-
[quote user="liberty student"] But it doesn't. Iraq didn't protect its citizens from America. Britain did not protect the freedom of Britons against German bombers in WWII. Certainly the US government did not prevent 9/11. So the protection claim is disproven. [/quote] Your proofs have holes the size of a bus, I'm afraid. Do you
-
[quote user="liberty student"] "What can the state do, that cooperative individuals cannot?" [/quote] The state (with its uniform legal system and enforcement) can protect my freedom and property from attacks launched by any other agent from within and from outside the country. In anarchy, anyone with more power than myself can come
-
[quote user="liberty student"] Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does. [/quote] Yes, but anarchy has plenty of other potential and highly unpredictable detriments to individual freedom: other people, each with their own claims to your freedom and
-
[quote user="liberty student"] Anarchism maximizes individual freedom, not minarchy. Anarchism has no institutional impediment to individual freedom. Minarchism does. [/quote] Yes, but anarchy has plenty of other potential and highly unpredictable detriments to individual freedom: other people, each with their own claims to your freedom and
-
[quote user="liberty student"] No, it is. All government debts are settled with legal tender. Even payment in kind, is a form of legal tender. Sound money (in the Austrian - Ron Paul sense) is market money, the absence of legal tender (Paul has called for an end to legal tender). If Nir or yourself want to argue over what constitutes sound
-
[quote user="liberty student"] [quote user="z1235"]Are you claiming that violence and stealing do not exist[/quote] You already have an answer to this. I will repeat myself, why would violence and stealing be optimal? [/quote] It's not a straw-man. It's the real deal. A. Violence and stealing is (and has been) done by a lot
-
[quote user="liberty student"] They can do anything they want. They are a gang of crooks. However, the person I am debating with doesn't recognize them as crooks. They recognize them as a legitimate provider of law. Thanks for derailing the discussion. [/quote] He wasn't derailing the discussion. I proposed minarchy + sound money as
-
[quote user="liberty student"] You're still appealing to human behaviour without explaining what human behaviour is. [/quote] What do you mean? Do you want me to list all possible and/or likely manifestations of human action/behavior? OK, how about everyone's self-interest for ones self and for his closest family? [quote user="liberty
-
[quote user="liberty student"] Anarchy, politically desirable or not, is economically sustainable.[/quote] Not if human behavior (nature, or character, on average and over large swats of the society's population -- Did this explain this term a little bit better?) forces society to allocate too many resources away from production and toward
-
[quote user="liberty student"] [quote user="z1235"]as I'm walking down the street toward you, would you consider that to be "aggresive (initiated) force" against your freedom to keep walking down your path?[/quote] Who owns the path?[/quote] The town,or if that's too much, just assume that we both do (50-50 ownership