Your philosophy won't save the world

[Keller1967]

But it might save you, that is the problem with all the arguing between min-cap, an-cap, etc. Too many people are acting like they will find the ultimate solution to end all suffering.

I like the idea of an-cap because it would allow me to take personal responsibility for my own life and my own resources. An an-cap society wouldn't end all suffering or end all wrongdoing, but it would allow me to choose not to be a part of those things. I like the ideas of an-cap, but I do not consider myself to be an anarchist. I only consider myself to be a slave. I am forced to pay for others to suffer, to pay for weapons that are used to kill innocent people, I am left with a choice of ending my own life or letting my life be used to hurt others.

[Met Income]

In the long-run, it will. Logic is truth. When people approach reality from a logical standpoint, they are forced to recognize it's truth value. I may not like the fact that rocks falls down, but they still do.

[Keller1967]

In the long-run, it will. Logic is truth. When people approach reality from a logical standpoint, they are forced to recognize it's truth value. I may not like the fact that rocks falls down, but they still do.

The philosophy may, ideas can, but not YOURS. Chances are you will be long dead before any change happens.

[Kludge]

Oh, I skimmed the first time.


-- There are a few nifty uninhabited-but-habitable islands off Alaska you might be interested in.

[Met Income]

The philosophy may, ideas can, but not YOURS. Chances are you will be long dead before any change happens.

What’s mine? The philosophy is not mine, it is what it is. The truth.

[Keller1967]

I think the point I was trying to make is lost.

[Brian4Liberty]

When people approach reality from a logical standpoint, they are forced to recognize it's truth value.

What percentage of the general population approaches reality (or decisions) from a logical standpoint?

[Keller1967]

What percentage of the general population approaches reality (or decisions) from a logical standpoint?

They can't even see reality and they are not logical. It's the blind leading the blind, plato's cave, the matrix, etc. Reality is nearly lost for all of us. More so for future generations.

[Met Income]

What percentage of the general population approaches reality (or decisions) from a logical standpoint?

Probably. But it's up to people to free their own minds. You can spread the message, but you can't force them to see the truth. I'm sure there was a time where slaves never thought people would consider it immoral but it happened.

[Kludge]

I think the point I was trying to make is lost.

Your talking to idealists. Once we rid the world of the government, our money won't lose value as quickly, money will move slower (but more consistently), some people might be able to get jobs which wouldn't have otherwise existed because they're too low-paying and unsafe, and people will be able to own land for as long as they're able to protect it!

All our problems will be solved!

[Met Income]

Your talking to idealists. Once we rid the world of the government, our money won't lose value as quickly, money will move slower (but more consistently), some people might be able to get jobs which wouldn't have otherwise existed because they're too low-paying and unsafe, and people will be able to own land for as long as they're able to protect it!

All our problems will be solved!

Idealism is thinking the State works and that they produce goods and services better than the free market.

[Kludge]

Idealism is thinking the State works and that they produce goods and services better than the free market.

You're right.

So what?

[Met Income]

You're right.

So what?

So, things would be better if the State did not exist.

[Kludge]

So, things would be better if the State did not exist.

That's idealistic thinking, though, and it doesn't even take into account the opportunity cost of exerting effort into trying to change government (which, by the way, all signs are pointing to failure) when there are other things we could be doing with this time/money/effort like helping people out of poverty or Hell, amusing ourselves. I don't think government is anywhere near as big a factor in determining how good/bad we feel as conservative/libertarians politicians have us believe in their Big Government anger-mongering rhetoric. All we're doing is playing politicians' games instead of living our lives. It's really turned into some type of bizarre ideological crusade and I think a lot of people here really do believe government is the source of strife.

Why are we poor? The Fed, minimum wage laws, union protection laws, affirmative action

Why are we stupid? Fluoridated water supply, (TPTB-approved) Corporations brainwashing us through "The Media," public education

Why are we immoral? Government destruction of Church and the family unit, moral relativism in public schools

Why are we unhealthy? A chain event coming from corporatism wherein government subsidizes evil businesses in a grand conspiracy to addict us to fatty foods, make us more docile, and then swoop in with regulations to control us now that we have an "obesity epidemic." The cures They don't want us to know about are covered up by big evil corporations.

[Met Income]

That's idealistic thinking, though, and it doesn't even take into account the opportunity cost of exerting effort into trying to change government (which, by the way, all signs are pointing to failure) when there are other things we could be doing with this time/money/effort like helping people out of poverty or Hell, amusing ourselves. I don't think government is anywhere near as big a factor in determining how good/bad we feel as conservative/libertarians politicians have us believe in their Big Government anger-mongering rhetoric. All we're doing is playing politicians' games instead of living our lives. It's really turned into some type of bizarre ideological crusade and I think a lot of people here really do believe government is the source of strife.

Why are we poor? The Fed, minimum wage laws, union protection laws, affirmative action

Why are we stupid? Fluoridated water supply, (TPTB-approved) Corporations brainwashing us through "The Media," public education

Why are we immoral? Government destruction of Church and the family unit, moral relativism in public schools

Why are we unhealthy? A chain event coming from corporatism wherein government subsidizes evil businesses in a grand conspiracy to addict us to fatty foods, make us more docile, and then swoop in with regulations to control us now that we have an "obesity epidemic." The cures They don't want us to know about are covered up by big evil corporations.

I’m not blaming every problem in the world on the State, nor am I saying we’d be problem free without the State. My point is the State is extremely immoral and that we’d be better off without one.

[Dieseler]

I’m not blaming every problem in the world on the State, nor am I saying we’d be problem free without the State. My point is the State is extremely immoral and that we’d be better off without one.

Yar!
I totally agree mate.

[Met Income]

Yar!
I totally agree mate.

What a rebuttal. You’ve convinced me. The State does things better than private companies.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Indeed. As long as people have free-will there will always be those among us who violate law. Therefore, we are not utopians. We understand man, and we understand free-will. We seek to diminish the incentives for this behavior, as much as possible, but we are under no delusions that people will suddenly stop stealing, or stop being fraudulent, or stop murdering people. That is also why we seek to abolish institutions which are built on those behaviors.

[Keller1967]

Indeed. As long as people have free-will there will always be those among us who violate law. Therefore, we are not utopians. We understand man, and we understand free-will. We seek to diminish the incentives for this behavior, as much as possible, but we are under no delusions that people will suddenly stop stealing, or stop being fraudulent, or stop murdering people. That is also why we seek to abolish institutions which are built on those behaviors.

Do you think that trying to debate minarchy against anarchy, under the terms that one or the other would solve the world's problems, drastically reduce violence and crime, etc. is a Utopian fallacy to begin with? Yet that seems to be the most common approach to the debate, that seems to be what 'minarchists' demand of 'anarchists'.

[Met Income]

Do you think that trying to debate minarchy against anarchy, under the terms that one or the other would solve the world's problems, drastically reduce violence and crime, etc. is a Utopian fallacy to begin with? Yet that seems to be the most common approach to the debate, that seems to be what 'minarchists' demand of 'anarchists'.

No one has said that a stateless society will solve all of the world’s problems. The point made was that we’re better off in a stateless society.

[Keller1967]

No one has said that a stateless society will solve all of the world’s problems. The point made was that we’re better off in a stateless society.

I agree with you I was just saying that it seems like it is commonly demanded that it does during debates, and then even anarchists like Molyneux seem to prop it up to being able to do just that.

[tremendoustie]

I agree with you I was just saying that it seems like it is commonly demanded that it does during debates, and then even anarchists like Molyneux seem to prop it up to being able to do just that.

I agree, there are many problems that would still exist even in a society made up of mostly voluntaryists. Transitioning, for one, is a significant problem, especially in some ways (e.g. roads). Also, there would still be criminals, as there are now, to deal with. There would still be natural difficulties, like water shortages and hurricanes. There would still be nasty, unkind people. There would still be the ever present danger of laziness and complacency.

[mediahasyou]

But it might save you, that is the problem with all the arguing between min-cap, an-cap, etc. Too many people are acting like they will find the ultimate solution to end all suffering.

I like the idea of an-cap because it would allow me to take personal responsibility for my own life and my own resources. An an-cap society wouldn't end all suffering or end all wrongdoing, but it would allow me to choose not to be a part of those things. I like the ideas of an-cap, but I do not consider myself to be an anarchist. I only consider myself to be a slave. I am forced to pay for others to suffer, to pay for weapons that are used to kill innocent people, I am left with a choice of ending my own life or letting my life be used to hurt others.

There are many loopholes in the system that allow you to personally live a free life. The trick is you have to find them. Consider becoming a permanent tourist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_traveler. I would say more, but the more I talk of these loopholes over a government patrolled internet, the faster the loopholes will be closed. The best way to find these loopholes is by talking to your local libertarian organization/meet up in person.

[CCTelander]

What percentage of the general population approaches reality (or decisions) from a logical standpoint?

Something approaching 0%. That's why facts, raeson and logic almost never work to persuade people. Another approach is desperately needed IMO.