Jacob Bloom:And might can make things happen.
Will you also claim that might is the only way to make things happen? Will you also claim that might is the best way to make things happen? Is might the chepest way to make things happen? Is might the most efficient way to make things happen?
Jacob Bloom: I care about power and who has it and what they're going to do with it. This is what principally concerns me.
Why? Based on your own arguments, you are powerless to make any changes, so why bother trying? Might makes possible right? What are you but a lone voice in the wilderness? What are you going to accomplish against the might and power of the US government and its military?
Jacob Bloom:Without a final arbiter, no one will adhere to anyone's rulings.
You still haven't answered my question. If we need a final arbiter, who makes sure the final is behaving? Seems like an argument for a global arbiter if I ever heard one. Are you in favor of a world government system that truly a final arbiter? If not, why not?
Jacob Bloom: Yes, I would, if I thought the right people were in charge.
Assuming you start out this monopoly of force with the right people in charge, what happens when the wrong people get in charge? What do you do then?
Jacob Bloom:the US government isn't going anywhere.
That's the best pun I've heard in a long time. Of course its going somewhere... what makes you think its any different then the hundreds of other State systems that have failed in the past?
Jacob Bloom:They won't because profit and loss are not relevant to laws. Do or do not is what laws are about.
End economic law says that when there is demand and a do not you get a black market.
Jacob Bloom:With no arbiter, rights don't exist.
So basically you reject the principle that was written into the Declaration of Independence that states that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? No so-called republican/conservative I know would ever deny the validity of this principle embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and they would agree that rights came before the institution of the protector of rights.
Jacob Bloom:But I don't think they would because they'd just keep going back and forth between private courts until they got the verdict they wanted.
You assume that going to court is free.
It has allowed me to understand that the "economy" is a purely natural system, which consists of billions of individuals making thousands of choices for themselves every day. And no politician, state, council, senate, or whatever is truly able to control something as complicate as this; it's pretty comforting if you think about it. Plus I gain a lot of satisfaction from watching people like Krugman/Mankiew constantly embarrass themselves.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Humans are indeed, rational. Just not the way you have mistakenly come to understand the term "rational." Everyone acts to better their own condition, no act is selfless. We understand that freedom is not perfect, history has shown that, but we believe it's most perfect. If you stopped and thought about it, and stopped your self-righteous "realism" you would see that Libertarianism is the only "realistic" political philosophy.
Daniel: I can take them? Are they tangible? Where do you store yours? In a man purse?
I can take them? Are they tangible? Where do you store yours? In a man purse?
Do not insult the man purse industry. They are merely meeting a demand within our culture
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Jacob Bloom: Morals are not real rules, there is no one to enforce them. Rights are a legal concept. The Jews in the Holocaust had their rights taken from them, they had no one to enforce them. Until they were liberated and their rights were restored. Right and wrong are not what I'm talking about. Might is just a means to an end.
Morals are not real rules, there is no one to enforce them. Rights are a legal concept. The Jews in the Holocaust had their rights taken from them, they had no one to enforce them. Until they were liberated and their rights were restored.
Right and wrong are not what I'm talking about. Might is just a means to an end.
Your statement concerning Jews in the Holocaust is highly problematic. Here's why: If Jews had their rights taken from them, then they did not have the right to life or the right to self-ownership when millions of them were killed. If an individual does not possess those rights, then anyone who kills him is not committing murder or any other crime for that matter. Your argument has three possible logical implications:
A) Despite what you wrote above, you do not in fact believe that rights can be taken away. Instead, you believe that rights can only be violated. You believe that Jews had their rights violated, not taken away, and on this basis believe that the Nazis committed mass murder and genocide.
B) You truly do believe that the Jews of Eastern Europe had their rights taken from them. However, you have other moral beliefs that lead you to conclude that the killing of these six million people was wrong.
C) You believe that Jews had their rights taken from them during the Holocaust, and you do not have any other moral beliefs that would lead you to conclude that it was wrong for the Nazis to kill millions of Jews. You further do not believe that the Nazis committed mass murder or genocide.
What you wrote in the section I quoted contradicts option A. I am inclined to take you at your word and to cross off this option. Furthermore, in another post in this thread you wrote the following:
Jacob Bloom: No, I concern myself with reality. I don't care about morality. I care about power and who has it and what they're going to do with it. This is what principally concerns me.
No, I concern myself with reality. I don't care about morality. I care about power and who has it and what they're going to do with it. This is what principally concerns me.
These statements contradict implication B. I am again inclined to take you at your word and to cross off this option as well.
This obviously only leaves implication C: that you believe that the deaths of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust were neither wrong nor criminal, and do not constitute mass murder nor genocide. If this is indeed what you believe, then intellectual honesty and a commitment to the pursuit of truth demand that you own up to it. If you do not agree with C, then you have a responsibility to recant at least some of your previously stated beliefs.
Jacob Bloom:3. Being afraid is proper to being alive. Fear is an awareness of danger. And my spider sense gets to tingling every time someone starts talking about private law on here. I won't endorse it.
I am not dead, I have no fear...
Seems your law of life does not add up in every case....
Listen jake... I have no interest in you, after all you told me yourself if you had no fear of an absolute power able to violate you for actions (Murder, Rape, Theft) you commit, there is no use for you in a free society, you refuse freedom...
Now go play with the other boys, they seem to be keeping you busy with explaining how wrong you are....
And no, I have no empathy for children who believe might equals right...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
laminustacitus:I think the analogy falls apart when you are killed as a result of war.
I disagree...
laminustacitus:I don't think any of us knows how an anarchist society would function.
Since an anarchist society is supposed to be about freedom, one must then make the decision, is freedom about being afraid?
Jacob Bloom: laminustacitus: Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail? The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails.... I think the analogy falls apart when you are killed as a result of war. Harry Felker:Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions... I don't think any of us knows how an anarchist society would function. 1. I know right? Because once they're dead...they're dead lol. 2. Finally, someone with some integrity! I could hug you! You're right, we're trying to figure out what an anarchist society would look like without having one to look at. We need a concrete example.
laminustacitus: Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail? The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails.... I think the analogy falls apart when you are killed as a result of war. Harry Felker:Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions... I don't think any of us knows how an anarchist society would function.
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail? The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails....
Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail?
The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails....
I think the analogy falls apart when you are killed as a result of war.
Harry Felker:Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions...
I don't think any of us knows how an anarchist society would function.
1. I know right? Because once they're dead...they're dead lol.
2. Finally, someone with some integrity! I could hug you! You're right, we're trying to figure out what an anarchist society would look like without having one to look at. We need a concrete example.
I am not surprised, moral relativists of a feather....
laminustacitus:Like it or not, the batallion that fought the British at New Orleans was created by the Kentucky state government in order to defend Kentucky, surely they were not professional soldiers, but they were apart of a military organization created top-down.
Really???
So the Hatian freemen were not there?
The Louisiana Militia was not there?
Were you there to refute historian accounts?
laminustacitus:And of course you could not have bothered to quote Wellington.
Duke of Wellington: I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America… You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power… Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.
I think you have no right, from the state of war, to demand any concession of territory from America… You have not been able to carry it into the enemy's territory, notwithstanding your military success and now undoubted military superiority, and have not even cleared your own territory on the point of attack. You can not on any principle of equality in negotiation claim a cessation of territory except in exchange for other advantages which you have in your power… Then if this reasoning be true, why stipulate for the uti possidetis? You can get no territory: indeed, the state of your military operations, however creditable, does not entitle you to demand any.
laminustacitus:And for the most part died with Rome until the spread of nationalism.
Ahhh so it was nationalism that saved Rome....
No wonder Jake gets along with you....
Bradipo: Jacob Bloom:And might can make things happen. Will you also claim that might is the only way to make things happen? Will you also claim that might is the best way to make things happen? Is might the chepest way to make things happen? Is might the most efficient way to make things happen?
Sometimes. Give me an example?
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:3. Being afraid is proper to being alive. Fear is an awareness of danger. And my spider sense gets to tingling every time someone starts talking about private law on here. I won't endorse it. I am not dead, I have no fear... Seems your law of life does not add up in every case.... Listen jake... I have no interest in you, after all you told me yourself if you had no fear of an absolute power able to violate you for actions (Murder, Rape, Theft) you commit, there is no use for you in a free society, you refuse freedom... Now go play with the other boys, they seem to be keeping you busy with explaining how wrong you are.... And no, I have no empathy for children who believe might equals right...
You have fear. You fear prison.
Bradipo: Jacob Bloom:With no arbiter, rights don't exist. So basically you reject the principle that was written into the Declaration of Independence that states that men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? No so-called republican/conservative I know would ever deny the validity of this principle embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and they would agree that rights came before the institution of the protector of rights.
Yes, because they are wrong. Rights can be taken, and rights can be given. I understand the rhetorical value of the sentiment of inalienable rights. But the problem, in real life, is that without an enforcer or protector, laws have no power and rights don't exist. The founders were trying to find some universal grounds for their proclamation, some universal enforcer and protector. And I guess most of them believed in God. But the problem is that without God...it's all up to us. Most Republicans are theists, so they never think about a world with no God, this is probably why they've never thought about "if there's no God, who gives us inalienable rights?"
If man is alone in this world, with no...deity supervising us...then we're the only arbiters of justice. So that means that by the power of man's law, rights are either bestowed upon man or taken away. I really think that in your anarchist region, only the most wealthy will have any rights at all. Because they're the only ones who will have the money to enforce them. Everyone else will live as serfs, because they won't have the ability to protect and enforce their rights. And if you think that powerful men will respect people will no power just because you tell them it's moral to do so...I've got another thing to sell you.
It is my personal absolute conviction that the state, as we know it now, can absolutely be made to exist to protect and enforce human rights. It can also be used for the opposite purpose. But...just like a gun can be used my a madman to kill, so can a gun be used to protect the innocent. So it's really a question of "Whose hands is the government in?" Right now, it's in the hands of people who don't respect the Constitution. I always expect to see force used to eliminate rights under Liberal rule. Unfortunately, W did it too. Which is why the Republicans are finding it hard to find anything to stand on. This is why I believe limited government needs to become the focus of the Republican Party once again.
AJ: For one thing, I have a lot more appreciation of businesses. I remember reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad a few years back and getting worried thinking, "The more people that become entrepreneurs the less room there will be for me. Why does he keep writing these darn books?" Robert Kiyosaki never mentioned that successful free enterprises generally create wealth for all of society. I used to balk at and get frustrated in dealing with companies, like my real estate agent, but now I appreciate the way they do things a lot more. When I see inefficiency or high prices I automatically think of how some government intervention might have caused it. I can also easily see economic factors at play in my work life and workplace "politics." Generally I have a much much better understanding of how the world works.
For one thing, I have a lot more appreciation of businesses. I remember reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad a few years back and getting worried thinking, "The more people that become entrepreneurs the less room there will be for me. Why does he keep writing these darn books?" Robert Kiyosaki never mentioned that successful free enterprises generally create wealth for all of society.
I used to balk at and get frustrated in dealing with companies, like my real estate agent, but now I appreciate the way they do things a lot more. When I see inefficiency or high prices I automatically think of how some government intervention might have caused it. I can also easily see economic factors at play in my work life and workplace "politics." Generally I have a much much better understanding of how the world works.
It has definitely changed my point of view. After getting out of college, I was definitely left leaning. I thought companies were evil and taking advantage of people. Now I appreciate their obstacles. I am definitely a happier employee. I know that my company has to compete with other companies, and as such has to treat me as well as it can. I think management has noticed my better attitude (as compared to others).
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Bradipo: Jacob Bloom:the US government isn't going anywhere. That's the best pun I've heard in a long time. Of course its going somewhere... what makes you think its any different then the hundreds of other State systems that have failed in the past?
It may fail. But not any time soon.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Your argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights.No, it doesn't.
Jacob Bloom:Your argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights.
Yes, it does. Because for a right to be natural, it has to be upheld by nature. But nature is indifferent to the rights of man. Nature has watched as men have taken and given rights to one another since the dawn of mankind. With no God to balance out the indifference of nature, there are no inalienable rights. You have to be able to protect your rights, Betsy. Like, let's say everyone on this forum decided they wanted me dead. Well, I'd expect the state to protect me and my right to life. However, under your system, I'd have no one to call, and you would come to my house and lynch me. Do you think I want that?
DW89: Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Jacob Bloom: Morals are not real rules, there is no one to enforce them. Rights are a legal concept. The Jews in the Holocaust had their rights taken from them, they had no one to enforce them. Until they were liberated and their rights were restored. Right and wrong are not what I'm talking about. Might is just a means to an end. Your statement concerning Jews in the Holocaust is highly problematic. Here's why: If Jews had their rights taken from them, then they did not have the right to life or the right to self-ownership when millions of them were killed. If an individual does not possess those rights, then anyone who kills him is not committing murder or any other crime for that matter. Your argument has three possible logical implications: A) Despite what you wrote above, you do not in fact believe that rights can be taken away. Instead, you believe that rights can only be violated. You believe that Jews had their rights violated, not taken away, and on this basis believe that the Nazis committed mass murder and genocide. B) You truly do believe that the Jews of Eastern Europe had their rights taken from them. However, you have other moral beliefs that lead you to conclude that the killing of these six million people was wrong. C) You believe that Jews had their rights taken from them during the Holocaust, and you do not have any other moral beliefs that would lead you to conclude that it was wrong for the Nazis to kill millions of Jews. You further do not believe that the Nazis committed mass murder or genocide. What you wrote in the section I quoted contradicts option A. I am inclined to take you at your word and to cross off this option. Furthermore, in another post in this thread you wrote the following: Jacob Bloom: No, I concern myself with reality. I don't care about morality. I care about power and who has it and what they're going to do with it. This is what principally concerns me. These statements contradict implication B. I am again inclined to take you at your word and to cross off this option as well. This obviously only leaves implication C: that you believe that the deaths of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust were neither wrong nor criminal, and do not constitute mass murder nor genocide. If this is indeed what you believe, then intellectual honesty and a commitment to the pursuit of truth demand that you own up to it. If you do not agree with C, then you have a responsibility to recant at least some of your previously stated beliefs.
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
You're forgetting that as long as someone (the US) was willing to fight for and recognize the rights of the Jews in the Holocaust, then they had rights. But they had no rights in their current state. They had rights here. So we went and fought for their rights here. Had we done nothing, as many people on this forum say we should have done, you're correct, the Jews would've died animals with no rights.
Bradipo: Jacob Bloom:But I don't think they would because they'd just keep going back and forth between private courts until they got the verdict they wanted. You assume that going to court is free.
No, but I know some people will be able to afford to go to court as many times as they need to to get the ruling they want. Some people won't be able to afford to go to court at all. Those people will have no rights and no protection in your anarchist region.
Jacob Bloom:No, but I know some people will be able to afford to go to court as many times as they need to to get the ruling they want. Some people won't be able to afford to go to court at all. Those people will have no rights and no protection in your anarchist region.
You don't understand neutral courts. A court that is biased towards the wealthy, will not get money from the middle class and poor. Second of all, the reason people want a neutral court is to avoid retribution. A wealthy person that just "gets his or her way" will still have to worry about retribution from the other person.
Spideynw:It has definitely changed my point of view. After getting out of college, I was definitely left leaning. I thought companies were evil and taking advantage of people. Now I appreciate their obstacles. I am definitely a happier employee. I know that my company has to compete with other companies, and as such has to treat me as well as it can. I think management has noticed my better attitude (as compared to others).
I see an idea for getting business owners (who should be naturally easy targets for AnCap) to want to encourage their employees to read AnCap literature. You could be on to something here.
Why anarchy fails
Spideynw: Jacob Bloom:No, but I know some people will be able to afford to go to court as many times as they need to to get the ruling they want. Some people won't be able to afford to go to court at all. Those people will have no rights and no protection in your anarchist region. You don't understand neutral courts. A court that is biased towards the wealthy, will not get money from the middle class and poor. Second of all, the reason people want a neutral court is to avoid retribution. A wealthy person that just "gets his or her way" will still have to worry about retribution from the other person.
So wait a minute, you're the rich guy, you get a ruling against me. You've got your own private army too. You really think I'm going to try and find you and get some personal retribution?? No, I'm just gonna walk away, I don't wanna die. I'm not Rambo. I would need the state to protect me. But the state would be gone. I'd have no one to call and nothing to do except walk home defeated. Because of YOUR system.
Jacob Bloom: Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Your argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights.No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. Because for a right to be natural, it has to be upheld by nature. But nature is indifferent to the rights of man. Nature has watched as men have taken and given rights to one another since the dawn of mankind. With no God to balance out the indifference of nature, there are no inalienable rights.
Yes, it does. Because for a right to be natural, it has to be upheld by nature. But nature is indifferent to the rights of man. Nature has watched as men have taken and given rights to one another since the dawn of mankind. With no God to balance out the indifference of nature, there are no inalienable rights.
If individuals possess inherent rights on the basis of their humanity, then rights are indeed inalienable--human beings cannot stop being human. No enforcement by either God or man is necessary.
To Jacob: You haven't answered my posts, or most of the ones that make the best cases. And you're saying you've given up on AnCap without reading any of it!
And instead, you're answering the fuzzy stuff about rights and morals, but it should be obvious that you guys are defining rights differently, so of course you're never going to agree.
You are defining rights as "what someone is allowed to do," while the other posters are defining rights as "what someone ought to be allowed to do." How many posts are you guys going to waste in the back and forth before you square definitions?
AJ: Spideynw:It has definitely changed my point of view. After getting out of college, I was definitely left leaning. I thought companies were evil and taking advantage of people. Now I appreciate their obstacles. I am definitely a happier employee. I know that my company has to compete with other companies, and as such has to treat me as well as it can. I think management has noticed my better attitude (as compared to others). I see an idea for getting business owners (who should be naturally easy targets for AnCap) to want to encourage their employees to read AnCap literature. You could be on to something here.
Depends on what the business is and how big the business is. Businessmen are not libertarians, they are opportunists. For instance, you'd have a hard time convincing corn ethanol companies to switch to an anarchist region, or the wind power industry or the solar power industry (all are being heavily subsidized by the government due to their non competitive nature) or the pharmaceutical companies who retain virtual monopolies because of how heavily regulated their industries are. Or even the tobacco companies who are so heavily regulated it's virtually impossible for a new tobacco business to just spring up without being overburdened by compliance costs. Any business that maintains its competitive edge not by being the best, but by making it nearly impossible for anyone new to break into their industry is going to be in favor of the state. AnCap is going to be appealing to people of independent wealth. That's who you need to target.
AJ: To Jacob: You haven't answered my posts, or most of the ones that make the best cases. And you're saying you've given up on AnCap without reading any of it! That is just silly and illogical, but it's your choice. And instead, you're answering the fuzzy stuff about rights and morals, but it should be obvious that you guys are defining rights differently, so of course you're never going to agree. You are defining rights as "what someone is allowed to do," while the other posters are defining rights as "what someone ought to be allowed to do." How many posts are you guys going to waste in the back and forth before you square definitions?
To Jacob: You haven't answered my posts, or most of the ones that make the best cases. And you're saying you've given up on AnCap without reading any of it! That is just silly and illogical, but it's your choice.
Good point, you're right, their definition is obviously totally different.
Your books have no power. They're just ideas. See, when I was a liberal, I talked to this conservative about what being conservative was all about and I immediately went out and found the literature so that I could learn more. But I wasn't convinced by just a book. Although...Lucifer Effect WAS pretty powerful. But I looked at the people who live the lifestyle first. I'm looking at your lifestyle and thought process and I just couldn't live or think like an ancap guy. It seems so obviously a weak philosophy to me. It reminds me of karate in the martial arts. I want the Jiu Jitsu of philosophies.
Jacob Bloom:So wait a minute, you're the rich guy, you get a ruling against me. You've got your own private army too. You really think I'm going to try and find you and get some personal retribution?? No, I'm just gonna walk away, I don't wanna die. I'm not Rambo. I would need the state to protect me. But the state would be gone. I'd have no one to call and nothing to do except walk home defeated. Because of YOUR system.
You think my army could protect me from your sniper rifle or bomb? Give me a break. Or you think I really want to have to even worry about it? It would be in my best interest to insure that a neutral court made the ruling so that both parties are satisfied.
Spideynw: Jacob Bloom:So wait a minute, you're the rich guy, you get a ruling against me. You've got your own private army too. You really think I'm going to try and find you and get some personal retribution?? No, I'm just gonna walk away, I don't wanna die. I'm not Rambo. I would need the state to protect me. But the state would be gone. I'd have no one to call and nothing to do except walk home defeated. Because of YOUR system. You think my army could protect me from your sniper rifle or bomb? Give me a break. Or you think I really want to have to even worry about it? It would be in my best interest to insure that a neutral court made the ruling so that both parties are satisfied.
I'm not trained to use sniper rifles and bombs! Maybe YOU don't want to worry about it. But someone will be perfectly happy to worry about it. I mean...crime lords live ancap lifestyles.
Also, what you're basically telling me is that everyone will know they need to own sniper rifles and bombs. You gonna make sniper rifles and bombs legal to own? Is there going to be a bomb store in your region? Or am I going to have to resort to terrorist activity to get my fair hearing?! No. The current system is better, I don't have to be able to threaten anyone with a sniper rifle or a bomb to get legal protection under the state.
Jacob Bloom:Depends on what the business is and how big the business is. Businessmen are not libertarians, they are opportunists. For instance, you'd have a hard time convincing corn ethanol companies to switch to an anarchist region, or the wind power industry or the solar power industry (all are being heavily subsidized by the government due to their non competitive nature) or the pharmaceutical companies who retain virtual monopolies because of how heavily regulated their industries are. Or even the tobacco companies who are so heavily regulated it's virtually impossible for a new tobacco business to just spring up without being overburdened by compliance costs. Any business that maintains its competitive edge not by being the best, but by making it nearly impossible for anyone new to break into their industry is going to be in favor of the state.
Oh, so you do understand! When there is a monopoly on force, every business connected that monopoly takes on some of those inefficiencies and injustices, so it's hard not to call them a (quasi-)part of the government.
Jacob Bloom:AnCap is going to be appealing to people of independent wealth. That's who you need to target.
I can see why you say that, due to people arguing that there is no final arbiter - but that's not exactly the case. Thank you for answering Rothbard in the other thread. Now we are actually getting into the meat of the argument.
Jacob Bloom: You're forgetting that as long as someone (the US) was willing to fight for and recognize the rights of the Jews in the Holocaust, then they had rights. But they had no rights in their current state. They had rights here. So we went and fought for their rights here. Had we done nothing, as many people on this forum say we should have done, you're correct, the Jews would've died animals with no rights.
I think it may be difficult to argue that the Allies fought the Nazis in order to assert the rights of Eastern European Jews. Similarly, I think it's fairly clear that there was a period of time during which the Nazis were persecuting/murdering Jews and other minority groups but were not being reprimanded by the US. Instead, the US turned a blind eye.
Regardless, even if we assume that your response was historically accurate, I think you have missed the point of my comments. In the event that a government or other group within society *takes away* the rights of certain individuals (as you claim is possible), and then proceeds to kill these individuals, you would not have any problem with this killing as long as no one within that society objects to it or attempts to stop the killers. In a scenario such as this, you would not be able to claim that the crime of murder has taken place, because you believe that rights can be legitimately taken away. Furthermore, you do not care for questions of morality, so you could not object to the killings on moral grounds. What this means is that you would not view this killing as in any way wrong because those with power have exercised it in a way that you believe to be proper. This is an explicit endorsement of the "might makes right" philosophy. Despite the fact that you have claimed otherwise numerous times, when push comes to shove, I think this is precisely what you believe.
Jacob Bloom:I'm not trained to use sniper rifles and bombs! Maybe YOU don't want to worry about it. But someone will be perfectly happy to worry about it. I mean...crime lords live ancap lifestyles.
Crime lords only exist because the state outlaws peaceful activities.
Jacob Bloom:Also, what you're basically telling me is that everyone will know they need to own sniper rifles and bombs. You gonna make sniper rifles and bombs legal to own?
Of course! Why should some people be allowed to own them legally while others are not? Or do you think making something illegal makes it go away?
Jacob Bloom:Is there going to be a bomb store in your region?
Sure
Jacob Bloom:The current system is better, I don't have to be able to threaten anyone with a sniper rifle or a bomb to get legal protection under the state.
Really? Have you tried lately to get legal justice?
No offense Jacop but I'd like to point out the huge fallacy of your argument about human defeciencies.
I agree that some humans are evil but do not agree that we need evil humans to protect us against other evil humans.
You make the argument that we here are Utopian. Your defense is that people are evil and will exploit a nation with no security. So to protect us against evil people your solution is to use the very object which you deem faulty, people.
How can you accuse human kind of being in error then place humans in power to protect you from those errors. Does it not seem hypocritical? Are we just to assume that the humans we place in power are magically going to be good?
When was the last time this country truly faced the threat of invasion? Terrorists attacks which have been labeled acts of war do not count. I'm talking full on true invasion and assault of another nation of power. In all of the wars we have faced how many of them were we actually under the threat of invasion?
The only war that I know of where we actually thought we faced domestic threat was a war that transpired into nothing, the cold war.
Jacob Bloom:See, when I was a liberal, I talked to this conservative about what being conservative was all about and I immediately went out and found the literature so that I could learn more. But I wasn't convinced by just a book. Although...Lucifer Effect WAS pretty powerful. But I looked at the people who live the lifestyle first. I'm looking at your lifestyle and thought process and I just couldn't live or think like an ancap guy. It seems so obviously a weak philosophy to me. It reminds me of karate in the martial arts. I want the Jiu Jitsu of philosophies.
As i said before, the people on this forum are not a good representation of AnCap as a philosophy, not at all. The arguments in print are much, much stronger. The reason is, this is damn hard stuff to grasp (unlike other political philosophies), and we are mostly not great experts. As for lifestyle, most of us were minarchists, who tend to be like small government conservatives lifestyle-wise (I would think). For one thing, you're not seeing our best side since most of the posters here see you as an enemy since we're debating. Also, anarchy is not politics, it's much more complex and hard to grasp, so most of its proponents do not fully understand it, and they really cannot. So it's a different ballgame, it's apples to oranges. You may be able to look at conservatives and say their lifestyle is better than liberals, but anarchists are a totally different thing. You can't just look at their lifestyles and decide, because all anarchists are are people who happen to have realized that monopoly is silly and harmful. I don't know if there are any binding traits or biases that typify us, unlike other political groups. So in that sense it's apples to oranges. You can only know anarchist theory by studying the most cogent arguments for it, and then thinking on your own, and maybe then posting here.
Anyway, if you wanted to know about our lifestyle you could have asked. No one will be shown in a good light when they are in fighting mode, and the same would be true on a conservative forum if you questioned all of their tenets like you have done here.
It seems so obviously a weak philosophy to me. It reminds me of karate in the martial arts. I want the Jiu Jitsu of philosophies.
No, what you want is nonsense that fits your existing predispositions. That is all.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jacob Bloom:Your books have no power. They're just ideas. See, when I was a liberal, I talked to this conservative about what being conservative was all about and I immediately went out and found the literature so that I could learn more. But I wasn't convinced by just a book. Although...Lucifer Effect WAS pretty powerful. But I looked at the people who live the lifestyle first. I'm looking at your lifestyle and thought process and I just couldn't live or think like an ancap guy. It seems so obviously a weak philosophy to me. It reminds me of karate in the martial arts. I want the Jiu Jitsu of philosophies.
Jacob,
Could you stop using figurative language? What does it mean for a book to "have no power"? How are books "just ideas"? Are you saying that books contain no facts? You're a horrible communicator. Also, we know you couldn't think logically; you have proven that throughout this thread. Furthermore, what lifestyle do an-caps live? Please, enlighten me. How is an-cap-ism a weak philophy?
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."