Portrait of an Atheist: XOmniverse

Giving random opinions on various political topics.

Hatesfury08
http://www.youtube.com/user/Hatesfury08

Not tagging anyone because anyone I tagged would agree with me on like 80% of what I said in this video anyway.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Portrait
• of
• an
• atheist
• satanism
• anton
• lavey
• capitalism
• drugs
• economics
• death
• penalty
• abortion
• gay
• rights

[danielsondanielson]

XOmniverse, I would think that any legality demands some generally ready enforcement, and such enforcement basically demands the State. But as far as I remember, not long time ago you wanted to reject the State. So, now I am quite surprised you talk about what should be (il)legal in your view, without questioning the very concept of legality. But maybe your view is less inconsistent than as I would see it now. Anyway, could you offer some clarification here? Thanks in advance.

[XOmniverse]

Are you not aware of the market anarchist position on law, defense agencies, etc.?

[danielsondanielson]

Thanks for your clarification.

[NeonKnight88]

You can perceive anything any way you want, but what I mean by violence is physically hurting people or threatening to if they do not relinquish their stuff.

[danielsondanielson]

What do you mean by your last sentence? Aren't you deliberately unclear here? The only thing I understand from it is that you dislike the expression "social organization". But you probably don't mean that people wouldn't interact and exchange some pieces of information to the benefit of their individual or joint efforts (what I personally would see as the nature of any social organization, no matter if one decides to see it as restrictive or liberating).

[danielsondanielson]

But what court and according to what rules would it decide and require something? And what is it violence? Someone could percieve as violence, if you "disface" the landscape of their region by a "nasty" new property. Someone recognizes also the existence of "verbal violence". Indeed, with a bit of sophistics, any law in any conceivable regime can be interpreted as "nothing else but the protection of people against violent individuals". But you would maybe do without precise rules, wouldn't you?

[NeonKnight88]

People in the locale stop dealing with you. IE they won't sell you food, freeze your bank account, cut off your power unless you can provide evidence that you went to your court date and did what was required. And if you get violent, people get defensive.

[doucher337]

... And open economics (a "free market") fulfills the needs for abundance, diversity, and quality far better than those markets in which the state presides or interferes with the economy. The state cannot get accurate feedback on the allocation of resources, hence Hayek's calculation problem which a priori means that central planning is damned to fail.

[doucher337]

He said in the very beginning of his video that he was using "legality" as if it were interchangeable with "preference".

Regarding your late comment, "anarchists" or anti-statists typically don't oppose the state simply because of violence, but because of the nature of the state - that is, a coercive geographic monopoly. Restrictive social organization is all social organization, or there would be no such thing (no such thing as "social organization").

[danielsondanielson]

To be honest, I haven't read anything original. On the youtube I heard some opinions of various market anarchists, anarchocapitalists, agorists, confederalsocialists etc specifically about defense agencies or about dispute settlements. I haven't heard anybody talking too much about the law yet. But if something is forbiden among some people, I would imagine that who chooses to ignore the ban is likely to be subject of some coercive proceedings, i.e. some institutional violence. Or am I wrong?

[chapaev36]

Even privatized marriage would probably include the government in some respect to enforce the contract. I am not talking about the government's role as it is now - sure, its role could be altered. Rather it's your sloppy and absolutist argument about the role of the government that is unspecific. Also your view of the government as manipulative is dangerously naive - the government represents a general negotiated values framework. It does not pull strings at mere whim.