Defense Against Private Defense Companies In An An/Cap Society

[Dieseler]

If a private Defense Force became strong enough to fend off attacks from an opposing Private Defense Force and sought to gain the customers of said Private Defense Force who would stop that Private Defense Force from kicking everyone's asses?

[Dieseler]

It won't work.
It's Fantasy land bullshit and now I see why they put this Philosophy sub forum here... It's to contain the Fantasy land Bullshit.
Unless of course deep down inside all An Cappers see themselves as being "The Man" that runs the private Defense Company.
Is that it?

[Dieseler]

Lol.

[Met Income]

No private defense company can become a monolithic, oppressive monster overnight. Like everything else in reality, it would be a process. Also, like everything else, as people become more afraid of this problem, they can solve it by directing their resources into providing a solution.

If you’re worried about this happening, you’d require your defense company to undergo an audit, investigation, etc. Also, as we can see in the free market, if a company is doing something wrong, a competitor will point it out. If Company A is becoming increasingly more oppressive, Company B will let the market know in order to gain business. This stuff works itself out in our normal lives and it would also do so here.

I do find it ironic that people are worried about private companies becoming a monopoly of violence and corruption. We already have that – it’s called the state. We can’t do worse than what we already have.

[Dieseler]

No private defense company can become a monolithic, oppressive monster overnight. Like everything else in reality, it would be a process. Also, like everything else, as people become more afraid of this problem, they can solve it by directing their resources into providing a solution.
Like maybe hiring another private Defense Company to protect you from the original one?


If you’re worried about this happening, you’d require your defense company to undergo an audit, investigation, etc.
So we would need Private Defense Company Regulation then, like "The State" provides?
Would that be considered Company C?

Also, as we can see in the free market, if a company is doing something wrong, a competitor will point it out. If Company A is becoming increasingly more oppressive, Company B will let the market know in order to gain business. This stuff works itself out in our normal lives and it would also do so here.

"Hey, Company A just looted and Pillaged your town mate! Would you like to Hire Me and my Boys here to see them off?"


I do find it ironic that people are worried about private companies becoming a monopoly of violence and corruption. We already have that – it’s called the state. We can’t do worse than what we already have.

How do you stop Company A from starting it's own "State" and going to war with Company B? Or from paying off Company C to say that they were performing regularly?

[Met Income]

Like maybe hiring another private Defense Company to protect you from the original one?

Absolutely. Competition removes the fear of a monopoly of violence, which is the problem that you posed.



So we would need Private Defense Company Regulation then, like "The State" provides?
Would that be considered Company C?

No, not like the State provides. The state uses force. Companies do not.



"Hey, Company A just looted and Pillaged your town mate! Would you like to Hire Me and my Boys here to see them off?"

No, killing would not be the answer. Killing is an invasion of property rights. If you are afraid of invasion, you hire a defense team before it occurs. Once Company A uses violence, they undoubtedly would lose all future revenue from customers. Why would they do that?




How do you stop Company A from starting it's own "State" and going to war with Company B? Or from paying off Company C to say that they were performing regularly?

War is extremely destructive and expensive. It makes no sense for two companies to go to war with each other. War happens between states because they have a monopoly of violence to inflict on its slaves. Every person you kill is someone who cannot buy your service. If you can steal money from your slaves, it’s not costing you anything to engage in war. Private companies would clearly be worse off in a war. They are much better off to let the customers remain in peace so they can be productive and earn resources to spend on their services.

[Dieseler]

Absolutely. Competition removes the fear of a monopoly of violence, which is the problem that you posed.
So you would want to essentially start a whole bunch of private Defense companies to compete with one another?




No, not like the State provides. The state uses force. Companies do not.
Private Defense Companies won't use force.
Gotya.
How do they defend against anything?



No, killing would not be the answer. Killing is an invasion of property rights. If you are afraid of invasion, you hire a defense team before it occurs. Once Company A uses violence, they undoubtedly would lose all future revenue from customers. Why would they do that?

To defend against whatever force you hired them to defend against I suppose.


War is extremely destructive and expensive. It makes no sense for two companies to go to war with each other.
That never seems to stop them from doing it though does it?

War happens between states because they have a monopoly of violence to inflict on its slaves.
So Clans don't war with one another?


Every person you kill is someone who cannot buy your service.
Once you make them subjects you do not have to kill them anymore though.
Back to square one.


If you can steal money from your slaves, it’s not costing you anything to engage in war. ???


Private companies would clearly be worse off in a war.
How so? They seem to be doing quite well in Iraq and other war torn regions, making quite a name as well. Take your pick of them.

They are much better off to let the customers remain in peace so they can be productive and earn resources to spend on their services.
I would agree if their customer was "The State" which has unlimited resources from which to destroy them if they step out of line, however without some form of protection from them, your Private Defense Contractor will become your new master. They will look to secure "The Resources" for themselves because that would be much more profitable than defending them for you.

[Dieseler]

This is fun!
I'm starting me a Private Defense Company, send me some Ancappers.

[brandon]

So whats the worst that would happen?

One private defense company becomes very powerful. They take over all the rest. The start stealing half of our wealth and locking us up if we don't do as they say. Oh yea....this is exactly what the US government does.

Only difference is the private defense company would not be viewed as having legitimate authority and would be challenged by the citizens. And an AK47 can make one poor, common, untrained man a lethal killing machine.

If the worst that could happen is we come full circle back to where we are now, I say it's worth a shot.

[Keller1967]

Is it plausible to think these private defense companies would become more powerful and overbearing than the current US government? Would they be able to go on a robbing and killing spree that would match what the Federal Reserve has printed for our current fascist corporations?

Would you require a 100% fool-proof plan as to how you will prevent being enslaved in the future before you would be willing to admit your current slave masters aren't wanted or needed?

Is a Matrix style enslavement for your mind preferable over raw freedom when that freedom could bring a risk to whip to the back style slavery?

[constituent]

So Dieseler, what is your alternative?

[Dieseler]

Do Dieseler, what is your alternative?

I'm sold.
Lets doit.
But I warn ya fair and square, I'm gonna be a Pirate!
So you'll either have to pay me or hire someone else to stop me!
I might offer the people you hire a better deal, so be careful who you hire, they will need the utmost integrity.

[constituent]

But I warn ya fair and square, I'm gonna be a Pirate!

sic transit gloria...

[Met Income]

So whats the worse that would happen?

One private defence company becomes very powerful. They take over all the rest. The start stealing half of our wealth and locking us up if we don't do as they say. Oh yea....this is exactly what the US government does.

Only difference is the private defence company would not be viewed as having legitimate authority and would be challenged by the citizens. And an AK47 can make one poor, common, untrained man a lethal killing machine.

If the worst that could happen is we come full circle back to where we are now, I say it's worth a shot.

Good point about the moral authority. I believe this is one of the main reasons that the State exists – people believe it is inherently legitimate.

[Dieseler]

This is gonna be great!

[Met Income]

This is gonna be great!

Good luck. It’s you vs. the market. I’ll take the field.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is gonna be great!

You can be a pirate all you want. If you steal from me, you will find yourself dead very fast. Now, if you want to agress against me and my property, I'll gladly defend it (With my new shiny toys).

[constituent]

This is gonna be great!


sic transit gloria...

allow me to translate, "glory fades."




You can be a pirate all you want. If you steal from me, you will find yourself dead very fast.

[Dieseler]

Fifteen men on a dead man's chest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Drink and the devil had done for the rest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

The mate was fixed by the bosun's pike
The bosun brained with a marlinspike
And cookey's throat was marked belike
It had been gripped by fingers ten;
And there they lay, all good dead men
Like break o'day in a boozing ken
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men of the whole ship's list
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Dead and be damned and the rest gone whist!
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

The skipper lay with his nob in gore
Where the scullion's axe his cheek had shore
And the scullion he was stabbed times four
And there they lay, and the soggy skies
Dripped down in up-staring eyes
In murk sunset and foul sunrise
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men of 'em stiff and stark
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Ten of the crew had the murder mark!
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers' glut with a rotting red
And there they lay, aye, damn my eyes
Looking up at paradise
All souls bound just contrawise
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men of 'em good and true
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Ev'ry man jack could ha' sailed with Old Pew,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!


There was chest on chest of Spanish gold
With a ton of plate in the middle hold
And the cabins riot of stuff untold,
And they lay there that took the plum
With sightless glare and their lips struck dumb
While we shared all by the rule of thumb,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

More was seen through a sternlight screen...
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Chartings undoubt where a woman had been
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

'Twas a flimsy shift on a bunker cot
With a dirk slit sheer through the bosom spot
And the lace stiff dry in a purplish blot
Oh was she wench or some shudderin' maid
That dared the knife and took the blade
By God! she had stuff for a plucky jade
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men on a dead man's chest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Drink and the devil had done for the rest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

We wrapped 'em all in a mains'l tight
With twice ten turns of a hawser's bight
And we heaved 'em over and out of sight,
With a Yo-Heave-Ho! and a fare-you-well
And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell
Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

[Dieseler]

You can be a pirate all you want. If you steal from me, you will find yourself dead very fast. Now, if you want to agress against me and my property, I'll gladly defend it.

Everybody gotta die someday mate!
If we get enough people to think like you we'll have a lot more to go around!

[Met Income]

Everybody gotta die someday mate!

You’re not a pirate now, even with an inefficient and wasteful state. What makes you think you’ll be a successful pirate against efficient companies that actually have an incentive to stop you?

[Met Income]

Everybody gotta die someday mate!
If we get enough people to think like you and I we'll have a lot more to go around!

What makes you think this will happen? It will be tougher than it is now.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Dieseler you can have your State all you want. You get what you asked for. How's it taste right about now?

[constituent]

You’re not a pirate now, even with an inefficient and wasteful state. What makes you think you’ll be a successful pirate against efficient companies that actually have an incentive to stop you?

Or that he'd manage to scrounge up a crew with the vast persuasive/leadership skills contained in his singular, well, maybe half-wit.

That's the real joke in all of this.

[Dieseler]

You’re not a pirate now, even with an inefficient and wasteful state. What makes you think you’ll be a successful pirate against efficient companies that actually have an incentive to stop you?

They'll join the Pirate Consortium with me once they see The Dead Mans Chest.
Har, har, har...



What makes you think this will happen? It will be tougher than it is now.

What? With all them pesky laws and courts and coppers out of me way?
Are you kidding me!


Dieseler you can have your State all you want. You get what you asked for. How's it taste right about now?

Hell Naw!
It's the pirates Life for me now.
Let me know when Fantasy island opens up.

[Dieseler]

Or that he'd manage to scrounge up a crew with the vast persuasive/leadership skills contained in his singular, well, maybe half-wit.

That's the real joke in all of this.

All it takes is a little gold...
Har!

[constituent]

old yes, but ever so appropriate...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

[Dieseler]

Lets do it!
YouTube - Berserkers-Black Label Society (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGljw9SyWgM)

[Dieseler]

Nice, heh.
http://www.hetemeel.com/haha/140225.I%27m+using+the+Internet!!1!%20+.jpg

You will lose your town with funny picture management like that!
Wait... there won't be towns right? Or will there be?

[Met Income]

They'll join the Pirate Consortium with me once they see The Dead Mans Chest.
Har, har, har...




What? With all them pesky laws and courts and coppers out of me way?
Are you kidding me!



Hell Naw!
It's the pirates Life for me now.
Let me know when Fantasy island opens up.

Again, if you think a private defense company (with an real incentive to stop you) will be less efficient and effective than the State – then you should also believe the State should solve ALL of your problems, since they are more efficient and effective than private companies. We know this is not true.

Therefore, I’ll ask again, if you are not a pirate now, why would you be a pirate under conditions where:

- you’d be able to steal less than you have now
- you’d have a higher chance of being stopped & punished than you do now

Logically, if it does not make sense to become one now, it does not make sense to become one then.

[constituent]

Nice, heh.
http://www.hetemeel.com/haha/140225.I%27m+using+the+Internet!!1!%20+.jpg


lol, fail.

[Met Income]

Nice, heh.
http://www.hetemeel.com/haha/140225.I%27m+using+the+Internet!!1!%20+.jpg

You will lose your town with funny picture management like that!
Wait... there won't be towns right? Or will there be?

Your pic doesn't work. But did you actually think it would be part of a legitimate rebuttal, anyway?

[constituent]

Logically, it does not make sense to do so.

doesn't have to, he's trolling.

[tremendoustie]

If a private Defense Force became strong enough to fend off attacks from an opposing Private Defense Force and sought to gain the customers of said Private Defense Force who would stop that Private Defense Force from kicking everyone's asses?

There would be a number of defense forces, none of which could take on all the others. If one defense force became abusive, their customers would switch to alternatives, and their funding would immediately dry up.

As opposed to what we have now, where everyone's forced to fund the same gang whether they like the services or not.

[Dieseler]

Again, if you think a private defense company (with an real incentive to stop you) will be less efficient and effective than the State – then you should also believe the State should solve ALL of your problems, since they are more efficient and effective than private companies. We know this is not true.

Therefore, I’ll ask again, if you are not a pirate now, why would you be a pirate under conditions where:

- you’d be able to steal less than you have now
- you’d have a higher chance of being stopped & punished than you do now

Logically, it does not make sense to do so.

I'm perfectly willing to try it your way.


lol, fail.

That was your fail, I was just pointing it out.



Your pic doesn't work. But did you actually think it would be part of a legitimate rebuttal, anyway?

It was his pic, I was just pointing it out.


doesn't have to, he's trolling.

Lol.

[constituent]

That was your fail, I was just pointing it out.


Funny, I'm not seeing it...


It was his pic, I was just pointing it out.


This is becoming quite the mantra for you. Keep chanting, that might just make it come true... (What a clown.)

[tremendoustie]

What? With all them pesky laws and courts and coppers out of me way?
Are you kidding me!


There will be both security (cops) and arbitration courts. They just won't be monopolies funded by extortion.

[Dieseler]

I am now pirating your funny picture!
See how easy it is?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

[Dieseler]

I can do it again!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif
Cause I'm a Pirate and there is no Law!

[LibertyEagle]

Dieseler you can have your State all you want. You get what you asked for. How's it taste right about now?

No reason to be rude. After all, you are the one who is employed by the "State" right now. ;)

[constituent]

No reason to be rude.

Double standard much?

[Dieseler]

There will be both security (cops) and arbitration courts. They just won't be monopolies funded by extortion.

Sounds like the start of a "State".

[Dieseler]

Double standard much?

No!
Triple Standard!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No reason to be rude. After all, you are the one who is employed by the "State" right now. ;)

Touche. Not for much longer though :D

Also, I'm not the one who is rude in this exchange. Read from page one onward. Trolls are rude.

[Met Income]

I can do it again!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif
Cause I'm a Pirate and there is no Law!

Wrong, again. There is Private Law.

[Dieseler]

No reason to be rude. After all, you are the one who is employed by the "State" right now. ;)

Ahah!
He's already a Pirate!

[constituent]

No!

you're still going? must be some good shit...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Smoking_Crack.jpg/800px-Smoking_Crack.jpg

[Dieseler]

Wrong, again. There is Private Law.

That would require some sort of Officials.
Would it not?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

[Met Income]

I'm perfectly willing to try it your way.




What do you mean by this?

[LibertyEagle]

Double standard much?

Nah, just pointing out that AED is being rather disingenuous in his comment towards Diesler, since it is HE who is employed by the "State".

[Met Income]

That would require some sort of Officials.
Would it not?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

Yes, voluntarily.

[Dieseler]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Smoking_Crack.jpg/800px-Smoking_Crack.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif


Good Shit Indeed!

[Dieseler]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Smoking_Crack.jpg/800px-Smoking_Crack.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif

[constituent]

Nah, just pointing out that AED is being rather disingenuous in his comment towards Diesler, since it is HE who is employed by the "State".

Yea I've noticed you've got this personal thing going with AED. Kinda perplexing... :confused::o

[Met Income]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Smoking_Crack.jpg/800px-Smoking_Crack.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif


Good Shit Indeed!

Did you want to have a logical discussion or no? I’ve posed a question to you. You have posted pictures instead of answering.

[torchbearer]

you're still going? must be some good shit...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Smoking_Crack.jpg/800px-Smoking_Crack.jpg

Love Rose.

[Dieseler]

Constituent is a "Statist" by employment lol.
How Ironic.

[Met Income]

Constituent is a "Statist" by employment lol.
How Ironic.

And that does nothing to reaffirm your argument.

[Dieseler]

Did you want to have a logical discussion or no? I’ve posed a question to you. You have posted pictures instead of answering.

Yes please continue.
I got caught up in Constituents picture fun, please do.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nah, just pointing out that AED is being rather disingenuous in his comment towards Diesler, since it is HE who is employed by the "State".

I wish I could have been born a voluntaryist, sadly I wasn't. Could you please, pretty please forgive me? There are many Ex-Military voluntaryists, and I would never hold it against anyone who has to fulfill their contract. Now, it would be hypocritical and disingenious of me if I advocated for the abolishment of the State, and still continued to work for them after the contracted period of time, or wished to do so. No, I have no desire, nor wish, and I actually feel like a thief just coming to work.

[tremendoustie]

Deisler, you are assuming the defense agencies will be evil and self serving, while the government will be good and altruistic.

What happens if the federal government tried what you suggested? Tried to truly make everyone chattel slaves? Do you think the resistance against a coersively funded, monopolistic, central state, would be easier, or harder than the resistance against one rogue of many defense agencies?

What's more, why do you think the federal government does not do this now? That's right, because 300 million people still have more power than the federal government. They're afraid of us rebelling. This same reason would hold defense agencies accountable, except they would also face resistance from hundreds of other defense agencies as powerful as their own, and they would not have control of the monetary printing press, or the capability and precident to coersively extract funding from their customers.

[Dieseler]

And that does nothing to reaffirm your argument.

It certainly doesn't help his argument either though does it?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yea I've noticed you've got this personal thing going with AED. Kinda perplexing... :confused::o

LE is a woman correct? I want pics, damnit pics I say! I will gladly share with you my awesome pic with Thomas Woods. :D:p

[constituent]

Constituent is a "Statist" by employment lol.
How Ironic.

What?

OMG, you're a dolt.

[Met Income]

Yes please continue.
I got caught up in Constituents picture fun, please do.

I have already continued. I’ve posed a question to you in this very thread.

[LibertyEagle]

Yea I've noticed you've got this personal thing going with AED. Kinda perplexing... :confused::o

Nothing personal at all. If he is going to accuse someone else of enjoying THEIR "State", which he does quite often, I'm going to call him on it. I mean, since he is employed by that "State". Don't you find it rather odd that he does that, Cons?

[Met Income]

It certainly doesn't help his argument either though does it?


It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

[constituent]

It certainly doesn't help his argument either though does it?

/facepalm

She was talking about Austrian Economics Disciple.

Gently remove your head from you ass...

[Dieseler]

Deisler, you are assuming the defense agencies will be evil and self serving, while the government will be good and altruistic.

What happens if the federal government tried what you suggested? Tried to truly make everyone chattel slaves? Do you think the resistance against a coersively funded, monopolistic, central state, would be easier, or harder than the resistance against one rogue of many defense agencies?

What's more, why do you think the federal government does not do this now? That's right, because 300 million people still have more power than the federal government. They're afraid of us rebelling. This same reason would hold defense agencies accountable, except they would also face resistance from hundreds of other defense agencies as powerful as their own, and they would not have control of the monetary printing press, or the capability and precident to coersively extract funding from their customers.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Are you arguing for or against the State.
I'm confused now.

[constituent]

Nothing personal at all. If he is going to accuse someone else of enjoying THEIR "State", which he does quite often, I'm going to call him on it. I mean, since he is employed by that "State". Don't you find it rather odd that he does that, Cons?

Yea, but I'm not stalking him thread to thread over it... That's what perplexes me.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nothing personal at all. If he is going to accuse someone else of enjoying THEIR "State", which he does quite often, I'm going to call him on it. I mean, since he is employed by that "State". Don't you find it rather odd that he does that, Cons?

Read my post.

[constituent]

It’s irrelevant to the discussion.

Not to mention factually inaccurate. But hey, we're talking about Dieseler here.

[Dieseler]

/facepalm

She was talking about Austrian Economics Disciple.

Gently remove your head from you ass...

I get you two mixed up all the time for some reason.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yea I've noticed you've got this personal thing going with AED. Kinda perplexing...


LE is a woman correct? I want pics, damnit pics I say! I will gladly share with you my awesome pic with Thomas Woods. :D:p

Bump I say!

[constituent]

I get you two mixed up all the time for some reason.

Like I said... gently...

[Dieseler]

Bump I say!

Fuck Ya!
I got 8 pages out of this shit quick.

[Met Income]

Nothing personal at all. If he is going to accuse someone else of enjoying THEIR "State", which he does quite often, I'm going to call him on it. I mean, since he is employed by that "State". Don't you find it rather odd that he does that, Cons?

Fulfilling your contracts is morally required. The contract was signed in the past. In the future, do you foresee him signing another contract with the State? No? There ya go.

[Dieseler]

Like I said... gently...

I will apologize for that misread on my part there but I'm still robbing your ass if we start Fantasy Island.
His to.

[constituent]

Bump I say!

She's actually pretty cool, just gets fixated from time to time.

It's unfortunate b/c it gives people the wrong impression about her, imo.

[constituent]

I will apologize for that misread on my part there but I'm still robbing your ass if we start Fantasy Island.
His to.

"...the acid had clearly shifted gears."
Hunter Thompson

[Met Income]

I get you two mixed up all the time for some reason.

You? Mixed up? No! I won't have it.

[Dieseler]

She's actually pretty cool, just gets fixated from time to time.

It's unfortunate b/c it gives people the wrong impression about her, imo.

All of our mods here are good.
Find better elsewhere.
You won't.

[Met Income]

I will apologize for that misread on my part there but I'm still robbing your ass if we start Fantasy Island.
His to.

Please answer the question I posed to you.

[Met Income]

All of our mods here are good.
Find better elsewhere.
You won't.

How does this relate to what he said?

[Dieseler]

You? Mixed up? No! I won't have it.

Trying to discredit the Pirate are you?
Well lets see how that works on Fantasy island.
Har!

[Dieseler]

How does this relate to what he said?

She's actually pretty cool, just gets fixated from time to time.

It's unfortunate b/c it gives people the wrong impression about her, imo.

Fit perfectly, thanks.
Har!


Please answer the question I posed to you.


Fulfilling your contracts is morally required. The contract was signed in the past. In the future, do you foresee him signing another contract with the State? No? There ya go.

This one?
I don't give a shit what he signs.

[Met Income]

She's actually pretty cool, just gets fixated from time to time.

It's unfortunate b/c it gives people the wrong impression about her, imo.

Fit perfectly, thanks.
Har!





This one?
I don't give a shit what he signs.

Shockingly, you're mixed up again.

[Dieseler]

Shockingly, you're mixed up again.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/Red__XIII_/Internet_sig.gif
Har!

[Dieseler]

Fifteen men on a dead man's chest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Drink and the devil had done for the rest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

The mate was fixed by the bosun's pike
The bosun brained with a marlinspike
And cookey's throat was marked belike
It had been gripped by fingers ten;
And there they lay, all good dead men
Like break o'day in a boozing ken
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men of the whole ship's list
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Dead and be damned and the rest gone whist!
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

The skipper lay with his nob in gore
Where the scullion's axe his cheek had shore
And the scullion he was stabbed times four
And there they lay, and the soggy skies
Dripped down in up-staring eyes
In murk sunset and foul sunrise
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men of 'em stiff and stark
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Ten of the crew had the murder mark!
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers' glut with a rotting red
And there they lay, aye, damn my eyes
Looking up at paradise
All souls bound just contrawise
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men of 'em good and true
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

Ev'ry man jack could ha' sailed with Old Pew,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

There was chest on chest of Spanish gold
With a ton of plate in the middle hold
And the cabins riot of stuff untold,
And they lay there that took the plum
With sightless glare and their lips struck dumb
While we shared all by the rule of thumb,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

More was seen through a sternlight screen...
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Chartings undoubt where a woman had been
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

'Twas a flimsy shift on a bunker cot
With a dirk slit sheer through the bosom spot
And the lace stiff dry in a purplish blot
Oh was she wench or some shudderin' maid
That dared the knife and took the blade
By God! she had stuff for a plucky jade
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Fifteen men on a dead man's chest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

Drink and the devil had done for the rest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum.

We wrapped 'em all in a mains'l tight
With twice ten turns of a hawser's bight
And we heaved 'em over and out of sight,
With a Yo-Heave-Ho! and a fare-you-well
And a sudden plunge in the sullen swell
Ten fathoms deep on the road to hell,
Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

[Met Income]

You're not able to answer my question.

[LibertyEagle]

Fulfilling your contracts is morally required. The contract was signed in the past. In the future, do you foresee him signing another contract with the State? No? There ya go.

After he stops accepting money from the "State", then I will stop giving him shit for heckling other people with comments like "enjoy YOUR "State". :p

[Dieseler]

You're not able to answer my question.

Please restate it.
I will give it my best shot.

[Met Income]

After he stops accepting money from the "State", then I will stop giving him shit for heckling other people with comments like "enjoy YOUR "State". :p

Will they let him out of the contract?

[Dieseler]

Will they let him out of the contract?

Is that the question?

[Met Income]

Please restate it.
I will give it my best shot.




Again, if you think a private defense company (with an real incentive to stop you) will be less efficient and effective than the State – then you should also believe the State should solve ALL of your problems, since they are more efficient and effective than private companies. We know this is not true.

Therefore, I’ll ask again, if you are not a pirate now, why would you be a pirate under conditions where:

- you’d be able to steal less than you have now
- you’d have a higher chance of being stopped & punished than you do now

Logically, if it does not make sense to become one now, it does not make sense to become one then.

..

[constituent]

Will they let him out of the contract?

Probably not, and if he backed out... well, he would be met here with scorn for that too.

Personally, and as a matter of principle, I think it's best that we never damn the slave for cursing his chains.

[Met Income]

Is that the question?

Since I didn't quote you, clearly, it wasn't.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I still have not received that dastardly pic, and trolls are trollin' trolls. I swear I'll uphold my end of the bargain, I know you're just clamoring to see Thomas in his fine suits :p

[Met Income]

Probably not, and if he backed out... well, he would be met with scorn here for that too.

Personally, and as a matter of principle, I think it's best that we never damn the slave for cursing his chains.

No, since if they let him go, it would be a bi-lateral action, not a uni-lateral action (only the State can legally enforce uni-lateral actions).

[LibertyEagle]

Will they let him out of the contract?

Did someone force him to enter into the contract?

[Dieseler]

..Therefore, I’ll ask again, if you are not a pirate now, why would you be a pirate under conditions where:

- you’d be able to steal less than you have now
I do not feel that would be the case.

- you’d have a higher chance of being stopped & punished than you do now
I am positive that would not be the case.


Logically, if it does not make sense to become one now, it does not make sense to become one then.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

You're going to have to establish this society in order to prove that it will work to begin with.
It's never been done.
You put to much faith in your Comrades.
If not me, it will be someone else who takes advantage once given a decree to use power to protect you.
You assume best case scenarios in this society when the truth and reality is you will have the very same problems we have in this society and will no doubt end up coming to the very same conclusions that the Founding Fathers did.

[constituent]

Did someone force him to enter into the contract?

So to be clear, people aren't allowed to change?

Redemption not an option...

[LibertyEagle]

Probably not, and if he backed out... well, he would be met here with scorn for that too.

Personally, and as a matter of principle, I think it's best that we never damn the slave for cursing his chains.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm not aware of many slaves who entered themselves into slavery, by their own free will.

[constituent]

You're going to have to establish this society in order to prove that it will work to begin with.

Actually, "this society" could never be established, only maintained.

I realize that abstract concepts aren't your strong point...

[constituent]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm not aware of many slaves who entered themselves into slavery, by their own free will.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2478998&postcount=102

[Dieseler]

Actually, "this society" could never be established, only maintained.

I realize that abstract concepts aren't your strong point...

What can I say.
I see "Real World Stuff" like a big boy.

[LibertyEagle]

So to be clear, people aren't allowed to change?

Redemption not an option...

Sure, they are. But, as long as he is still accepting money from the "State", then it is a bit hollow for him to attempt to ridicule others by calling it "THEIR state". lolol

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I do not feel that would be the case.

I am positive that would not be the case.



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

You're going to have to establish this society in order to prove that it will work to begin with.
It's never been done.
You put to much faith in your Comrades.
If not me, it will be someone else who takes advantage once given a decree to use power to protect you.
You assume best case scenarios in this society when the truth and reality is you will have the very same problems we have in this society and will no doubt end up coming to the very same conclusions that the Founding Fathers did.


If it's never been tried then how did the Founding Fathers have a conclusion about Voluntaryism?

[Met Income]

Did someone force him to enter into the contract?

No, and that’s exactly why it should be honored. But that agreement happened in the past. It’s not contradictory to his current views.

[Met Income]

I do not feel that would be the case.

I am positive that would not be the case.



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

You're going to have to establish this society in order to prove that it will work to begin with.
It's never been done.
You put to much faith in your Comrades.
If not me, it will be someone else who takes advantage once given a decree to use power to protect you.
You assume best case scenarios in this society when the truth and reality is you will have the very same problems we have in this society and will no doubt end up coming to the very same conclusions that the Founding Fathers did.

Why are you positive that it's not the case? Is the State more efficient and effective than private companies?

[LibertyEagle]

No, and that’s exactly why it should be honored. But that agreement happened in the past. It’s not contradictory to his current views.

Yeah it is. As long as he is accepting MONEY from the "State" for duties rendered. :p

[Dieseler]

If it's never been tried then how did the Founding Fathers have a conclusion about Voluntaryism?

I didn't say that they did.
What I did say was that the same problems you will have in your imaginary, fantasy society are the same problems which would eventually lead people to do what our founders did.
Hopefully, that is.
They could come to a number of other conclusions that would no doubt be a lot fucking worse.
Har!

[Met Income]

Yeah it is. As long as he is accepting MONEY from the "State" for duties rendered. :p

Due to a agreement made in the past. If he did not sign the contract, would he today? That's what matters. No? There ya go.

[constituent]

What can I say.
I see "Real World Stuff" like a big boy.

Yes and your threads below will surely attest to that.


Super Doom (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219593)

William Cooper: Mystery Babylon Series Complete (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219085)

Draft? Yup, it's coming, right after the elections (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144675)


Not to mention this entire thread... "big boy."

[Dieseler]

Yes and your threads below will surely attest to that.



Super Doom (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219593)
One of my personal favorites!

William Cooper: Mystery Babylon Series Complete (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=219085)
This dude called 911 fair and square.


Draft? Yup, it's coming, right after the elections (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144675)
I'm glad I am wrong so far on that, seriously but we ain't out of the woods just yet.


Not to mention this entire thread... "big boy."
Yar!

Ad Hominem Circumstantial attack!
Dieseler started these threads above so his opinion in this thread is irrelevant.

[constituent]

One of my personal favorites!

This dude called 911 fair and square.


I'm glad I am wrong so far on that, seriously but we ain't out of the woods just yet.


Yar!

Enough said, you have a good one.

[Dieseler]

Enough said, you have a good one.

Awww!
Don't give up.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I didn't say that they did.
What I did say was that the same problems you will have in your imaginary, fantasy society are the same problems which would eventually lead people to do what our founders did.
Hopefully, that is.
They could come to a number of other conclusions that would no doubt be a lot fucking worse.
Har!

I could just see you in 1774. Rumbling about those damn Sons of Liberty. Treacherous bastards. Their society and philosophy is just some damn imaginary, fantasy bullshit. Don't they know Monarchy is tried and true and has been around for thousands of years! Hang the 'lot of them!

[Met Income]

I could just see you in 1774. Rumbling about those damn Sons of Liberty. Treacherous bastards. Their society and philosophy is just some damn imaginary, fantasy bullshit. Don't they know Monarchy is tried and true and has been around for thousands of years! Hang the 'lot of them!

Furthermore, we have anarchy in 95% of our daily lives. It's not unproven at all. What if the government always made socks, does that mean private companies can't do it better?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Furthermore, we have anarchy in 95% of our daily lives. It's not unproven at all. What if the government always made socks, does that mean private companies can't do it better?

'Tis true. We do live in mostly a state of Anarchy.

[Dieseler]

I could just see you in 1774. Rumbling about those damn Sons of Liberty. Treacherous bastards. Their society and philosophy is just some damn imaginary, fantasy bullshit. Don't they know Monarchy is tried and true and has been around for thousands of years! Hang the 'lot of them!

Lol.
That is Ad Hom.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Lol.
That is Ad Hom.

No it is fact. It is using the same talking points you are espousing here. No logical difference at all. You are a torie.

[Dieseler]

No it is fact. It is using the same talking points you are espousing here. No logical difference at all. You are a torie.

More Ad Hom.
I am a Pirate awaiting your Fantasy island so I can get my Defense Contractor license.
Har!

[Met Income]

Empirically, what evidence suggests that the State does something better than private companies?

[Dieseler]

Empirically, what evidence suggests that the State does something better than private companies?

Nothing.
But Empirically your AnCap society will become the same thing but missing one crucial thing.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Can you write better documents?
If so, show them to me and explain to me how they would prevent the societal problems we face today in our Republic.
Will you use lawyers in your AnCap society to settle disputes and make laws from precedent that eventually allow your AnCap Society to lean towards the men who hold the most power.
How would you prevent men from eventually wielding this sort of power?
What will you use to base your contracts on?
Who in the Hell would you trust that to?

[tremendoustie]

More Ad Hom.
I am a Pirate awaiting your Fantasy island so I can get my Defense Contractor license.
Har!

And, once again, there will still be both police and courts. You will be held accountable by the many other defense agencies who do not tolerate theft. Why will they not tolerate theft? The same reason the government does not (well, at least not others' theft): It's not what the people want, and the institutions will reflect the society.

[Dieseler]

And, once again, there will still be both police and courts. You will be held accountable by the many other defense agencies who do not tolerate theft. Why will they not tolerate theft? The same reason the government does not (well, at least not others' theft): It's not what the people want, and the institutions will reflect the society.

Then what is the difference?
How will this imaginary Government be set up that can provide better for the people than the Republic I have today?
What kind of Government have you given us Sir?

[Dieseler]

Will there be only two branches, one of which is a Military and the other Courts with Judges and lawyers?
Sounds like a faster way to get in a lot worse shape than were even in now.
Will the bankers leave you be Sir?

[tremendoustie]

Nothing.
But Empirically your AnCap society will become the same thing but missing one crucial thing.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Can you write better documents?
If so, show them to me and explain to me how they would prevent the societal problems we face today in our Republic.


Our equivalent of the constitution and the bill of rights is the Non Agression Principle. Any defense agency needs to obey this rule, or it is illegitimate. It is far more airtight than the constitution, which permits aggressive violence. With the NAP, as soon as any agency attempts to use aggressive coercion, they have crossed the line. They will be held accountable by the people -- same as the government is supposed to be when it disobeys the constitution. Except that, the people will be far more empowered, since in addition to all other abilities, they will be able to withdraw funding and send it to a more worthy organization at a moment's notice -- and such alternative organizations will exist, to defend against one rogue.

No such alternative exists to the federal government. If they go truly rogue, the only resort is revolution.



Will you use lawyers in your AnCap society to settle disputes and make laws from precedent that eventually allow your AnCap Society to lean towards the men who hold the most power.


The only law is the NAP. Now, how that is applied in individual circumstances will not doubt vary by local consensus.



How would you prevent men from eventually wielding this sort of power?


If they attempt to become abusive, the people will have all the resources they do now, plus they will have the first and most important recourse in any market: the ability to choose a competitor.



What will you use to base your contracts on?
Who in the Hell would you trust that to?

Any contract will specify a court of arbitration, with alternatives for appeal, which will settle any contractual dispute.

[Met Income]

Nothing.
But Empirically your AnCap society will become the same thing but missing one crucial thing.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Can you write better documents?
If so, show them to me and explain to me how they would prevent the societal problems we face today in our Republic.
Will you use lawyers in your AnCap society to settle disputes and make laws from precedent that eventually allow your AnCap Society to lean towards the men who hold the most power.
How would you prevent men from eventually wielding this sort of power?
What will you use to base your contracts on?
Who in the Hell would you trust that to?

Nothing. Exactly. So we've established that an anarchist society can't be any worse than what we have now.

[Dieseler]

I'm gonna be fair about this before I continue.
Show me this NAP.

[Dieseler]

Nothing. Exactly. So we've established that an anarchist society can't be any worse than what we have now.

No, I'm far from that.

[tremendoustie]

Then what is the difference?
How will this imaginary Government be set up that can provide better for the people than the Republic I have today?
What kind of Government have you given us Sir?

The difference is that this system does not inherently violate the NAP. There is no coersive funding, you are free to subscribe to the services you choose. There are no forced monopolies, so you are able to select alternatives if any agency becomes abusive.

To give one agency the ability to obtain funding by coercion, and to create arbitrary laws to enforce their will on others, is beyond foolish. What's more, it lets the camel's nose under the tent -- they will continue to gradually take more money, and exert more control, as we have seen.

[Met Income]

No, I'm far from that.

There's nothing that suggests that the State can do anything better than private companies.

[Dieseler]

The difference is that this system does not inherently violate the NAP. There is no coersive funding, you are free to subscribe to the services you choose. There are no forced monopolies, so you are able to select alternatives if any agency becomes abusive.

To give one agency the ability to obtain funding by coercion, and to create arbitrary laws to enforce their will on others, is beyond foolish. What's more, it lets the camel's nose under the tent -- they will continue to gradually take more money, and exert more control, as we have seen.

Do you have an answer for how you will deal with the money powers?
You know they will attack you from all sides and internally unless you allow them to operate in your Society.
It's a err in humanity I suppose that has lead us to where we are now.

[Dieseler]

Show me the NAP.

[Met Income]

Do you have an answer for how you will deal with the money powers?
You know they will attack you from all sides and internally unless you allow them to operate in your Society.
It's a err in humanity I suppose that has lead us to where we are now.

Who controls the money now? How can you stop them?

[tremendoustie]

I'm gonna be fair about this before I continue.
Show me this NAP.

There are different phrasings, but the Non Aggression Principle simply states that aggressive violence is wrong, and that violence may only appropriately be used in self defense, or defense of innocents, in response to the aggression of another.

It would preclude taxation, for example, which is the extortion of money by threat of harm against peaceful people.

In other words, everyone, no matter what organization they belong to, needs to obey the basic standards of decency we all hold to in our private interactions: theft, assault, etc, are wrong, and defense is the only appropriate use of force.

[Dieseler]

Who controls the money now? How can you stop them?

Large private Companies.

[tremendoustie]

Do you have an answer for how you will deal with the money powers?


Why would we use the Fed's funny money? I'll be using gold and silver, and I imagine others will as well.

[Dieseler]

There are different phrasings, but the Non Aggression Principle simply states that aggressive violence is wrong, and that violence may only appropriately be used in self defense, or defense of innocents, in response to the aggression of another.

It would preclude taxation, for example, which is the extortion of money by threat of harm against peaceful people.

In other words, everyone, no matter what organization they belong to, needs to obey the basic standards of decency we all hold to in our private interactions: theft, assault, etc, are wrong, and defense is the only appropriate use of force.

Is there a document already written somewhere?

[Met Income]

Large private Companies.

Does Wal-Mart control the money supply?

Or does the Fed?

[Met Income]

Is there a document already written somewhere?

As we've seen, a document isn't worth the paper it's written on.

[Dieseler]

Why would we use the Fed's funny money? I'll be using gold and silver, and I imagine others will as well.

You assume everyone has some.

[Dieseler]

Does Wal-Mart control the money supply?

Or does the Fed?

Well the Fed is basically a consortium of elite private corporations, is it not?


As we've seen, a document isn't worth the paper it's written on.

So there is no document I can look at?
I haven't given up on that yet, stubborn I guess.

[Met Income]

Well the Fed is basically a consortium of elite private corporations, is it not?



So there is no document I can look at?

It's not private, we're forced to fund them.

There's a document to look at, but it's not respected or enforced by the violent monopoly.

[Dieseler]

It's not private, we're forced to fund them.

There's a document to look at, but it's not respected or enforced by the violent monopoly.


I think they are pretty private and yes you are correct sort of, in that our Government does borrow from them and we are forced to pay them back through force.
I'm talking about the NAP.
I'm interested and would like to look it over.

[tremendoustie]

I am positive that would not be the case.



Let's see, so we'll be moving the job of protection from incompetent government agencies, to the private market, which has always increased effectiveness.

And we'll be getting rid of gun laws.

Which of these things will make you feel safer, as a pirate? The fact that you'll be chased by a number of competent private organizations, rather than doughnut feeders who get their paycheck no matter what, or the fact that your next victim could blow you away with a fully automatic AK47?



"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

You're going to have to establish this society in order to prove that it will work to begin with.
It's never been done.
You put to much faith in your Comrades.


No, YOU put too much faith in your comrades. Specifically the ones in the federal government, which you appear to imagine must be angels, not subject to the same corruption you fear in the private market.



If not me, it will be someone else who takes advantage once given a decree to use power to protect you.


No one will have nearly as great power as those in the monopolistic, central government do now. As a defense agency, you would be outnumbered and overpowered by hundreds of others. Plus, you would have to obtain your funding by voluntary subscription, not extortion.



You assume best case scenarios in this society when the truth and reality is you will have the very same problems we have in this society and will no doubt end up coming to the very same conclusions that the Founding Fathers did.

Once again, creating one central protection agency, with no competitors, and the ability to obtain funding by extortion, is a recipe for disaster. A disaster we have seen play out time and time again. You are the one proposing positions of great power, which attract the corrupt and power hungry. No central government means far less concentrated power.

[Met Income]

I think they are pretty private and yes you are correct sort of, in that our Government does borrow from them and we are forced to pay them back through force.
I'm talking about the NAP.
I'm interested and would like to look it over.

No, they are absolutely statist. Statism is force.

[Dieseler]

Good Lord, you had me leaning your way with the NAP.
Do you have the document or not?

[tremendoustie]

Is there a document already written somewhere?

Here's one phrasing:

"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."

As you might expect, there is no central, monopolistic authority on the NAP ;).

We must not place our trust in one written document, which can be changed -- nor especially one institution to interpret the written document, which can distort it. We must place our trust in principle itself -- that way no man with a pen or gavel may change it.

[Dieseler]

Here's one phrasing:

"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."

As you might expect, there is no central, monopolistic authority on the NAP ;).

We must not place our trust in one written document, which can be changed -- nor especially one institution to interpret the written document, which can distort it. We must place our trust in principle itself -- that way no man with a pen or gavel may change it.

It's going to take more than One Document to run a society.
Things will get very complicated on day one.
There is no NAP then.
OK.
Who is going to write the NAP?
And who will enforce it?

[tremendoustie]

Here are a few more phrasings:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

""aggression", which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate."

"The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

"It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."

[Met Income]

It's going to take more than One Document to run a society.
Things will get very complicated on day one.
There is no NAP then.
OK.
Who is going to write the NAP?
And who will enforce it?

If I punched you in the face, how would you feel? There’s your NAP. It’s universally preferred behavior, like eating and breathing.

[Dieseler]

Yar!
I like being punched in the face.

There is no document though as of this time.
Is that correct?

[tremendoustie]

It's going to take more than One Document to run a society.
Things will get very complicated on day one.
There is no NAP then.
OK.
Who is going to write the NAP?


There is a NAP -- that's it. I've quoted a number of phrasings. You're still thinking in terms of a central, monopolistic authority -- one authority, to write one document, and one authority to enforce it.



And who will enforce it?

The people. The same ultimate enforcement mechanism for the constitution.

Creating another central authority supposedly charged with defending a founding document only makes it more difficult for the people to do their job, once that central authority goes rogue. Forcing the people to support such an organization makes their job even more difficult. We either trust the people or we do not. If we can't trust average people, we certainly can't trust the power hungry and corrupt individuals who are likely to seek public office.

[Dieseler]

There is a NAP -- that's it. I've quoted a number of phrasings. You're still thinking in terms of a central, monopolistic authority -- one authority, to write one document, and one authority to enforce it.



The people. The same ultimate enforcement mechanism for the constitution.

How?
What is the process?
What's wrong with the Constitution?
Ron Paul likes it.
He even agrees to amending it.

[Met Income]

Yar!
I like being punched in the face.

There is no document though as of this time.
Is that correct?

Do we need a document that says breathing is good?

[Met Income]

How?
What is the process?
What's wrong with the Constitution?
Ron Paul likes it.
He even agrees to amending it.

A human likes it? So what?

[Dieseler]

Do we need a document that says breathing is good?
I don't think so.


A human likes it? So what?

I like it to.
I don't know what to say to you.
Yar!

[torchbearer]

Just remember, my defense company doesn't have habeas corpus, so when i hire them to eliminate pot smokers at my mall. you will be imprisoned indefinitely- or executed the cheapest way possible. after all, that is what i hired them to do.

[Dieseler]

Just remember, my defense company doesn't have habeas corpus, so when i hire them to eliminate pot smokers at my mall. you will be imprisoned indefinitely- or executed the cheapest way possible. after all, that is what i hired them to do.

Yar?

[tremendoustie]

How?


There are a number of means:

1. People will choose not to do business with organizations or individuals which disobey this rule. (Vote with your wallet)
2. People will employ various professional organizations in their defense against those who would disobey this rule. (Courts of arbitration, defense agencies)
3. People will themselves maintain amateur organizations, such as militias, to defend against those who would disobey this rule.
4. People will ultimately resist, as individuals, either peacefully or forcefully, any organization or individual attempting to break this rule.


With a central government, the people only get an extremely weakened version of option number 1, where they get to "vote", but not with their wallets. They don't get to maintain alternative defense/justice organizations, so #2 is out. Militias are extremely restricted, so #3 is almost out, and we're left with #4.

What's more, people are inculcated with the idea that this one central organization can morally use aggressive force to obtain funding and obedience, which allows creeping tyranny, and they tolerate the establishment of institutions necessary for tyranny -- central armies, tax agencies and enforcement mechanisms, etc, all of which should not be tolerated at the outset.



What is the process?


The main one would simply be that people refuse to do business with abusive institutions, and hire others to defend them from such institutions.



What's wrong with the Constitution?

It allows aggressive violence, which, besides being fundamentally immoral, has led to the abuses we see today.



Ron Paul likes it.


It is a heck of a lot better than what we have now. The bill of rights is especially valuable.




He even agrees to amending it.


Amend it to strike all references to forced taxation, or other aggressive force, add an amendment which basically states the NAP -- the government will not use aggressive force in the future, and return all ill-gotten gains to the people, and I will support such a constitution, and any organization which obeys it.

[tremendoustie]

Just remember, my defense company doesn't have habeas corpus, so when i hire them to eliminate pot smokers at my mall. you will be imprisoned indefinitely- or executed the cheapest way possible. after all, that is what i hired them to do.

And you and your defense agency will quickly be held accountable by the other, far more powerful defense agencies, who are supported by the rest of us, who find such a response absolutely in-proportionate and inappropriate.

You have the right to apply the minimum necessary force to remove them from your property, and to obtain fair restitution, if needed.

[Dieseler]

There are a number of means:

1. People will choose not to do business with organizations or individuals which disobey this rule. (Vote with your wallet)
2. People will employ various professional organizations in their defense against those who would disobey this rule. (Courts of arbitration, defense agencies)
3. People will themselves maintain amateur organizations, such as militias, to defend against those who would disobey this rule.
4. People will ultimately resist, as individuals, either peacefully or forcefully, any organization or individual attempting to break this rule.


With a central government, the people only get an extremely weakened version of option number 1, where they get to "vote", but not with their wallets. They don't get to maintain alternative defense/justice organizations, so #2 is out. Militias are extremely restricted, so #3 is almost out, and we're left with #4.

What's more, people are inculcated with the idea that this one central organization can morally use aggressive force to obtain funding and obedience, which allows creeping tyranny, and they tolerate the establishment of institutions necessary for tyranny -- central armies, tax agencies and enforcement mechanisms, etc, all of which should not be tolerated at the outset.



The main one would simply be that people refuse to do business with abusive institutions, and hire others to defend them from such institutions.



It allows aggressive violence, which, besides being fundamentally immoral, has led to the abuses we see today.



It is a heck of a lot better than what we have now. The bill of rights is especially valuable.





Amend it to strike all references to forced taxation, or other aggressive force, add an amendment which basically states the NAP -- the government will not use aggressive force in the future, and return all ill-gotten gains to the people, and I will support such a constitution, and any organization which obeys it.

Now we're getting somewhere.
By keeping the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we know we are getting a Government that will work and by amending the Constitution we can get it to work in the way we want it to work also.
I can live with this.

[torchbearer]

And you and your defense agency will quickly be held accountable by the other, far more powerful defense agencies, who are supported by the rest of us, who find such a response absolutely in-proportionate and inappropriate.

You have the right to apply the minimum necessary force to remove them from your property, and to obtain fair restitution, if needed.

you better have a big force, my boys have secured the fortress mall to prevent hooligans from harrassing our family oriented customers.

You have no rights on my property, only privileges. and when you step onto my property, you better obey my laws, or you will face my own brand of justice.

rest assured- all the christian families will know that my mall has a zero tolerance policy for drugs and their children would be safe to shop there. ;)

[Dieseler]

you better have a big force, my boys have secured the fortress mall to prevent hooligans from harrassing our family oriented customers.

You have no rights on my property, only privileges. and when you step onto my property, you better obey my laws, or you will face my own brand of justice.

rest assured- all the christian families will know that my mall has a zero tolerance policy for drugs and their children would be safe to shop there. ;)

Or we could do this!
Yar!

[tremendoustie]

Now we're getting somewhere.
By keeping the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we know we are getting a Government that will work and by amending the Constitution we can get it to work in the way we want it to work also.
I can live with this.

Of course, if the government is not going to use aggressive force, that means that if I think it is doing a poor job in any area, I am free to withdraw my money and subscribe to an alternative.

For example, I might subscribe to a police force that promises not to go after victimless "crime". I also might decide to fund a local militia, instead of a central army. I'd certainly stop funding the bailouts, social security, medicare/medicaid, FEMA, congressional wages, etc (probably most federal government services), and I might start up an alternative first class postage carrier. I'm pretty happy with local fire service, so I'd probably keep subscribing to it, unless a better alternative came along. Would you support my right to do these things?

[tremendoustie]

you better have a big force, my boys have secured the fortress mall to prevent hooligans from harrassing our family oriented customers.

You have no rights on my property, only privileges. and when you step onto my property, you better obey my laws, or you will face my own brand of justice.

rest assured- all the christian families will know that my mall has a zero tolerance policy for drugs and their children would be safe to shop there. ;)

You don't have a right to use arbitrary force to defend your property -- only the minimum necessary. If a six year old wanders onto your front lawn, you do not have the right to blow her away. If you did, or ran a mall as you describe, I, and I think most others, would absolutely want to hold you accountable, and compel you to make restitution to the families of your victims.

If the overwhelming majority of people agreed with you, then of course no government formed by such people would prevent you either.

[torchbearer]

You don't have a right to use arbitrary force to defend your property -- only the minimum necessary. If a six year old wanders onto your front lawn, you do not have the right to blow her away. If you did, or ran a mall as you describe, I, and I think most others, would absolutely want to hold you accountable, and compel you to make restitution to the families of your victims.

If the overwhelming majority of people agreed with you, then of course no government formed by such people would prevent you either.

you mean, you would use force against me because I was protecting my property?
who made you judge?
laws are now determined by property right. their is no oversight, only who has the most guns. sounds wonderful.
good thing i have mafia connections and a few jesuits. we can form alliances to combat your posse. :p

[Dieseler]

Of course, if the government is not going to use aggressive force, that means that if I think it is doing a poor job in any area, I am free to withdraw my money and subscribe to an alternative.

For example, I might subscribe to a police force that promises not to go after victimless "crime". I also might decide to fund a local militia, instead of a central army. I'd certainly stop funding the bailouts, social security, medicare/medicaid, FEMA, congressional wages, etc (probably most federal government services), and I might start up an alternative first class postage carrier. I'm pretty happy with local fire service, so I'd probably keep subscribing to it, unless a better alternative came along. Would you support my right to do these things?

Well I did agree that Amending ( The Constitution ) was the way to get the Federal Government to work the way we want it to and if you get rid of the IRS and the FED ( Definitely the DOE as well ) I think the rest would just about take care of itself. Pretty close anyway.
I feel like the States can handle their own Laws and Statutes and if allowed to do so without Federal interference just about everyone then will be able to find one that suits them.
On Local Government I believe the old saying is true in that you get the Government you deserve.

[tremendoustie]

you mean, you would use force against me because I was protecting my property?


Yes, because you were using excessive and unwarranted force.



who made you judge?


No one, but I must stand for what I believe to be right, as others must.



laws are now determined by property right.


No, "laws" would be the consensus of the people in a particular area, as manifested by the kind of defense agencies they decide to support. I am proposing that people should support only defense agencies which obey the NAP.

The NAP does not prohibit defending people from unwarranted and excessive force. You would be the one using aggressive force -- force is only defensive when it is reasonable, proportionate, and necessary.



their is no oversight, only who has the most guns. sounds wonderful.


Wake up, that's the case now. It's just that one central gang has the most guns.



good thing i have mafia connections and a few jesuits. we can form alliances to combat your posse. :p

Actually, I think your proposal to kill pot smokers wouldn't be supported by many Christians or Jesuits.

If you are proposing a society in which the majority of people support aggressive, or unwarranted force, that society is not a voluntaryist society.

[torchbearer]

Yes, because you were using excessive and unwarranted force.



No one, but I must stand for what I believe to be right, as others must.



No, "laws" would be the consensus of the people in a particular area, as manifested by the kind of defense agencies they decide to support. I am proposing that people should support only defense agencies which obey the NAP.

The NAP does not prohibit defending people from unwarranted and excessive force. You would be the one using aggressive force -- force is only defensive when it is reasonable, proportionate, and necessary.



Wake up, that's the case now. It's just that one central gang has the most guns.



Actually, I think your proposal to kill pot smokers wouldn't be supported by many Christians or Jesuits.

If you are proposing a society in which the majority of people support aggressive, or unwarranted force, that society is not a voluntaryist society.

your local consensus sounds like a collectivist government to me, one the pushes its will on people you disagree with. you have no habeas corpus- there is no right to an attorney. there is no right to a trial. i have enough hired mercs to insure that my mall remain sovereign over your collective group.
Nothing you said was voluntary. Coming to my mall is voluntary.
Break my rules, you face my justice. The same will go for other people's malls.
I will set up my own court if I have any money left over- the 50cals on the rooftops may get a bit expensive.

[Dieseler]

Yar!

[torchbearer]

50 cals are reserved for the new tribe of collectivist that have moved into the neighborhood.
those pot smoking hippies want to seek revenge.

[heavenlyboy34]

your local consensus sounds like a collectivist government to me, one the pushes its will on people you disagree with. you have no habeas corpus- there is no right to an attorney. there is no right to a trial. i have enough hired mercs to insure that my mall remain sovereign over your collective group.
Nothing you said was voluntary. Coming to my mall is voluntary.
Break my rules, you face my justice. The same will go for other people's malls.
I will set up my own court if I have any money left over- the 50cals on the rooftops may get a bit expensive.

The difference is that the kind of agency has no incentive to kill/extort customers. Customers aren't in the market to be killed/extorted. This kind of bad business practice would kill the business.

Further, a defense company can be held accountable for its crimes, but the government can't (notice how the criminals responsible for the bailouts and wars/occupations still have their jobs for the most part)

ttyl.

[torchbearer]

The difference is that the kind of agency has no incentive to kill/extort customers. Customers aren't in the market to be killed/extorted. This kind of bad business practice would kill the business.

Further, a defense company can be held accountable for its crimes, but the government can't (notice how the criminals responsible for the bailouts and wars/occupations still have their jobs for the most part)

ttyl.

I hired the company to work for me. that is their incentive.
I will provide a safe and clean environment because i want safe and clean people shopping at my mall. I may think potheads would drive off business. maybe i'm just a religious zealot that hates the devil's weed because god came to me in a dream and demanded it to be so- the reason doesn't really matter.

you have no rights but what you can protect for yourself, on your own property against the roaming gangs of "defenders".

[tremendoustie]

your local consensus sounds like a collectivist government to me, one the pushes its will on people you disagree with. you have no habeas corpus- there is no right to an attorney. there is no right to a trial.


These "rights" are only respected because the consensus among people is that they should. If most people decided they should not, they would not. The law might be formally changed, or just ignored, as the constitution has been.

Respectable protection agencies would have courts of arbitration designated for disputes between them -- trials for perpetrators of crimes would be held in such courts, with representation provided by each agency (or another, if the plaintiff or defendant wanted to hire them)




i have enough hired mercs to insure that my mall remain sovereign over your collective group.


How? Why do you not do so now? That is, why do you think the federal government is more powerful? That's right, because it's supported by average people, whose collective economic power dwarfs yours, and that of other gangs and warlords.

They would still dwarf yours in a free society.



Nothing you said was voluntary. Coming to my mall is voluntary.
Break my rules, you face my justice. The same will go for other people's malls.
I will set up my own court if I have any money left over- the 50cals on the rooftops may get a bit expensive.

The "voluntary" in voluntaryism means that interactions between individuals SHOULD be voluntary. You should be free to allow or disallow anyone you choose in your mall, and others should respect your right to make that choice. If your choices are not respected, you may need to use a small degree of force to evict the unwanted customers from your property. If you use excessive, or unwarranted force, as you are suggesting you would, you in turn become an aggressor, and a forceful response may be appropriate to your actions.

[tremendoustie]

you have no rights but what you can protect for yourself, on your own property against the roaming gangs of "defenders".

Well, you have the rights, but of course defending rights is important. You appear to believe the best way to defend rights is to create one all powerful monopolistic protection agency, which all people will be forced to fund -- apparently this is the one case in all of creation in which the best services will be provided by a coersively funded monopoly, with no competitors, and no choice.

I simply believe people should be free to support other protection, if they choose, with their own money. As in all services, we have the right to choose alternatives, and the freedom to make that choice improves quality and reduces cost.

[Met Income]

If defending property rights is important, then that’s precisely the reason why you want competition, as opposed to an inefficient, apathetic, violent monopoly.

[Met Income]

I don't know what to say to you.


That much is apparent.

[Met Income]

Just remember, my defense company doesn't have habeas corpus, so when i hire them to eliminate pot smokers at my mall. you will be imprisoned indefinitely- or executed the cheapest way possible. after all, that is what i hired them to do.

Did Lincoln care about habeas corpus?

[Dieseler]

That much is apparent.

Quoting someone is most useful when used in context with the rest of the discussion.


If I punched you in the face, how would you feel? There’s your NAP. It’s universally preferred behavior, like eating and breathing.


Yar!
I like being punched in the face.

There is no document though as of this time.
Is that correct?


Concerning the NAP


There is a NAP -- that's it. I've quoted a number of phrasings. You're still thinking in terms of a central, monopolistic authority -- one authority, to write one document, and one authority to enforce it.



The people. The same ultimate enforcement mechanism for the constitution.

How?
What is the process?
What's wrong with the Constitution?
Ron Paul likes it.
He even agrees to amending it.


Do we need a document that says breathing is good?

I don't think so.


A human likes it? So what?

I like it to.
I don't know what to say to you.
Yar!

[Met Income]

Quoting someone is most useful when used in context with the rest of the discussion.




Yar!
I like being punched in the face.

There is no document though as of this time.
Is that correct?





How?
What is the process?
What's wrong with the Constitution?
Ron Paul likes it.
He even agrees to amending it.



I don't think so.



I like it to.
I don't know what to say to you.
Yar!

It was a joke. Take it easy.

[Dieseler]

It was a joke. Take it easy.

Cool.

[Mini-Me]

If a private Defense Force became strong enough to fend off attacks from an opposing Private Defense Force and sought to gain the customers of said Private Defense Force who would stop that Private Defense Force from kicking everyone's asses?

Think about just how powerful a company would have to be to fend off all attacks: Even the US federal government today, with all its military might, could be utterly swamped by the American people if even a small percentage of people took up arms against it.

The number one reason why nothing like this has ever happened is because the US population - like every other population - has a long history of worshipping at the altar of the state, a singular entity with a legal monopoly on the use of force. People have long been indoctrinated to believe the government deserves to be in charge, and that its authority over their lives is somehow justified. More than anything else, it is this indoctrination - the religion of the state - that keeps people docile and subjugated. People think the state is "special." The true strength of the state does not come from military might, but from its appearance of legitimacy. As it so happens, this is the very thing that a runaway private defense company would lack. ;)


...damn. I took a look at the date of your original post and assumed you just made the thread...and I skipped over a billion pages? Sorry :o

[TortoiseDream]

oh crap...now i missed 10 pages of discussion. brb after reading this shit load of stuff lol

[tremendoustie]

Think about just how powerful a company would have to be to fend off all attacks: Even the US federal government today, with all its military might, could be utterly swamped by the American people if even a small percentage of people took up arms against it.

The number one reason why nothing like this has ever happened is because the US population - like every other population - has a long history of worshipping at the altar of the state, a singular entity with a legal monopoly on the use of force. People have long been indoctrinated to believe the government deserves to be in charge, and that its authority over their lives is somehow justified. More than anything else, it is this indoctrination - the religion of the state - that keeps people docile and subjugated. People think the state is "special." The true strength of the state does not come from military might, but from its appearance of legitimacy. As it so happens, this is the very thing that a runaway private defense company would lack. ;)

Exactly right.

[brandon]

Think about just how powerful a company would have to be to fend off all attacks: Even the US federal government today, with all its military might, could be utterly swamped by the American people if even a small percentage of people took up arms against it.

The number one reason why nothing like this has ever happened is because the US population - like every other population - has a long history of worshipping at the altar of the state, a singular entity with a legal monopoly on the use of force. People have long been indoctrinated to believe the government deserves to be in charge, and that its authority over their lives is somehow justified. More than anything else, it is this indoctrination - the religion of the state - that keeps people docile and subjugated. People think the state is "special." The true strength of the state does not come from military might, but from its appearance of legitimacy. As it so happens, this is the very thing that a runaway private defense company would lack. ;)



Yep. This is exactly what I was getting at way back on page 1, but you laid it out a lot more clearly.

[Dieseler]

I'll support any effort that maintains the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and agree to the amendments tremendoustie and I discussed a few pages back such as,

Dissolve the IRS, Fed, Department of Education for starts but definitely not limited to and repair or dissolve any amendment which allows the Federal Government to dictate how each Independent and Sovereign State would govern itself within the framework of Free Trade and Liberty for All and also as not to confuse anyone who might suggest a State could institute or legalize Slavery in any form and hopefully spare any further argument on the subject, a sore and most sorrowful one for all parties most certainly and indeed. If that required a separate amendment outside the 13th, so be it. Whateverthefuck it takes.

I also completely support an amendment to the Constitution which would integrate the NAP as myself and tremendoustie discussed earlier. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it in principle and feel I could only gain from it if installed within the framework of the Constitution via amendment as it would serve to cripple the power of The Federal Government even farther than what the Constitution already intends.

I however can not give up what I know and love to be right in my mind and feel is more than good, great in my opinion, when adhered to properly as the founders intended just for the sake of The Devil and The Deep Blue Sea and I mean no insult in saying that.

Now I understand that this is all hypothetical and please understand that I am no expert whatsoever on any of these topics nor do I proclaim to be and I realize these things are not likely to happen quite frankly but in my best case scenario, these are the things that I would hope to accomplish first while maintaining what the Founders have given us. All jokes aside, pirates and whatever else.
If this were to be accomplished I feel the States would then be able to address the real problems which their citizens are most concerned with and handle them appropriately, not in the best interests of but according to the wishes of The People.
That's where I'm at.

[Icymudpuppy]

How I will amass power as a "Private Defense Contractor".

I will start by doing everything right until I have a good base of responsible paying customers.

Once I have a good base, I will spread newsletters (propaganda) to my customers about the threats from the folks who either can't afford or have neglected to hire their own private defense contractor.

I will get enough of my customers begging me to pre-emptively strike them. I will do so, (not personally, but with a band of low-lifes with nothing to lose. Such people are easy to find) and lose a few customers, but will gain all the lands and properties of the defenseless people. I will then rent out that property with a stipulation that the renters (ie: feudal serfs) must pay a stipend to me for the security of their property.

Rinse and repeat until I own a significant portion of land that I can call myself a king, and my most loyal captains and lieutenants will be Dukes and Barons. Soon I will have a monarchy.

This is pretty close to how it historically really happens from anarchy to monarchy in virtually every society in history.

[torchbearer]

How I will amass power as a "Private Defense Contractor".

I will start by doing everything right until I have a good base of responsible paying customers.

Once I have a good base, I will spread newsletters (propaganda) to my customers about the threats from the folks who either can't afford or have neglected to hire their own private defense contractor.

I will get enough of my customers begging me to pre-emptively strike them. I will do so, (not personally, but with a band of low-lifes with nothing to lose. Such people are easy to find) and lose a few customers, but will gain all the lands and properties of the defenseless people. I will then rent out that property with a stipulation that the renters (ie: feudal serfs) must pay a stipend to me for the security of their property.

Rinse and repeat until I own a significant portion of land that I can call myself a king, and my most loyal captains and lieutenants will be Dukes and Barons. Soon I will have a monarchy.

This is pretty close to how it historically really happens from anarchy to monarchy in virtually every society in history.

that is why anarchy is always a temporary state. you have to change the people.
judging by Obamabots- that isn't going to happen. if government ceased- these people will willingly be another tyrants serf.

[torchbearer]

I'll support any effort that maintains the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and agree to the amendments tremendoustie and I discussed a few pages back such as,

Dissolve the IRS, Fed, Department of Education for starts but definitely not limited to and repair or dissolve any amendment which allows the Federal Government to dictate how each Independent and Sovereign State would govern itself within the framework of Free Trade and Liberty for All and also as not to confuse anyone who might suggest a State could institute or legalize Slavery in any form and hopefully spare any further argument on the subject, a sore and most sorrowful one for all parties most certainly and indeed. If that required a separate amendment outside the 13th, so be it. Whateverthefuck it takes.

I also completely support an amendment to the Constitution which would integrate the NAP as myself and tremendoustie discussed earlier. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it in principle and feel I could only gain from it if installed within the framework of the Constitution via amendment as it would serve to cripple the power of The Federal Government even farther than what the Constitution already intends.

I however can not give up what I know and love to be right in my mind and feel is more than good, great in my opinion, when adhered to properly as the founders intended just for the sake of The Devil and The Deep Blue Sea and I mean no insult in saying that.

Now I understand that this is all hypothetical and please understand that I am no expert whatsoever on any of these topics nor do I proclaim to be and I realize these things are not likely to happen quite frankly but in my best case scenario, these are the things that I would hope to accomplish first while maintaining what the Founders have given us. All jokes aside, pirates and whatever else.
If this were to be accomplished I feel the States would then be able to address the real problems which their citizens are most concerned with and handle them appropriately, not in the best interests of but according to the wishes of The People.
That's where I'm at.

If I could change anything- i'd make it such that there was no legislation at the federal level. just a small federal government for national defense.
then you can vote with your feet.

[Dieseler]

If I could change anything- i'd make it such that there was no legislation at the federal level. just a small federal government for national defense.
then you can vote with your feet.

I could certainly add that, God knows we have enough laws on the books as it is now to cover any and everything. With all of the abolishing that would be going on in my perfect world most of that shit would be moot anyway.

[heavenlyboy34]

If I could change anything- i'd make it such that there was no legislation at the federal level. just a small federal government for national defense.
then you can vote with your feet.

That's a reasonable compromise. Now you just need to find a way to keep the Feds from using the guns against the States and individuals.

[torchbearer]

That's a reasonable compromise. Now you just need to find a way to keep the Feds from using the guns against the States and individuals.

keep the armies under state control. each state has its own military. the governor would have to agree to the use of his troops.
that won't stop another war of northern aggression, but it will make it a lot more difficult.

if the federal government couldn't legislate- there would be no reason for states to secede.

[tremendoustie]

How I will amass power as a "Private Defense Contractor".

I will start by doing everything right until I have a good base of responsible paying customers.

Once I have a good base, I will spread newsletters (propaganda) to my customers about the threats from the folks who either can't afford or have neglected to hire their own private defense contractor.

I will get enough of my customers begging me to pre-emptively strike them.


Then they're not voluntaryists. If most of society is made up of such people, that is not a voluntaryist society.



I will do so, (not personally, but with a band of low-lifes with nothing to lose. Such people are easy to find) and lose a few customers, but will gain all the lands and properties of the defenseless people.


The protection agency those people subscribe to is likely to have agreements with other protection agencies for mutual defense in case of just the situation you describe.

You'd soon have every defense agency in the region coming down on your head, and national outrage as the news spread, which would lead to wide financial and militia support for your opponents as well.



I will then rent out that property with a stipulation that the renters (ie: feudal serfs) must pay a stipend to me for the security of their property.


You'd never get the land in the first place, for the reasons I described above. If you somehow did, the "serfs" would have a just cause in every court of arbitration in the nation, and these defense agencies would be anxious to take you down and obtain fees for services as well as good publicity, and a whole new base of paying customers.

No one would view it as your property.



Rinse and repeat until I own a significant portion of land that I can call myself a king, and my most loyal captains and lieutenants will be Dukes and Barons. Soon I will have a monarchy.


Realistic scenario: the first time you try this, the entire countryside, and soon country, comes down on your head. If you don't give up, you and your men are dead, and your money and property goes to those you attempted to harm and those who took you out.



This is pretty close to how it historically really happens from anarchy to monarchy in virtually every society in history.

That's because people in general did not take a principled stand against agression. They all endorsed tyranny, they just wanted to be the tyrant, and so they joined warring gangs vying for control.

A society in which there is no central government is not necessarily a voluntaryist society, any more than a society with a government is necessarily a communist dictatorship.

A voluntaryist society is one in which the majority (or critical mass) of the populace subscribe to the Non Agression Principle, and choose to live accordingly.

[tremendoustie]

keep the armies under state control. each state has its own military. the governor would have to agree to the use of his troops.
that won't stop another war of northern aggression, but it will make it a lot more difficult.

if the federal government couldn't legislate- there would be no reason for states to secede.

Will these troops be funded by extortion, or will I be free to support a local militia instead, if I don't like what the state government is doing?

[torchbearer]

Will these troops be funded by extortion, or will I be free to support a local militia instead, if I don't like what the state government is doing?

move to the free state. with no federal laws, it will actually matter what state you live in.
You could actually have an an-cap state if enough people move to NH.

[tremendoustie]

move to the free state. with no federal laws, it will actually matter what state you live in.
You could actually have an an-cap state if enough people move to NH.


What you describe is obviously infinitely better than what we have now, and much better than the constitution as written. I obviously would do everything moral in my power to support your success in effecting the reform you describe.

That said, what you describe is still not wholly moral. The people who own land in the "unfree" states have a right to live on their land, and not be forced to pay the state government. Neither the state government, or the majority of the populace of their state, own them, their labor, or their land, or have a right to take it by force.

[torchbearer]

What you describe is obviously infinitely better than what we have now, and much better than the constitution as written. I obviously would do everything moral in my power to support your success in effecting the reform you describe.

That said, what you describe is still not wholly moral. The people who own land in the "unfree" states have a right to live on their land, and not be forced to pay the state government. Neither the state government, or the majority of the populace of their state, own them, their labor, or their land, or have a right to take it by force.

they'd have the power to change their state, and it would be easier to change your state legislature.
if people want freedom, they can vote themselves freedom.
since i don't think most drones want freedom, you will have to settle on a state like N.H.

In the grand experiments of governments, i'd hope each state took a different approach and competed with each other for citizens.
bad policies will drive people from your state, good policies will attract people to your state. its about competing governments. we don't have that anymore.

[Icymudpuppy]

Then they're not voluntaryists. If most of society is made up of such people, that is not a voluntaryist society..

You will never find enough people to support a sizeable voluntaryist society in the first place, much less maintain it for more than one generation.

The vast majority of people are sheep. Always have been, and always will be.

If you yourself want to be free, you must be a leader, and lead the sheep by telling them what to do, not asking them to do it.

[tremendoustie]

You will never find enough people to support a sizeable voluntaryist society in the first place, much less maintain it for more than one generation.

The vast majority of people are sheep. Always have been, and always will be.


I wonder, then, how you expect them to maintain a constitutional republic. If they are incapable of vigilance in the restraint of one small rogue defense agency, how do you suppose they will restrain a monopolistic, coersively funded, central government?



If you yourself want to be free, you must be a leader, and lead the sheep by telling them what to do, not asking them to do it.

That is, I must become an agressively violent dictator in order to be free. I must violate the rights of others in order for my own to be respected.

Kind of like how you had to enslave others in order to be economically free at one point in the south.

No thanks, I'd rather be an abolitionist.

[Icymudpuppy]

Argue with history, not with me.

I'm not giving an opinion. I'm stating what the books show.

[tremendoustie]

Argue with history, not with me.

I'm not giving an opinion. I'm stating what the books show.

And, at one time, practically every nation in history had had slavery. Pro slavery authors made this point, even as late as the mid 1800s. Here's one example:

“The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society.”
– pro-slavery apologist William Harper, in 1852


Yet, today, there is a moral conscensus that slavery is wrong, and few, if any, would tolerate it. We need a similar moral consensus on other forms of agressive violence, so that they also are not tolerated.

[tremendoustie]

they'd have the power to change their state, and it would be easier to change your state legislature.
if people want freedom, they can vote themselves freedom.
since i don't think most drones want freedom, you will have to settle on a state like N.H.

In the grand experiments of governments, i'd hope each state took a different approach and competed with each other for citizens.
bad policies will drive people from your state, good policies will attract people to your state. its about competing governments. we don't have that anymore.

I support what you describe, as a means to obtain more freedom. I'm just noting that those in the unfree states, who supported coersive governments, would be acting immorally, and violating the property rights of their neighbors.

There's nothing inherently wrong with voting -- chess clubs elect presidents, after all. The problem comes if you assume that voting can convey the moral authority to do things which would be immoral for any of the individuals who voted.

[torchbearer]

I support what you describe, as a means to obtain more freedom. I'm just noting that those in the unfree states, who supported coersive governments, would be acting immorally, and violating the property rights of their neighbors.

but it allows the incentive for a change to liberty. imagine N.H. very prosperous- no taxes- most the industry will move there- people will want to live there.
what are the other states going to do? they will have to compete.

[tremendoustie]

but it allows the incentive for a change to liberty. imagine N.H. very prosperous- no taxes- most the industry will move there- people will want to live there.
what are the other states going to do? they will have to compete.

I agree. I think creating this kind of competition may be the best possible way to obtain more liberty -- people could see the differences betweens societies, and the benfits of freedom.

Do I think that those who attempt to obtain the property of their neighbors by force are acting immorally? Yes. Would I snap my fingers and make everyone support the NAP? Of course.

That's obviously not going to happen. We have to decide what solutions we're going to work towards, in the situation we have: a society mostly made up of people who are not voluntaryist, or even libertarian.

I think the goal you describe is excellent, and practical. Plus, it allows those of us who are willing to move for more liberty, to be freer much sooner.

[torchbearer]

I agree. I think creating this kind of competition may be the best possible way to obtain more liberty -- people could see the differences betweens societies, and the benfits of freedom.

Do I think that those who attempt to obtain the property of their neighbors by force are acting immorally? Yes. Would I snap my fingers and make everyone support the NAP? Of course.

That's obviously not going to happen. We have to decide what solutions we're going to work towards, in the situation we have: a society mostly made up of people who are not voluntaryist, or even libertarian.

I think the goal you describe is excellent, and practical. Plus, it allows those of us who are willing to move for more liberty, to be freer much sooner.

i believe that was the original intent.
That is why 1865 was the death of the republic of republics.

[MelissaWV]

I will admit I didn't read the entire thread... I stopped once the pirate songs began.

The bigger problem is not a visible, obvious monopoly. The problem is something akin to the State but not wearing its mantle. The easiest way this occurs is for "companies" to march into town and play good cop/bad cop. Company A is a defense company that goes in and seems to be on the up and up. Many people sign up for Company A security, especially once they hear rumors that Company B security has been hired by the neighboring town, and they want your town's valuables/women/cattle/shiny things. Company A starts asking higher and higher payments, or unreasonable terms, but that's when Company C rolls into town. Company C competes with Company A, and offers to defend people from both Company B and Company A. A lot of people hop on the Company C bandwagon. Company C runs the ruthless and immoral Company A out of town. Company C's reputation is sealed. Company B attacks the town from time to time, "almost" doing some dastardly deed at the outskirts of town, but always thwarted by Company C.

Now, imagine all three of those companies were in kahoots the whole time?

Yes, this is what we already have. Yep, it would go on in an AnCap society, too. The shakedown always adjusts to whatever the setup du jour is.

[Icymudpuppy]

And, at one time, practically every nation in history had had slavery.

Yet, today, there is a moral conscensus that slavery is wrong, and few, if any, would tolerate it. We need a similar moral consensus on other forms of agressive violence, so that they also are not tolerated.

I think that you will find that slavery is alive and well in most of the world, and is even found here in the USA. I recall a recent news article about some wealthy fellow in California who got arrested for having a personal slave. Then there's the prostitution slavery. It's underground in most of the developed world, but is not even hidden in most of Africa, and Asia.

So, my point is, no society will ever be voluntaryist.

You will be a slaver, a slave, a dependent of slavery, or 100% self sufficient.

Very few are capable of self sufficiency.

Most people in the USA are dependents of slavery all their luxuries are a direct result of the slave labor from overseas markets.

Check with GunnyFreedom's post about Hershey's and Nestle Chocolate for more information on this subject.

[tremendoustie]

I will admit I didn't read the entire thread... I stopped once the pirate songs began.

The bigger problem is not a visible, obvious monopoly. The problem is something akin to the State but not wearing its mantle. The easiest way this occurs is for "companies" to march into town and play good cop/bad cop. Company A is a defense company that goes in and seems to be on the up and up. Many people sign up for Company A security, especially once they hear rumors that Company B security has been hired by the neighboring town, and they want your town's valuables/women/cattle/shiny things. Company A starts asking higher and higher payments, or unreasonable terms, but that's when Company C rolls into town. Company C competes with Company A, and offers to defend people from both Company B and Company A. A lot of people hop on the Company C bandwagon. Company C runs the ruthless and immoral Company A out of town. Company C's reputation is sealed. Company B attacks the town from time to time, "almost" doing some dastardly deed at the outskirts of town, but always thwarted by Company C.

Now, imagine all three of those companies were in kahoots the whole time?

Yes, this is what we already have. Yep, it would go on in an AnCap society, too. The shakedown always adjusts to whatever the setup du jour is.

That's why the fundamental problem is not the system, but hearts and minds. We need an awakening to the immorality of agressive violence, the same way we have had one regarding slavery.

Only in a society in which a critical mass of people support the NAP, and live accordingly (that is, a voluntaryist society), will ancap as an economic system be maintainable for the long term.

[Icymudpuppy]

We need an awakening to the immorality of agressive violence, the same way we have had one regarding slavery..

Slavery is not even close to being dead.

It took the power of a strong central government to outlaw it in every place it has been outlawed.

It will come back in full force in an AN/CAP society because people will willingly sell their children to pay off debts. Bad People will start taking slaves of anyone not wealthy enough to afford protection, and the protection agencies with their little courts won't care about non-paying customers.

See Somalia. Lots of slavery there these days.

[Dieseler]

Yar!
We gets our Chocolate from the Slavers down south of here.

[Dieseler]

And our diamonds to.
A bit further over fer them tho, Yar but shiny none the less.

[tremendoustie]

I think that you will find that slavery is alive and well in most of the world, and is even found here in the USA. I recall a recent news article about some wealthy fellow in California who got arrested for having a personal slave. Then there's the prostitution slavery. It's underground in most of the developed world, but is not even hidden in most of Africa, and Asia.


Yet, it is not tolerated nearly to the extent it once was. History is littered with such examples. We (at least in our society) no longer have gladiator fights, concentration camps, religions enforced at swordpoint, or enforced segregation. We (at least superficially) believe that common people are entitled to protection, and that even the powerful should be held accountable if they commit murder and theft. We believe all men have rights.

We have morally evolved from where we once were -- from tribalism, to fuedelism to monarchy to limited monarchy, to a constitutional republic, etc.




So, my point is, no society will ever be voluntaryist.


Not perfectly so, if that is what you mean. Just as there are occasional cases of slavery now, there will always be the odd individual or occasional group who become murderers or theives.

A voluntaryist society is simply one in which a critical mass supports voluntaryist principles, just as a critical mass opposes slavery in ours. That man who was discovered holding slaves will be held accountable, and in a voluntaryist society, the odd wannabe tyrant will as well.



You will be a slaver, a slave, a dependent of slavery, or 100% self sufficient.

Very few are capable of self sufficiency.


That's not true at all -- of course, self-suficiency here simply means the capability to produce as much as you consume, not that you grow your own food and tan your own leather. It may be assumed that you have neighbors with whom you can trade goods and services.

Many are capable of self suficiency under such a definition.



Most people in the USA are dependents of slavery all their luxuries are a direct result of the slave labor from overseas markets.


That's not true. Of course, the dastardly government (why do you support it again?), has distorted the markets to a great degree, but the majority of economic exchanges are still voluntary on both sides.



Check with GunnyFreedom's post about Hershey's and Nestle Chocolate for more information on this subject.

Yes, I am aware of these examples, and the efforts of stopthetraffik, which are making headway.

Our society, however, opposes slavery as a rule. No one to whom I have mentioned Nestle and Hershey, and proposed a boycott, says, "What's wrong with slavery?". To equate our society's relationship to slavery to that of, say, the early 1800s south, is silly.

What's more, even if it were the same (which it is not), would that be a reason not to be an abolitionist? Should we say, "well, I guess slavery is here to stay, we might as well support it?" Of course not. We should oppose immorality as best we can.

[heavenlyboy34]

Slavery is not even close to being dead.

It took the power of a strong central government to outlaw it in every place it has been outlawed.

It will come back in full force in an AN/CAP society because people will willingly sell their children to pay off debts. Bad People will start taking slaves of anyone not wealthy enough to afford protection, and the protection agencies with their little courts won't care about non-paying customers.

See Somalia. Lots of slavery there these days.

Somalia is not An-cap, and never was. It was stateless for a time, but in recent years the US FedGov has sponsored meddling in the area-creating a government and the chaos that naturally occurs when a State is foisted upon a population. See here. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd66.html)

Further, what's keeping people from selling their children now? We know there is a black market for child prostitutes internationally, and even here. For example this ring of child prostitution here in the USA. (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/121605ChildProstitutionRing.html)

The worst part of your post is that it fundamentally presumes the State to be virtuous-when in fact the government attracts primarily those who are so ineffective in productive society that they must become parasites to live. (there are notable exceptions, albeit rare)

As to "It took the power of a strong central government to outlaw it in every place it has been outlawed."-even RP said that every other country abandoned slavery without a civil war, and typically without a strong central government.

/end rant

[tremendoustie]

Slavery is not even close to being dead.

It took the power of a strong central government to outlaw it in every place it has been outlawed.


Central governments were the ones who instituted and protected it in the first place. Were it not for central governments, slave revolts (aided by abolitionists) would have succeeded, and slavery would have ended much sooner. What's more, the central governments were responding (eventually, sluggishly) to the will of the people in outlawing it. That will, and conscience, is what we were discussing -- and it would have led to the eradication of slavery one way or another.



It will come back in full force in an AN/CAP society because people will willingly sell their children to pay off debts. Bad People will start taking slaves of anyone not wealthy enough to afford protection, and the protection agencies with their little courts won't care about non-paying customers.


People are not property, and can't be sold. To "sell" a person is a violation of the NAP.

And why do you think the government prohibits slavery now? Because the populace does not tolerate it, and demands that the government prohibit it. The populace of a voluntaryist society would not tolerate it either, and would demand that their protection agencies prohibit it.

It's amusing how you suppose those in government are angels, the sole force for good in society, while average people are just devils waiting to be unleashed.

If average people were the devils you suppose, the government would be the greatest devil of all. Governments are more corrupt, power hungry, wasteful, selfish, and immoral than the general populace. It's true now, and always has been.



See Somalia. Lots of slavery there these days.

Once again, Somalia is not an example of a voluntaryist society, any more than North Korea is an example of a constitutional republic.

[Met Income]

I will admit I didn't read the entire thread... I stopped once the pirate songs began.

The bigger problem is not a visible, obvious monopoly. The problem is something akin to the State but not wearing its mantle. The easiest way this occurs is for "companies" to march into town and play good cop/bad cop. Company A is a defense company that goes in and seems to be on the up and up. Many people sign up for Company A security, especially once they hear rumors that Company B security has been hired by the neighboring town, and they want your town's valuables/women/cattle/shiny things. Company A starts asking higher and higher payments, or unreasonable terms, but that's when Company C rolls into town. Company C competes with Company A, and offers to defend people from both Company B and Company A. A lot of people hop on the Company C bandwagon. Company C runs the ruthless and immoral Company A out of town. Company C's reputation is sealed. Company B attacks the town from time to time, "almost" doing some dastardly deed at the outskirts of town, but always thwarted by Company C.

Now, imagine all three of those companies were in kahoots the whole time?

Yes, this is what we already have. Yep, it would go on in an AnCap society, too. The shakedown always adjusts to whatever the setup du jour is.

This sounds like the War on Terror. At least I can vote with my dollars and feet in an AnCap society.

[cheapseats]

No private defense company can become a monolithic, oppressive monster overnight. Like everything else in reality, it would be a process. Also, like everything else, as people become more afraid of this problem, they can solve it by directing their resources into providing a solution.



What happens to the Little People who get screwed over during "the process"? Pity, so long as it's not you? Better than using force against Bad Guys, eh?

[Keller1967]

What happens to the Little People who get screwed over during "the process"? Pity, so long as it's not you? Better than using force against Bad Guys, eh?

What happens to them when they get screwed over? They get screwed over. Are you suggesting this is a good reason to support involuntary rule?

[cheapseats]

It won't work.
It's Fantasy land bullshit...


It's a good read, though. Like the Bible, the Constitution, War & Peace, to name a few.

BULLSHIT is insulting and FANTASY offends virgin sensibilities. The PeeCee term is MAGICAL THINKING.

Long on theory, short on pragmatics.

[pcosmar]

It is called the Militia.
The people all being armed and capable of defense. There would be no need for "Police" Forces. and little need for private security forces.

Just look into the revisionist history. (look past the revisions)
Jesse James. Billy the Kid. and other "outlaws". They were fighting Private Security Forces.

[cheapseats]

It is called the Militia.
The people all being armed and capable of defense. There would be no need for "Police" Forces. and little need for private security forces.

Just look into the revisionist history. (look past the revisions)
Jesse James. Billy the Kid. and other "outlaws". They were fighting Private Security Forces.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight force with force.

[cheapseats]

Leaders always arise.

Power always corrupts.

Human Nature is always Human Nature.

[cheapseats]

What happens to them when they get screwed over? They get screwed over.

One cannot have read the Bible without gleaning this one thing: IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO LOOK OUT FOR THE LEAST AMONG US.

I am NOT a Bible Thumper. I am STALWART on Separation of Church & State.

Still, you gotta decide what kind of PERSON you are, and what kind of person you WANT to be.




Are you suggesting this is a good reason to support involuntary rule?

Public or Private, people unfailingly disappoint -- they are tirelessly, maddeningly, relentlessly HUMAN.

Better that the "sides" in arguments shall have a common enemy in the supposed Neutrality of Government than that they spy and despise the same failings in each other.

Lesser of Evils DOES apply. Which is why we should not Not NOT be elevating "leaders" by the same wing-job, relative-crappiness defeatism.

[Keller1967]

One cannot have read the Bible without gleaning this one thing: IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO LOOK OUT FOR THE LEAST AMONG US.

Soon as I get this boot off my face I'll see what I can do to help someone else.

[Met Income]

What happens to the Little People who get screwed over during "the process"? Pity, so long as it's not you? Better than using force against Bad Guys, eh?

What happens now? It's currently happening on a monopolistic scale. Morally, you cannot justify the aggressive use of violence.

[cheapseats]

What happens now? It's currently happening on a monopolistic scale. Morally, you cannot justify the aggressive use of violence.

BULLSHIT. Self-serving, feel-good rationalization to save your own skin.

Morally, you cannot justify non-violence against chronically-some-might-say-maniacally violent Bad Guys when EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ABOUNDS THAT ALLOWING THEM TO CONTINUE THEIR SWASHBUCKLING HURTS OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

YOU are the reason that Acala's not-to-worry-a-few-guys-with-rifles-will-handle-anything-bad-that-comes-down-the-pike-IF-anything-bad-comes-down-our-peace-loving-pike is MAGICAL THINKING.

[cheapseats]

Soon as I get this boot off my face I'll see what I can do to help someone else.

Exactly so. You and me makes Greater Than One.

Time to stop rowing, stand up, and rock the boat. MUCH easier to spot who's really sinking when everyone is flailing around in the water than when the majority is belly-aching FROM INSIDE THE BOAT that the minority is not rowing optimally.

[cheapseats]

One cannot have read the Bible without gleaning this one thing: IT IS INCUMBENT UPON US TO LOOK OUT FOR THE LEAST AMONG US.


Aside from totally digging Americana, this is a principal AND principle reason that I support unambiguous National Sovereignty.

We can NOT save everyone. We can NOT be all things to all people. I GET IT that airline personnel direct us to put our OWN oxygen masks on first NOT because they dislike kids, rather, because YOU'RE NO GOOD TO ANYONE IF YOU YOURSELF ARE GOING UNDER.

Civic Responsibility and Moral Fortitude are not incompatible with Survival of the Fittest. On the contrary.

I advocate a TOTAL MORATORIUM on Foreign Aid, while we figger out what the hell we're doing, and also while we DISCRIMINATE between Friend and Foe. Make no mistake, the New World Order that is chiefly touted by Ruling Elite and Limousine Liberals constitutes MORE profit-based Magical Thinking.

[Keller1967]

You support National Sovereignty because we can't save everyone? Are you saying that because we can't save the world, we might as well just save the nation, or am I way off?

[cheapseats]

You support National Sovereignty because we can't save everyone? Are you saying that because we can't save the world, we might as well just save the nation, or am I way off?

You, I, We have to decide what we believe, what we think, what we like, what we DON'T like. How we want to spend our lives. What makes ourselves agreeable for US to live with day in and day out.

You/I/We cannot have it all. That is fact. RESOURCES ARE SCARCE is the very first Law of Economics.

Start from there.

I favor National Sovereignty over International Homogeneity. How 'bout you?

From National Sovereignty, it follows that I favor Secure Borders.

If y'all wanna go the other route -- One Big World -- I only need to know. I am At Liberty, and completely unencumbered. I can make the necessary adjustments. Frankly, it expands my Warm Weather options.

What I will NOT do is spend the balance of my life arguing THEORY.

[Keller1967]

I care about individual sovereignty and nothing else really. If it was something was enjoying right now, I might be looking to help others like I said. I don't think I am cut out to become sovereign like that though, too much of a coward to try anyways.

I can't keep a secure border around my fucking paycheck, as the IRS continues to demonstrate, why bother with the national border?

[MelissaWV]

I care about individual sovereignty and nothing else really. If it was something was enjoying right now, I might be looking to help others like I said. I don't think I am cut out to become sovereign like that though, too much of a coward to try anyways.

I can't keep a secure border around my fucking paycheck, as the IRS continues to demonstrate, why bother with the national border?

In short, the argument would be that since more and more of your tax dollars are going to assist people who refuse to respect the border, then one of the ways to ease the bleeding of money out of your paycheck would be to enforce the borders.

The problems with the reality of this trace back to our charming Government. However one wants to enforce the borders, the reality is that DC will not cut off the incentives (all manner of welfare and shelter programs), but will spend oodles of money on enforcement, new toys so they can enforce, and add new policies that have almost nothing to do with enforcement. In the end, the paycheck just grows weaker.

If we could cut off the programs (leave it up to the charities and border land owners to begin with for awhile), and put a sturdy immigration policy in place that puts emphasis on having something to offer the nation before the nation lets you in... that'd be a start.

[cheapseats]

I care about individual sovereignty and nothing else really.

ANOTHER theory, the sound of which I like.

Trouble is, if you look out only for your OWN Individual Sovereignty, the dominion defined by Your Control is exceedingly, exceedingly small. If you were female, They might even issue regulations upon your body.




If it was something was enjoying right now, I might be looking to help others like I said.


I whined only the other day that, while many things remain interesting, NOTHING is fun. FUN doesn't really warrant, when MY country's leadership-I-use-the-term-loosely steadily commandeers the money and lives of my countrymen for purpose of blowing strangers to smithereens.




I don't think I am cut out to become sovereign like that though, too much of a coward to try anyways.


The FEW who were cut out for this shit are either skulking around in Washington DC, serving in the Middle East or bobbing and weaving in our own backwoods.

Among things that do not fall under Individual Sovereignty is what bit of history falls to which generation. There are varying levels and styles of participation. There is NOT participating, which can be even more time-consuming and aggravating than participating. But the history is HAPPENING.

I personally think that in the fullness of time, global posterity will talk smack about us just like we talk smack about Hitler-era Germans: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? WHY DIDN'T THEY DO ANYTHING? THERE WERE SO MANY MORE OF THEM, WHY DID THEY JUST GO ALONG?





I can't keep a secure border around my fucking paycheck, as the IRS continues to demonstrate, why bother with the national border?

Because the same GREEDY, INCOMPETENT FUCKS who help themselves to your wages don't WANT you to bother with things like National Sovereignty. That the same greedy, incompetent fucks who impose rapacious taxation also promote loosey-goosey borders should be enough to make ANYONE care, even if they ordinarily WOULDN'T care.

SYCOPHANTS masquerading as Public Servants DEMONSTRATE -- talk is cheap -- they CONTINUOUSLY demonstrate that they do not give one flying fuck about me. On the contrary, they seek to restrain and penalize me at every turn. By contrast, they demonstrate that they care very much about Illegal Immigrants. 'Nuf said.

[Dieseler]

It is called the Militia.
The people all being armed and capable of defense. There would be no need for "Police" Forces. and little need for private security forces.

Just look into the revisionist history. (look past the revisions)
Jesse James. Billy the Kid. and other "outlaws". They were fighting Private Security Forces.

Lincoln County crossed my mind just as I was falling asleep.
Yep, I would have been driven to piracy in an atmosphere like that. At least that is what they would have called me.

[cheapseats]

Lincoln County crossed my mind just as I was falling asleep.
Yep, I would have been driven to piracy in an atmosphere like that. At least that is what they would have called me.


Patriot Pirates: The Privateer War for Freedom and Fortune in the American Revolution
~ Robert H. Patton

[Dieseler]

Patriot Pirates: The Privateer War for Freedom and Fortune in the An - Cap Society.
~ Some dude named Dieseler

Lolz.

Yar!

[LibertyEagle]

Jesse James. Billy the Kid. and other "outlaws". They were fighting Private Security Forces.

WHAT??? You mean after they robbed and then private security firms were sent after them? Yeah, THEN, they were fighting the private security forces.

Jesse James and Billy the Kid were murderers and thieves.

[Dieseler]

WHAT??? You mean after they robbed and then private security firms were sent after them? Yeah, THEN, they were fighting the private security forces.

Jesse James and Billy the Kid were murderers and thieves.

Yar!

Those men fought and died in the closest thing to an An-Cap Society as anyone on this board can throw up in comparison.
There were U.S. Marshalls, Sheriffs, Traveling Court Rooms equipped with Judges and supplied with local Juries filled with the best that money could buy, and Federal Soldiers if the Shit got too hard for the Local Gold Slinger to handle.
Yep, that's about the closest your gonna find as an example.

[Met Income]

WHAT??? You mean after they robbed and then private security firms were sent after them? Yeah, THEN, they were fighting the private security forces.

Jesse James and Billy the Kid were murderers and thieves.

And the State isn't, right? Who has killed/stolen more?

[cheapseats]

What happens to the Little People who get screwed over during "the process"? Pity, so long as it's not you? Better than using force against Bad Guys, eh?



What happens to them when they get screwed over? They get screwed over.



What happens now? It's currently happening on a monopolistic scale.

Monopolistic is not the same thing as Arbitrary or Unilateral.

People need to get Right-Minded about something.

I don't presume to call God's handiwork faulty. If He had wanted everyone to be EQUAL, He would not have have parlayed out LESSER attributes like Feeble-Mindedness or Unattractiveness. It is not ON ME to make everyone feel as good as everyone else.

There is, however, a world of difference between letting Life play out as Life plays out and TURNING A BLIND EYE TO WILLFUL INJUSTICE. So long as we accommodate it, AND CERTAINLY SO LONG AS WE PAY FOR IT, we are NOT exonerated from the actions of the people who REPRESENT us.

Whatever the Feelings, however emotional the Disapproval, we ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DO AND WE FUND IT. The literal buck may stop in the Oval Office -- or it may go round and round, a little Musical Chairs to go with a lot of Monopoly Money -- but morally, the buck stops with us.

People have equal Rights. They are entitled to Equal Protection.

[pcosmar]

WHAT??? You mean after they robbed and then private security firms were sent after them? Yeah, THEN, they were fighting the private security forces.

Jesse James and Billy the Kid were murderers and thieves.

Correction
Jessie James declared war on the railroad and the banks affiliated with them AFTER they firebombed this home, Wounding and Killing his family members.The Pinkertons were hired to strong-arm property owners and chase them off.

Billy the Kid was originally Deputized and was working with warrants, until politics changed.
It was a conflict between Powerful land owners. The "Regulaters" were at first lawfully formed, but became outlaws later. William Henry Bonney just didn't give up.

History is written by the victor.

[cheapseats]

History is written by the victor.


No doubt why particular protection of FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS is enshrined in our Constitution.

It wouldn't take but ONE generation of Enlightened Publishers to set some records straight.

[Keller1967]

No doubt why particular protection of FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS is enshrined in our Constitution.

It wouldn't take but ONE generation of Enlightened Publishers to set some records straight.

There are already people like that doing just that, all we have to do is make sure the records survive, not hard to do. It doesn't change that most don't listen to them and most have have had their mind controlled. It doesn't change that the schools are controlled and what is left of free press won't be taught there.

The core is violent control that enables educational control and historical control, but it starts with violence.

[cheapseats]

There are already people like that doing just that, all we have to do is make sure the records survive, not hard to do. It doesn't change that most don't listen to them and most have have had their mind controlled. It doesn't change that the schools are controlled and what is left of free press won't be taught there. The core is violent control that enables educational control and historical control, but it starts with violence.


Much as we love our violence, AND WE DO, it's a slow burn compared to HOT TRENDS.

9/11 was IN for however long. These colors don't run. Not much. We will never forget. Yeah, right. Anti-Terrorism, a gift that keeps on giving. War On Drugs, a gift that keeps on giving. Anti-War, old hat. New Orleans, is that a state or a province?

As you yourself say, the main problem is not PRODUCING IT -- although, point me to the organization and archiving. The problem is DISSEMINATION. Americans are so dull and distracted, even Dissemination must be broken down into PLACED FOR POSSIBLE READING and ACTUALLY READ.

Rejection of Mindless Consumerism is all fine and well, but it seems possible that Libertarians have learned not one fuckin' thing from Madison Avenue.

[Keller1967]

Much as we love our violence, AND WE DO, it's a slow burn compared to HOT TRENDS.

9/11 was IN for however long. These colors don't run. Not much. We will never forget. Yeah, right. Anti-Terrorism, a gift that keeps on giving. War On Drugs, a gift that keeps on giving. Anti-War, old hat. New Orleans, is that a state or a province?

As you yourself say, the main problem is not PRODUCING IT -- although, point me to the organization and archiving. The problem is DISSEMINATION. Americans are so dull and distracted, even Dissemination must be broken down into PLACED FOR POSSIBLE READING and ACTUALLY READ.

Rejection of Mindless Consumerism is all fine and well, but it seems possible that Libertarians have learned not one fuckin' thing from Madison Avenue.

I really doubt it is a slow burn for the people our military is killing. For the estimated 700 civilians that our military killed in an ALLIED country as a small example.

Good point that there should be a central archive, anyone could do it, hell maybe I will.

It's difficult if not impossible to learn anything of value when you have been fooled on the entire premise of what happened.

[cheapseats]

I really doubt it is a slow burn for the people our military is killing.

Yeah, but they don't count.

Look how UNBOTHERED most Americans are. Escalation in Afghanistan? A new flavor of ice cream generates more fanfare.




For the estimated 700 civilians that our military killed in an ALLIED country as a small example.

As far as me and my big mouth are concerned, any candidate who doesn't have a solid anti-war plank to their platform ain't standing on a solid platform.




Good point that there should be a central archive, anyone could do it, hell maybe I will.

I'm not exactly sure what the play is, but I sense that there IS a play along Freedom Of Information lines, to retrieve a shocking amount of "disappeared" material.

Not that we're trying to bust anyone -- like gun grabs, no questions asked -- but for THE CHILDREN'S SAKE, and that of our CHILDREN'S CHILDREN, we are compelled to resurrect the internet labors of an epic time.

What've they got to hide? It IS the People's work, not theirs.




It's difficult if not impossible to learn anything of value when you have been fooled on the entire premise of what happened.

You're telling ME? I was raised Catholic.

[Keller1967]

As far as me and my big mouth are concerned, any candidate who doesn't have a solid anti-war plank to their platform ain't standing on a solid platform.


Yet this seems to be the weakest point for a few "liberty" candidates. :mad: