Sentient Void
Member

Depends on what this empty language means. Murica was envisioned by people in the 1800s as only "working" in a little 13 state region that had only a relatively heterogenous culture. It's a much larger country now-also way more crowded and diverse in ethnicity, race, religion, etc. That's just a few of the reasons the model doesn't “work” on a “large scale”.

I KNOW. WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF RETAIL. :) MY MENDINI COMES WITH A CASE AND TUNER AND OTHER GOODIES. :cool:

LIFESKILLS-SOME ADULTING(PAYING BILLS, STOCKING MY STORE), GOING TO CLASS, CHANT PRACTICE

LIFESKILLS- PHONE MEETING WITH MY VOLUSION ASSISTANT FOR SITE ORIENTATION AND WHATNOT. ALSO FINDING MORE SHIT TO SELL IN MY STORE. AND CHANT HOMEWORK-MOSTLY PROSOMIA TOADY.

You are mistaken. (You probably also haven't read the history of police and law in Murica, chronicled in various posts and threads by AF and I) The town that eliminated the police- :) http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2017/jul/12/without-warning-city-eliminates-police-depart/437834/

As we've been through a bazillion times on this and threads like it, it's about voluntary. I don't mind voluntary associations to protect property, life, liberty, etc. If you think this is egalitarian and unrealistic as communism, you should examine closely constitutionalism. (not the unrealistic and irrational promises, the practice) ;)

If you don't read the thread, of course not. Not sure why, but W/E. If you've produced the first sound legal theory behind Constitutionalism and are just hiding it from the masses for lolz, that's not very nice. ;) :D All they've got going for them is bullshit on stilts.

Wut? You've gotten extremely, ridiculously specific and detailed answers. You just don't want to fucking read. You want to be spoon-fed. It's y'all CONstitutionalist minarchists who have yet to come up with a coherent legal theory after 200+ years of opportunity to work on it.

Sounds about right. I haven't done a head count lately. I'm a busy boy.

^^From the guy nobody takes seriously anymore... :D LOLOL

Flawed analogy. The minarchists' "machine" still only exists on paper. It's 5% built and they tinker with it in the garage as they go along. They haven't even got an actual coherent theory to explain it in a rational way.

Wut? Noez, you caught teh full retard from NC!!!! :eek: :( :'( WE MUST STOP THIS BEFORE IT SPREADS!!! :eek:

Nonsense. Anarcho-capitalists are realists. (and I'm a Voluntaryist, not an ancap) Minarchists are in utter denial of praxaeology and history. They are very utopian-though not to the extent of anarcho-communists.

People already do this, tho. They just link to a thread(s) where the question has already been answered. Happens all the time. Welcome to the world of forums! :)

:eek: I GUESS THEY WANT YOU TO DO IT MANUALLY NAO? :p TYPE IN "THE A-TEAM RE-SELLER GROUP" INTO THE SEARCH BOX THING AND YOU'LL FIND IT.

UR REVIEWS AS A BUYER, YOU MEAN? IDK IF THEY HELP US AS SELLERS, BUT IT COULDN'T HURT. I HAD THE SAME POSITIVE BUYER RATE (100%) AS YOU WHEN I STARTED. :cool:

LIFESKILL: SET UP A STORE WITH THE VOLUSION PLATFORM. PRETTY NIFTY SO FAR. GOT TO WAIT TILL MY ORDER IS FULLY PROCESSED BEFORE I CAN BEGIN REALLY CUSTOMIZING AND GETTING IT READY FOR CUSTOMERS.

:rolleyes: "danke" means "thank you" in German, ya dunces.

Haven't read it since I was 14. Now I have to read it again...

duplicate post for some reason. :/

You've proven yourself to be worth no significant effort. (is it my fault you lack reading and viewing comprehension skills? If you had them you would understand the system, bro) I reserve serious effort for thoughtful and intelligent adversaries (i.e. erowe). The only reason I bothered with this thread as long as I did is that it shows onlookers the failures and fallacies of statism generally and the Murican statism in particular that you endorse.

I'm trying to help enlighten you so you don't have to ask questions that have already been answered a million times, son. Be a man and study shit for yourself.

It's the wrong question because it has nothing to do with how private courts work. You can have your own agency if you want, but if you and I don't contractually agree to be bound by said agency, your agency has no authority WRT me.

08/03/2005Robert P. MurphyIn a recent article, I discussed the possibility of private, competing security agencies. I took for granted the background rule of law (or lack thereof), and merely made the relative argument that a monopoly institution of violence (i.e. the State) would not aid the achievement of a working consensus on legal norms, and that in fact (as history shows) government-controlled societies are certainly susceptible to civil war. In the present piece, I will elaborate on how law itself could be efficiently and equitably produced in a private setting. PRIVATE JUDGESWhether society is in anarchy or under the domination of a State apparatus, individuals will always have disputes. Although most arguments are settled between the parties themselves, some disagreements are too serious for such resolution. In such cases, the disputants (in anarchy) can turn to a judge, who is simply a person who agrees to render an opinion on their dispute. Although many anarchist theorists link private judges with enforcement agencies in their expositions, we should keep in mind that the two are conceptually distinct. In its essence, a private judicial ruling is just that—one person’s opinion as to who is right, and what he or she is owed, in a given dispute. One major difference between private and State judges is that the former only entertain cases when both parties submit to the “jurisdiction” of the judge. (In contrast, one or both parties in a State court case may strongly object to the judge and/or jury who will decide the issue.) Cynics of private law may consider this proposal as ridiculous—the very idea that a rapist or bank robber would agree to plead his case before a third party, ha! However, this glib dismissal overlooks the fact that most disputes in modern commercial society are not between an “obvious” innocent and an “obvious” malefactor. Rather, it is often the case that both parties to a dispute genuinely believe themselves to be in the right, and would be happy to make their cases in front of a disinterested third party. Another consideration is that, without the government monopoly and selection of judges based on political pull and demagogic appeal, a crop of professional judges would arise who were, well, quite judicious. (Any unmarried female judges would quite truly be the fairest maidens in the land.) When reading their previous opinions on cases in which they had expertise, people would recognize their excellence, and say, “Wow, that was a great ruling! When I first heard the evidence, I thought the plaintiff was right, but after Judge Barnett explained it with his analogies, the defendant is obviously not guilty.” In anarchy, people would demand judicial services for all the reasons that people desire law itself: They would want to satisfy their desire for abstract justice, but they would also want to foster predictable business relationships, as well as enjoy a good reputation among their neighbors. Let’s consider a concrete example. Suppose Mark Johnson owns a store and he breaks the arm of Gary Owens, a customer. Owens proceeds to tell all his friends (and anyone else who will listen) that he was minding his own business when Johnson attacked him. Now in the standard view (and even to some extent that promoted by anarcho-capitalist writers), unless Owens belongs to a protection agency himself, he has no recourse. But this is simply not true. It is bad for business if Owens runs around telling people he was brutally attacked, and if Johnson does nothing to rebut these charges. If people give any validity to Owens’ story, they will shop elsewhere. Even beyond the pecuniary aspects, if Johnson is at all a normal human being, he will feel uncomfortable at social events if people are whispering about the tale behind his back. Consequently, Johnson will publicly invite Owens to bring his charges to any reputable judge who ...

We've all (at least I and most other noteworthy anarchists and voluntaryists) not only admitted that long ago, we've expressed great interest in and spilled voluminous ink about means of private security and defense. :) ~hugs~

Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6. They continue to do so as they make the Godless secular State master of their lives.

y/w Patrick Henry, et al have my back on this one too, bro. :cool:

I reject the constitution, some of the founders, and WRT "the very nature of the founding of our great nation"-depends on how you define that. If you actually read the founders you'd know they all had differing opinions on pretty much everything.

IDK what this gobbeldy-gook even means. "Religious yet worldly". :confused: Withdrawing from the world is not what Christ commands, bro. Creating cliques on the edge of civilization is for sanctimonious Jews and the like. Christ commands us to go out into the world. Paul calls it being the Body Of Christ. I think you forgot to read all the Gospel texts. Unlike you though, I do reject worldly authority and the world's claims on my soul. ;) The State is your God.

Good. You know you're lying, then, and can retract your statement. :)

pull quote: Full essay with bibliography here: Stateless, Not Lawless: Voluntaryism & Arbitration by Carl Watner Number 84 - Feb 1997 I'll post more about this if/when I have time.

Fuck right off with that, asshole. That is a damn lie and you know it. (or perhaps "libertine" is just a "big" word that you just learned and don't fully understand and are trying to look smart with? regardless, you're wrong)

You really can't just "summarize" any theory. (Otherwise it wouldn't be systematic enough to be good theory) That would leave holes in it that beg questions needing more summary. Any summary you could get would leave you with questions requiring you to refer to source material in a bibliography, IMO.

200+ years is a "fad"... LOLOLOL :D

It's a good question and a matter of legal theory. Really beyond the scope of a forum post or 3, IMO. There are lengthy books by scholars about this if you're srsly interested. I'd have to search my records a bit, but I'm sure others here have some titles handy.

I think you're intellectually lazy and don't even know yourself. Just a few of the MANY "schools" of anarchism: Anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-communism Anarcho-primitivism Anarcho-syndicalism

+1 ;) I seem to recall Rev9 having the better humour of those two.

Dang, you really are going full-Travlyr. :eek: