I dunno but hopefully the guy in the green shirt isn't working the grill.Originally Posted by Krugminator2
Exactly. Here is an image of prosperous free trade zone in Somalia. No government interference around. Anyone gets out of line, shoot 'em.
What is particularly entertaining is the implicit insistence that their State will magically stay in it's paper box. Because, you know, everyone sees the gun on the table, but no one will grab it and point it at anyone. Lol
Hahahahaha
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
And that can only happen when an uninvolved third party sticks a gun in everyone's face. That makes perfect sense. In fact, that's how I go about my day to day, actually. If someone isn't sticking a gun in my face, I'm sticking a gun in someone else's face. That's just how I roll. Lol
And in at least one case a suggestion that those who rise to government power are on the whole superior to the riff-raff in ethics and capability.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Agreed, providing that support is a choice.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Don't you Romans 13, brah?
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Force and violence are part of humanity. The only question is who will control force. Are you going to have force under objective control with clearly defined laws? Or is force going to be exercised at whim? When force is exercised at whim people will justify almost any act of violence. For example, people who bomb abortion clinics twist it in their minds why it is okay.
We can see what works. The United States prospered on a grand scale with very limited government for much of its history. Hong Kong works. Singapore works. There is no instance of anarchy working. It is far more likely anarchy will look like narco states where people like Pablo Escobar rise up before the next gangster assassinates him and takes his place.
Once again, you guys are misunderstanding the objections here. You're still going to have authority, and coercion, so one of the objections is that the type of wonderful anarchy that you guys want is unattainable, it aint going to happen. So if you're going to have "government", it then comes down to what is better… having a limited amount of government for only certain things, and a system of checks and balances… Or an unrealistic system that will inevitably end up as might makes right?
That's pretty much Ron Paul's position, do you know more than Ron Paul?
Also, my point from the very beginning was that it's never going to happen anyway. So all of this is a waste of time, because it's not going to happen… Unless maybe there's a nuclear war and the majority of the world is wiped out, including all the current powers. But then you're back to the scenario I went over earlier, the type of anarchy you want is illogical, so it will always end up as might makes right. Again, this reminds me of the communists who always insist that communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Once again, you guys are misunderstanding the objections here. You're still going to have authority, and coercion, so one of the objections is that the type of wonderful anarchy that you guys want is unattainable, it aint going to happen. So if you're going to have "government", it then comes down to what is better… having a limited amount of government for only certain things, and a system of checks and balances… Or an unrealistic system that will inevitably end up as might makes right?
That's pretty much Ron Paul's position, do you know more than Ron Paul?
Also, my point from the very beginning was that it's never going to happen anyway. So all of this is a waste of time, because it's not going to happen… Unless maybe there's a nuclear war and the majority of the world is wiped out, including all the current powers. But then you're back to the scenario I went over earlier, the type of anarchy you want is illogical, so it will always end up as might makes right. Again, this reminds me of the communists who always insist that communism just hasn't been tried the right way yet!
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
No. I'm not going to reply. We're just starting the same debate over and over again.
Ultimately, the question that has not been answered still stands. And it will continue to stand unchallenged.
Which is: How can an Anarchist and a Capitalist reasonably, justly, and logically, settle any dispute which involves property rights if both have different and opposing conceptions of property rights?
I contend that there are two options. 1 - fight, 2 - submit to opposing principle without protest.
Compromising on ones principles is not an option because compromising on ones principles settles nothing with regard to the difference in principle. It merely confirms that the difference in principles still exists and that they remain unsettled.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 01:29 PM.
Ha ha… That kind of reminds me of a movie I saw recently, about a family that lived in an underground vault for a few decades then finally came out into a completely different world. I can't remember the name of it, but it's with Brendan Fraser. @Natural Citizen knows what I'm talking about.
Last edited by lilymc; 10-21-2017 at 01:29 PM.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Blast From The Past.Ha ha… That kind of reminds me of a movie I saw recently, about a family that lived in an underground vault for a few decades then finally came out into a completely different world. I can't remember the name of it, but it's with Brendan Fraser. @Natural Citizen knows what I'm talking about.
Good movie.
Yeah, it was.
PS: hangouts
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
I'm not contending that Anarchy is a pipedream. In fact, I contend that Anarchy could work.
I'm simply contending that Anarchy and Capitalism cannot be hyphenated in any applicable way because Anarchy and Capitalism are fundamentally different in principle to the point that they are in direct opposition to one another.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 01:47 PM.
That's EXACTLY what we have now. The best one ever instituted. Somehow it's indistinguishable from an unlimited amount of government that does everything with no checks and balances.
The most unworkable part of the minarchist equation is the "certain things" you reference. Welfare and warfare are complicit and symbiotic. Absurdly, left-wingers think they can have an an-warfare-archy. Right-wingers think they can have an an-welfare-archy.
Meanwhile, NC is scared he's going to sell something on Craigslist, the buyer and he will disagree, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be there to prevent the demanding of satisfaction. I would suggest that transaction disputes happen every minute of the day with no meaningful state involvement and somehow we're all still here. The only predictable effect of government protection of (read as interference with) property rights is the bestowing of advantage on certain traders of property.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
What kind of society would we be if no one cared about blintzes?
Last edited by otherone; 10-21-2017 at 01:55 PM.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
What part of two people trading goods without outside intervention requires archy?
It seems you're suggesting that somehow trading goods, services, etc. won't operate as efficiently in an anarchy. That's very different than saying it's not capitalism.
Anything that's not free trade in an anarchy makes it an-anarchy. Anything that's a compulsory public service has the same effect.
The term anarcho-capitalism is redundant. Capitalism means anarchy.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
No, you're misrepresenting my thoughts on the topic.
I agree that if you want to opt out and if you want to get together and take care of yourselves and be self-reliant, then you should be free to do that. Especially if you've renounced the use of force because then I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this.
Again, though, and for the last time, once you hyphenate Anarchy with Capitlism as an application, you've inserted a coercive principle into the program in the eyes of the Anarchists.
So. The question naturally follows how that gets settled.
That's all I'm saying, man.
Capitalism is coercive?
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
No they aren't. They're two terms which are in direct opposition to each other in fundamental principle.
No, capitalism means capitalism. Anarchy mean anarchy.Capitalism means anarchy.
Capitalist walks into a store and says I'm buying some gum for myself with my pieces of silver.
Anarachist walks into the store and says I'm going to help myself to some of our gum.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-22-2017 at 05:36 PM.
I wonder what God would have written if Rome taxed income. If not just property owners but laymen too were taxed...
Yes. What If I don't pay?
What purpose does a contract serve? Does a contract not obligate me to be held liable if I refuse to hold up my end of the contract?
So. You gonna take me to court? Court equals coercion. You gonna shoot me if I don't obey the contract? That's consequence. Coercion.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 02:11 PM.
there's a gum contract? effin lawyers.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Okay. Let's put it another way.
What obligation would the private mercenaries and private court in your ancap society have to you, the purchaser of their services, to fulfill their service?
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 02:17 PM.
I knew someone was going to say that. So basically what you're saying is, because our system is being subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be, we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and go to a system that is also going to end up subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be... Except that in your AnCapLand, you are starting out without a true foundation, but with an illogical, contradictory idea that won't work longer than a few days. Makes loads of sense.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
22 pages. lol. And all because somebody asked should libertarians support anarcho-capitalism. 22 pages.
And the op hasn't even been back. That's the funny part. I think he just dropped a grenade for the fun of it. He's probly laughing at us.
I'm gonna get ready for work. Screw you guys. lolol.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2017 at 02:26 PM.
Back to this? I don't argue for PDAs.
IRT stolen gum, I have a small business. In the last 20 years, I've been beat a handful of times. Never took anyone to court. I simply won't trade with them again. It's a cost of doing business. Ironically, the worst offender was a church.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
zactly. I owe ya a rep.I knew someone was going to say that. So basically what you're saying is, because our system is being subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be, we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and go to a system that is also going to end up subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be... Except that in your AnCapLand, you are starting out without a true foundation, but with an illogical, contradictory idea that won't work longer than a few days. Makes loads of sense.
Was the contract signed under compulsion? If not, the obligation was taken on with no compulsion having taken place.
If somebody cheated somebody, boo-hoo. The state hasn't made us immune to this. Are you suggesting that somehow the state will seal up the gaps on unethical trade eventualities? If somebody lowers the Super Mario Hammer on a thief on my behalf, or on a vendor due to non-compliance, things didn't get more capitalistic.
You still haven't solved the problem that true free trade requires the absence of the state from the transaction.
If capitalism to you means big corporate artificial men with their individual human agents protected from recourse, yeah, anarchy isn't going to work out for you, because anarchy is capitalistic by its nature.
Partisan politics, misleading or emotional bill titles, and 4D chess theories are manifestations of the same lie—that the text of the Constitution, the text of legislation, and plain facts do not matter; what matters is what you want to believe. From this comes hypocrisy. And where hypocrisy thrives, virtue recedes. Without virtue, liberty dies. - Justin Amash, March 2018
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us