im going to have to wait till your other one is uploaded. sorry if you dont want to discuss this its cool i just really dont want to listen to that guy. He annoys the fuck out of me for some reason.
Why Kurtilein? because you say so? Did you listen to my video? Market anarchism is the ONLY philosophy that remains consistent with universality (at least that's what I argue in this video). If you'd like to show me how I'm wrong, go ahead...
There's an excellent article I read today that made me think of your discussions. In case you missed it - (I'm not endorsing it, just thought you'd like to read it) - here's the info:
Do note, however, that he is writing about minarchism. We are anarchists here. The "We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want" indicates that he is abviously talking about defending "the State". If the state wasn't there, what's the point with defense other than for your own property?
Besides, all the arguments from effects are just not interesting (and all the things he brings up, the market can solve); Is it ever morally right to initiate force against another human being?
As I said, I did not endorse the article, it's just the closest thing to Luke's discussions that I have seen in mainstream media. As for the article, it speaks of "what is" rather "what we wish it were". As I understand it, anarchy discussed here could only work if accepted globally, universally, otherwise we could all wind up speaking Chinese. That is if we could speak at all. But that's just my opinion and I am new at learning about this.
English is simply the lingua franca of our time, people go where the money/influence/academics are. My example of language was an obtuse reference to the fact that unless anarchism is adopted universally, one 'organized' entity could effect forceful domination over the remainder, justified by human nature to think one's own ideas better than your neighbor's. Greed is also a human nature, whether for property or for power.
"one 'organized' entity could effect forceful domination over the remainder, justified by human nature to think one's own ideas better than your neighbor's."
The thing is, the worst thing that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society, is that it is reversed back to a statist society (one we have now). I really don't see the problem. On the contrary, I think a stateless society would handle this much better (seeing as how there for instance is no "state apparatus" to take control over).
Their advantage would be an organized military to carry out their fighting/aggression whereas in a free society this may not be in place. Things like communications and the ability to bring manpower and materiel to counter a threat might not be available. Think of Poland in 1939. The state of military weaponry today is such that 'minutemen' with sporting arms would have little chance to stop a modern incursion.
DROs are the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.
TheBlindWatchmaker 4 years ago
going to listen to the things i hope they arent too long and if i have questions ill ask, lol
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
im going to have to wait till your other one is uploaded. sorry if you dont want to discuss this its cool i just really dont want to listen to that guy. He annoys the fuck out of me for some reason.
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
no worries, rushed responses suck...take your time, no reason to rush...
Luke12000 4 years ago
wow dude im going to make a video tomorrow im too tired now. talk to you tomorrow home slice
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
oh shit i didnt know you made one too
VirtualHolocaust 4 years ago
ya, sorry...I forgot to attach it...
Luke12000 4 years ago
you cannot have anything like human rights in market anarchy, because it would be impossible to implement those rights.
equal rights in market anarchy is just impossible. who would protect the rights of the people?
kurtilein3 4 years ago
you didn't bother to find out what DRO's are did you?
Bliss9000 4 years ago 2
Why Kurtilein? because you say so? Did you listen to my video? Market anarchism is the ONLY philosophy that remains consistent with universality (at least that's what I argue in this video). If you'd like to show me how I'm wrong, go ahead...
Luke12000 4 years ago
Thanks for doing the peace correctly. It's trendy to do it backwards today for some reason...
VirtualWiiality 4 years ago
There's an excellent article I read today that made me think of your discussions. In case you missed it - (I'm not endorsing it, just thought you'd like to read it) - here's the info:
The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul
What's wrong with libertarianism?
By Michael Kinsley
Saturday, January 12, 2008; 12:00 AM
© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
FeetToeBandito 4 years ago
Do note, however, that he is writing about minarchism. We are anarchists here. The "We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want" indicates that he is abviously talking about defending "the State". If the state wasn't there, what's the point with defense other than for your own property?
Besides, all the arguments from effects are just not interesting (and all the things he brings up, the market can solve); Is it ever morally right to initiate force against another human being?
BinaryT 4 years ago
As I said, I did not endorse the article, it's just the closest thing to Luke's discussions that I have seen in mainstream media. As for the article, it speaks of "what is" rather "what we wish it were". As I understand it, anarchy discussed here could only work if accepted globally, universally, otherwise we could all wind up speaking Chinese. That is if we could speak at all. But that's just my opinion and I am new at learning about this.
FeetToeBandito 4 years ago
***"...anarchy discussed here could only work if accepted globally, universally..."
Impossible conditions fallacy.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
But there is no law preserving English right now...if there were, than you might be on to something...
Luke12000 4 years ago
English is simply the lingua franca of our time, people go where the money/influence/academics are. My example of language was an obtuse reference to the fact that unless anarchism is adopted universally, one 'organized' entity could effect forceful domination over the remainder, justified by human nature to think one's own ideas better than your neighbor's. Greed is also a human nature, whether for property or for power.
FeetToeBandito 4 years ago
"one 'organized' entity could effect forceful domination over the remainder, justified by human nature to think one's own ideas better than your neighbor's."
The thing is, the worst thing that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society, is that it is reversed back to a statist society (one we have now). I really don't see the problem. On the contrary, I think a stateless society would handle this much better (seeing as how there for instance is no "state apparatus" to take control over).
BinaryT 4 years ago
How exactly could a stateless society defend itself against a state?
FeetToeBandito 4 years ago
...the same way a state would defend itself against a state...with guns and stuff...
I'm not sure what you're getting at...
The state can impose a draft, other than that they're not superior to a free society.
Luke12000 4 years ago
Their advantage would be an organized military to carry out their fighting/aggression whereas in a free society this may not be in place. Things like communications and the ability to bring manpower and materiel to counter a threat might not be available. Think of Poland in 1939. The state of military weaponry today is such that 'minutemen' with sporting arms would have little chance to stop a modern incursion.
FeetToeBandito 4 years ago