General

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:59:45 GMT

In agreement with the guy I'm blabbering on with? Well, that's what statists do, isn't it? Befuzzle, bamboozle, and discombobulate people into submission - "what this chap is saying is so sophisticated and flew so far over my head that he must be right!"

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

Jargon — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:24:37 GMT

I'm more worried that onlookers are nodding their heads, going "Yeah... yeah..."

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:16:25 GMT

More replies that I won't even bother posting here.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:12:29 GMT

Another reply:

i never said people should live far away from their work, on the contrary in fact. but i do believe it is a waste to build a huge city on fertile lands, paving them all in concrete.
Most major cities started out as fishing ports. while their importance in exchange of goods can't be denied even today, i see little reason for them to house services that are not tied to the place - such as banking and similar non-producing services.

I get the feeling I'm talking to MaoistRebelNews.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

Meistro — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:03:11 GMT

as for the 'go move to somalia' quip. which i think his 'go live in a cave' is a subsidiary of, i typically just reply 'if u love the state so much go move to north korea'. but since he put his in paragraph form you're probably better off arguing that you're opposed to the state, not society, that violence and aggression are wrong but that you shouldn't run away from bullies but rather overcome them, not only for your sake but also for the sake of the weaker members of society who will not be able to fight this evil (the government and it's taxation)

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

Meistro — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:01:01 GMT

Usually when people bring up social contract I bring up Oppenheimer. something like : the idea that government was formed via social contract is historically incorrect. As Oppenheimer points out in 'The State' the origin of government is through the conquest and subjegation of one tribe over another. Far from being a mutually beneficial agreement the nater of the state has always been that of exploitation, of man ruling over man.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

Jargon — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:27:15 GMT

I believe you can take it from here.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:57:31 GMT

Oh wait, it appears as though he did reply to the other one:

you are a part of this civilization that was created by your ancestors. you are born into it and as long as you want to stay in it you have no choice but to cooperate.

it's a survival mechanism. we do what we can to survive as a species and civilization arose from this strive.

if you do not wish to participate in civilization you are free to move away into some cave away from everyone else.

lolz.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:22:45 GMT

"Honestly Skep, don't waste your time with this guy."

I know it's rather pointless but I enjoy seeing statism debunked regardless of who is defending it and...I've got a lot of time on my hands these days.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

Jargon — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:19:03 GMT

Damn. Sometimes peoples' approach to these things are so dumb I don't know what to say for a second.

SkepticalMetal:

"it is necessary to keep less populated areas developed (roads, bridges and what not) because that's where your food, electricity and materials come from.

If there's such a gigantic demand from cities for agricultural goods, how is it that there's only one agency which is capable of coordinating the demand and supply?

countrysides could sustain themselves just fine, but they have the task of sustaining major cities too. and that is a conflict of interests.

If it were a conflict of interest then they wouldn't sell "their" goods to "cities". This is so incredibly muddleheaded.

why should people live in deserts? because it is better to house them on infertile lands leaving fertile shores for farming - a complete opposite of what we have today."

Meaning people can't live where they work? Why not? Whence the dichotomy of living in apart from work? And what will all the people who live in the desert be doing with their time?

Wouldn't your scenario necessitate a massive expenditure of energy trying to bring goods into barren wastelands where nothing can be produced?

Honestly Skep, don't waste your time with this guy.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:59:03 GMT

Ready for the next response? Okay.

"it is necessary to keep less populated areas developed (roads, bridges and what not) because that's where your food, electricity and materials come from. countrysides could sustain themselves just fine, but they have the task of sustaining major cities too. and that is a conflict of interests.

why should people live in deserts? because it is better to house them on infertile lands leaving fertile shores for farming - a complete opposite of what we have today."

I was thinking about posting the first thing that came into my brain - "wat?" But notice that he never responded to the Lysander Spooner-esque argument that I used against his glorification of the state.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

eliotn — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 20:49:50 GMT

"you use governmental services every waking moment of your life - from roads to bridges to public education and after school programs. the civilization as a whole could not exist without taxes."

Ok. I use violence to make myself the only provider of clothes in the world. Everyone uses my shoes, otherwise they would be barefoot and could not run civilization due to being immodest. Can I make the claim that since they wear my clothes throughout their life, civilization couldn't exist without me? How is government different from this example.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

NonAntiAnarchist — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:56:48 GMT

The only cooperation that takes place within the state is between that of interested men to profit off the labor and trade of honest, working men. It is the cooperation to profit politically via expropriation and exploitation, and it has never been anything but that.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:45:06 GMT

Okay, here's the response I submitted:

When you say that people cooperate and create states because it is the most efficient way to develop large projects, I'm curious - where are the documents from any state that expressed how the reason for the state's existence was to develop these projects? You're right when you say "people cooperate" - but with who? Not me. If I refuse to cooperate in this "team," I am thrown in prison. I never signed up for it.

Also, Why should money go into places where otherwise it wouldn't have? Why should a million people live in the desert? Countrysides are perfectly capable of importing goods and generating their own. Gap in commodities growing larger? An elaboration would be much appreciated. And what is "development" for a countryside and why is it necessary?

I'll keep posting our back-and-forth comment correspondence.

Re: Debating in the YT Comments section...

Jargon — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 19:38:25 GMT

"your idea that state = slavery is absurd.

people cooperate and create states exactly because it is the most efficient way to develop large projects. state plays a major role in bringing money into places that would otherwise have none - far of countrysides with low populations.

if everything was privatized you would see the gap in commodities grow even larger then they are already, and countrysides become less developed."

People cooperate, but with who? Not me. If I refuse to "cooperate" in this "team", I am thrown in prison. I never signed up for it.

Why should money go into places where otherwise it wouldn't have? Why should a million people live in the desert? Countrysides are perfectly capable of importing goods and generating their own. His assertion is ridiculous and untenable.

Gap in commodities growing larger? It would be with the utmost pleasure that I hear him elaborate on this.

What is "development" for a countryside and why is it necessary?