miss this event!

Acquaint yourself with Stefan Molyneux:
YouTube - Sympathy for the Minarchist... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtH0Fumt-e8)
YouTube - True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY)
YouTube - True News 5: The Truth About Voting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM)

Acquaint yourself with Michael Badnarik:
Michael Badnarik on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/5279048)
YouTube - 3-3 "You have Rights; the Government has Privileges" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ5LnjVJcFc)
YouTube - Michael Badnarik - The Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0KWx-OEHHs)
YouTube - Michael Badnarik on the Federal Reserve System (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpOhWvOoraw)

Admission free for both events, donations encouraged.

Sunday, July 5th - 1:00pm-5:30pm - Sponsored by Student Liberty Front (http://drexelstudentlibertyfront.ning.com/)
Drexel University
Stefan Molyneux vs Michael Badnarik
Mitchell Auditorium (Building “Bossone”)
32nd and Market St, Philadelphia, PA
Anarchy vs Minarchy - "How Much Government Is Necessary?" - followed by Q&A

[evilfunnystuff]

should be interesting

[powerofreason]

I feel bad for the minarchist.

[torchbearer]

I feel bad for the minarchist.

you haven't seen badnarik debate.
this is how he won the nomination of the LP as a no name dark horse candidate at the convention.

[brandon]

bump - about to start

[evilfunnystuff]

tunin in

[evilfunnystuff]

i wonder whats goin on

i hope things get kickin soon maybe ill start watchin this weeks freedom watch i missed till they get things started

[disorderlyvision]

no audio for me:mad:

[heavenlyboy34]

no audio for me:mad:

It seems the audio is broken! :eek::(:mad:

[disorderlyvision]

They just got audio fixed:D

[heavenlyboy34]

They just got audio fixed:D

w000t!!! :D:cool:

[MRoCkEd]

watching
should be good

[Dreamofunity]

how much have I missed? Did it start exactly at 1 est? I want to see it all, so I hope someone is recording it, and I don't want watch 1/3 of it, and then go back and watch the begining some other time.

[TastyWheat]

I think Molyneux is making some good points, but it seems even more far-fetched and idealistic than a minarchist government.

[heavenlyboy34]

I think Molyneux is making some good points, but it seems even more far-fetched and idealistic than a minarchist government.

I disagree, but you have a right to your opinion. FWIW, Badnarik is doing quite badly in defending his points and countering Stef's. I'm rather disappointed. I really hoped for a more significant and compelling defense of the minarchist position. The minarchists around here seem to be even better than him (even though they're wrong, IMO).

[South Park Fan]

I've only seen a portion of the debate, but it seems like Badnarik is just repeating the same points.

BTW, is this going to be on youtube?

[heavenlyboy34]

I've only seen a portion of the debate, but it seems like Badnarik is just repeating the same points.

BTW, is this going to be on youtube?

Rumor has it that Stef will be posting it on youtube. :cool:

[Dreamofunity]

Most of Badnariks point seem to be against the case of government, but then at the end he'll make some comment about how we need it. All violence is wrong, you don't want to do violence, so have government do it.

The sound is annoying, are they going to fix it? The buzz is louder than the audio.

[heavenlyboy34]

Most of Badnariks point seem to be against the case of government, but then at the end he'll make some comment about how we need it. All violence is wrong, you don't want to do violence, so have government do it.

The sound is annoying, are they going to fix it? The buzz is louder than the audio.

It's better now. The hum is mostly gone. :D:)

[TastyWheat]

I thought Michael was doing pretty good but someone asked him about taxation in a minarchist society. He stuck to the Constitution, which is what he's good at, but it really contradicted his earlier assertion that all theft is wrong.

[torchbearer]

I thought Michael was doing pretty good but someone asked him about taxation in a minarchist society. He stuck to the Constitution, which is what he's good at, but it really contradicted his earlier assertion that all theft is wrong.

it is not theft if it is voluntary taxation or user fee taxation.

[TastyWheat]

it is not theft if it is voluntary taxation or user fee taxation.
He only mentioned excise taxes, which are technically voluntary, but the government doesn't have any more right to wedge itself between a private transaction than it does to take money from my paycheck. If government really was minarchist in nature then maybe donations would actually work. Land Value (ad valorem) taxes make the most sense to me but it's obviously difficult to determine undeveloped land value.

[rp08orbust]

it is not theft if it is voluntary taxation or user fee taxation.

Private property + all taxes voluntary = anarcho-capitalism

[powerofreason]

I was only able to catch part of the debate but imo the clear winner was Molyneux. He really sliced through some minarchist delusions quite neatly.

[CCTelander]

I didn't get to see any of it. Is it up online anywhere yet?

[torchbearer]

Private property + all taxes voluntary = anarcho-capitalism

um, but those voluntary taxes are funding a minimalist government(even if you call it a private security force) = minarchy.

[rp08orbust]

um, but those voluntary taxes are funding a minimalist government(even if you call it a private security force) = minarchy.

If the taxes are voluntary, then it isn't an archy, period.

[torchbearer]

If the taxes are voluntary, then it isn't an archy, period.

an arch is a leader of a government body. those taxes are going to be used, at the least, for a common defense, the guy in charge of the defense, the general or whatever title you give him/her is an arch.

[Kraig]

an arch is a leader of a government body. those taxes are going to be used, at the least, for a common defense, the guy in charge of the defense, the general or whatever title you give him/her is an arch.

This is where voluntaryist rather than anarchist becomes handy. Either way, if taxes are truly voluntary than I think the minarchists and the anarchists should be satisfied, no reason to argue over what to call it IMO.

I have a question about what you said with "user fee taxation" being voluntary though. Would that be like cigarette taxes right now?

Can't believe I missed this debate yesterday, hopefully it's up on youtube already?

[heavenlyboy34]

Can't believe I missed this debate yesterday, hopefully it's up on youtube already?

I can't find it online yet, but I assure you-it was a great victory for Mr Molyneux (I heard it myself). :D:cool::)

[UnReconstructed]

no such thing as voluntary taxes

if it were voluntary then it would be a donation

the cigarette tax is government laying claim on property

[RevolutionSD]

The question becomes, how much coercion do you want in your life? How much force do you think is appropriate? Which part of your life are you okay with letting someone else run?

[UnReconstructed]

is there a link to the video of this debate yet?

[disorderlyvision]

is there a link to the video of this debate yet?


Seconded, I missed some of the beggining (no audio), and I had to leave before it was over.

[RevolutionSD]

I just watched most of this debate.

It seemed to me that Molyneux made some outstanding points about anarchy being hands down the only way to go, and Badnarik did not argue with him. This seemed like a total mismatch. I don't think Badnarik, as smart as he is, saw this coming. Hopefully everybody learned something.

[torchbearer]

no such thing as voluntary taxes

if it were voluntary then it would be a donation

the cigarette tax is government laying claim on property

voluntary taxes for a voluntary government. it does what you want, you chipin, it does what you forbid it- you don't give it money. government will stay in its boundaries with voluntary taxes.
You will vote with your money. What is so hard to understand?

[ClayTrainor]

Stefan Molyneux is from Ontario Canada? Cool!

[heavenlyboy34]

voluntary taxes for a voluntary government. it does what you want, you chipin, it does what you forbid it- you don't give it money. government will stay in its boundaries with voluntary taxes.
You will vote with your money. What is so hard to understand?

What's going to keep this fantasy government of yours from doing what you DON'T want? :confused: If you stop "contributing", the State will just inflate or make "contribution" mandatory. (since the State has a monopoly on force, it will use force as necessary)

[Epic]

What's going to keep this fantasy government of yours from doing what you DON'T want? :confused: If you stop "contributing", the State will just inflate or make "contribution" mandatory. (since the State has a monopoly on force, it will use force as necessary)

Why, a piece of paper will stop them! We could even call it a "constitution" and if anybody doesn't follow it, well, they are naughty!

[Brassmouth]

Why, a piece of paper will stop them! We could even call it a "constitution" and if anybody doesn't follow it, well, they are naughty!

Ha! We can then go on TV and bitch about how naughty everyone is for not doing what the magic paper says! They'll all hear the error of their ways, quit stealing from the populace, give up their mansions and privileges and be nice again! Yay!

[CCTelander]

Is this debate posted anywhere online yet? I missed it and woiuld love to be able to see it.

[Brassmouth]

Is this debate posted anywhere online yet? I missed it and woiuld love to be able to see it.

It'll be posted. There was an inappropriate outburst that I'm sure will need editing out.

It's well worth the wait though. ;)

[CCTelander]

It'll be posted. There was an inappropriate outburst that I'm sure will need editing out.

It's well worth the wait though. ;)

Cool.

What kind of "inappropriate outburst"?

[brandon]

For the record, I don't trust Molyneux at all. He is extremely charismatic and comes off to me as some sort of salesman. Most of his analogies were not really fitting at all, but he woud explain them with such charm and humor that many people don't even question them.

I feel that Badnarik won the debate. He gave a great analogy right in the beginning about how he used to distill alcohol when he was younger, and it's impossible to make alcohol stronger then about 191 proof. He then said government is the same way, you can cut it down drastically, but some form of it is always going to remain due to some people's innate drive to lead/follow/control.

Furthermore, someone left a flyer on my seat about Molneux. The flyer contained a letter written by a dad who used to listen to Molyneux. He introduced his son to Molneux and soon after his son cut all contact from his family. It turns out Molyneux promotes something he calls DeFOOing (FOO stands for family of origin) where he convinces teenagers and young adults they must cut 100% of contact with their family in order to free their minds. This is all true and easily verifiable via a google search for "defoo".

He reminds me of a cult leader.

[brandon]

Not the same letter I saw. There are countless stories of this happening if you search:

A fearful mother reveals: The internet cult that stole my son (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1093993/A-fearful-mother-reveals-The-internet-cult-stole-son.html)

[Brassmouth]

Cool.

What kind of "inappropriate outburst"?

During the question and answer session some fool started attacking Molyneux, claiming that Molyneux "destroyed" his brother's family. It was ridiculous. The audience clapped when he handed the microphone back to the moderator. No one came to hear his sob story.



Furthermore, someone left a flyer on my seat about Molneux. The flyer contained a letter written by a dad who used to listen to Molyneux. He introduced his son to Molneux and soon after his son cut all contact from his family. It turns out Molyneux promotes something he calls DeFOOing (FOO stands for family of origin) where he convinces teenagers and young adults they must cut 100% of contact with their family in order to free their minds. This is all true and easily verifiable via a google search for "defoo".

He reminds me of a cult leader.

Yes, the same guy who disrupted the event also passed out pamphlets. It was pathetic.

I have listened to every podcast Molyneux has done on defooing. He has never urged anyone to do it. He merely points out that relationships are voluntary and that it is an option. People have free will. So did this guy's college-age nephew. If he wanted to leave, that's his business. His family has no say in the matter, nor should they.

[Brassmouth]

I feel that Badnarik won the debate. He gave a great analogy right in the beginning about how he used to distill alcohol when he was younger, and it's impossible to make alcohol stronger then about 191 proof. He then said government is the same way, you can cut it down drastically, but some form of it is always going to remain due to some people's innate drive to lead/follow/control.

Only the most close-minded minarchist in the world would come away from that debate thinking Badnarik won.

Here was Badnarik's basic rebuttal format:


Agree with Molyneux.
Talk about the Constitution, even though Molyneux just pointed out that the Constitution was just a piece of paper with no bearing on reality.
Try to be as funny as Molyneux and fail.



Contradict his previous agreement with Molyneux without rebutting or debunking Molyneux in any way.

I should also point out that a "good analogy" does not make you correct. Even if it did, Molyneux had about 50 good analogies in that debate, compared to Badnarik's one.

[CCTelander]

During the question and answer session some fool started attacking Molyneux, claiming that Molyneux "destroyed" his brother's family. It was ridiculous. The audience clapped when he handed the microphone back to the moderator. No one came to hear his sob story.


Read about that. Thanks for the info!



Yes, the same guy who disrupted the event also passed out pamphlets. It was pathetic.

I have listened to every podcast Molyneux has done on defooing. He has never urged anyone to do it. He merely points out that relationships are voluntary and that it is an option. People have free will. So did this guy's nephew. If he wanted to leave, that's his business. His family has no say in the matter, nor should they.

The idea that Molyneux is some kind of "cult leader" is ludicrous IMO. He's not asking anyone to "follow" him, and he's definitely not positioning himself as some kind of Messiah. He just puts his ideas and thoughts out there for people to see.

Frankly, I saw more cult-like behavior from some RP supporters back during the campaign than I've ever seen from people who listen to Molyneux's podcasts.

[brandon]

Molyneux convinces people to cut all ties with family, replace family with the other people in his internet organization, and subscribe to his service for whatever his fee is. On top of that he is extremely charismatic. Furthermore, he gives himself all of these dubious titles such as "Philosopher."

These are definitely characteristics of a cult/cult leader.

[Brassmouth]

The idea that Molyneux is some kind of "cult leader" is ludicrous IMO. He's not asking anyone to "follow" him, and he's definitely not positioning himself as some kind of Messiah. He just puts his ideas and thoughts out there for people to see.

Exactly.


Frankly, I saw more cult-like behavior from some RP supporters back during the campaign than I've ever seen from people who listen to Molyneux's podcasts.

I absolutely agree. Some people around here still remind me of those days. It's kind of creepy.

[Brassmouth]

Molyneux convinces people to cut all ties with family, replace family with the other people in his internet organization, and subscribe to his service for whatever his fee is.

No one is forced to donate, or do anything else.

He constantly urges people that ask him for help to seek professional therapy.

He is not a cultist, he is an internet podcaster. Get a grip.


On top of that he is extremely charismatic.

...therefore he is cult-messiah? Nice one.


Furthermore, he gives himself all of these dubious titles such as "Philosopher."

Main Entry: phi·los·o·pher
1 a: a person who seeks wisdom or enlightenment : scholar (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar), thinker (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thinker) b: a student of philosophy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosophy)

Seems accurate to me. The man did his master's thesis on major philosphical thinkers.

[/URL][url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosopher (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/philosopher)

[RevolutionSD]

Molyneux convinces people to cut all ties with family, replace family with the other people in his internet organization, and subscribe to his service for whatever his fee is. On top of that he is extremely charismatic. Furthermore, he gives himself all of these dubious titles such as "Philosopher."

These are definitely characteristics of a cult/cult leader.

Brandon,

You are putting out a whole heap of misinformation, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. We're all looking for the truth here no matter which side you fall on, and making up blatant bullshit just sidetracks these debates.

[brandon]

You miss the point Brassmouth. Try to look at it objectively for a minute.

No one is ever "forced" to donate to a cult. Look at Scientology or any other cult. The members are tricked into thinking it is in their best interest to join the cult, and they always do it on there own free will.

Sure, being charismatic doesn't mean you're a cult leader. However cult leaders are generally extremely charismatic, so I felt it was worthwhile to include in my post.

I know the definition of "Philosopher." I by all means could call myself a philospher, (I'm sure you could too) but I don't. It takes a certain kind of arrogance to go around telling people you are a "philosopher." It's generally something that someone would attach to themselves simply to build their credibility. Sort of an appeal to authority fallacy type of thing.

Bottom line, I am saying he is an extremely charismatic adult that is convincing young weak minded kids to completely abandon their families. Definitely not my definition of a good guy . Seems like a scum bag too me, cultist or not.

[RevolutionSD]

For the record, I don't trust Molyneux at all. He is extremely charismatic and comes off to me as some sort of salesman. Most of his analogies were not really fitting at all, but he woud explain them with such charm and humor that many people don't even question them.

I feel that Badnarik won the debate. He gave a great analogy right in the beginning about how he used to distill alcohol when he was younger, and it's impossible to make alcohol stronger then about 191 proof. He then said government is the same way, you can cut it down drastically, but some form of it is always going to remain due to some people's innate drive to lead/follow/control.

Furthermore, someone left a flyer on my seat about Molneux. The flyer contained a letter written by a dad who used to listen to Molyneux. He introduced his son to Molneux and soon after his son cut all contact from his family. It turns out Molyneux promotes something he calls DeFOOing (FOO stands for family of origin) where he convinces teenagers and young adults they must cut 100% of contact with their family in order to free their minds. This is all true and easily verifiable via a google search for "defoo".

He reminds me of a cult leader.

No, Badnarik never was able to prove that government is good. In fact, he did not even attempt to debate many of Molyneux's points! He pretty much lost the debate by not responding to SM's slamming of all things government.

[brandon]

Brandon,

You are putting out a whole heap of misinformation, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop. We're all looking for the truth here no matter which side you fall on, and making up blatant bullshit just sidetracks these debates.

I'd appreciate it if you told me what part of my post is misinformation. I was never familiar with this guy until I attended the debate and met an extremely distraught family that claimed he convinced their son to abandon them. I then researched there claims on google and verified them.

[RevolutionSD]

Also that is more blatant bullshit, he doesn't "convince" anyone to leave their family. Why don't you just watch CNN & Fox and find out what Sarah Palin is up to since you're not going to do your own research?

[brandon]

Also that is more blatant bullshit, he doesn't "convince" anyone to leave their family.
http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/15871/130753.aspx
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/introduce-yourself-f17/i-am-defoo-ing-t762.htm

[RevolutionSD]

I'd appreciate it if you told me what part of my post is misinformation. I was never familiar with this guy until I attended the debate and met an extremely distraught family that claimed he convinced their son to abandon them. I then researched there claims on google and verified them.

All of what you said is misinfo. He doesn't convince anyone to leave their families. He also doesn't charge anyone to be a part of his site. And what is wrong with calling oneself a philosopher? We are all philosophers really.

He has responded to these false claims already on www.freedomainradio.com if you want to hear his side of the story.

[heavenlyboy34]

Molyneux convinces people to cut all ties with family, replace family with the other people in his internet organization, and subscribe to his service for whatever his fee is. On top of that he is extremely charismatic. Furthermore, he gives himself all of these dubious titles such as "Philosopher."

These are definitely characteristics of a cult/cult leader.

Not in my experience. Got a link? :confused:

[RevolutionSD]

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/15871/130753.aspx
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/introduce-yourself-f17/i-am-defoo-ing-t762.htm

What does this prove? The guy deFOO'd, yes. His decision. SM told him to try everything he could to keep the relationships together. It didn't work out, why does this mean that SM is a cult leader to commanded him to "leave his family"?

[RevolutionSD]

Ok Brandon, even if ALL of what you are saying about Molyneux is 100% true, why would you want to defend statism?

[brandon]

Molyneux invented the term "defoo" and then made it popular. He uses his soapbox to talk about why it is a good idea.

Similarly, I could use my free speech to talk about the virtues of molesting little boys. If I was extremely charismatic (which I'm not at all :( ) chances are a couple people might listen to me and decide I was right. Sure ultimately the responsibility would lie with the person who made the decision to do it, but I would still be a scum bag for telling people it is a good idea.

[brandon]

Ok Brandon, even if ALL of what you are saying about Molyneux is 100% true, why would you want to defend statism?

Of course I don't want to defend statism. I didn't really want to get in this debate either, I just wanted to post my thoughts on Molyneux from the debate.

Regarding statism though, I do believe anarchy is utopian and generally unobtainable. It would be great if it could happen though.

[silverhandorder]

What does this prove? The guy deFOO'd, yes. His decision. SM told him to try everything he could to keep the relationships together. It didn't work out, why does this mean that SM is a cult leader to commanded him to "leave his family"?

To be the devil's advocate Stef has an extremely small patience for those that will not convert. He practically keeps saying what you are doing is not working if they immediately do not listen.

[RevolutionSD]

Molyneux invented the term "defoo" and then made it popular. He uses his soapbox to talk about why it is a good idea.

Similarly, I could use my free speech to talk about the virtues of molesting little boys. If I was extremely charismatic (which I'm not at all :( ) chances are a couple people might listen to me and decide I was right. Sure ultimately the responsibility would lie with the person who made the decision to do it, but I would still be a scum bag for telling people it is a good idea.

That first line you just made up out of thin air! He does not talk about why defooing is a "good idea". You're taking this WAY out of context. He says IF your family is corrupt and a negative part of your life, you ought to talk to them about it. After many attempts, if they are not willing to listen, it's most likely a lost cause and it's time to start the defooing process.

It sounds like you are just getting bits and pieces and 3rd hand info about freedomainradio. You may want to read up on it more before posting false info about it here.

[RevolutionSD]

Of course I don't want to defend statism. I didn't really want to get in this debate either, I just wanted to post my thoughts on Molyneux from the debate.

Regarding statism though, I do believe anarchy is utopian and generally unobtainable. It would be great if it could happen though.

Ok, but do you think that minarchy is NOT utopian, i.e. politicians actually giving up their power? As Molyneux says, government by nature grows- and will not stop growing no matter how many elections we hold or how much we jump up and down. In order to achieve freedom, we can't even have 1% of the government we have now, because it will very quickly grow back into something even bigger than it is now.

[UnReconstructed]

voluntary taxes for a voluntary government. it does what you want, you chipin, it does what you forbid it- you don't give it money. government will stay in its boundaries with voluntary taxes.
You will vote with your money. What is so hard to understand?

You tell me brother. If it's voluntary then it is not a tax. What is so hard to understand?

[brandon]

You're taking this WAY out of context.

I might be. I really don't know that much about the situation. I made my point, and I understand yours. I'm just going to let it drop.

[torchbearer]

You tell me brother. If it's voluntary then it is not a tax. What is so hard to understand?

A toll is a tax, and it is voluntary. what is so hard to understand about this?
Should I use hand gestures or other visual aids?

[powerofreason]

I might be. I really don't know that much about the situation. I made my point, and I understand yours. I'm just going to let it drop.

Good idea.

Now wheres the damn youtube?

[brandon]

Ok, but do you think that minarchy is NOT utopian, i.e. politicians actually giving up their power? As Molyneux says, government by nature grows- and will not stop growing no matter how many elections we hold or how much we jump up and down. In order to achieve freedom, we can't even have 1% of the government we have now, because it will very quickly grow back into something even bigger than it is now.

ohh 1 point about this before bed! I forgot about this.

It is a giant leap in logic to say that government always increases, and then conclude that if we completely eliminate it it will never come back.

If by some magical way the entire government in this country was abolished and replaced with nothing (anarchy), eventually a government will form again and it will grow back.

As Badnarik said many times throughout the debate, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. The battle will never be over. There isn't some magical way we can get rid of the government and then have liberty forever. It will grow back.

[powerofreason]

A toll is a tax, and it is voluntary. what is so hard to understand about this?
Should I use hand gestures or other visual aids?

Its not voluntary.

Here is why. The toll road is not owned by the government. Since the government's income is 100% theft it cannot rightfully own anything. The toll road is in fact unowned and at the same time possessed/controlled by the government. Yet these people are claiming to own the road and charging a usage fee. Now anyone can ask for money. But these people operating the toll roads on behalf of the government are not merely asking. They are demanding. Because if you don't pay the toll, there will be a penalty. This is called coercion, and it is wrong because it causes disorder and suffering in the world.

Comprende?

[torchbearer]

Our state lottery is a tax, and its voluntary.

And tolls are voluntary. I don't pay any toll taxes because i CHOOSE not to use those roads.
oops.

[powerofreason]

ohh 1 point about this before bed! I forgot about this.

It is a giant leap in logic to say that government always increases, and then conclude that if we completely eliminate it it will never come back.

If by some magical way the entire government in this country was abolished and replaced with nothing (anarchy), eventually a government will form again and it will grow back.

As Badnarik said many times throughout the debate, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. The battle will never be over. There isn't some magical way we can get rid of the government and then have liberty forever. It will grow back.

It is not so easy for a government to simply spring up. Legitimacy is the lifeblood of government, without it its collapse is imminent. New governments normally lack legitimacy and this puts it in quite a precarious position. Look at the transitional government in Somalia. At first no one paid attention to it. At all. Only with the brute force and gobs of money provided by the UN and US has the government been able to grow its influence and become less flimsy. Can government re-emerge after it has been killed? Yes. Is it likely? No.

In fact I'd go as far to say its near impossible without foreign intervention.

If the worst case scenario of eliminating government is that it comes back, whats there to lose? And of course the government that comes back will inevitably be weak. People will be unsure as to whether or not they ought to obey.

[brandon]

//

[UnReconstructed]

A toll is a tax, and it is voluntary. what is so hard to understand about this?
Should I use hand gestures or other visual aids?

One thing that might help would be if you stopped being argumentative. However, I understand people being defensive when they start losing grip on their "foundations".

A toll is not a tax.


Definitions of toll on the Web:

* a fee levied for the use of roads or bridges (used for maintenance)
* ring slowly; "For whom the bell tolls"
* price: value measured by what must be given or done or undergone to obtain something; "the cost in human life was enormous"; "the price of success is hard work"; "what price glory?"
* charge a fee for using; "Toll the bridges into New York City"
* bell: the sound of a bell being struck; "saved by the bell"; "she heard the distant toll of church bells"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


Definitions of tax on the Web:

* levy a tax on; "The State taxes alcohol heavily"; "Clothing is not taxed in our state"
* set or determine the amount of (a payment such as a fine)
* use to the limit; "you are taxing my patience"
* make a charge against or accuse; "They taxed him failure to appear in court"
* charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You can choose to not pay the toll and go around however, I cannot choose to not pay taxes for public education and home school my children. You cannot escape the tax without breaking arbitrary laws.

[torchbearer]

what i love about toll roads, only the people who use them pay for them.
I call these type of programs user taxes. It shifts the burden on to those people who find the road/project to be useful.
And it is voluntary. I can skip paying for that road by not using it.

With a minarchy type government, it could be funded by voluntary taxes.
If it makes you feel better, call it fees or donations.
The idea stands that a voluntary government should be funded by voluntary taxes.

[powerofreason]

Our state lottery is a tax, and its voluntary.

And tolls are voluntary. I don't pay any toll taxes because i CHOOSE not to use those roads.
oops.

A lottery is a legitimate way to fund an organization. Churches love em.

And tolls are NOT voluntary.

What if a group of armed men stood shoulder to shoulder at the top of my driveway, letting no one pass without paying a fee. Are you telling me that this is a voluntary setup between myself and the armed men because I can choose to never leave my house?

[UnReconstructed]

and this defooing crap, I heard Molyneux talk about it on one of his podcasts... actually, the very first time I ever listened to him and I haven't listened to him again until recently. It really turned me off but I wasn't really given over to the darkside at the time. Thinking about it though, I still don't like it.

[UnReconstructed]

what i love about toll roads, only the people who use them pay for them.
I call these type of programs user taxes. It shifts the burden on to those people who find the road/project to be useful.
And it is voluntary. I can skip paying for that road by not using it.

With a minarchy type government, it could be funded by voluntary taxes.
If it makes you feel better, call it fees or donations.
The idea stands that a voluntary government should be funded by voluntary taxes.

I just can't get that last part brother. A voluntary government? Doesn't government carry the idea of "governing" meaning that the governed submit to the "governor"?

[Brassmouth]

You miss the point Brassmouth. Try to look at it objectively for a minute.

No one is ever "forced" to donate to a cult. Look at Scientology or any other cult. The members are tricked into thinking it is in their best interest to join the cult, and they always do it on there own free will.

I know what a cult is. My parents are religious.

The difference is Molyneux has never "tricked" anyone on Freedomain Radio. People call him for advice because they know he is intelligent. He offers them advice, such as seeking therapy and trying to talk to the family. If those fail, he reminds the individual that familial relations are voluntary, and that they can be severed if the relationship is damaging or detrimental.



I know the definition of "Philosopher." I by all means could call myself a philospher, (I'm sure you could too) but I don't. It takes a certain kind of arrogance to go around telling people you are a "philosopher." It's generally something that someone would attach to themselves simply to build their credibility. Sort of an appeal to authority fallacy type of thing.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you. However, Molyneux has an advanced degree in history and philosophy. If anyone is qualified to call himself a philosopher, he is. That's different than some random person on the street calling himself one.



A toll is a tax, and it is voluntary. what is so hard to understand about this?
Should I use hand gestures or other visual aids?

It's certainly not voluntary when the State has a coercive monopoly on the roads.



As Badnarik said many times throughout the debate, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. The battle will never be over. There isn't some magical way we can get rid of the government and then have liberty forever. It will grow back.

Badnarik was also called out on this point throughout the debate, and failed to substantiate his claims with evidence or reason.

[Brassmouth]

"Voluntary government" is the most Orwellian piece of illogical bullshit I've ever heard outside of a church.

[Andrew-Austin]

Still eagerly awaiting the video, I've been refreshing the Stefbot's channel but no dice.

Slightly off topic comment: cheers to anyone who opts out of negative/abusive family relationships.

[Brassmouth]

Still eagerly awaiting the video, I've been refreshing the Stefbot's channel but no dice.

Slightly off topic comment: cheers to anyone who opts out of negative/abusive family relationships.

It might take a few days or a week. The debate and the Q&A were 5 hours long...

[RevolutionSD]

ohh 1 point about this before bed! I forgot about this.

It is a giant leap in logic to say that government always increases, and then conclude that if we completely eliminate it it will never come back.

If by some magical way the entire government in this country was abolished and replaced with nothing (anarchy), eventually a government will form again and it will grow back.

As Badnarik said many times throughout the debate, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. The battle will never be over. There isn't some magical way we can get rid of the government and then have liberty forever. It will grow back.

You may have a point here, but Molyneux and us anarcho-capitalists want to rid the very idea of government as a force for good. Once that happens, it won't ever "grow back", because no one would allow this. It's like saying we can't get rid of slavery entirely, because people will always want to own slaves.

I agree though with what I think your point is, that if we snapped our fingers and made gov't disappear today, it would likely be back up and running in a few days- because people didn't change the idea in their heads.

[ClayTrainor]

tube?

[Kraig]

voluntary taxes for a voluntary government. it does what you want, you chipin, it does what you forbid it- you don't give it money. government will stay in its boundaries with voluntary taxes.
You will vote with your money. What is so hard to understand?

You vote with your money? Yes I would love that.

That would mean if the police aren't working out for me, I could take my money and pay a different police service.

That would mean if the court system isn't working out for me, I could take my money and pay a different court system.

This is what anarcho-capitalists have been saying all along. Voting with you money requires choices, choices require anarchism; anarchism based on this definition:

"a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society."

But not these definitions:

"a state of society without government or law."

"political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control"

"confusion; chaos; disorder"

So it really is a poor word to use.

[Kraig]

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/p/15871/130753.aspx
http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/introduce-yourself-f17/i-am-defoo-ing-t762.htm

First link is a guy talking about taking a break from his family, all Stefan says is basically "I'm sorry you're going through that". Nothing at all to show that he encouraged him to do it or if it is even a bad thing.

Second link is some people upset with Stefan talking about trolling the FDR message boards. Once again nothing showing Stefan is encouraging kids to leave their families in a bad way.

It sounds like you are really taking the "defooing" thing out of context, as Brassmouth said Stefan basically talks about it as a last resort option if you are stuck in an unhealthy relationship. So if you aren't taking it out of context, you need to provide something that backs up what you are saying.

[Kraig]

ohh 1 point about this before bed! I forgot about this.

It is a giant leap in logic to say that government always increases, and then conclude that if we completely eliminate it it will never come back.

If by some magical way the entire government in this country was abolished and replaced with nothing (anarchy), eventually a government will form again and it will grow back.

As Badnarik said many times throughout the debate, the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. The battle will never be over. There isn't some magical way we can get rid of the government and then have liberty forever. It will grow back.

That is a good point but I don't think it applies it government. Yes the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance, I agree on that, but the problem is how people approach it. People will "naturally" agree that a new mob or gang rising up in their neighborhood is a bad thing and will work against it, people having vigilance against tyranny is not really the problem right now. Society naturally works against organized crime, when the society understands that a crime is being committed.

The problem is when tyranny becomes a wolf in sheep's clothing, and slips in under the guise of government. That is where vigilance is lost, because people assume it is safe, and do not question it fully. They do not question the true nature of "taxes", or the initiation of force. They are sold on a "end justifies the means" method of "providing" liberty and it bites then in the ass each and every time. This is why education on the true nature of government is needed to destroy government.

[Brian4Liberty]

You may have a point here, but Molyneux and us anarcho-capitalists want to rid the very idea of government as a force for good.

Great idea! We can all get on board for that. There really is a PR/marketing war to be fought over the idea that government is the solution to all of our problems. There is a long way to go on that, because they have brainwashed 80% of the population to support mommy/daddy government with no questions at all.

And like marketing any product, the "buy my product you ignorant, retarded fool" tactic usually doesn't work... ;)
(In a general sense, unrelated to this thread)

[tremendoustie]

voluntary taxes for a voluntary government. it does what you want, you chipin, it does what you forbid it- you don't give it money. government will stay in its boundaries with voluntary taxes.
You will vote with your money. What is so hard to understand?

Whoa, looks like we agree 100% :).

I may call the government a business or charity in this case, since it only collects funds by providing goods and services, and taking donations - but what we call it isn't important to me.

Tolls on roads are a good example -- if the government didn't form them using eminent domain, or construct them using forced taxation, I would have no problem with it. Again, I would probably call it a road business, but names are not important.

The important thing is stopping the theft and other aggressive violence, and letting people choose be free to choose how to spend their time and money (as long as they don't harm others, of course).

It's funny how a little terminology can be a hangup, among people whose ideas are actually congruent.

[ClayTrainor]

sooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

Is this gonna be tubed?

[Brassmouth]

sooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

Is this gonna be tubed?

The debate and the Q&A totaled 5 hours. I imagine that's a lot to edit.

[powerofreason]

And like marketing any product, the "buy my product you ignorant, retarded fool" tactic usually doesn't work... ;)
(In a general sense, unrelated to this thread)

lmao

[powerofreason]

"Voluntary government" is the most Orwellian piece of illogical bullshit I've ever heard outside of a church.

What are you talking about? Voluntary government is doubleplusgood!

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/609/screenshotzazzlecomswif.png

[Conza88]

A toll is a tax, and it is voluntary. what is so hard to understand about this?
Should I use hand gestures or other visual aids?

DEFINE "taxation".

On 3... 2... 1... Go!

YouTube - Reid "Taxation Is Voluntary" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8)

[mport1]

I'd really like to see this. Badnarik is the one who first turned me on to libertarianism and Molyneux brought me over to the voluntaryist position. Any video yet?

[Conza88]

For shiz.. where is it..

[UnReconstructed]

there are some links posted at fdr forums but they aren't working for me

[LibertyRevolution]

Any link to these videos yet? I'd really like to see this. I love Badnarik speeches. Rights vs privileges, from the constitution class should be required viewing for elementary school students.

[Brassmouth]

I think Molyneux said to expect it in about a week.

[UnReconstructed]

Any link to these videos yet? I'd really like to see this. I love Badnarik speeches. Rights vs privileges, from the constitution class should be required viewing for elementary school students.

Is that a right or is it constitutional?

[idiom]

//

[idiom]

A lottery is a legitimate way to fund an organization. Churches love em.

And tolls are NOT voluntary.

What if a group of armed men stood shoulder to shoulder at the top of my driveway, letting no one pass without paying a fee. Are you telling me that this is a voluntary setup between myself and the armed men because I can choose to never leave my house?

What if those armed men own all the land around your house. Aka a private road?


It sounds like you are really taking the "defooing" thing out of context, as Brassmouth said Stefan basically talks about it as a last resort option if you are stuck in an unhealthy relationship. So if you aren't taking it out of context, you need to provide something that backs up what you are saying.

Molyneux has a podcast on the cost of being political. In it he lists cutting off your friends and family because they won't convert as a benefit. You still have a state over you, but yay, now your only friends are members of the FDRA.


You may have a point here, but Molyneux and us anarcho-capitalists want to rid the very idea of government as a force for good. Once that happens, it won't ever "grow back", because no one would allow this. It's like saying we can't get rid of slavery entirely, because people will always want to own slaves.

I agree though with what I think your point is, that if we snapped our fingers and made gov't disappear today, it would likely be back up and running in a few days- because people didn't change the idea in their heads.

The longest running stable anarchy I know of ran for a period of 300 years. It was over-run several times and managed to free itself, but eventually the people gave up and switched to a state.

[powerofreason]

What if those armed men own all the land around your house. Aka a private road?

Homeowner's Associations can take care of side roads. If there's armed men outside my house thats probably the penalty I agreed to for not paying my dues.

[powerofreason]

The longest running stable anarchy I know of ran for a period of 300 years. It was over-run several times and managed to free itself, but eventually the people gave up and switched to a state.

Then you've never heard of Celtic Ireland, probably the most successful anarchy in recorded hostory. Foreign meddling kills stable (non transitional) anarchy, never the people.

[idiom]

Stability includes the ability to return to where you left after internal or extenal influences.

Main Roads would be private property too and quite vulnerable to being bought up by people quite uniterested in your welfare. In fact upon closer examination your 'homeowners association' is just another minarchy hiding away.

And where is the 'tube already?

[mediahasyou]

"Voluntary government" is the most Orwellian piece of illogical bullshit I've ever heard outside of a church.

http://voluntaryist.com/

[inibo]

http://voluntaryist.com/

I found that site a couple of days ago. Good stuff. http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php

Still waiting for the debate video.

[Brassmouth]

And where is the 'tube already?


Still waiting for the debate video.


Are my posts invisible?


I think Molyneux said to expect it in about a week.

[AuH2O]

To be fair, it's been a week since the debate. Are you saying that video should be ready in a week from your post?

[idiom]

Nah, we can see them, but whining about 'tubes is traditional.

[Brassmouth]

To be fair, it's been a week since the debate. Are you saying that video should be ready in a week from your post?

I believe Molyneux said he'd have it up sometime this week.

Like I said, it's worth the wait.

[powerofreason]

Stability includes the ability to return to where you left after internal or extenal influences.

Main Roads would be private property too and quite vulnerable to being bought up by people quite uniterested in your welfare. In fact upon closer examination your 'homeowners association' is just another minarchy hiding away.

And where is the 'tube already?

Homeowner's associations are voluntary associations where as coercive monopoly States are not. Public roads are a disaster. Walter Block recently wrote a lengthy book on road privatization. I suggest you read it before you start praising the current ridiculously bad system.

[ClayTrainor]

nah, we can see them, but whining about 'tubes is traditional.

tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuube!?!?!?!

[inibo]

tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuube!?!?!?!

I'm beginning to suspect it never happened.
:D

[idiom]

Then you've never heard of Celtic Ireland, probably the most successful anarchy in recorded hostory. Foreign meddling kills stable (non transitional) anarchy, never the people.

What was anarchic about it? The Kings? The Lords? The internecine warfare? The highly defined caste system enforced by law? The Serfs? The feudal code? The Slavery? The absolute Church authority? The lack of property rights?

I have heard the Celtic Ireland bit quoted a few times by Roth-Caps. It is about as far away as you could get from what Riothbardian-Capitalism supports.

It was an incredibly blood thirsty culture defined by warfare. I don't think that's the Anarchy you mean.

[Brassmouth]

What was anarchic about it? The Kings? The Lords? The internecine warfare? The highly defined caste system enforced by law? The Serfs? The feudal code? The Slavery? The absolute Church authority? The lack of property rights?

I have heard the Celtic Ireland bit quoted a few times by Roth-Caps. It is about as far away as you could get from what Riothbardian-Capitalism supports.

It was an incredibly blood thirsty culture defined by warfare. I don't think that's the Anarchy you mean.

/facepalm.

mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf

Skip to page 3. Your ignorance of this period in history is astounding given how much you think you know about it. There's a whole literature on this subject alone. Read some of it, then come back and join the discussion with actual facts.

[idiom]

/facepalm.

mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf

Skip to page 3. Your ignorance of this period in history is astounding given how much you think you know about it. There's a whole literature on this subject alone. Read some of it, then come back and join the discussion with actual facts.

Note: Anarcho-Historians writing about statist societies have a tendency to use stateless terminology and conceptions in describing essentially statist ideas and institutions.

[Conza88]

Note: Anarcho-Historians writing about statist societies have a tendency to use stateless terminology and conceptions in describing essentially statist ideas and institutions.

So you read it, or skimmed to the end... and that's the best you've got? lmao! :D

[idiom]

So you read it, or skimmed to the end... and that's the best you've got? lmao! :D

Actually I was checking his sources.

He managed to get the whole way through without mentioning the system of tributes that flowed ever upward, the existence of slaves and strict classes, the fact that the 'elections' only had candidates from certain families yadda yadda.

Apparently the fact that one king did not rule the entire nation stops it being a nation state. It was generally quite obviously 100-200 individual 'clan'-states.

Rothbard seems to think that one man exacting tribute from up to 25,000 people is a 'stateless' society.

Do you really suppose that everyone volunteered to remain in their caste up to twenty layers down that they were born to?

Suprisingly for a system that remained as stable as long as it did it never managed to build cities and advanced commerce despite contact and trade with advancing societies. Suprisingly only if you take Rothbards word for the 'freedom' in society. It is not suprising if you consider that this is the typical high-water mark of feudal systems, especially ones with no straight forward way to alter repressive laws. If it truly had been a liberal society then it should have blossomed what with all the free markets. The fact that it didn't prosper either refutes the idea that it was a free society or the idea that free societies prosper.

The only people who called it Anarchic were the English and Rothbard, both for propaganda reasons.


As D. A. Binchy, the leading contemporary Irish expert on ancient Irish law, has written:
there was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice" and "the State existed only in embryo". "There was no trace of State-administered justice".

An alternate and earlier (without the revisionism of Binchy) Irish Historian says:


Each clan had also a further assembly called a Tocomra. This was the assembly in which the king or chief or tanist was elected. So far as I can discover it consisted of the same persons as the Dal; but it was summoned by the Bruigh-fer, or Biadhtach (pronounced Beetagh), and met in his house. This house was not the private property of this officer, but was considered somewhat as a public hall belonging to the clan, and used as occasion required for clan purposes. The Bruigh-fer, or Biadhtach, was its occupant and keeper and a clan official appointed and empowered to discharge various duties of high importance.

Besides summoning the assembly just mentioned, he was bound to entertain the king, bishop, bard, judge, and some other public functionaries of the clan who were privileged to claim entertainment for themselves and a number of attendants fixed in each case by the law. He was also bound to entertain when required, on behalf of the clan, friendly visitors, if for any reason the king or chief could not conveniently do so; and he was under certain legal obligations to all belated travellers who passed by the way. In fact he may be called a public hospitaler, and this is almost the literal signification of the word Biadhtach. To enable him to comply with these extensive requirements, he was allowed about five hundred acres of free land, besides various personal privileges; and he was, by virtue of his office, a magistrate empowered to administer justice in certain cases. There were many special provisions in the law for the protection of himself and his official property, for he and his house were rightly regarded as an important public institution. He was fancifully supposed to have five doors to his house, facing in different directions, always a pot of meat boiling, and cattle and pigs on the premises fat enough for killing.

[paulitics]

What was anarchic about it? The Kings? The Lords?
The internecine warfare? The highly defined caste system enforced by law? The Serfs?
The feudal code? The Slavery? The absolute Church authority? The lack of property rights?.



.
Rothbard seems to think that one man exacting tribute from up to 25,000 people is a 'stateless' society.

Do you really suppose that everyone volunteered to remain in their caste up to twenty layers down that they were born to?
.




/facepalm.

mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf

Skip to page 3. Your ignorance of this period in history is astounding given how much you think you know about it. There's a whole literature on this subject alone. Read some of it, then come back and join the discussion with actual facts.

So why not answer his questions? How about you join the discussion and either deny those things were part of the so called "anarchist" society, or admit that you have greatly broadened the definition of anarchy that includes all kinds of statism. You are saying look at the horse over there, and then a donkey appears.

And this time, don't let Rothbard do the thinking for you, since he is addressing you, not Rothbard.

[Natalie]

Have you seen Badnarik's Constitution class? Amazing.

[Conza88]

So why not answer his questions? How about you join the discussion and either deny those things were part of the so called "anarchist" society, or admit that you have greatly broadened the definition of anarchy that includes all kinds of statism. You are saying look at the horse over there, and then a donkey appears.

And this time, don't let Rothbard do the thinking for you, since he is addressing you, not Rothbard.

But then Idiom can't get his kicks... just like Optatron and a few others... they only ever get satisfaction out of being cynical, nihilists, who attempt to find a flaw in everything, but NEVER propose their own solutions or analysis'. Essentially N-E-V-E-R.


Have you seen Badnarik's Constitution class? Amazing.

All 7 of them from back in the day.

[Optatron]

Homeowner's associations are voluntary associations where as coercive monopoly States are not. Public roads are a disaster. Walter Block recently wrote a lengthy book on road privatization. I suggest you read it before you start praising the current ridiculously bad system.

So there's no such thing as a good state or a good coercion?

Associations that are voluntary (such as tribes, communes, consensus, democracy) are not states according to you.

is there a difference between a state and a government?

So the only problem you have with states is that it's not voluntary? if it's voluntary it'd be perfect?

[Optatron]

But then Idiom can't get his kicks... just like Optatron and a few others... they only ever get satisfaction out of being cynical, nihilists, who attempt to find a flaw in everything, but NEVER propose their own solutions or analysis'. Essentially N-E-V-E-R.


Excuse me?

Being cynical nihilists who find a flaw in everything? That's you!

Because nowhere in the world is there no state, so everywhere and everything is not perfect to your standards, so you're the only person who's right.

Everything that's wrong today is the fault of the State, not ignorance, not choice, not bad information, not chance, not preference, not human emotions, it's ALL THE STATE. Kill the state and the world would either be perfect or your system will fix itself with zero corruption.

Cynical nihilist? Only to people who think they have an answer to everything (especially only on paper)

And actually, I DO propose a solution or alternative if I believe there's a problem.
(use of force or status quo, just to name 2)



All 7 of them from back in the day.

[Optatron]

Note: Anarcho-Historians writing about statist societies have a tendency to use stateless terminology and conceptions in describing essentially statist ideas and institutions.

don't we call that doublespeak?

using different terminology to deceptively convey an alternative meaning and interpretation?

[Optatron]

Homeowner's Associations can take care of side roads.


HOA are just small versions of city governments where people participate and cooperate. Changing the word doesn't change what they do.



If there's armed men outside my house thats probably the penalty I agreed to for not paying my dues.

so if the IRS shows up at your doors it's what you agreed to since you never challenged the law of paying taxes.

[heavenlyboy34]

HOA are just small versions of city governments where people participate and cooperate. Changing the word doesn't change what they do.


False. HOAs do not have the resources of the State, and they have to comply with the agreed upon regulations in the contract. HOAs do not have a monopoly on force outside of the contract. (if you know of an HOA that has a militia that it uses to enforce arbitrary dictats, please share)

[Optatron]

False. HOAs do not have the resources of the State, and they have to comply with the agreed upon regulations in the contract.


So do local governments if they want to.



HOAs do not have a monopoly on force outside of the contract. (if you know of an HOA that has a militia that it uses to enforce arbitrary dictats, please share)

Elohim City? The People's Temple?

Local governments don't use force as long as it's not necessary, but they're authorized to use force by the consent of governed (which can be challenged much easier than State and federal governments)

[powerofreason]

So there's no such thing as a good state or a good coercion?

Yes. No such thing.


Associations that are voluntary (such as tribes, communes, consensus, democracy) are not states according to you.

There is nothing voluntary about the State.


is there a difference between a state and a government?

They are essentially the same thing.


So the only problem you have with states is that it's not voluntary? if it's voluntary it'd be perfect?

If its voluntary it ceases to become a State.

[powerofreason]

HOA are just small versions of city governments where people participate and cooperate. Changing the word doesn't change what they do.

Voluntary associations are not criminal organizations like governments are.




so if the IRS shows up at your doors it's what you agreed to since you never challenged the law of paying taxes.

The law is not legitimate. Prove that it is.

[Optatron]

Voluntary associations are not criminal organizations like governments are.


are you against criminal orgs? Or only when it's not favorable to you?



The law is not legitimate. Prove that it is.

your life is not legitimate, I don't even want to waste time listening to you prove that it is.

[Optatron]

Yes. No such thing.

There is nothing voluntary about the State.

They are essentially the same thing.


so whatever you find bad is a state, whatever you find good is not a state.

simple enough!



If its voluntary it ceases to become a State.

So what we need to do is make the State voluntary and it'll disappear, or get rid of people who don't like the way it is, so we'll have 100% voluntary and satisfaction.

http://darianworden.com/pics/communism.jpg

[powerofreason]

Optatron hard at work railing away at freedom:
http://garymurning.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/computer_monkey.jpg

[powerofreason]

are you against criminal orgs? Or only when it's not favorable to you?

Always.




your life is not legitimate, I don't even want to waste time listening to you prove that it is.

Says the barbarian.

[powerofreason]

so whatever you find bad is a state, whatever you find good is not a state.

simple enough!


Here is what I find bad:

Violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

Quite simple.




So what we need to do is make the State voluntary and it'll disappear, or get rid of people who don't like the way it is, so we'll have 100% voluntary and satisfaction.


This is supposed to make sense?

[Optatron]

Optatron hard at work railing away at freedom:
http://garymurning.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/computer_monkey.jpg

you're anti-government but you managed to access Big Brother's spy cam on me?

[Optatron]

Here is what I find bad:

Violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

Quite simple.


Never agreed to it, why should I be subject to it?



This is supposed to make sense?

Ask yourself, you're the one who says once voluntary a state ceases to exist as a state, or there's no such thing as a voluntary state or government.

[powerofreason]

you're anti-government but you managed to access Big Brother's spy cam on me?

I confess. Forgive me.

[powerofreason]

Never agreed to it, why should I be subject to it?

Glad you asked. The really simple version is that not following the NAP leads to human suffering. Are you in favor of human suffering or are you opposed to it? If you oppose human suffering like a rational person would then it logically follows that you would follow the NAP.




Ask yourself, you're the one who says once voluntary a state ceases to exist as a state, or there's no such thing as a voluntary state or government.


Hey, whatever you say.

[inibo]

Here is what I find bad:

Violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

Quite simple.


Never agreed to it, why should I be subject to it?

Optatron, are you saying you or someone else has a right to initiate violence, theft or fraud? Under what conditions?


Ask yourself, you're the one who says once voluntary a state ceases to exist as a state, or there's no such thing as a voluntary state or government.

I think this is pretty much semantics. You can call any method of organizing a society anything you want to call it. I have no beef with the idea of "public" government, whatever that means, as long as my interactions with it are voluntary and uncoerced. I've never encountered such a thing, but it could happen I suppose.

Public roads, private roads, public schools, private schools; I don't care, just don't force me to pay for things I don't use and don't tell me what I can or can't do with my stuff as long as I don't try to tell people what they can or can't do with theirs.

Elect me up some of that and I'll be happy to pay my share otherwise toss it all out and let me and the people I deal with work out our own relationships.

[mczerone]

it is not theft if it is voluntary taxation or user fee taxation.

It's still a form of theft if they disallow competition for the services or even start from a position of "assumed consent" to the taxation.

Consumers have the ultimate control over proper regulation and product quality - unless they can't choose a different provider.

I consider most all of the government regulation and laws to be a tax, albeit non-monetary. The entire system needs to be altered to truly end taxation, and thus end the aggression against people.

[Optatron]

Glad you asked. The really simple version is that not following the NAP leads to human suffering.


Why should I care? Do I owe anybody their lack of suffering?



Are you in favor of human suffering or are you opposed to it?


Neither, but I'm not for my own suffering.



If you oppose human suffering like a rational person would then it logically follows that you would follow the NAP.


I'm afraid I'm powerless, but if I wanted to end human suffering, some people already know what to do.

http://darianworden.com/pics/communism.jpg



Hey, whatever you say.

[Brassmouth]

http://darianworden.com/pics/communism.jpg

That's the second time in a single thread you've posted that image.

Could you at least attempt to be less overtly trollish?

[mczerone]

I think this is pretty much semantics. You can call any method of organizing a society anything you want to call it. I have no beef with the idea of "public" government, whatever that means, as long as my interactions with it are voluntary and uncoerced. I've never encountered such a thing, but it could happen I suppose.

Public roads, private roads, public schools, private schools, I don't care, just don't force me to pay for things I don't use and don't tell me what I can or can't do with my stuff as long as I don't try to tell people what they can or can't do with theirs.

Elect me up some of that and I'll be happy to pay my share otherwise toss it all out and let me and the people I deal with work out our own relationships.

I somewhat agree, but if I were to organize a group calling themselves the "City of Detroit" and let the residents of a specific area vote and be a part of this group that may provide some 'government' services, any competitor is still free to start a group called the "Detroit Metropolitan Area" to provide those same services to the same region.

The only untaxed actions are those that are among only consenting individuals, when one party restricts who you can deal with, you are being taxed. Thus any just "government" is no more powerful, corrupt, or exploitative than a local maid service, home insurance company, or restaurant.

[powerofreason]

Why should I care? Do I owe anybody their lack of suffering?


Neither, but I'm not for my own suffering.

Nice attempt at being clever :rolleyes:. You can't have it both ways. If you feel that you can treat people unfairly you can't reasonably expect to be treated any differently in return. Thats logically inconsistent and just plain stupid.



I'm afraid I'm brainless, blah blah blah.

fixt

[Optatron]

Optatron, are you saying you or someone else has a right to initiate violence, theft or fraud? Under what conditions?


Don't need a right, if they can do it, they can do it.

Under the condition they can do it and get away with it.



I think this is pretty much semantics. You can call any method of organizing a society anything you want to call it. I have no beef with the idea of "public" government, whatever that means, as long as my interactions with it are voluntary and uncoerced. I've never encountered such a thing, but it could happen I suppose.


Thanks.




Public roads, private roads, public schools, private schools; I don't care, just don't force me to pay for things I don't use and don't tell me what I can or can't do with my stuff as long as I don't try to tell people what they can or can't do with theirs.

Elect me up some of that and I'll be happy to pay my share otherwise toss it all out and let me and the people I deal with work out our own relationships.

fair enough

[Optatron]

Nice attempt at being clever :rolleyes:. You can't have it both ways. If you feel that you can treat people unfairly you can't reasonably expect to be treated any differently in return. Thats logically inconsistent and just plain stupid.

fixt

No, I don't need to treat people like I want myself to be treated, because I don't believe all people are the same as I am.

And no, I don't expect anybody to treat me any way.

[CCTelander]

That's the second time in a single thread you've posted that image.

Could you at least attempt to be less overtly trollish?

I'm betting the answer to that will turn out to be a resounding "NO."

He probably won't come right out and SAY it, mind you...

[ClayTrainor]

Tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuube?!?!

[Conza88]

I'm betting the answer to that will turn out to be a resounding "NO."

He probably won't come right out and SAY it, mind you...

:)

[Epic]

dammit somebody post this shit

I propose a new law: Universal Youtubing of Events, carried out by the government. They may have to use rationing.

[heavenlyboy34]

dammit somebody post this shit

I propose a new law: Universal Youtubing of Events, carried out by the government. They may have to use rationing.

lolz!!

[Optatron]

:)

they didn't hear me the first time, what was I supposed to do?

[Conza88]

they didn't hear me the first time, what was I supposed to do?

Go jump of a bridge. :confused:

:rolleyes:

[inibo]

Tuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuube?!?!
This-^

[Conza88]

YouTube - Molyneux Badnarik Debate, Drexel University, July 5, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ZaMgOh_J4)

Hahaha

http://www.fdrurl.com/phillydebate

[andrewh817]

A little disappointed by the last debate Molyneux had vs Helfeld. Helfeld basically just gave hypothetical situations the whole time expecting exact answers from MOlyneux