Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Freedom Images...

This post has 998 Replies | 69 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Thu, Jul 9 2009 11:34 PM

malgratloprekindle:

You know, it's bad enough Libertarians have to take crap from most everyone else on the political spectrum and now from the Anarchists.

I'm personally tired of it being treated like a dichotomy who seem to think that "Well, he's a minarchist, therefore he's just as bad as the statists", while ignoring that this is a spectrum. 

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/2009/06/30/anarchists-minarchists-socialists-oh-my/

malgratloprekindle:
Minarchism should be closer to Anarcho-Capitalism; much closer.  BTW:  Can someone please explain why Anarcho-Communism has niether positive OR negative rights? O.o

I don't. Considering keeping a "monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory" are the roots of statism, and the rest of the tree will simply grow back over time, once you've cut the branches, it is inevitable. (How the States transcends it's Limits). And "Deathwish of the Anarcho-Communists" by Murray N. Rothbard. No-one owns any property, you have no right to it. No rights at all. Everyone owns everything and no-one owns anything.

Nice pics btw! Big Smile

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 3:31 AM

 

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

Conza88:
I don't. Considering keeping a "monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory"

Not a monopoly.  Check the 2nd Amendment.  It's supposed to be a check and balance against that.

I'm aware of that; that the problem with Minarchism is that it tends to slowly get more tyrannical (as it has in the USA), while Anarchy seems subject to direct takeover.  So as far as I'm concerned, it's "pick your poison".

I believe in a government to have courts, police and national defense and only that, and they shouldn't be monopolies (private alternatives possible and the ability to opt out of the public ones).  What does that make me?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:37 AM

malgratloprekindle:
I believe in a government to have courts, police and national defense and only that, and they shouldn't be monopolies (private alternatives possible and the ability to opt out of the public ones).  What does that make me?

An anarchist. Your "government" is just a PDA.

malgratloprekindle:

Conza88:
I don't. Considering keeping a "monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory"

Not a monopoly.  Check the 2nd Amendment.  It's supposed to be a check and balance against that.

Milton Freedman: A monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

malgratloprekindle:
Not a monopoly.  Check the 2nd Amendment.  It's supposed to be a check and balance against that.

Check the supreme court who gave themselves the right to interpret the Constitution, and utter refusal to hear cases at whim....

malgratloprekindle:
I'm aware of that; that the problem with Minarchism is that it tends to slowly get more tyrannical (as it has in the USA), while Anarchy seems subject to direct takeover.  So as far as I'm concerned, it's "pick your poison".

Slow... 1000 years for Rome... 75 for the USA... Seems to be speeding up...

At least with a direct takeover there is not false pretense of "greater good and public welfare" undermining the fight to remain free, there is a certain amount of honesty in the direct threat...

I will add that this direct takeover is a foolish notion, the gun culture of the United States has kept us safe from foreign invasion, not the military...

 

malgratloprekindle:
I believe in a government to have courts, police and national defense and only that, and they shouldn't be monopolies (private alternatives possible and the ability to opt out of the public ones).  What does that make me?

Utopian...

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:54 AM

malgratloprekindle:
I believe in a government to have courts, police and national defense and only that, and they shouldn't be monopolies (private alternatives possible and the ability to opt out of the public ones).  What does that make me?

It makes you an Anarcho-capitalist!  In the absence of the coercive monopoly nature of the State, your alleged government police, courts, etc.  have become profit & loss institutions.  If they cannot tax you for their existence (due to ability to opt out) and cannot keep you from seeking services from competitors, what does that make them if not free enterprise businesses?  You are an Anarcho-Capitalist and you just don't know it.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

DD5:
It makes you an Anarcho-capitalist!  In the absence of the coercive monopoly nature of the State, your alleged government police, courts, etc.  have become profit & loss institutions.  If they cannot tax you for their existence (due to ability to opt out) and cannot keep you from seeking services from competitors, what does that make them if not free enterprise businesses?  You are an Anarcho-Capitalist and you just don't know it.

Not really, he leaves in the option for coercion, if the majority decide that the competition is not desirable, they will cause a civil war scenario by virtue of the "National" aspect, then we are back to square one...

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 12:41 PM

The problem with minarchism, is that they are all over the spectrum.  They have no idea what "enough government" is or what kind of government should be established to ensure that it does not grow "too big".  They think government without consent of the governed (i.e. slavery) is OK.  They think taking money from people without consent (i.e. stealing) is OK.  Once you have a mindset that stealing and slavery is OK, then there is no way to control the beast.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 1:34 PM

Spideynw:

The problem with minarchism, is that they are all over the spectrum.  They have no idea what "enough government" is or what kind of government should be established to ensure that it does not grow "too big".  They think government without consent of the governed (i.e. slavery) is OK.  They think taking money from people without consent (i.e. stealing) is OK.  Once you have a mindset that stealing and slavery is OK, then there is no way to control the beast.

 

That's a strawman. There are minarchists that support voluntary means of financing governments and recognize the right to opt out of gov services. Ayn Rand would be a good example. The only thing all minarchists agree on is that there should be a small monopoly goverment primarily dedicated to the provision of security.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 1:37 PM

Harry Felker:

DD5:
It makes you an Anarcho-capitalist!  In the absence of the coercive monopoly nature of the State, your alleged government police, courts, etc.  have become profit & loss institutions.  If they cannot tax you for their existence (due to ability to opt out) and cannot keep you from seeking services from competitors, what does that make them if not free enterprise businesses?  You are an Anarcho-Capitalist and you just don't know it.

Not really, he leaves in the option for coercion, if the majority decide that the competition is not desirable, they will cause a civil war scenario by virtue of the "National" aspect, then we are back to square one...

What do you mean by bolded part?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 6,045

I just don't get minarchism. Why should a monopoly be mantained voluntarily? And why one should only include courts, police and roads in that voluntary monopoly? That idea is one step closer to communism. What would happen if an individual don't agree with this monopoly? Won't his idea be screwed by the majority? Isn't that collectivism?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 2:24 PM

Praetyre:
That's a strawman.

No it is not.

Praetyre:
There are minarchists that support voluntary means of financing governments and recognize the right to opt out of gov services. The only thing all minarchists agree on is that there should be a small monopoly goverment primarily dedicated to the provision of security.

How can there be a government with a monopoly if people are allowed to opt out?  By definition, if people are allowed to opt out, then there is not a government monopoly.

So yes, all minarchists believe in slavery and theft, by definition, because none of them do believe that it is OK to opt out, since they all believe there should be one government.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 2:38 PM

Spideynw:

How can there be a government with a monopoly if people are allowed to opt out?  By definition, if people are allowed to opt out, then there is not a government monopoly.

So yes, all minarchists believe in slavery and theft, by definition, because none of them do believe that it is OK to opt out, since they all believe there should be one government.

That's not what a monopoly means. A monopoly means that there is only a single seller/provider of a given good, not that people are coerced into purchasing that good. For example, if a hypothetical company called Macrosoft was the only seller of computers in New Zealand, that would not make it equivalent to Macrosoft forcing me to buy it's products at gunpoint.

I am not forced by anyone to buy a computer. Similarily, in the hypothetical governments envisioned by some minarchists, no one is forced into utilizing government services. There is simply only one provider of that service.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 3:03 PM

Praetyre:

Spideynw:

How can there be a government with a monopoly if people are allowed to opt out?  By definition, if people are allowed to opt out, then there is not a government monopoly.

So yes, all minarchists believe in slavery and theft, by definition, because none of them do believe that it is OK to opt out, since they all believe there should be one government.

That's not what a monopoly means. A monopoly means that there is only a single seller/provider of a given good, not that people are coerced into purchasing that good. For example, if a hypothetical company called Macrosoft was the only seller of computers in New Zealand, that would not make it equivalent to Macrosoft forcing me to buy it's products at gunpoint.

I am not forced by anyone to buy a computer. Similarily, in the hypothetical governments envisioned by some minarchists, no one is forced into utilizing government services. There is simply only one provider of that service.

That is not "opting out".  Opting out means I can choose my law provider.  There is also a difference between a government granted monopoly, and a government monopoly on law.  You are correct that if someone is granted a monopoly by the government, I do not have to purchase their product.  However, if there is a government monopoly, they will force me to purchase their product.

 

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 3:17 PM

Spideynw:

That is not "opting out".  Opting out means I can choose my law provider.  There is also a difference between a government granted monopoly, and a government monopoly on law.  You are correct that if someone is granted a monopoly by the government, I do not have to purchase their product.  However, if there is a government monopoly, they will force me to purchase their product.

Law, in and of itself, is not a product, it is a code. However, enforcement of that law (police, courts, DROs, etc.) is a seperate thing from the law's formulation. I (Jacob Bloom notwithstanding) do not have to pay to live under a law. However, I do have to pay to have that law enforced by somebody.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 3:47 PM

Praetyre:
Law, in and of itself, is not a product, it is a code.

"Law" includes not only the formulation of the code, but the enforcement of it as well.  More precisely, law should mean neutral courts in resolution of disputes between two or more people.

However, I think most people think of law as some magical thing politicians can do to make people act a certain way.

Regardless, these minarchists that supposedly are OK with letting people "opt out" of government are not really allowed to "opt out".  As such, my statement stands that they are OK with slavery and theft.  Because if they are truly allowed to "opt out", then they would not only not have to pay taxes, they would also be able to use different courts outside of the government courts.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 3:57 PM

Spideynw:
"Law" includes not only the formulation of the code, but the enforcement of it as well.  More precisely, law should mean neutral courts in resolution of disputes between two or more people.

Law and enforcement of law are two different things. There is nothing to prevent there being a single body making laws and multiple bodies enforcing them. For example, Government A makes the law, and there are two seperate courts with different procedures and prices enforcing the laws.

Spideynw:
Regardless, these minarchists that supposedly are OK with letting people "opt out" of government are not really allowed to "opt out".  As such, my statement stands that they are OK with slavery and theft.  Because if they are truly allowed to "opt out", then they would not only not have to pay taxes, they would also be able to use different courts outside of the government courts.

Some minarchists believe that governments should not possess a monopoly on courts, solely on law making. Though, neither Rand nor I are among those. But since we are arguing about all minarchists and those with minarchist elements (such as Rand), my assertion of you strawmanning minarchism still stands.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

Harry Felker:
Check the supreme court who gave themselves the right to interpret the Constitution, and utter refusal to hear cases at whim....

We can still own guns and defend ourselves.

Harry Felker:
Slow... 1000 years for Rome... 75 for the USA... Seems to be speeding up...

*facepalm* try 200 years for the USA and about 300 for Rome (if even that).

Harry Felker:
I will add that this direct takeover is a foolish notion,

Prove it.

Harry Felker:

malgratloprekindle:
I believe in a government to have courts, police and national defense and only that, and they shouldn't be monopolies (private alternatives possible and the ability to opt out of the public ones).  What does that make me?

Utopian...

Prove it.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 4:58 PM

Harry Felker:

DD5:
It makes you an Anarcho-capitalist!  In the absence of the coercive monopoly nature of the State, your alleged government police, courts, etc.  have become profit & loss institutions.  If they cannot tax you for their existence (due to ability to opt out) and cannot keep you from seeking services from competitors, what does that make them if not free enterprise businesses?  You are an Anarcho-Capitalist and you just don't know it.

Not really, he leaves in the option for coercion, if the majority decide that the competition is not desirable, they will cause a civil war scenario by virtue of the "National" aspect, then we are back to square one...

 

I assumed that he is advocating some sort of a hypothetical constitutional ban on coercion of any type.  I neglected the impracticality of such absolute restrictions in a mini-archist society.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

But I digress.  Back on topic.

Conza88:
Nice pics btw! Big Smile

Thanks. Smile

Here's another:

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

Harry Felker:
if the majority decide that the competition is not desirable, they will cause a civil war scenario by virtue of the "National" aspect, then we are back to square one...

I'm talking about a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

DD5:
I assumed that he is advocating some sort of a hypothetical constitutional ban on coercion of any type.  I neglected the impracticality of such absolute restrictions in a mini-archist society.

Strawman.  I'm talking about a government whose only job is to protect people against the initiation of force and fraud.  I find this criticism odd, in that it seems to apply more to Anarcho-Capitalism (If Government = Force, then isn't Anarchy, by definition a "ban on force"?) than Minarchism.

Honestly, I could go either way (Minarchism, or Anarcho-Capitalism).  As long as I get to be more free, it's all good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS:

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

malgratloprekindle:
(If Government = Force, then isn't Anarchy, by definition a "ban on force"?)
your simplistic equation is hopelessly and irredeemably  reductive, and wrong. so naturaly it leads you to a false conclusion

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

nirgrahamUK:
malgratloprekindle:
(If Government = Force, then isn't Anarchy, by definition a "ban on force"?)
your simplistic equation is hopelessly and irredeemably  reductive, and wrong. so naturaly it leads you to a false conclusion

Prove it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

<--Benefits of economic freedom (Red = least economically free; while dark green = most economically free)

<---Value of our dollar as a % of the original 1776 $ vs. time

<- Technically not relavent, but who doesn't like the thought of this? :P And if it works for a group like PETA, then why not? XD

<- For cheap yuks

<-Advice Keynes

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:32 PM

Why is there now a considerable amount of bs in my thread? Tongue Tied

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 554
Points 9,130
Praetyre replied on Fri, Jul 10 2009 11:38 PM

Am I the only one who can only see the thought-chain-breaking, Uncle Sam STHU and Conza88's avatar, the rest being red xs?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

Because I was offended, stressed, and therefore needed to burn off some steam.  This appearently set off a flame war between myself and the Anarcho-Capitalists.

By the way, I just realized that I have a bunch of images saved onto my computer that I keep trying to upload into this forum (they're relavent and are awesome too! Big Smile).  I tried to add them in my last post using the "add media" button.  After much fiddling and waiting trying to get them all added, I only could get one to display (the one about dissent).  Now when I try to get added, for some reason it displays a broken page icon, instead of the image.  Does anyone know how to get around this?

I've just tried renaming them.  I'll see if that works (edit): it didn't...Fuck...If anyone knows a way around this, please post it here, or message me. X_X

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

Praetyre:
Am I the only one who can only see the thought-chain-breaking, Uncle Sam STHU and Conza88's avatar, the rest being red xs?

Yah.  Only I don't even see the Red X's...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

Woo-ho!

The images work now! Big Smile

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

OK, I just reedited my huge picture post above with even more pictures.  Hope it's to everyone's liking. Smile

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,037
Points 17,975
John Ess replied on Sat, Jul 11 2009 5:56 PM

"Liberal guilt complex."

 

A bit hamfisted and over the top.  Are you anti-semitic/black or is that supposed to be ironic or funny or something?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

John Ess:
A bit hamfisted and over the top.  Are you anti-semitic/black or is that supposed to be ironic or funny or something?

I'm niether anti-semitic or racist.  It was supposed to be ironic/funny making fun of certain liberals.  If I went too far, I'll remove it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 145
Points 2,040

After more consideration, I decided to remove the picture.

I'm sorry to anyone whom I offended.  That was not my intention.  I was merely poking fun at the liberals who take it too far.

Peace.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

malgratloprekindle:
We can still own guns and defend ourselves.

That sir depends on the State you live in, and your record...

malgratloprekindle:
*facepalm* try 200 years for the USA and about 300 for Rome (if even that).

I consider the fall of the American Republic with the Civil War... not 1976...

The US fell a long time ago

malgratloprekindle:
Prove it.

How many invasions have we had to deal with?????  Historical record shows even at our weakest (Reconstruction Era) we managed to remain unattractive as a target...

malgratloprekindle:
Prove it.

I did in my response to another that youe quoted...

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 754
Points 11,800

malgratloprekindle:
I'm talking about a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Show me one that lasted more than a century and you might have a point, until then, your constitutional republic is a flawed concept as it allows the Government to dictate the rules it follows, if I make my own rules and everyone else has to obey arbitrary ones I dictate to them, why am I an evil ruler, and the government (which does the same thing), in a Con Rep, a good thing???

 

malgratloprekindle:
I'm talking about a government whose only job is to protect people against the initiation of force and fraud. 

Utopian if you think it will end its power there, it will use that principle (Like Dems and Public Welfare / Reps and National Security) to be just as oppressive and eventually further that what we have today (as this system will be)...

malgratloprekindle:

I find this criticism odd, in that it seems to apply more to Anarcho-Capitalism (If Government = Force, then isn't Anarchy, by definition a "ban on force"?) than Minarchism.

Well your comparison is off...

Government = Force

Minarchism = Force

Anarchism = Not Force

It is not a "ban on force" as you say, but has no authority that is legitimized in using force, Government's ban force all the time, just not banning themselves from the use of force, just us peons, from using it on them...

It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Tue, Jul 14 2009 8:55 PM

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 6,045

Hahaha!!! The last one is a very graphical example of the effects of minimum-wage laws. Excellent!!!

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 16
Points 335
kurlare replied on Wed, Jul 15 2009 12:30 AM

Those were all very enjoyable but that last one is really special!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sat, Aug 8 2009 2:27 AM

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 142
Points 1,760
Mlee replied on Sat, Aug 8 2009 3:21 AM

My only problem with the above is that it doesn't look like Karl Marx. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 25 (999 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS