Knight_of_BAAWA:Humans can do bad things, so we need a group of humans (who can do bad things) to rule over us via a monopoly? Ummmm.....I'm not seeing an upside to that, nor am I seeing internal consistency. Y'might want to fix that.
Ummmm.....I'm not seeing an upside to that, nor am I seeing internal consistency. Y'might want to fix that.
bloomj31:Well, as far as I can tell, it's worked out ok here in the US so far.
bloomj31:Juan, the problem isn't the system, it's humans. We're the problem. People want to blame systems. But humans came up with the systems. Humans operate them. They're just a byproduct of humanity. The problem with an-cap is that it's not made for humans, it's made for angels.
bloomj31:I'll be more inclined to give up my argument when more people are anarcho-capitalists "democrats."
Still repeating the same failed argument. Interestingly, democracy was thought of as a synonym of anarchy in 18th century Europe.
filc: I'm assuming your discounting the economic intensive society has at removing the state?
I'm assuming your discounting the economic intensive society has at removing the state?
What incentive? How many people are on the government take? Only the people who have money or make money have any reason to get rid of the government, and a lot of those people probably make the amount of money they make because of the government. How many people actually stand to gain from the dissolution of the state?
Daniel Muffinburg:What does that have to do with the current situation? Anyway, 20% plus unemployment plus higher rates of taxation while real wages are dropping seems pretty good to you? Transferring trillions of dollars of purchasing power to Wall Street and away from everyone else seems pretty good to you?
bloomj31:No, none of those things are good. But the question I can't help but ask is "couldn't that same stuff happen without a government?"
bloomj31:So how do we explain manias and panics?
bloomj31:Are people acting rationally even when they're buying assets at prices that can't possibly be sustainable with the hope that they'll find the next sucker? Is that really rational?
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved? I don't know. I don't know your thoughts on this. Anyway, could you at least my question? Btw, nice to see that you finally make a non-collectivist statement or question. The question is not if it's bad or not.
Daniel Muffinburg: Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved? I don't know. I don't know your thoughts on this. Anyway, could you at least my question? Btw, nice to see that you finally make a non-collectivist statement or question.
Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved?
I don't know. I don't know your thoughts on this. Anyway, could you at least my question? Btw, nice to see that you finally make a non-collectivist statement or question.
The question is not if it's bad or not.
What are you talking about? Are telling me what my question is?
bloomj31:It is. The question is "do people stand to gain more from enslaving a few people like yourself than they do by allowing you to be free?" As long as everyone decides it's in their interest to not give you your freedom, you won't have it. If you can sell anarcho-capitalism better, it will win and so will you.
Your question ignores that value is subjective. You might benefit from raping someone, so, according to your philosophy, this is okay. However, it ignores that the person being raped does not benefit.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Look at this guys: Senate Dems strike deal on health care reform
You know how they got Nelson's vote? The bought it. Just like they bought Landrieu's.
"Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu's much-derided "Louisiana Purchase." In Nelson's case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate.
The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017."
People will always be for sale. There will always be a government willing to buy people's votes with promises of free stuff.
You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises.
bloomj31:What incentive?
I don't know. Perhaps they don't want their general quality of living to improve. Most people I meet do though. Perhaps you don't. *shrug*
We are not talking in societal terms here. We are talking to you. You are not 'society' and siding with 'society' is one of the most dangerous fallacies of all. You presume to think society has the education to know whats best economically. You also presume to think it's in society's best interest in learning economics.
It is infact not, there is a valid argument for Rational Ignorance. Division of labor stipulates that people need to invest their time in things they are good at.
bloomj31:To answer this question with another: How does it help me to fight for your freedom from the state? What do I stand to gain?
bloomj31: filc: I'm assuming your discounting the economic intensive society has at removing the state? What incentive? How many people are on the government take? Only the people who have money or make money have any reason to get rid of the government, and a lot of those people probably make the amount of money they make because of the government. How many people actually stand to gain from the dissolution of the state?
So would you support gang rape if benefited more people than it hurt?
bloomj31:People will always be for sale.
Precisely. So remove the means of coercion. Problem solved.
bloomj31:You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises.
filc: Precisely. So remove the means of coercion. Problem solved.
You can't remove the means of coercion. Just the current one.
Daniel Muffinburg: So would you support gang rape if benefited more people than it hurt?
Well, obviously not.
bloomj31: Look at this guys: Senate Dems strike deal on health care reform You know how they got Nelson's vote? The bought it. Just like they bought Landrieu's. "Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu's much-derided "Louisiana Purchase." In Nelson's case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate. The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017." People will always be for sale. There will always be a government willing to buy people's votes with promises of free stuff. You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises.
Suppose a gang of people are about to each give a beating, would you not at least try to stop the first person from beating you, even if there are more people lined up to give you a beating?
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: So would you support gang rape if benefited more people than it hurt? Well, obviously not.
bloomj31:You can't remove the means of coercion. Just the current one.
Not obvious.
Why not, isn't your support for the state based on that assumption that more people will benefit than will be hurt?
Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Look at this guys: Senate Dems strike deal on health care reform You know how they got Nelson's vote? The bought it. Just like they bought Landrieu's. "Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu's much-derided "Louisiana Purchase." In Nelson's case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate. The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017." People will always be for sale. There will always be a government willing to buy people's votes with promises of free stuff. You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises. Suppose a gang of people are about to each give a beating, would you not at least try to stop the first person from beating you, even if there are more people lined up to give you a beating?
Sure I would.
But don't you support government on the same grounds?
ama gi: 1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.
1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.
Wouldn't that be a logical, in other words, not impossible outcome of a no-state society?
ama gi: 2 - I don't care if you call it "public" or "private". The idea is that if you commit a crime, you get dragged to the nearest courthouse, instead of haggling over multiple, competing courts.
2 - I don't care if you call it "public" or "private". The idea is that if you commit a crime, you get dragged to the nearest courthouse, instead of haggling over multiple, competing courts.
And why wouldn't that happen in a no-state society? Again logically, meaning it's not impossible, that this may be the case.
ama gi: It doesn't need to be any specific number; it just needs to be a large number.
It doesn't need to be any specific number; it just needs to be a large number.
"large" is arbritrary and vacuous in meaning. You gave a number but not a quality, meaning, and identity of who this 'group' is.
Daniel Muffinburg: Why not, isn't your support for the state based on that assumption that more people will benefit than will be hurt?
Yes, but I don't stick to principles when they're completely inapplicable. I judge each situation individually rather than trying to apply some abstract concept to them. I don't care if that makes me a hypocrite sometimes. As long as it gets me what I want.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Look at this guys: Senate Dems strike deal on health care reform You know how they got Nelson's vote? The bought it. Just like they bought Landrieu's. "Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu's much-derided "Louisiana Purchase." In Nelson's case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate. The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017." People will always be for sale. There will always be a government willing to buy people's votes with promises of free stuff. You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises. Suppose a gang of people are about to each give a beating, would you not at least try to stop the first person from beating you, even if there are more people lined up to give you a beating? Sure I would.
Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you?
Giant_Joe: But don't you support government on the same grounds?
I suppose from a philosophical point of view, yes.
Well thats contrary to what you argued above.
Don't conflate my meaning.
Daniel Muffinburg: Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you?
Maybe. Can I win?
Giant_Joe:But don't you support government on the same grounds?
bloomj31:I suppose from a philosophical point of view, yes.
bloomj31:Yes, but I don't stick to principles when they're completely inapplicable. I judge each situation individually rather than trying to apply some abstract concept to them. I don't care if that makes me a hypocrite sometimes. As long as it gets me what I want.
How convenient for you to dismiss integrity.
bloomj31: You will be undone, Wilderness, by the people who are not like you.
You will be undone, Wilderness, by the people who are not like you.
And you are not helping me, which is all that matters in a discussion on such a topic between you and me. It's what you argue for and what I argue for, and you are not helping my argument - even though - you say you would "be all" for it (whatever it is) need not be identified. The issue is for peace, liberty, and justice or arguing on the side of initiating physical aggression. I'm getting no help from you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then you're inconsistent. Why not resolve the contradiction?
Then you're inconsistent. Why not resolve the contradiction?
Because I think I stand to gain more from being inconsistent. If I decide I stand to gain more from being consistent, I'll be consistent. Right now, I'm thinking there's more to gain from being neutral. Look at the billions of dollars the government is doling out.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Why not, isn't your support for the state based on that assumption that more people will benefit than will be hurt? Yes, but I don't stick to principles when they're completely inapplicable. I judge each situation individually rather than trying to apply some abstract concept to them. I don't care if that makes me a hypocrite sometimes. As long as it gets me what I want.
Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so.
bloomj31: Giant_Joe: But don't you support government on the same grounds? I suppose from a philosophical point of view, yes.
Let's go through this again.
For something like rape, murder, etc..
For government:
So yes, you are being inconsistent. Seeing as you're being inconsistent and you don't care, I won't care to argue with you on anything because you don't use the philosophical standard of reason.
filc: How convenient for you to dismiss integrity.
Let me tell you something I've learned in just 23 years of life. Those with integrity are often ruined by those without it. We live in a disgusting world.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you? Maybe. Can I win?
Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. "We can't win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves". You are those men.
Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you?
Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so.
Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful.
Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you?
Highly unlikely.
bloomj31: filc: How convenient for you to dismiss integrity. Let me tell you something I've learned in just 23 years of life. Those with integrity are often ruined by those without it. We live in a disgusting world.
Yet, you've failed to do so.
filc: Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. "We can't win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves". You are those men.
Well, abolish the state and then I'll support you.
Daniel Muffinburg: Yet, you've failed to do so.
No, I've been ruined more often than not for having integrity.