The logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government. If something is bad then it does not matter if it is big or small because it is bad. Freedom and liberty can be protected by the people themselves through voluntary action rather than force or coercion. Government grows like a cancer, it does not matter if it starts small or can be made small at the end it will grow until is it completely removed. Anarcho Capitalism is is capitalism in its purest form.
Then life is extinguished or kept at the mercy of the highest bidder. That is a horrible and immoral idea. States' rights and cantons are superior, different moralities and perspectives of people different democratic republics to reflect these views.
This system seems more brilliantly convoluted than any system of government created in the history of mankind. In our system as it is now, the citizens are already sovereign.If we don't like laws, we can petition our government to change them. If the laws are truly unjust, we have a constitution and a court system designed to protect us. The inefficiencies are produced because we all live under the same laws and must compromise in order to bestow authority to a single entity.
@KeroroGunsouTX It is actually far less convoluted than the monopoly system. "Public choice economics" is a whole discipline of study about who gets to decide on laws when you have a monopoly. In a free market system, there will be far more simplicity, transparency and accountability in the laws and courts, out of necessity (competition).
Petitioning government as a means of getting a law changed is far, far harder than simply switching to a competitor with laws more to one's taste.
(part 3)... I thought this series was thought provoking and addresses a real problem with modern government systems, but I'm not convinced a free market anarchy is preferable to what we have now. I'd like to see a serious social experiment on this though.
(part 2)... and even if it was, I don't think weighing votes by purchasing power does not seem like a very fair system of judgement to me. Minority groups can be completely swept away if their ideas are disliked by a wealthy majority (think atheists in many US states today) and there will be people who'll be left by the wayside, simply because their preferences do not form a profitable market niche or they are too proud to ask for help...
@AdenineMonkey These criticisms are much stronger when targeted on the State (particularly democratic States). Minorities are screwed in democracy. In this system, they would be far less under the sway of the majority. They could have their own system among themselves, and if they felt strongly about it, they could pay more and be able to outbid majorities who feel less strongly. So minorities would have much more of a voice in the legal system I present here than they do under the state.
While I'm not a big proponent of government interference, I doubt this system would fare much better in practice. the example given at 2:48 fails to take into account that people have very strong feelings about such cases and those feelings might get in the way of the calculated, rational result you describe.
Furthermore, if such deals determine consumer demand it follows that rich lobby groups will have a greater say in matters. Being rich is not necessarily a function of being productive...
@AdenineMonkey This is not an argument against anarchy. Strong feelings about justice are a given... the State has all the same flaws, in fact they are amplified by the lack of accountability of the State.
The rich benefit from the State. Politicians/bureaucrats are cheap to bribe, so it follows that we would expect law to be less biased in favor of wealthy lobbiests absent the State.
Imagine a scene, the floor of a 19th century factory. There is no government intervention, no unions. Workers are cramped into cubicals, working long hours of repetitive, dangerous work.
The Liberal and Conservative would say "How awful for these workers." The Liberal would add "We need to help them, give them unions and minimum wage." The Conservative would add "May god look out after them."
Only the Libertarian, however, would look at them and say "What free men these are."
@kDest - The government intervention and unions would not solve that problem. The only way you can increase the standards of living for people is to make them wealthier. Coercion does not create additional wealth; it can only redistribute it. Which is why unionizing a third-world country would fail to bring it out of poverty. Only free trade, and accumulated wealth can allow such a transition to happen, as we have seen with the industrial revolution.
>>There are no mathematics a Libertarian must defy
You cannot create wealth without dividing it up in greater portions, which devalues it due to the nature of wealth being a unit of trade with value based on scarcity. If everyone had wealth equal to a millionaire, then that level of wealth would become meaningless due to the level of inflation. At that point wealth would be so divided that the individual units would have almost no value.
@kDest - Ah yes, the lump of labor fallacy. One can create wealth without taking it from others. Your false analogy only applies to how fiat currency operates after quantitative-easing takes place, not real wealth.
People today are richer than people a century ago. That is all I need to prove my point that wealth can in fact be created without taking it from others.
>>Ah yes, the lump of labor fallacy. One can create wealth without taking it from others
I don't care about your libertarian dogma. The process I describe is mathematical, it transcends your dogma. The reason that libertarians teach that misinformation is both to maintain consumer confidence in the concept of wealth (which in capitalism is purely subjective and has little objective backing), and to justify the greed of wealthy and powerful constituents like the Kochs.
@kDest - You have yet to describe any process whatsoever that indicates there is a permanently fixed level of wealth. We are all richer than we would have been a century ago. That by itself proves that wealth can be created and accumulates over time. Value is subjective, and THAT is an objective fact of human behavior.
And I do not have any problem with the Kochs fighting off the likes of those in the top ten Heavy Hitter's list on OpenSecrets, or that of the Soros-backed Open Society group...
>>You have yet to describe any process whatsoever that indicates there is a permanently fixed level of wealth
Earth is a closed system, with respect to resources. Even if it wasn't, even if new resources could be manufactured out of nothing, wealth itself obtains its value from scarcity. The more units of wealth there are, the less value each unit has, because scarcity is lowered per unit and a greater divisor for an abstract entity is created.
@kDest - Even if resources where completely fixed, this does not change the fact that they can be rearranged into things of better use than if left alone. Silicon can go from a material substance laying around to the devices you and I use every day. The true value of that material increased because companies turned it into something we find useful.
>>this does not change the fact that they can be rearranged into things of better use
"Better" is subjective. It has no basis in objective fact. Remember, facts don't care if you value one over the other. Economics isn't a science if it pretends that subjectivity defines an objective thing, value.
>>You may value a good
Goods have objective value. You have been trained to think otherwise. You may as well be arguing that truth depends on the person, or facts, or data.
This is why printing money causes inflation. It doesn't matter that paper money is intrinsically worthless, but that it represents intangible wealth which is being further divided against more units of currency. This causes inflation. It is why you cannot simply print a million dollars for everyone, and it is why you cannot rain gold on everyone without the gold becoming consequently valueless.
This is the basic fact that your ideology suppresses with dogma.
>>Again, you confuse fiat currency with actual market goods.
Currency is a symbolic representation of goods, devised for absolute fungibility. For the basis of my argument it does not matter if we are talking about currency or goods, the same effect applies.
>>One man's trash is another man's treasure.
This is training that has no objective basis. It is useful for our economy to spread this misinformation, because it makes people pliant to capitalist trading.
>>We are all richer than we would have been a century ago.
Like I said, points of dogma. The facts are very different. 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10 dollars a day. 50% of the world lives on less than $2.50 per day. We have less than 5% of Earth's population, yet we live better than 80% of the world's population because we extract their wealth to fuel our empire. These facts are easy to find, but libertarian dogma keeps people ignorant of them.
@kDest - And those same populations had lower standards of living than they did a century ago. We did not steal from those other countries, and we as a country live better off than we did a hundred years ago as anyone with common sense can attest.
>>And those same populations had lower standards of living than they did a century ago
Not really. Different empires existed, different countries and economies. Many of them were quite productive, but recent poverty made them exploitable to foreign business.
>>We did not steal from those other countries
Of course we didn't. We leech their wealth into our economies as hundreds of millions of them lie malnourished and impoverished.
>>Value is subjective, and THAT is an objective fact of human behavior.
Subjective value merely indicates a discrepancy between real value and the value that a person is willing to pay. It is this discrepancy that allows capitalists to accumulate personal fortunes, by continuously trading products of lesser value for more money. This is a big cause of speculative bubbles, it is also so heavily conditioned into the American mind that it will take centuries to undo.
@kDest - Value is subjective. You may value a good to a certain degree while someone else might have a totally different take on what it is worth. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
>>And I do not have any problem with the Kochs fighting off
You have it backwards. The Kochs and their historically similar relatives have always been fighting against US. They are traitors to this nation, champions of an American aristocracy that fight to undermine democracy. They only care about their own personal power. Wealthy philanthropists have been battling these types of men for centuries. That's why we need them. We cannot fight them alone short of violence.
@kDest - Someone who fights an ever expanding government that kills and plunders is okay in my book. The philanthropists you admire that wish to invest in the power of government are cronyists.
>>Someone who fights an ever expanding government that kills and plunders is okay in my book
Such naivety. It probably doesn't even register to you that this is less a government now than an instrument designed to serve a ruling business class. It doubly escapes you that your efforts hasten the process of removing our political representation and entrenching that of plutocrats.
People like you deserve the oppressive governments you fight to sow.
@kDest - ...or that of the corporatist practices of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and GE's ilk. The Koch's did not put a gun to anyone's head and make people purchase their goods.
I should add that some of the realtors I have met with think pretty highly of Stainmaster Carpet. ;-D
>>The Koch's did not put a gun to anyone's head and make people purchase their goods
The Kochs are part of an oligarchy. You pay them no matter what you buy. That's how capitalism works: get rich, then stick your finger in everything so consumers cannot boycott you. In the Kochs' case, that means many investments in addition to oil, which is used in everything. You cannot buy anything in America without buying oil in some way, this is why it is an oligarchy.
>>People today are richer than people a century ago. That is all I need to prove my point that wealth can in fact be created without taking it from others.
Except they aren't. WE are wealthier than we were a century ago, but now some 4 billion people live in absolute poverty. WE are wealthier because THEY are poor.
If wealth can be created, why can't the federal reserve simply print money to increase the wealth of all Americans? It's the same exact principle.
@kDest - The authoritarian would insist that redistributing the same level of wealth would improve the lives of those people, the Libertarian would realize that the creation of new wealth is the only way to bring those people out of poverty.
@theincredibledouche corporations are a creation of government. All companies owner's and managers would be fully liable for their actions unless you sign a contract saying otherwise. Unlike now where the government will shield CEOs and shareholders from being prosecuted for what they did through the corporation. If you meant "companyocracy", then also no as nobody is forcing laws on others like a government would, they are voluntarily offering services.
@kdest: Yes, I totally agree with you. Wide distribution of power is much better than the narrow one. And yes - we should definitely not forget about this lesson. It should lead us further in this direction.
>>And yes - we should definitely not forget about this lesson. It should lead us further in this direction.
We can only hope that the thousands of years of lessons will be remembered and improved upon. Last century has really shown the flaws in our democracy, as well as illuminating its strengths. Perhaps the ultimate government will eventually be AI-driven or completely distributed amongst a society of genetically enhanced super-intelligent humans. But we're not there yet.
No, that's why we designed our governments to make corruption more difficult and we learned from previous governments to model ours such that the distribution of power is wide instead of narrow.
What the video maker here suggests is that we throw all these historical lessons away and start from scratch, which means ultimately a government or cartel will form which is run by a few very wealthy and powerful men who have no legal accountability. Just like it always has.
>>Have you been following politics for the last few decades?
Have you? Take a look at Somalia from 1990 to 2008.
>>then it looks like it failed at that miserably
When your vision of the world is limited to one nation perhaps. Look at the Nordic countries for examples of working governments. Every government is different, a reflection of its people.
>>Is there a demand for letting people get raped?
Yes. There is a demand for everything. The market will fulfill those demands.
We in the nordic countries have working governments? I can tell you that here in Denmark we also have a rapidly growing public sector, growing debt, growing deficit and very low to negative economic growth. We are also loosing companies and their jobs to other countries pretty consistently.
>>We in the nordic countries have working governments?
Correct.
>>I can tell you that here in Denmark
There is a difference between a working government, and a heavily integrated economy. The EU is volatile because the economies are tied together, and the crash of one economy has severe repercussions to the others.
You should be grateful though for how developed your infrastructure and social system is. Not all nations can claim that.
@kDest I wouldn't call the Swedish government (which is my native country) a successful one, quite the opposite. Although the statistics may call it a thriving economy, the people are suffering in the quiet and are being brainwashed with socialistic propaganda their entire lives. I'd bet a fortune on the fact that Sweden is tampering with the statistics about as much as North Korea.
>>I wouldn't call the Swedish government...a successful one, quite the opposite
You are in the minority then. By many different, objective standards, it is one of the best places in the world to live.
>>and are being brainwashed with socialistic propaganda
You call it that because you are the discontented minority. We have a similar type over here, only they call religious freedom "atheism" and "secular propaganda."
So? We're talking about anarchy. Not corrupt states.
>>can you show evidence that there is a higher market
That is not your question. Your question is whether demand exists. It does. Sexually exploiting people has always been in demand. You just changed the topic to evade this.
>>they have a lack of accountability
Government officials are bound to law. Division of powers remember?
@kDest - "We're talking about anarchy. Not corrupt states."
You have just answered your own argument.
I agree demand exists for violence under government - people vote accordingly. I would like to see what would happen if Bush or Obama had to pay the costs out of their own pockets.
As for division of powers, that has been eroded for decades now. Do you trust that separated powers will remain that way?
I gave you a window of study into a modern anarchy. Its prior government isn't very relevant, unless you are trying to argue that anarchies are superior... to corrupt governments, which doesn't get you very far.
>>I agree demand exists for violence under government
Right, which is why it is the job of the government to cull it. Look at how government deals with organized crime, for example.
@kDest - You just admitted yet again that you are not willing to take into account the failures of the government in that area. If you think the government in that area was not typical of most governments then I should also be free from the same standard.
Government creates massive incentives for organized crime. Have you looked into the drug war lately or the "organized crime" in Germany during WWII?
>>If you think the government in that area was not typical of most governments then I should also be free from the same standard.
All anarchies have historically resembled Somalia, or have been very delicately positioned power struggles. Human beings seek power, and that is why we have governments. A well-designed government keeps our antisocial behavior in check. A corrupt government exacerbates it. No government lets that behavior loose to ruin society.
@kDest - Give me some examples of areas that were worse off under anarchy. If humans seek power and attempt to abuse it, then government is not a solution to that problem.
>>Give me some examples of areas that were worse off under anarchy
Relative to what? Modern, developed countries? Somalia, Gaelic Ireland, and Anarchic Iceland are examples of "worse off" since I do not believe any sane person would prefer, or have preferred to live in those areas versus their contemporary nation counterparts. You will never find an anarchy that is as developed and safe as a country with law, social justice, and a prospering economy.
>>Government creates massive incentives for organized crime
Those incentives always exist. It's just that without a prohibition it is more open and accepted.
>>Have you looked into the drug war lately
You mean the quagmire between bad and terrible? Libertarians are very bad at choosing outcomes based on rational principles, they only see black and white. One end of the spectrum versus the other. The drug war cannot be evaluated in a libertarian mindset.
@kDest - Without prohibition it is less common. The banning of alcohol and it's subsequent legalization in the US demonstrates this.
Yes, the drug war can be evaluated in a Libertarian mindset. It fails at it's intended objective and has led to the unnecessary imprisonment of millions. Thus it should be opposed.
Without prohibition market forces make it into a deadly and exploitable industry. Addictive substances make a person irrational and malleable, they makes them menaces to society. Meanwhile the industries prosper, and are able to use their power to enforce themselves on society through law, or grant themselves immunity to law. These industries must be suppressed.
@kDest - Which is false given the fact that this has not turned out to be the case both after alcohol prohibition ended and after the legalization efforts in other countries.
>>given the fact that this has not turned out to be the case both after alcohol prohibition ended
Current alcohol law leads to thousands of deaths each year, violence, and in general is a menace to our society. That is without a cartel or gang behind the alcohol industry waging war in far-off lands.
>>Why does it lead to a worse outcome?
Drugs on the other hand have far worse social consequences AND have cartels waiting to set shop up here under legitimate face.
So not only will there be thousands of deaths attributed to drug abuse, just like alcohol, but in addition to violence there will be murders, rapes, and other crazy behavior because some of these drugs are that addictive. Meanwhile cartels who owe their existence to spilled blood will be the first to open headquarters on our soil under a legitimate face, and so we will be importing that business culture of death.
That is why libertarianism is simple-minded nonsense.
@kDest - Thousands dead due to drug abuse? You mean like what we already have now, plus the fact that many lives are destroyed via excessive police force and the prison-industrial complex?
And cartels will be out of business because there is nothing they would have to offer that cannot be gotten elsewhere. This is why Al Capone wanted alcohol illegal - it allowed him to literally eliminate his competitors.
@kDest - We do have cartels up and running in Mexico that specialize in illegal goods. I do not think that is a coincidence. And I am aiming for a stateless society, not the corrupt rule present in Mexico or anywhere else.
Can you give me any specific sources on what is going on in Latin America due to what specific policies towards drugs?
I mean the prisons that use state power to get their money and to get their clients.
Legality is not the cause. It is the nature of the market itself, combined with the culture linked to it. Namely a market based on addictive substances started by gangs and street culture as a way to gain money and power. Power eschews regulation, and making it illegal only makes it completely opaque to government oversight.
>>prisons that use state power
Private prisons, not state prisons, are responsible for our prison state.
I can give general trends. In Mexico there is an on-going struggle between cartels and government. The cartels have corrupted politicians and police, making the problem virtually unsolvable. In South America, militant political groups fund themselves on the drug trade.
I do not want this to have free reign in America.
>>black market profits cannot be made in legal markets
Of course they can. It's called market control. That's what a cartel does.
Because violent, power-seeking business entities have a history of relinquishing their power peacefully to superior businesses... you are really dumb, do you know that? There is uneducated, and then there is flat out, lethally stupid. Lethal as in, your stupidity could kill us if enough people had it.
The reason that organized crime surrounding The Prohibition ended was that years of vigilant police efforts ended it.
Most of humanity thinks this. Most of humanity agrees that a debt is to be repaid, most of humanity believes in reciprocity. Narcissists and sociopaths do not understand this. You cannot comprehend it because there is only you.
>>Where do I say that only I take
You want to live in our borders and not pay taxes. That is like being a renter and not wanting to pay rent.
@kDest - What police force? The same force failed to do much of anything while alcohol was illegal, and as every historian now agrees, the problem largely faded away after the end of prohibition. Ever wonder why Al Capone wanted the stuff illegal?
And try something better than ad populum if you are going to justify coercion.
A renter makes an explicit agreement with the tenet. Government is more like the outcome of a home invasion.
The same police which fought organized crime for decades in that era. The same police force which was fighting a scenario much like modern Mexico. Men like Al Capone wanted things to remain the same. People in power do not like change, even when they could profit from it in the long term. Just look at our motion picture and recording industry cartel.
>>A society can exist without the initiation of force
@kDest - So why did this police force fail to control alcohol during prohibition era and why did the problems related to alcohol distribution and consumption largely disappear after it was legalized? Al Capone definitely wanted it illegal because he knew he would profit more as a result.
How would a society without the initiation of force redefine force?
If something is legal it is not crime. What happened there was a product of deeply rooted prejudice tapped into by an opportunistic politician. It was bound to happen sooner or later because of the sectarian hatred indoctrinated into generations.
>>what ensures that they do not remain that way
Government is based on law instead of might-makes-right. A well-designed government divides power so less abuse is possible.
>>As for division of powers, that has been eroded for decades now
It has been eroded because of men like Nixon and Reagan who have sought to expand the power of the private sector, executive power, and so on. There are two types of people competing now, those who believe everyone should be treated equally, without social privilege and those who believe the opposite. The class-supporting people have had power for decades and continue to divide society up.
So in a situation like we have now where 1% of the population control the majority of the wealth the companies that protect the rich will be able to either buy whatever law they want or enforce it violently. How is that better than a theoretical democratic state system where everyone gets to stands for election and vote on policy? 1 person 1 vote is surely more ethical than basing things on wealth
And also you forget the most obvious market here: gangs. Gangs (or rather, organized crime) would have their own businesses and courts. Their own "employees" would be immune in their jurisdiction, because the business of crime is very profitable and would support the courts as well. You seem to have no idea how corrupt humans are capable of being.
@kDest - You do realize that mostly all organized crime today makes money off of prohibited things like drugs, right? And you do realize legalization of those things cuts the black market profits they would otherwise acquire?
Who would enter a contract with these gangs? Where would they get hired for work?
"You seem to have no idea how corrupt humans are capable of being."
I have fully understand the death, destruction, and corrupt acts done by politicians. Thus, I refuse to trust them.
>>You do realize that mostly all organized crime today makes money off of prohibited things like drugs, right?
Organized crime makes profit off of activities for which there is demand not satisfied through legitimate means. Unless you want to have a society where murder, rape, torture, and rackets are legal and supplied by competing companies, organized crime will always happily supply them. That's how markets work. Why do you think we have law?
>>And you do realize legalization of those things cuts the black market profits they would otherwise acquire?
So you want black market activities like rape, assassination, extortion, rackets, death squads, automatic and explosive arms all part of the legitimate face of business. Then businesses can compete and use free market magic to make those activities even more efficient and cheaper. A whole market of death just waiting to be tapped into. That's your argument in a nutshell.
Why would a market institution be any more violent than a government one?
You hold that we should take market associations and allow those same people to have a monopoly within a given area and give them the permission to charge people for "protection" whether they are in agreement or not. That is your argument in a nutshell.
A straw man argument is a weak argument made that no opponent holds. Mine is an argument from logical extreme, reductio ad absurdum.
>>Why would a market institution be any more violent than a government one?
Because people are violent when they have no accountability. Markets divide resources and power unevenly, so there will always be powerful people with no accountability. These people historically are tyrants, bullies, and maniacs.
@kDest - No, your argument does not apply to my views, so therefore it is a straw man.
And I agree that government officials can support violent activities because they have a lack of accountability. Hence the reason I do not support the privileges they have.
And no, markets are not egalitarian, nor should they be.
Egalitarianism is one of the highest ideals born of the Renaissance. It is a cornerstone of liberalism. However it is deeply antithetical to the ruling classes. They want a class-based, deeply stratified society. That is why they support free markets now. Free markets divide society into classes, and help maintain a status quo of wealthy rulers, and an underprivileged, docile working class.
Thank you for acknowledging this. You saved me the trouble of debate.
>>Egalitarianism dictates that a doctor be paid the same as a janitor.
Egalitarianism is a cornerstone of liberalism which suggests that everyone should be treated equally, with no class privilege or birth privilege. By admitting that free markets are not egalitarian, you save me the trouble of an argument.
>>Show me an example
Most European states would qualify, the United States USED to qualify, but it is class-based once again. Birth determines privilege again.
@kDest - I agree everyone should have the same rights as others, this does not mean I have the right to take from others because they have satisfied a greater number of people in a voluntary market place.
Since most European states are stagnant in their economic growth, why would I want a society to emulate them?
>>I agree everyone should have the same rights as others, this does not mean I have the right to take from others
Legal equality is not the same as social equality. Your belief is based on privilege, not rationality. You believe that people ought to have surplus wealth, and the power that accompanies it, because they are privileged above the welfare of society.
>>a voluntary market place
A stratified society is not voluntary. That is a contradiction in terms.
>>Since most European states are stagnant in their economic growth, why would I want a society to emulate them?
They are poised to eclipse the United States (or were) before the recession took place. Their managing of economics is superior to our own, and it is vastly superior to so-called free market capitalism, which is marked by constant recessions.
>>I never said anyone had the right
If you were born here, and stayed until age 18, the consent is implicit.
>>You hold that we should take market associations and allow those same people to have a monopoly within a given area
A government is not a market. Mistake number one.
>>give them the permission to charge people for "protection" whether they are in agreement or not
Taxes are based upon implicit and explicit consent. If you live within the borders, conduct business or make a life there, you implicitly agree to pay your share in supporting the government that makes this possible.
>>can I just stop paying them altogether now that I do not support them?
Can you live in an apartment without paying rent? If you are a citizen, you consent to pay taxes. You can choose to live in another state or tax bracket, or you can move to another country. That is all your choice. What you cannot do is live in a country, reap its benefits, and choose not to pay for them. Not unless you are extremely wealthy, and are eligible for special tax brackets, of course.
>>When did I give the same consent to government and how can people opt out?
When you became a citizen and reached the age where you could vote (give or take a couple years depending on state laws).
Look at Title 8, § 1481. There are formal ways of rescinding citizenship. One of them is as simple as going to a diplomatic officer in another country and renouncing your US citizenship formally.
Seriously, what's the problem? Why haven't you done so?
@kDest - I never said anyone had the right to take from me and force me to only use services from a territorial monopoly. All you have done is presume government has authority over me prior to explicit consent, which is the same fallacy you used when we debated the Nozick video. Try again.
>>All you have done is presume government has authority over me prior to explicit consent
It is called the social contract. It prevents people like you from leeching off of our charity, by mandating that you give back through taxes (when you come of age) to pay for the roads you use, the sanitary food you eat, the free education you received, the military and police protection you take for granted.
Quit being self-absorbed and accept the responsibility or move out.
@kDest - I never explicitly agreed to any "social contract." Nor did I agree that government should have a territorial monopoly on the production of various goods and services. I would be glad to pay user fees for roads, but I would like to be able to choose between different protection services and not be stuck with one on the basis of where I live.
And if you look at what motivates terrorist attacks on our country it becomes obvious that government creates the threats it also fights.
>>I never explicitly agreed to any "social contract."
This statement is incoherent. Your existence is predicated upon an implicit agreement to this contract. Your objection is nonsensical because society cannot exist without a social contract, and infants cannot choose to not be a part of society. You may as well object to your race or culture because you never "explicitly agreed to them."
Some choices are fixed at birth. You live with the cards you are dealt.
@kDest - So you are making up a hypothetical contract that does not exist and setting it's rules as you see fit. Society can exist just fine with voluntary institutions. A mythical imposed contract does not fall under such a category.
Objecting to someone making up a fake "agreement" and imposing it on others who were never given a say in the matter is not narcissistic or anti-social. It is plain common sense.
So what gave our representatives authority over you and me?
>>Objecting to someone making up a fake "agreement"
More narcissism. You think society revolves around you and that you are self-sufficient, unentangled with society. Therefore the concept that your existence depends on the society you were born and raised in, and the implicit notion that society cannot exist if people like you only take from it, simply doesn't register.
This is what anti-social means. A society requires mutual cooperation, mutual give and take.
@kDest - You think that everyone should be subjected to your rules and you interpretations of mythical contracts that no one ever agreed to. That is exactly parallel with what narcissism is. Where do I say that only I take from society and what on earth are you even trying to assert in that statement?
A society does require mutual cooperation, not coercion on a massive scale that destroys voluntary associations that allow society to flourish in the first place which is what government is.
A society cannot exist without force. That is what keeps order, maintains social justice, and punishes criminals.
>>Government takes from my salary
Narcissism. Part of your salary is owed.
>>makes it impossible for private providers
That is how WE decided we want our society. If you don't like it, move to another country. Don't attempt to force us into something we do not want because you believe you are special, above democracy.
@kDest - A society can exist without the initiation of force. Force need only be used in response to threats against life/liberty that emerge.
I owe nothing I never agreed to. You simply cannot resist the urge to dictate how other people's money is spent - which is both narcissistic and selfish.
There is no "we" apart from separate individuals that have their own specific preferences. You have no right to impose your will on others just because you outnumber them. Might does not make right.
Notice this bit of jargon. Force has cleverly been redefined such that what you think of as force is completely different from anybody else's definition. That is because in your theoretical society, the power rests with the lawmakers who define force to suit the needs of the rich and powerful. Which are force to you:
A poor man receives welfare through taxes
A power plant may not dump waste into the nearby river
Note how in each case, what you consider "force" is an action which does not benefit, or restricts, the actions of powerful people. The poor man receiving welfare either "forces" others to pay so he can live, or their inaction "forces" him to die. The power plant is either "forced" to use clean waste practices, or the power plant "forces" people living nearby to endure polluted water. The union "forces" better wages, or the business "forces" lower wages.
@kDest - Judging by your interpretation of what I mean by force, it looks like the true context of what I am saying has completely escaped you. By initiation of force, I mean taking life, liberty, or property from another person without their consent.
@kDest - Someone using the coercion of government to acquire wealth has delegated the initiation of force to the government to confiscate wealth. Groups like Feed the Children or other private charities do not.
If a power plant decides to pollute the property of other people or damage their health, they are initiating force and thus it is ethical to discourage such a practice.
As for unions, they do epitomize what it means to initiate force on others: watch?v=APzu9zX4mBA
@kDest - Because we all know we can create wealth by taking it from some, and giving it to others. What have those employers ever done for them?
Did I agree to be a citizen? Can circular reasoning be used to assume government has the privilege of plundering those within it's territory? Why should government be permitted to restrict other providers of those same service within any given territory?
Right, and keeping violent individuals from the rest of society can be an option for those.
ARE YOU WITHIN STATE BOUNDARIES? Did you renounce citizenship? Are you above the age of 18? Then you are a citizen who is indebted to society in the form of taxes. What is your problem? Are you mildly retarded and unable to understand basic English?
Society provided for you as a child, and provides for you now. Therefore you pay taxes back to society so that it can continue to function. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE. Quit being obtuse.
You take from our roads, our food and drug safety administration, our energy department, our police force and military force, our public schools, our courts, our prisons, in fact you take so much you hardly see it because it is all around you. Yet you refuse to pay for it. This is the social contract. You TAKE from society, so you GIVE back.
>>So what gave our representatives authority over you and me?
@kDest - Government takes from my salary, and makes it impossible for private providers of anything to give the same goods because government legislated them out of existence. The FDA has delayed numerous life saving drugs and killed millions in the process. A drug company cannot profit from killing their own customers. Private schools are better than public schools dollar for dollar, and they exist because anyone who wishes to take their money elsewhere will be thrown in prison.
@kDest - Government courts are corrupt, and so are the prisons that the state continues to channel money to through both taxation and laws against victimless crimes. I refuse to view paying a provider just if that provider has used the threat of violence to eliminate all their competitors.
I would be okay with user fees, paying only for what I use and having the freedom to use a different provider for a given good without changing residency. That is natural rights.
Our courts are actually very fair compared to others in the world, but people like you keep working against them, undermining their objectivity and fairness.
>>I would be okay with user fees, paying only for what I use
Society doesn't work that way. Most services can only exist due to the costs being divided amongst everyone, otherwise the costs are too expensive per person, or there are insufficient funds. Plus a society means you use everything at least indirectly.
@kDest - How do I work against our current court system to make it unfair? I thought you said government cannot be corrupted? ;-D
Since government forces people to pay for things they do not use, it is engaging in theft. Can you give specific examples of things that can only be provided by coercion?
>>Since government forces people to pay for things they do not use, it is engaging in theft
More narcissism. "The gub'ment is stealing from me!"
Theft is an ILLEGAL act of taking property WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT. Because YOU LIVE HERE AS A CITIZEN, YOU AGREE TO PAY TAXES, so that society can function for everyone. Not just yourself.
>>only be provided by coercion
Jail. Law. Hospitals for the mentally ill. Raising children. Educating children. Military protection.
@kDest - I never agreed to the government confiscating wealth from me, so by your own definition it is theft.
I think a move away from imprisonment and towards restitution would be a better way to go, but it is not that difficult to keep someone from the rest of society if they are a threat to others. As for law, see the above video and the rest in the series. Private hospitals can and do exist. Families are not governments. Private schooling does better dollar for dollar.
@kDest - And there are plenty of videos on Youtube regarding the private production of defense. One key advantage that I see over stateless defense agencies is that they bear the costs of their own actions (such as firing a multi-million dollar smart torpedo) and cannot impose it on everyone else through taxes.
@kDest - All those institutions you list can be provided on a profit/loss basis and not just through tax/spend. You have yet to explain why they cannot be provided without forcing people to pay money to a single provider within a given region.
I agree that Iraq is an excellent example of why government is a bad thing.
Monopolies and cartels are less likely to exist in the absence of government. Government is both a monopoly and a cartel as well as a protection racket.
>>You have yet to explain why they cannot be provided without forcing people to pay money to a single provider within a given region
Idiot. Those institutions CANNOT EXIST without force. It has nothing to do with taxes. Law is not law if it is voluntary. Mental hospitals cannot function if the patients may simply walk out. Prisons cannot voluntarily lock up people. Police cannot ask criminals to stop, politely. Schools require teachers to have authority for children.
@kDest - You are a leech and selfish because you wish to force other people to spend their money only as you see fit - largely by making them pay for things they do not use - and make it illegal for other providers of goods to exist in any given area.
The arms trade is profitable thanks to government which channeled the money to produce the vast majority of those weapons in the first place. I gave the example of the munitions put up for sale after the cold war.
It is profitable because there is always a war to be fought. There is always a skirmish. There are always rich and powerful people who need to defend themselves from us, the lower classes who might turn on them. Thanks for being so obtuse. You can't go from point A to point B unless I lead you by the hand and explain the obvious.
It's like you never spent a day on Planet Earth or lived in a cave for all these years.
@kDest - War is more expensive than voluntary association, thus it is less likely in the absence of government. Firing off a cruise missile worth millions is less likely to happen when the perpetrator must pay the costs of it themselves. Not that I think such weapons would even be as common under market anarchy since they presently exist due to government demand.
>>War is more expensive than voluntary association, thus it is less likely in the absence of government
If you're going to simply pull assertions from your butt, why even post? You already know that people start wars over the most mundane things, simply for power. Yet here you are again asserting something contrary to reality as if reality matches your fantasy you read on the internet.
@kDest - I should be asking you the same thing. Wars are started in very poor countries and also by very large governments. Spending money to fight a war makes it expensive for those who start one. My pathetic slavery to reality will not cease.
>>Spending money to fight a war makes it expensive for those who start one.
The point of most wars in history was conquest. War was an attempt to plunder resources. Therefore, wars pay for themselves, and expand the wealth of nations (or factions) leading them.
>>I do agree governments start wars over mundane things
PEOPLE start wars. Being a government has nothing to do with it.
@kDest - Yes, government engaged in massive conquest in the past and I am not denying that. The trillion dollar wars of today would not occur if those in power that started them had to pay for the costs out of their own pockets.
Governments start wars FAR more often than ordinary individuals could ever dream of pulling off.
>>I do not see a shred of evidence that governments are more peaceful than ordinary individuals
Compare Mogadishu to Stockholm. Next?
>>I have read some history
No you haven't. You just read blogs by Mises and their related thinktanks and political advocates. You lack an understanding of the most basic political theory, you know little of economics except for libertarian tracts which you just repeat over and over. You have a long way to go.
@kDest - So you are once again stuck in the same circular argument.
I can make up fake social contracts too. Using your logic, it would go as follows: I have the right to steal from you. You consented to the whole process because you were born here.
@kDest - More solipsism on your part. All you are doing at this point is using the same circular reasoning you have used elsewhere and insisted that anyone who disagrees with your idea of utopia is a narcissist, which is hypocritical at best.
Unlimited authority accurately describes what you wish to give politicians, it does not describe letting people make their own choices without coercing others.
Government does not have legitimate authority over anyone, so I will continue to object to it.
@kDest - You are already guilty of using phrases only as you see fit.
I do not like to allow others to plunder. That does not make me a leech, it makes me an antagonist to liberals/leeches who wish to dictate how other people's money is spent.
This has been flagged as spam show
The logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government. If something is bad then it does not matter if it is big or small because it is bad. Freedom and liberty can be protected by the people themselves through voluntary action rather than force or coercion. Government grows like a cancer, it does not matter if it starts small or can be made small at the end it will grow until is it completely removed. Anarcho Capitalism is is capitalism in its purest form.
bigboywasim 1 week ago
Then life is extinguished or kept at the mercy of the highest bidder. That is a horrible and immoral idea. States' rights and cantons are superior, different moralities and perspectives of people different democratic republics to reflect these views.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
This system seems more brilliantly convoluted than any system of government created in the history of mankind. In our system as it is now, the citizens are already sovereign.If we don't like laws, we can petition our government to change them. If the laws are truly unjust, we have a constitution and a court system designed to protect us. The inefficiencies are produced because we all live under the same laws and must compromise in order to bestow authority to a single entity.
KeroroGunsouTX 1 month ago
@KeroroGunsouTX It is actually far less convoluted than the monopoly system. "Public choice economics" is a whole discipline of study about who gets to decide on laws when you have a monopoly. In a free market system, there will be far more simplicity, transparency and accountability in the laws and courts, out of necessity (competition).
Petitioning government as a means of getting a law changed is far, far harder than simply switching to a competitor with laws more to one's taste.
grahampwright 1 month ago 4
(part 3)... I thought this series was thought provoking and addresses a real problem with modern government systems, but I'm not convinced a free market anarchy is preferable to what we have now. I'd like to see a serious social experiment on this though.
AdenineMonkey 2 months ago
(part 2)... and even if it was, I don't think weighing votes by purchasing power does not seem like a very fair system of judgement to me. Minority groups can be completely swept away if their ideas are disliked by a wealthy majority (think atheists in many US states today) and there will be people who'll be left by the wayside, simply because their preferences do not form a profitable market niche or they are too proud to ask for help...
AdenineMonkey 2 months ago
@AdenineMonkey These criticisms are much stronger when targeted on the State (particularly democratic States). Minorities are screwed in democracy. In this system, they would be far less under the sway of the majority. They could have their own system among themselves, and if they felt strongly about it, they could pay more and be able to outbid majorities who feel less strongly. So minorities would have much more of a voice in the legal system I present here than they do under the state.
grahampwright 2 months ago
@grahampwright And if they couldn't pay?
KeroroGunsouTX 1 month ago
@KeroroGunsouTX Then they're still even more screwed in a democracy than they in a free market law system.
grahampwright 1 month ago
While I'm not a big proponent of government interference, I doubt this system would fare much better in practice. the example given at 2:48 fails to take into account that people have very strong feelings about such cases and those feelings might get in the way of the calculated, rational result you describe.
Furthermore, if such deals determine consumer demand it follows that rich lobby groups will have a greater say in matters. Being rich is not necessarily a function of being productive...
AdenineMonkey 2 months ago
@AdenineMonkey This is not an argument against anarchy. Strong feelings about justice are a given... the State has all the same flaws, in fact they are amplified by the lack of accountability of the State.
The rich benefit from the State. Politicians/bureaucrats are cheap to bribe, so it follows that we would expect law to be less biased in favor of wealthy lobbiests absent the State.
grahampwright 2 months ago
Imagine a scene, the floor of a 19th century factory. There is no government intervention, no unions. Workers are cramped into cubicals, working long hours of repetitive, dangerous work.
The Liberal and Conservative would say "How awful for these workers." The Liberal would add "We need to help them, give them unions and minimum wage." The Conservative would add "May god look out after them."
Only the Libertarian, however, would look at them and say "What free men these are."
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - The government intervention and unions would not solve that problem. The only way you can increase the standards of living for people is to make them wealthier. Coercion does not create additional wealth; it can only redistribute it. Which is why unionizing a third-world country would fail to bring it out of poverty. Only free trade, and accumulated wealth can allow such a transition to happen, as we have seen with the industrial revolution.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Coercion does not create additional wealth
Wealth is not created. That's the Big Lie you need to believe to make your pseudoeconomics work.
>>Only free trade
Free trade is what created those sweatshops and maintains their existence.
>>the Libertarian would realize that the creation of new wealth is the only way to bring those people out of poverty
The libertarian believes in magic defiance of mathematics and creation of speculative bubbles.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Wealth is created, we are all richer than we would have been a century ago as anyone honest with themselves would recognize.
Then free trade allowed those sweatshop workers to escape crime and prostitution.
There are no mathematics a Libertarian must defy. They have been spot on about the recent crisis: watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Wealth is created, we are all richer than we would have been a century ago
Meanwhile 4 billion people on Earth are dirt-poor. They live on less than $2 a day.
Wealth is not created. It is transferred.
Also, you never answered the basic question: WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? Move to Somalia or Hong Kong.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>There are no mathematics a Libertarian must defy
You cannot create wealth without dividing it up in greater portions, which devalues it due to the nature of wealth being a unit of trade with value based on scarcity. If everyone had wealth equal to a millionaire, then that level of wealth would become meaningless due to the level of inflation. At that point wealth would be so divided that the individual units would have almost no value.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Ah yes, the lump of labor fallacy. One can create wealth without taking it from others. Your false analogy only applies to how fiat currency operates after quantitative-easing takes place, not real wealth.
People today are richer than people a century ago. That is all I need to prove my point that wealth can in fact be created without taking it from others.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Ah yes, the lump of labor fallacy. One can create wealth without taking it from others
I don't care about your libertarian dogma. The process I describe is mathematical, it transcends your dogma. The reason that libertarians teach that misinformation is both to maintain consumer confidence in the concept of wealth (which in capitalism is purely subjective and has little objective backing), and to justify the greed of wealthy and powerful constituents like the Kochs.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - You have yet to describe any process whatsoever that indicates there is a permanently fixed level of wealth. We are all richer than we would have been a century ago. That by itself proves that wealth can be created and accumulates over time. Value is subjective, and THAT is an objective fact of human behavior.
And I do not have any problem with the Kochs fighting off the likes of those in the top ten Heavy Hitter's list on OpenSecrets, or that of the Soros-backed Open Society group...
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>You have yet to describe any process whatsoever that indicates there is a permanently fixed level of wealth
Earth is a closed system, with respect to resources. Even if it wasn't, even if new resources could be manufactured out of nothing, wealth itself obtains its value from scarcity. The more units of wealth there are, the less value each unit has, because scarcity is lowered per unit and a greater divisor for an abstract entity is created.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Even if resources where completely fixed, this does not change the fact that they can be rearranged into things of better use than if left alone. Silicon can go from a material substance laying around to the devices you and I use every day. The true value of that material increased because companies turned it into something we find useful.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>this does not change the fact that they can be rearranged into things of better use
"Better" is subjective. It has no basis in objective fact. Remember, facts don't care if you value one over the other. Economics isn't a science if it pretends that subjectivity defines an objective thing, value.
>>You may value a good
Goods have objective value. You have been trained to think otherwise. You may as well be arguing that truth depends on the person, or facts, or data.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
This is why printing money causes inflation. It doesn't matter that paper money is intrinsically worthless, but that it represents intangible wealth which is being further divided against more units of currency. This causes inflation. It is why you cannot simply print a million dollars for everyone, and it is why you cannot rain gold on everyone without the gold becoming consequently valueless.
This is the basic fact that your ideology suppresses with dogma.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Again, you confuse fiat currency with actual market goods.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Again, you confuse fiat currency with actual market goods.
Currency is a symbolic representation of goods, devised for absolute fungibility. For the basis of my argument it does not matter if we are talking about currency or goods, the same effect applies.
>>One man's trash is another man's treasure.
This is training that has no objective basis. It is useful for our economy to spread this misinformation, because it makes people pliant to capitalist trading.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>We are all richer than we would have been a century ago.
Like I said, points of dogma. The facts are very different. 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10 dollars a day. 50% of the world lives on less than $2.50 per day. We have less than 5% of Earth's population, yet we live better than 80% of the world's population because we extract their wealth to fuel our empire. These facts are easy to find, but libertarian dogma keeps people ignorant of them.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - And those same populations had lower standards of living than they did a century ago. We did not steal from those other countries, and we as a country live better off than we did a hundred years ago as anyone with common sense can attest.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>And those same populations had lower standards of living than they did a century ago
Not really. Different empires existed, different countries and economies. Many of them were quite productive, but recent poverty made them exploitable to foreign business.
>>We did not steal from those other countries
Of course we didn't. We leech their wealth into our economies as hundreds of millions of them lie malnourished and impoverished.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Value is subjective, and THAT is an objective fact of human behavior.
Subjective value merely indicates a discrepancy between real value and the value that a person is willing to pay. It is this discrepancy that allows capitalists to accumulate personal fortunes, by continuously trading products of lesser value for more money. This is a big cause of speculative bubbles, it is also so heavily conditioned into the American mind that it will take centuries to undo.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Value is subjective. You may value a good to a certain degree while someone else might have a totally different take on what it is worth. One man's trash is another man's treasure.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>And I do not have any problem with the Kochs fighting off
You have it backwards. The Kochs and their historically similar relatives have always been fighting against US. They are traitors to this nation, champions of an American aristocracy that fight to undermine democracy. They only care about their own personal power. Wealthy philanthropists have been battling these types of men for centuries. That's why we need them. We cannot fight them alone short of violence.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Someone who fights an ever expanding government that kills and plunders is okay in my book. The philanthropists you admire that wish to invest in the power of government are cronyists.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Someone who fights an ever expanding government that kills and plunders is okay in my book
Such naivety. It probably doesn't even register to you that this is less a government now than an instrument designed to serve a ruling business class. It doubly escapes you that your efforts hasten the process of removing our political representation and entrenching that of plutocrats.
People like you deserve the oppressive governments you fight to sow.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - ...or that of the corporatist practices of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and GE's ilk. The Koch's did not put a gun to anyone's head and make people purchase their goods.
I should add that some of the realtors I have met with think pretty highly of Stainmaster Carpet. ;-D
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>The Koch's did not put a gun to anyone's head and make people purchase their goods
The Kochs are part of an oligarchy. You pay them no matter what you buy. That's how capitalism works: get rich, then stick your finger in everything so consumers cannot boycott you. In the Kochs' case, that means many investments in addition to oil, which is used in everything. You cannot buy anything in America without buying oil in some way, this is why it is an oligarchy.
kDest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>People today are richer than people a century ago. That is all I need to prove my point that wealth can in fact be created without taking it from others.
Except they aren't. WE are wealthier than we were a century ago, but now some 4 billion people live in absolute poverty. WE are wealthier because THEY are poor.
If wealth can be created, why can't the federal reserve simply print money to increase the wealth of all Americans? It's the same exact principle.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - The authoritarian would insist that redistributing the same level of wealth would improve the lives of those people, the Libertarian would realize that the creation of new wealth is the only way to bring those people out of poverty.
StateExempt 2 months ago
extremely interesting, and mentally challenging. Love it;
tallswede80 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>The FDA has delayed numerous life saving drugs
Look up RadiThor and Snake Oil. This is what the FDA keeps out of medicine. Again, WE chose it.
>>A drug company cannot profit from killing their own customers
It can. It has. It does. RadiThor, Snake Oil, and look at Cigarettes.
>>Private schools are better
Depends on the school. Better is qualitative.
>>Government courts are corrupt
Vote in more republicans. Advance corporate legal interests. People like you did this.
kDest 2 months ago
how is this not corporatocracy?
theincredibledouche 3 months ago
@theincredibledouche corporations are a creation of government. All companies owner's and managers would be fully liable for their actions unless you sign a contract saying otherwise. Unlike now where the government will shield CEOs and shareholders from being prosecuted for what they did through the corporation. If you meant "companyocracy", then also no as nobody is forcing laws on others like a government would, they are voluntarily offering services.
Hashishin13 3 months ago
Comment removed
piotrzarek 3 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Is this a joke? This is fucking stupid.
Jonte135 3 months ago
@kdest: Yes, I totally agree with you. Wide distribution of power is much better than the narrow one. And yes - we should definitely not forget about this lesson. It should lead us further in this direction.
piotrzarek 3 months ago
@piotrzarek
>>And yes - we should definitely not forget about this lesson. It should lead us further in this direction.
We can only hope that the thousands of years of lessons will be remembered and improved upon. Last century has really shown the flaws in our democracy, as well as illuminating its strengths. Perhaps the ultimate government will eventually be AI-driven or completely distributed amongst a society of genetically enhanced super-intelligent humans. But we're not there yet.
kDest 3 months ago
@kdest: Do human beings stop being corrupt when they start working in the government offices?
piotrzarek 3 months ago
@piotrzarek
No, that's why we designed our governments to make corruption more difficult and we learned from previous governments to model ours such that the distribution of power is wide instead of narrow.
What the video maker here suggests is that we throw all these historical lessons away and start from scratch, which means ultimately a government or cartel will form which is run by a few very wealthy and powerful men who have no legal accountability. Just like it always has.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - Have you been following politics for the last few decades?
If government is supposed to be preventing corruption then it looks like it failed at that miserably.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Have you been following politics for the last few decades?
Have you? Take a look at Somalia from 1990 to 2008.
>>then it looks like it failed at that miserably
When your vision of the world is limited to one nation perhaps. Look at the Nordic countries for examples of working governments. Every government is different, a reflection of its people.
>>Is there a demand for letting people get raped?
Yes. There is a demand for everything. The market will fulfill those demands.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest
We in the nordic countries have working governments? I can tell you that here in Denmark we also have a rapidly growing public sector, growing debt, growing deficit and very low to negative economic growth. We are also loosing companies and their jobs to other countries pretty consistently.
Illyrien 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Illyrien
>>We in the nordic countries have working governments?
Correct.
>>I can tell you that here in Denmark
There is a difference between a working government, and a heavily integrated economy. The EU is volatile because the economies are tied together, and the crash of one economy has severe repercussions to the others.
You should be grateful though for how developed your infrastructure and social system is. Not all nations can claim that.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest I wouldn't call the Swedish government (which is my native country) a successful one, quite the opposite. Although the statistics may call it a thriving economy, the people are suffering in the quiet and are being brainwashed with socialistic propaganda their entire lives. I'd bet a fortune on the fact that Sweden is tampering with the statistics about as much as North Korea.
whiskeybulle 3 months ago
@whiskeybulle
>>I wouldn't call the Swedish government...a successful one, quite the opposite
You are in the minority then. By many different, objective standards, it is one of the best places in the world to live.
>>and are being brainwashed with socialistic propaganda
You call it that because you are the discontented minority. We have a similar type over here, only they call religious freedom "atheism" and "secular propaganda."
I trust the data.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - Take a look at it before 1991.
As for the demand for people getting raped can you show evidence that there is a higher market for paying people to rape others than to protect them?
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Take a look at it before 1991
So? We're talking about anarchy. Not corrupt states.
>>can you show evidence that there is a higher market
That is not your question. Your question is whether demand exists. It does. Sexually exploiting people has always been in demand. You just changed the topic to evade this.
>>they have a lack of accountability
Government officials are bound to law. Division of powers remember?
>>markets are not egalitarian
Thank you for surrendering.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - "We're talking about anarchy. Not corrupt states."
You have just answered your own argument.
I agree demand exists for violence under government - people vote accordingly. I would like to see what would happen if Bush or Obama had to pay the costs out of their own pockets.
As for division of powers, that has been eroded for decades now. Do you trust that separated powers will remain that way?
"Thank you for surrendering."
To what?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>You have just answered your own argument.
I gave you a window of study into a modern anarchy. Its prior government isn't very relevant, unless you are trying to argue that anarchies are superior... to corrupt governments, which doesn't get you very far.
>>I agree demand exists for violence under government
Right, which is why it is the job of the government to cull it. Look at how government deals with organized crime, for example.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - You just admitted yet again that you are not willing to take into account the failures of the government in that area. If you think the government in that area was not typical of most governments then I should also be free from the same standard.
Government creates massive incentives for organized crime. Have you looked into the drug war lately or the "organized crime" in Germany during WWII?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>If you think the government in that area was not typical of most governments then I should also be free from the same standard.
All anarchies have historically resembled Somalia, or have been very delicately positioned power struggles. Human beings seek power, and that is why we have governments. A well-designed government keeps our antisocial behavior in check. A corrupt government exacerbates it. No government lets that behavior loose to ruin society.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Give me some examples of areas that were worse off under anarchy. If humans seek power and attempt to abuse it, then government is not a solution to that problem.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Give me some examples of areas that were worse off under anarchy
Relative to what? Modern, developed countries? Somalia, Gaelic Ireland, and Anarchic Iceland are examples of "worse off" since I do not believe any sane person would prefer, or have preferred to live in those areas versus their contemporary nation counterparts. You will never find an anarchy that is as developed and safe as a country with law, social justice, and a prospering economy.
kDest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>If humans seek power and attempt to abuse it, then government is not a solution to that problem.
Humans seek power and attempt to abuse it, thus government is society's means of abating that behavior.
>>if mass murder is legal that makes it okay
Law is not equal to subjective morality. Law is a way of enforcing an objective morality upon society.
>>Government is might makes right
Government is an arbitrator and enforcer of law. The people decide what is right.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Government creates massive incentives for organized crime
Those incentives always exist. It's just that without a prohibition it is more open and accepted.
>>Have you looked into the drug war lately
You mean the quagmire between bad and terrible? Libertarians are very bad at choosing outcomes based on rational principles, they only see black and white. One end of the spectrum versus the other. The drug war cannot be evaluated in a libertarian mindset.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Without prohibition it is less common. The banning of alcohol and it's subsequent legalization in the US demonstrates this.
Yes, the drug war can be evaluated in a Libertarian mindset. It fails at it's intended objective and has led to the unnecessary imprisonment of millions. Thus it should be opposed.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Without prohibition it is less common
Without prohibition market forces make it into a deadly and exploitable industry. Addictive substances make a person irrational and malleable, they makes them menaces to society. Meanwhile the industries prosper, and are able to use their power to enforce themselves on society through law, or grant themselves immunity to law. These industries must be suppressed.
>> Thus it should be opposed.
Which leads to a worse outcome.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Which is false given the fact that this has not turned out to be the case both after alcohol prohibition ended and after the legalization efforts in other countries.
Why does it lead to a worse outcome?
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>given the fact that this has not turned out to be the case both after alcohol prohibition ended
Current alcohol law leads to thousands of deaths each year, violence, and in general is a menace to our society. That is without a cartel or gang behind the alcohol industry waging war in far-off lands.
>>Why does it lead to a worse outcome?
Drugs on the other hand have far worse social consequences AND have cartels waiting to set shop up here under legitimate face.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
So not only will there be thousands of deaths attributed to drug abuse, just like alcohol, but in addition to violence there will be murders, rapes, and other crazy behavior because some of these drugs are that addictive. Meanwhile cartels who owe their existence to spilled blood will be the first to open headquarters on our soil under a legitimate face, and so we will be importing that business culture of death.
That is why libertarianism is simple-minded nonsense.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Thousands dead due to drug abuse? You mean like what we already have now, plus the fact that many lives are destroyed via excessive police force and the prison-industrial complex?
And cartels will be out of business because there is nothing they would have to offer that cannot be gotten elsewhere. This is why Al Capone wanted alcohol illegal - it allowed him to literally eliminate his competitors.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>You mean like what we already have now,
We don't have cartels entrenched into US soil, at least not like Mexico, which is what you are aiming for.
>>plus the fact that many lives are destroyed via excessive police force
Just wait until you transform the US into Latin America with open drug laws. You haven't seen excessive until you've seen Latin America excessive.
>>the prison-industrial complex
You mean PRIVATE, CAPITALIST prison complexes? What happened freedom?
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - We do have cartels up and running in Mexico that specialize in illegal goods. I do not think that is a coincidence. And I am aiming for a stateless society, not the corrupt rule present in Mexico or anywhere else.
Can you give me any specific sources on what is going on in Latin America due to what specific policies towards drugs?
I mean the prisons that use state power to get their money and to get their clients.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>I do not think that is a coincidence
Legality is not the cause. It is the nature of the market itself, combined with the culture linked to it. Namely a market based on addictive substances started by gangs and street culture as a way to gain money and power. Power eschews regulation, and making it illegal only makes it completely opaque to government oversight.
>>prisons that use state power
Private prisons, not state prisons, are responsible for our prison state.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>specific sources
I can give general trends. In Mexico there is an on-going struggle between cartels and government. The cartels have corrupted politicians and police, making the problem virtually unsolvable. In South America, militant political groups fund themselves on the drug trade.
I do not want this to have free reign in America.
>>black market profits cannot be made in legal markets
Of course they can. It's called market control. That's what a cartel does.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Wow, so you admit government is corruptible after all? At least you are making some progress here.
Would they be able to make as much money from those drugs if they were legal?
How would a cartel arise over a legal substance?
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Wow, so you admit government is corruptible after all?
Why would you assume I think otherwise? Right, libertarian black and white thinking.
>>if they were legal
Yes and no. A cartel is many agents. Some would make more, others less.
>>How would a cartel arise over a legal substance
The typical way: agreement between rival agents, while violently repressing competing agents who did not agree to join the group.
>>why Al Capone wanted the stuff illegal
Status quo.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>And cartels will be out of business because
Because violent, power-seeking business entities have a history of relinquishing their power peacefully to superior businesses... you are really dumb, do you know that? There is uneducated, and then there is flat out, lethally stupid. Lethal as in, your stupidity could kill us if enough people had it.
The reason that organized crime surrounding The Prohibition ended was that years of vigilant police efforts ended it.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Because the same level of black market profits cannot be made in legal markets. As the evidence from prohibition era shows.
Why did the level of violence during the prohibition era end after prohibition was over?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>end after prohibition was over
Police force.
>>You think that everyone should be subjected
Most of humanity thinks this. Most of humanity agrees that a debt is to be repaid, most of humanity believes in reciprocity. Narcissists and sociopaths do not understand this. You cannot comprehend it because there is only you.
>>Where do I say that only I take
You want to live in our borders and not pay taxes. That is like being a renter and not wanting to pay rent.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - What police force? The same force failed to do much of anything while alcohol was illegal, and as every historian now agrees, the problem largely faded away after the end of prohibition. Ever wonder why Al Capone wanted the stuff illegal?
And try something better than ad populum if you are going to justify coercion.
A renter makes an explicit agreement with the tenet. Government is more like the outcome of a home invasion.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>What police force?
The same police which fought organized crime for decades in that era. The same police force which was fighting a scenario much like modern Mexico. Men like Al Capone wanted things to remain the same. People in power do not like change, even when they could profit from it in the long term. Just look at our motion picture and recording industry cartel.
>>A society can exist without the initiation of force
Such a society would only redefine force.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - So why did this police force fail to control alcohol during prohibition era and why did the problems related to alcohol distribution and consumption largely disappear after it was legalized? Al Capone definitely wanted it illegal because he knew he would profit more as a result.
How would a society without the initiation of force redefine force?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>police force fail
Organized crime is notoriously difficult to abolish.
>>largely disappear after it was legalized
Gangsters were largely targeted, their empires abolished. This gave a window to legitimate business.
>>redefine force?
People in power redefine these things through law and ideology.
>>By initiation of force, I mean taking
The libertarian will always side with the business in applications of force, in any two-sided conflict.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - If it is government you are speaking of, then yes, you definitely have a point.
The gangsters could not profit from the alcohol anywhere near as high as they could once alcohol was legal.
I agree that people in power redefine things through law and ideology. You and your government are excellent examples of that.
The Libertarian objects to the initiation of force regardless of who is guilty of doing so.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>The gangsters could not profit from the alcohol anywhere near as high as they could once alcohol was legal.
Not if they were constantly trying to evade the law. Remember: violent cartels maintain themselves through intimidation.
>>The Libertarian objects to the initiation of force
How convenient, since it is your ideology that peculiarly defines what force is.
>>create wealth
The creation of wealth is a mathematical impossibility, obvious to any educated person.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>the "organized crime" in Germany during WWII
If something is legal it is not crime. What happened there was a product of deeply rooted prejudice tapped into by an opportunistic politician. It was bound to happen sooner or later because of the sectarian hatred indoctrinated into generations.
>>what ensures that they do not remain that way
Government is based on law instead of might-makes-right. A well-designed government divides power so less abuse is possible.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - So if mass murder is legal that makes it okay according to your mindset?
Government is might makes right. Your previous claim that if the government says something is legal, that therefore makes it okay demonstrates this.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>As for division of powers, that has been eroded for decades now
It has been eroded because of men like Nixon and Reagan who have sought to expand the power of the private sector, executive power, and so on. There are two types of people competing now, those who believe everyone should be treated equally, without social privilege and those who believe the opposite. The class-supporting people have had power for decades and continue to divide society up.
kDest 2 months ago
So in a situation like we have now where 1% of the population control the majority of the wealth the companies that protect the rich will be able to either buy whatever law they want or enforce it violently. How is that better than a theoretical democratic state system where everyone gets to stands for election and vote on policy? 1 person 1 vote is surely more ethical than basing things on wealth
Rmb2489 4 months ago
And also you forget the most obvious market here: gangs. Gangs (or rather, organized crime) would have their own businesses and courts. Their own "employees" would be immune in their jurisdiction, because the business of crime is very profitable and would support the courts as well. You seem to have no idea how corrupt humans are capable of being.
kDest 4 months ago
@kDest - You do realize that mostly all organized crime today makes money off of prohibited things like drugs, right? And you do realize legalization of those things cuts the black market profits they would otherwise acquire?
Who would enter a contract with these gangs? Where would they get hired for work?
"You seem to have no idea how corrupt humans are capable of being."
I have fully understand the death, destruction, and corrupt acts done by politicians. Thus, I refuse to trust them.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
>>You do realize that mostly all organized crime today makes money off of prohibited things like drugs, right?
Organized crime makes profit off of activities for which there is demand not satisfied through legitimate means. Unless you want to have a society where murder, rape, torture, and rackets are legal and supplied by competing companies, organized crime will always happily supply them. That's how markets work. Why do you think we have law?
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - Is there a demand for letting people get raped?
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
>>And you do realize legalization of those things cuts the black market profits they would otherwise acquire?
So you want black market activities like rape, assassination, extortion, rackets, death squads, automatic and explosive arms all part of the legitimate face of business. Then businesses can compete and use free market magic to make those activities even more efficient and cheaper. A whole market of death just waiting to be tapped into. That's your argument in a nutshell.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - And again your straw man arguments flow.
Why would a market institution be any more violent than a government one?
You hold that we should take market associations and allow those same people to have a monopoly within a given area and give them the permission to charge people for "protection" whether they are in agreement or not. That is your argument in a nutshell.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
>>And again your straw man arguments flow
A straw man argument is a weak argument made that no opponent holds. Mine is an argument from logical extreme, reductio ad absurdum.
>>Why would a market institution be any more violent than a government one?
Because people are violent when they have no accountability. Markets divide resources and power unevenly, so there will always be powerful people with no accountability. These people historically are tyrants, bullies, and maniacs.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - No, your argument does not apply to my views, so therefore it is a straw man.
And I agree that government officials can support violent activities because they have a lack of accountability. Hence the reason I do not support the privileges they have.
And no, markets are not egalitarian, nor should they be.
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
Egalitarianism is one of the highest ideals born of the Renaissance. It is a cornerstone of liberalism. However it is deeply antithetical to the ruling classes. They want a class-based, deeply stratified society. That is why they support free markets now. Free markets divide society into classes, and help maintain a status quo of wealthy rulers, and an underprivileged, docile working class.
Thank you for acknowledging this. You saved me the trouble of debate.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - Egalitarianism dictates that a doctor be paid the same as a janitor.
Show me an example of what you consider to be an egalitarian state.
And no, I do not deny that different jobs require different pay.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Egalitarianism dictates that a doctor be paid the same as a janitor.
Egalitarianism is a cornerstone of liberalism which suggests that everyone should be treated equally, with no class privilege or birth privilege. By admitting that free markets are not egalitarian, you save me the trouble of an argument.
>>Show me an example
Most European states would qualify, the United States USED to qualify, but it is class-based once again. Birth determines privilege again.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I agree everyone should have the same rights as others, this does not mean I have the right to take from others because they have satisfied a greater number of people in a voluntary market place.
Since most European states are stagnant in their economic growth, why would I want a society to emulate them?
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>I agree everyone should have the same rights as others, this does not mean I have the right to take from others
Legal equality is not the same as social equality. Your belief is based on privilege, not rationality. You believe that people ought to have surplus wealth, and the power that accompanies it, because they are privileged above the welfare of society.
>>a voluntary market place
A stratified society is not voluntary. That is a contradiction in terms.
kDest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Since most European states are stagnant in their economic growth, why would I want a society to emulate them?
They are poised to eclipse the United States (or were) before the recession took place. Their managing of economics is superior to our own, and it is vastly superior to so-called free market capitalism, which is marked by constant recessions.
>>I never said anyone had the right
If you were born here, and stayed until age 18, the consent is implicit.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>You hold that we should take market associations and allow those same people to have a monopoly within a given area
A government is not a market. Mistake number one.
>>give them the permission to charge people for "protection" whether they are in agreement or not
Taxes are based upon implicit and explicit consent. If you live within the borders, conduct business or make a life there, you implicitly agree to pay your share in supporting the government that makes this possible.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - I never said a government was a market. Please stop beating straw man arguments.
And if taxes are based on consent, can I just stop paying them altogether now that I do not support them?
StateExempt 3 months ago
@StateExempt
>>can I just stop paying them altogether now that I do not support them?
Can you live in an apartment without paying rent? If you are a citizen, you consent to pay taxes. You can choose to live in another state or tax bracket, or you can move to another country. That is all your choice. What you cannot do is live in a country, reap its benefits, and choose not to pay for them. Not unless you are extremely wealthy, and are eligible for special tax brackets, of course.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest - I consented to the apartment rent, that is spelled out in a contract that both the landlord an tenet consciously agreed upon.
When did I give the same consent to government and how can people opt out?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>When did I give the same consent to government and how can people opt out?
When you became a citizen and reached the age where you could vote (give or take a couple years depending on state laws).
Look at Title 8, § 1481. There are formal ways of rescinding citizenship. One of them is as simple as going to a diplomatic officer in another country and renouncing your US citizenship formally.
Seriously, what's the problem? Why haven't you done so?
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I never said anyone had the right to take from me and force me to only use services from a territorial monopoly. All you have done is presume government has authority over me prior to explicit consent, which is the same fallacy you used when we debated the Nozick video. Try again.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>All you have done is presume government has authority over me prior to explicit consent
It is called the social contract. It prevents people like you from leeching off of our charity, by mandating that you give back through taxes (when you come of age) to pay for the roads you use, the sanitary food you eat, the free education you received, the military and police protection you take for granted.
Quit being self-absorbed and accept the responsibility or move out.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I never explicitly agreed to any "social contract." Nor did I agree that government should have a territorial monopoly on the production of various goods and services. I would be glad to pay user fees for roads, but I would like to be able to choose between different protection services and not be stuck with one on the basis of where I live.
And if you look at what motivates terrorist attacks on our country it becomes obvious that government creates the threats it also fights.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>I never explicitly agreed to any "social contract."
This statement is incoherent. Your existence is predicated upon an implicit agreement to this contract. Your objection is nonsensical because society cannot exist without a social contract, and infants cannot choose to not be a part of society. You may as well object to your race or culture because you never "explicitly agreed to them."
Some choices are fixed at birth. You live with the cards you are dealt.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - So you are making up a hypothetical contract that does not exist and setting it's rules as you see fit. Society can exist just fine with voluntary institutions. A mythical imposed contract does not fall under such a category.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>So you are making up a hypothetical contract
It isn't hypothetical. It is implicit to the majority of us. A duty to our society, because of what society gave to us.
>>that does not exist
Just because you are an antisocial narcissist doesn't mean the rest of us are. The rest of us see a duty to the institution which supports us.
>>setting it's rules as you see fit
Our representatives set the rules since this is a representative democracy.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - There is no "implicit" contract.
Objecting to someone making up a fake "agreement" and imposing it on others who were never given a say in the matter is not narcissistic or anti-social. It is plain common sense.
So what gave our representatives authority over you and me?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Objecting to someone making up a fake "agreement"
More narcissism. You think society revolves around you and that you are self-sufficient, unentangled with society. Therefore the concept that your existence depends on the society you were born and raised in, and the implicit notion that society cannot exist if people like you only take from it, simply doesn't register.
This is what anti-social means. A society requires mutual cooperation, mutual give and take.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - You think that everyone should be subjected to your rules and you interpretations of mythical contracts that no one ever agreed to. That is exactly parallel with what narcissism is. Where do I say that only I take from society and what on earth are you even trying to assert in that statement?
A society does require mutual cooperation, not coercion on a massive scale that destroys voluntary associations that allow society to flourish in the first place which is what government is.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>not coercion on a massive scale
A society cannot exist without force. That is what keeps order, maintains social justice, and punishes criminals.
>>Government takes from my salary
Narcissism. Part of your salary is owed.
>>makes it impossible for private providers
That is how WE decided we want our society. If you don't like it, move to another country. Don't attempt to force us into something we do not want because you believe you are special, above democracy.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - A society can exist without the initiation of force. Force need only be used in response to threats against life/liberty that emerge.
I owe nothing I never agreed to. You simply cannot resist the urge to dictate how other people's money is spent - which is both narcissistic and selfish.
There is no "we" apart from separate individuals that have their own specific preferences. You have no right to impose your will on others just because you outnumber them. Might does not make right.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>initiation of force
Notice this bit of jargon. Force has cleverly been redefined such that what you think of as force is completely different from anybody else's definition. That is because in your theoretical society, the power rests with the lawmakers who define force to suit the needs of the rich and powerful. Which are force to you:
A poor man receives welfare through taxes
A power plant may not dump waste into the nearby river
A union demands better pay
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
Note how in each case, what you consider "force" is an action which does not benefit, or restricts, the actions of powerful people. The poor man receiving welfare either "forces" others to pay so he can live, or their inaction "forces" him to die. The power plant is either "forced" to use clean waste practices, or the power plant "forces" people living nearby to endure polluted water. The union "forces" better wages, or the business "forces" lower wages.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Judging by your interpretation of what I mean by force, it looks like the true context of what I am saying has completely escaped you. By initiation of force, I mean taking life, liberty, or property from another person without their consent.
As for each of those examples...
StateExempt 2 months ago
@kDest - Someone using the coercion of government to acquire wealth has delegated the initiation of force to the government to confiscate wealth. Groups like Feed the Children or other private charities do not.
If a power plant decides to pollute the property of other people or damage their health, they are initiating force and thus it is ethical to discourage such a practice.
As for unions, they do epitomize what it means to initiate force on others: watch?v=APzu9zX4mBA
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>As for unions, they do epitomize what it means to initiate force
Of course. How dare the workers demand better working conditions and wages? The oh-so-poor and downtrodden employers have to endure so much hardship!
>>I never agreed to the government confiscating wealth from me
Are you a citizen? Did you renounce it yet? I showed you how. Why are you using our roads, police, military, water, etc. and refusing to pay for it?
>>restitution
Does not work for violent repeat offenders.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Because we all know we can create wealth by taking it from some, and giving it to others. What have those employers ever done for them?
Did I agree to be a citizen? Can circular reasoning be used to assume government has the privilege of plundering those within it's territory? Why should government be permitted to restrict other providers of those same service within any given territory?
Right, and keeping violent individuals from the rest of society can be an option for those.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>Did I agree to be a citizen?
ARE YOU WITHIN STATE BOUNDARIES? Did you renounce citizenship? Are you above the age of 18? Then you are a citizen who is indebted to society in the form of taxes. What is your problem? Are you mildly retarded and unable to understand basic English?
Society provided for you as a child, and provides for you now. Therefore you pay taxes back to society so that it can continue to function. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, MOVE. Quit being obtuse.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
You take from our roads, our food and drug safety administration, our energy department, our police force and military force, our public schools, our courts, our prisons, in fact you take so much you hardly see it because it is all around you. Yet you refuse to pay for it. This is the social contract. You TAKE from society, so you GIVE back.
>>So what gave our representatives authority over you and me?
Your citizenship and occupancy of this country.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Government takes from my salary, and makes it impossible for private providers of anything to give the same goods because government legislated them out of existence. The FDA has delayed numerous life saving drugs and killed millions in the process. A drug company cannot profit from killing their own customers. Private schools are better than public schools dollar for dollar, and they exist because anyone who wishes to take their money elsewhere will be thrown in prison.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@kDest - Government courts are corrupt, and so are the prisons that the state continues to channel money to through both taxation and laws against victimless crimes. I refuse to view paying a provider just if that provider has used the threat of violence to eliminate all their competitors.
I would be okay with user fees, paying only for what I use and having the freedom to use a different provider for a given good without changing residency. That is natural rights.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
Our courts are actually very fair compared to others in the world, but people like you keep working against them, undermining their objectivity and fairness.
>>I would be okay with user fees, paying only for what I use
Society doesn't work that way. Most services can only exist due to the costs being divided amongst everyone, otherwise the costs are too expensive per person, or there are insufficient funds. Plus a society means you use everything at least indirectly.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - How do I work against our current court system to make it unfair? I thought you said government cannot be corrupted? ;-D
Since government forces people to pay for things they do not use, it is engaging in theft. Can you give specific examples of things that can only be provided by coercion?
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>I thought you said government cannot be corrupted? ;-D
Only you said that. You possess a facile ideology which cannot work with complex moral or political topics.
>>You have no right
We have every right, since this is a government based upon consent. If you hate compromise, then move elsewhere.
>>Might does not make right.
Unless the "might" is business "might" in which case not only is it right, it defines morality and an ideology of defending the wealthy.
kDest 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Since government forces people to pay for things they do not use, it is engaging in theft
More narcissism. "The gub'ment is stealing from me!"
Theft is an ILLEGAL act of taking property WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENT. Because YOU LIVE HERE AS A CITIZEN, YOU AGREE TO PAY TAXES, so that society can function for everyone. Not just yourself.
>>only be provided by coercion
Jail. Law. Hospitals for the mentally ill. Raising children. Educating children. Military protection.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I never agreed to the government confiscating wealth from me, so by your own definition it is theft.
I think a move away from imprisonment and towards restitution would be a better way to go, but it is not that difficult to keep someone from the rest of society if they are a threat to others. As for law, see the above video and the rest in the series. Private hospitals can and do exist. Families are not governments. Private schooling does better dollar for dollar.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@kDest - And there are plenty of videos on Youtube regarding the private production of defense. One key advantage that I see over stateless defense agencies is that they bear the costs of their own actions (such as firing a multi-million dollar smart torpedo) and cannot impose it on everyone else through taxes.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
All those institutions I mentioned require force to operate. You failed to explain why they do not.
>>private production of defense
Does not work well. It leads to abuse of power and lack of accountability. Look at Iraq.
>>and cannot impose it on everyone else
Only through monopolies and cartels. Protection rackets.
>>That does not make me a leech
You are a leech because you want to take from society without giving back.
>>The arms trade
Is a profitable business.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - All those institutions you list can be provided on a profit/loss basis and not just through tax/spend. You have yet to explain why they cannot be provided without forcing people to pay money to a single provider within a given region.
I agree that Iraq is an excellent example of why government is a bad thing.
Monopolies and cartels are less likely to exist in the absence of government. Government is both a monopoly and a cartel as well as a protection racket.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>You have yet to explain why they cannot be provided without forcing people to pay money to a single provider within a given region
Idiot. Those institutions CANNOT EXIST without force. It has nothing to do with taxes. Law is not law if it is voluntary. Mental hospitals cannot function if the patients may simply walk out. Prisons cannot voluntarily lock up people. Police cannot ask criminals to stop, politely. Schools require teachers to have authority for children.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - You are confusing how something functions with how it is provided.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@kDest - You are a leech and selfish because you wish to force other people to spend their money only as you see fit - largely by making them pay for things they do not use - and make it illegal for other providers of goods to exist in any given area.
The arms trade is profitable thanks to government which channeled the money to produce the vast majority of those weapons in the first place. I gave the example of the munitions put up for sale after the cold war.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>The arms trade is profitable thanks
It is profitable because there is always a war to be fought. There is always a skirmish. There are always rich and powerful people who need to defend themselves from us, the lower classes who might turn on them. Thanks for being so obtuse. You can't go from point A to point B unless I lead you by the hand and explain the obvious.
It's like you never spent a day on Planet Earth or lived in a cave for all these years.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - War is more expensive than voluntary association, thus it is less likely in the absence of government. Firing off a cruise missile worth millions is less likely to happen when the perpetrator must pay the costs of it themselves. Not that I think such weapons would even be as common under market anarchy since they presently exist due to government demand.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>War is more expensive than voluntary association, thus it is less likely in the absence of government
If you're going to simply pull assertions from your butt, why even post? You already know that people start wars over the most mundane things, simply for power. Yet here you are again asserting something contrary to reality as if reality matches your fantasy you read on the internet.
God, people are so stupid.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I should be asking you the same thing. Wars are started in very poor countries and also by very large governments. Spending money to fight a war makes it expensive for those who start one. My pathetic slavery to reality will not cease.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Spending money to fight a war makes it expensive for those who start one.
The point of most wars in history was conquest. War was an attempt to plunder resources. Therefore, wars pay for themselves, and expand the wealth of nations (or factions) leading them.
>>I do agree governments start wars over mundane things
PEOPLE start wars. Being a government has nothing to do with it.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - Yes, government engaged in massive conquest in the past and I am not denying that. The trillion dollar wars of today would not occur if those in power that started them had to pay for the costs out of their own pockets.
Governments start wars FAR more often than ordinary individuals could ever dream of pulling off.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>Yes, government engaged in massive conquest
More idiot talk. You cannot accept human nature so you demonize an institution to take responsibility off of your ideology.
Factions have been fighting wars for all Human history. Anarchies have factions. Quit being a dump prat.
>>ordinary individuals could ever dream of
Idiot. Ordinary people form gangs, faction leaders, and then go to war. Read some history you ignorant twit. You have no excuse to not know this.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I agree that people form governments. I do not see a shred of evidence that governments are more peaceful than ordinary individuals.
I have read some history and acknowledge that government has led to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone.
StateExempt 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StateExempt
>>I do not see a shred of evidence that governments are more peaceful than ordinary individuals
Compare Mogadishu to Stockholm. Next?
>>I have read some history
No you haven't. You just read blogs by Mises and their related thinktanks and political advocates. You lack an understanding of the most basic political theory, you know little of economics except for libertarian tracts which you just repeat over and over. You have a long way to go.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - I do agree governments start wars over mundane things if that is what your are asking.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@kDest - So you are once again stuck in the same circular argument.
I can make up fake social contracts too. Using your logic, it would go as follows: I have the right to steal from you. You consented to the whole process because you were born here.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>I have the right to steal from you
More narcissism.
>>Saying people should live as they please without inhibiting others from doing so is not unlimited power
It means granting unlimited authority and therefore the power that that allows. Government exists to keep people like that in check.
>>You are more than welcome to submit yourself to government tyranny
You are more than welcome to leave. I prefer to live in a society not ruled by warlords, thank you very much.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - More solipsism on your part. All you are doing at this point is using the same circular reasoning you have used elsewhere and insisted that anyone who disagrees with your idea of utopia is a narcissist, which is hypocritical at best.
Unlimited authority accurately describes what you wish to give politicians, it does not describe letting people make their own choices without coercing others.
Government does not have legitimate authority over anyone, so I will continue to object to it.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
>>More solipsism
Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.
>>All you are doing at this point
You don't like to reciprocate to society, you are a leech who wants a society without taxes, blah blah blah.
>>Unlimited authority accurately describes what you wish to give politicians
And a search reveals "0." Try again. Ascribing things to your opponent which he did not say is dishonest, and you did this three times.
>>legitimate authority
Derives from OUR CONSENT.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest - You are already guilty of using phrases only as you see fit.
I do not like to allow others to plunder. That does not make me a leech, it makes me an antagonist to liberals/leeches who wish to dictate how other people's money is spent.