Anarchy is Dumb

[Kiopa_Matt]

You're telling him to "leave" in order to be free? He can't be free where he is now?

No, he can't. If he wants to be "free" (ie. never pay taxes, follow another government regulation, etc.), then he's not allowed to use any government funded infrastructure or services. Fair is fair. I guess he'll get the basic national defense from the US military for free though, as nobody is invading Canada anytime soon thanks to the US.

There's loads of land available in Canada, he can setup anywhere he wants, and almost guaranteed will never be bothered. He'll get to keep his tax money though.

 

[REIMktg]

This is a fallacy. Where I live, we have 3 cops who stop working at 5:00 on weekdays. If we need a police officer, we have to call for one to come from an hour away. And those 3 cops are actually 20 mins away from me.

Your example is also a fallacy. One specific situation cannot be extrapolated to society as a whole, on either side of the argument. My argument stems from the nature of Man. Which is evident.

People aren't dangerous because they generally aren't.

What kind of logic is that? There are countless examples of a person who commits their first violent act. No one person can be trusted 100% of the time. Even good people do bad things. Then there are the bad people that do bad things more often.

The drug war alone creates a massive incentive for crime. Then you have the welfare system, which also encourages criminal behavior, broken homes etc. Both are government programs.

OK. Legalize drugs. Fine. Then what? Suddenly no crime? Not likely. There was crime before drugs were made illegal.

The policeman has to make sure there is always some crime, otherwise no one will need his services. That's why the biggest anti-pot special interests are the police and the prison system. They both lose a ton of money and power if pot is legalized.

That's how gov't works.

You are attributing the Policeman's individual behavior to the "Government." Yet the Govt is made of individual men. So would your police agencies. Whats stopping them from encouraging crime to up your price of protection? Is not this organization made up of the same fallable Man? It does not take a Govt to make this type of abuse possible.

Private citizens could use force if attacked. Through most of history, law enforcement was handled locally. Particularly in common law and sharia countries.

Interesting comment. Who protects the minority? Who protects the "little guy" in this scenario? Who pays for the defense of the poor? With countless local "fiefdoms" all with their own laws, there will not be any single advocacy group that could help the little guy everywhere.

If they weren't his agents, then they weren't acting for his security. By your rationale, we owe every human being who came before us for their "sacrifices". It's rubbish, and an argument based on guilt.

No. You are wrong. I made the point that his local experience is safe due to the actions of others. I did not say he owes them. But to think every area, country, whatever would be just as safe had it not been for the sacrifice of others, is not true. I did not attribute to him anything owed. Let's be clear on this. Your assumption is incorrect.

Btw, isn't Scott in the military or was in the military? If so, and if we follow your argument, you owe him.

This follows from the above. No one is "owed". His service was voluntary and assuming he was paid as agreed, we do not "owe" him. At the same time I can appreciate his service and know that he did what many others would not. He served and I reap benefits. This is not from "guilt" or from "owing" - but if I could I would do more for Veterans. Once again by choice, not out of guilt.

Lots of security comes from good relations, education, intelligence, morals, values, culture, property rights, negotiation etc.

Only a Phillistine argues that civilization is created with force. Mind you, that is what you actually believe and what I have been trying to get you to admit for 3 weeks.

I am happy you are out in the open now.

I have been out in the open on this for a long time. The only stipulation is that I believe this because of Man's nature. A civilization could be created without force, just not a civilization of Man. That is important because your ideas are fine and would work with a different creature. They cannot work with Man. Maybe you should think on this. It is also why no one can flaw your system without bringing in the nature of Man. Your system is examined and flawless, if Man were not who Man is. This is why you keep your mind on the same topic and think you are correct.

You are only correct because you eliminate Man's nature.

Once again I will repeat this so there is no mistake in understanding. You have come to your conclusions and they are flawless, but they have eliminated the most important variable, Man himself. This is why you stick to your guns and feel everyone else is wrong. Because your conclusion is flawless given the premises you set down. The problem is your premise.


. There was one thread where you explicitly stated, that I am now on record of this. It is not new and I will repeat it again and again.

 

[scottspfd82]

But under what authority? Local rules? Who makes those rules? Everyone just "agrees"? What about non-violent offenses? What do you do with " 'out' laws' "? Lock 'em up? Under what authority? Punish them in some way? Who makes the rules? Everyone just "agrees"? Can't wait until all the property owners want Capital Punishment for a variety of crimes as a deterrent and to save money from locking them up. Seems to me the ones locked up will probably be required to pay for their release, after all what reasonable person wants to pay for it and "Bam!" - debtors prisons. Sounds like good stuff. Heaven forbid you make a mistake in life, owe money, and then end up their. Wheres the redress? Where's the due process? What property owners would agree to lengthy court examination and court appointed lawyers - why pay for an " 'out' law "?

For non-violent offenses, say a small claims settlement, you and the plaintiff could agree to a 3rd party who would judge the claim.

For violent offenses there would be consequences. Again, could be contracted out to an independent arbitrator.

Under the authority of common law. You don't harm others. You don't initiate violence. You don't steal. You don't use violence to coerce people into taking certain actions.

Yes. State's know there is a price for sponsoring terror and therefore the terrorists are likely to get less support and terrorist leaders themselves think twice before taking action. The actions taken may not be ideal, but they were instrumental in thwarting further devastating attacks. The last one is estimated to have hit the economy by $3 Trillion. How much would the next one have cost? $6 trillion?

Blowback.

No matter what you believe about 9/11, it wouldn't have happened if we weren't involved in areas of the world where we had no right to be.

And if you think we're safer because of occupying and murdering people overseas for the last 12 years, you're wrong. Terrorists hate us for a reason, and it ain't freedom.

By the way, your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

Some is, some is not for our safety. No one here is arguing the current implementation of the system is perfect. I am not a supporter of non-violent incarceration, but then again I am not a fan of plea deals with the violent that understate the violent prisoner population.

Why do you assume that violence would be okay? It wouldn't be.

Fair enough. I am for gun ownership. The problem is what to do with the opportunist thief that is not violent, this time. A little jail time? Ask anyone that has been to prison and see what they say about their fellow inmates. Many would be fine on the outside, but many more are planning their next crimes, have no remorse, and society is better off having them pulled out. Let's release all of the violent offenders and see if the prisons are servings society for the better.

A thief is violent.

There is no such thing as non-violent theft.

I've said nothing about releasing all violent offenders.

We may not agree with Govt as it stands, but it is a system that can be changed, should you be able to garner public opinion to your side. If the politicians were not afraid of the people, they wouldn't spend so much money and time swaying public opinion.

Government in itself is broken.

The politicians only care about milking the people. Giving perceived control over government keeps people productive. That money is spent giving the illusion of control. By the way, it's not their money they're spending. It's stolen money. Why should they care?

You can't fix a corrupt system through a corrupt system.

 

[scottspfd82]

Your example is also a fallacy. One specific situation cannot be extrapolated to society as a whole, on either side of the argument. My argument stems from the nature of Man. Which is evident.

The nature of man corrupted by absolute power is very different than the nature of humanity as a whole.

What kind of logic is that? There are countless examples of a person who commits their first violent act. No one person can be trusted 100% of the time. Even good people do bad things. Then there are the bad people that do bad things more often.

So let's give them complete control and the monopoly to use violence against us. If individuals are so bad - why give them the monopoly on violence? How does that make any sense?

OK. Legalize drugs. Fine. Then what? Suddenly no crime? Not likely. There was crime before drugs were made illegal.

You remove $40 billion in annual profits from top drug cartels and I'd guess that most of the 50k people killed in Mexico over the last 5 years would still be alive.

Crime would still be around. Mass murder wouldn't pay so well though.

You are attributing the Policeman's individual behavior to the "Government." Yet the Govt is made of individual men. So would your police agencies. Whats stopping them from encouraging crime to up your price of protection? Is not this organization made up of the same fallable Man? It does not take a Govt to make this type of abuse possible.

If I had the monopoly on hosting, if you had to pay me for hosting, and I had no competition that you could turn to how great of a job would you expect from me?

I'd have guaranteed clients.

I'd have no competition to worry about.

I wouldn't give a shit how fast your site loads or if you're happy. I could charge whatever I wanted.

Same deal.

You give security companies competition, and they're going to do whatever they can to provide a great service. They'll be on top of any calls. They know that any corruption would hurt their profit margins.

They want to charge more I'll switch providers. They want to do a shitty job I'll switch providers.

Competition is a good thing.

Interesting comment. Who protects the minority? Who protects the "little guy" in this scenario? Who pays for the defense of the poor? With countless local "fiefdoms" all with their own laws, there will not be any single advocacy group that could help the little guy everywhere.

You mean the minority that makes up 90% of the prison population? Or the minority that makes up 90% of the homeless population?

If your grandmother was being attacked would you not help her? How about an elderly neighbor? I know I would. I think most would.

I have been out in the open on this for a long time. The only stipulation is that I believe this because of Man's nature. A civilization could be created without force, just not a civilization of Man. That is important because your ideas are fine and would work with a different creature. They cannot work with Man. Maybe you should think on this. It is also why no one can flaw your system without bringing in the nature of Man. Your system is examined and flawless, if Man were not who Man is. This is why you keep your mind on the same topic and think you are correct.

When you meet a new person do you assume he is evil or out to hurt you? That'd be a shitty way to live. Without the corruption that comes with power, mankind throughout history has proven to be pretty kind and remarkable.

Once again I will repeat this so there is no mistake in understanding. You have come to your conclusions and they are flawless, but they have eliminated the most important variable, Man himself. This is why you stick to your guns and feel everyone else is wrong. Because your conclusion is flawless given the premises you set down. The problem is your premise.

IF MAN IS EVIL THEN WHY GIVE ANY GROUP OF MEN ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE MAJORITY?

 

[REIMktg]

For non-violent offenses, say a small claims settlement, you and the plaintiff could agree to a 3rd party who would judge the claim.

If I don't agree to a judge or arbitrator, will you force me to?

Who pays for this if I have no money? Does it then default to the Payer's?

For violent offenses there would be consequences. Again, could be contracted out to an independent arbitrator.

Once again if I do not agree, will you force me? ill this force be incumbent upon presuming my guilt? How can you force me when I have yet to be convicted or found guilty? What then - will you use force because you are saying I did "X"? Are we to believe that your police agency is right? What if I am poor and do not have a Police agency and your agency trumps up charges knowing I cannot pay for a defense and yet they want to increase their "tally" justifying your keeping them under contract?

Under the authority of common law. You don't harm others. You don't initiate violence. You don't steal. You don't use violence to coerce people into taking certain actions.

Because it is the law it will not happen? You are using force to bring me to your judge/arbitrator and yet I have not had due process. Who gives you the authority to bring me up on charges if I have not had all evidence presented? I mean, you are going to pay for my legal representation? Do you see how ridiculous this is? Once again, the "idea" itself is fine, but given Man's nature it is not a system that will work. People get sold on the flawless ideal, cannot argue a rebuttal when the nature of Man is taken off the table, and then buy into an unworkable system.

No matter what you believe about 9/11, it wouldn't have happened if we weren't involved in areas of the world where we had no right to be.

You mean that the Saudi's did not invite us to their land? Let's not even discuss the fact that we brought the technology, know how, and market demand for oil to the Saudi's. They had sand.

The terrorists have no claim to the Saudi property. We are there at the request of the owners of the land.

And if you think we're safer because of occupying and murdering people overseas for the last 12 years, you're wrong. Terrorists hate us for a reason, and it ain't freedom.

By the way, your couch is more likely to kill you than a terrorist.

The economic impact is real. People die because of poor economic situations also.
Saddam could have adhered to the Gulf War treaty. He did not. Guess he shouldn't have taken Glaspie's bait, but that is for a different thread.
Terrorists leaders use many reasons for their actions, much of it is the expansion from our culture of decadent and hedonistic lifestyle. So in a way it is freedom.

A thief is violent.
There is no such thing as non-violent theft.
I've said nothing about releasing all violent offenders.

Who pays for incarceration in Anarchy? What about human rights while incarcerated? What about cruel and unusual punishment? No restrictions? So you are going to pay for prisoner health care too? Or will the family of the guilty pay for it? Back to a debtor prison situation. There is a reason we abandoned this type of justice and prisons a long time ago.

Government in itself is broken.
The politicians only care about milking the people.

Yes, it is broken. I am not advocating today's system.

Giving perceived control over government keeps people productive. That money is spent giving the illusion of control. By the way, it's not their money they're spending. It's stolen money. Why should they care?

You can't fix a corrupt system through a corrupt system.

You're wrong. I have outlined in previous threads exactly how people can take control again. The politician's are afraid of the people, hence their spending on campaigns, pr, etc. Your problem is with the people that elect those politicians. They like the politicians ideas more than yours.

 

[Moxie]

If he wants to be "free" (ie. never pay taxes, follow another government regulation, etc.), then he's not allowed to use any government funded infrastructure or services.

If he was really "free" then paying for those services would be a voluntary choice just as with his cell phone or the Red Cross.

The US government has toll highways in many places. Why is this? If they wanted they could just take the total toll collection amounts and just increase taxes by that figure. Instead this is one rare government program where the people who use the service actually end up paying a more "fair" amount of the bill.

Fair is fair.

Millions of people are a net loss to the system. If someone was in prison ten years for a violent crime, upon their release you would probably think it was absurd to suggest that they not be allowed to use the roads and such.

 

[scottspfd82]

If I don't agree to a judge or arbitrator, will you force me to?

Who pays for this if I have no money? Does it then default to the Payer's?

I never claimed to have all of the answers.

My guess would be you'd default and your credit would be hurt for future loans/transactions. Sort of like today.

Once again if I do not agree, will you force me? ill this force be incumbent upon presuming my guilt? How can you force me when I have yet to be convicted or found guilty? What then - will you use force because you are saying I did "X"? Are we to believe that your police agency is right? What if I am poor and do not have a Police agency and your agency trumps up charges knowing I cannot pay for a defense and yet they want to increase their "tally" justifying your keeping them under contract?

If you committed a violent crime against me then yes. I would force you. Or disable/kill you, depending on the circumstances.

Just like if you broke into my place right now. I'd tell you to get on the ground and if you don't comply I'd force you.

I'd still need the burden of proof. And again, asking me for all of the answers is like asking an astronaut what life would be like after we colonize Mars. He could guess. He doesn't know.

How will we live after the dollar collapses? How will we live when WW3 breaks out and we're under martial law? How we live when multiple EMP's explode and we're without power for 5 years?

I don't fucking know.

I do believe that our only options right now are peace or decimation. And peace isn't profitable for States.

Because it is the law it will not happen? You are using force to bring me to your judge/arbitrator and yet I have not had due process. Who gives you the authority to bring me up on charges if I have not had all evidence presented? I mean, you are going to pay for my legal representation? Do you see how ridiculous this is? Once again, the "idea" itself is fine, but given Man's nature it is not a system that will work. People get sold on the flawless ideal, cannot argue a rebuttal when the nature of Man is taken off the table, and then buy into an unworkable system.

When did I say you wouldn't be subject to a fair trial?

You mean that the Saudi's did not invite us to their land? Let's not even discuss the fact that we brought the technology, know how, and market demand for oil to the Saudi's. They had sand.

The terrorists have no claim to the Saudi property. We are there at the request of the owners of the land.

It wasn't about business with Saudi Arabia. It was about ongoing occupation and manipulation of Governments in the region for over 50 years.

I personally believe it's deeper than that. But taken at face value, their was plenty of motive for an attack. Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. Etc etc.

We've been involved in nation building there since long before you or I were born.

The economic impact is real. People die because of poor economic situations also.
Saddam could have adhered to the Gulf War treaty. He did not. Guess he shouldn't have taken Glaspie's bait, but that is for a different thread.
Terrorists leaders use many reasons for their actions, much of it is the expansion from our culture of decadent and hedonistic lifestyle. So in a way it is freedom.

Saddam was a CIA puppet. Bin Laden was a CIA puppet. I have no time to get into this right now but it's well documented.

Who pays for incarceration in Anarchy? What about human rights while incarcerated? What about cruel and unusual punishment? No restrictions? So you are going to pay for prisoner health care too? Or will the family of the guilty pay for it? Back to a debtor prison situation. There is a reason we abandoned this type of justice and prisons a long time ago.

Your Government can imprison you indefinitely, or have you killed, for ANY reason, and you're worried about who would pay for it under an alternative system?

We haven't abandoned shit. We've skyrocketed towards a MUCH more barbaric system within the last couple of years, and we keep going down that path.

If things stay on this path we'll be begging for debtors prisons. We have fucking secret torture camps bro.

You're wrong. I have outlined in previous threads exactly how people can take control again. The politician's are afraid of the people, hence their spending on campaigns, pr, etc. Your problem is with the people that elect those politicians. They like the politicians ideas more than yours.

You can't fix Government with Government.

It's absolutely corrupt.

The "people" don't elect anyone. Did the "people" elect Bush? No. The people don't mean shit. The people are asleep. Whatever happens Tuesday (my guess is Obama), it's been written in the books long before the votes were tallied.

 

[REIMktg]

The nature of man corrupted by absolute power is very different than the nature of humanity as a whole.

No. People are corrupt with or without power. Plenty of crime is committed by the most powerless segments of society. Man has a problem, its himself. People steal, manipulate for advantage, lie, do bad things, violate agreements, break contracts, set others up, etc. People do what people do. Some people even write entire websites and supporting materials all in claim that one diet ingredient will give them the edge in weight loss. You see, people want what they want and do what they can to get it. are there people that stick to one moral code over another? Of course, but even these people are not consistent and are subject to failure, even if it is to a standard they set for themselves. It's Man's nature and has nothing to do with power.

So let's give them complete control and the monopoly to use violence against us. If individuals are so bad - why give them the monopoly on violence? How does that make any sense?

Because that violence is subject to rule of law, due process, and a host of other checks and balances. Why do you think the US has so many police agencies? They not only perform a specific function they also deliver cross accountability to other enforcement agencies. All of these are publicly accountable to a set system of rules and procedures. Can you point out abuses? Sure you can, but I can point to a thousand more times when they are compliant with these rules. Private agencies will be accountable to those that hire them. Where's the protection for the poor, the downtrodden, the less intelligent, etc? Private agencies are not the answer, in fact it could easily be said they will have much more power than Govt agencies with less accountability? Who is going to pay for all this cross accountability in Anarchy if everyone opts for their own provider?

You remove $40 billion in annual profits from top drug cartels and I'd guess that most of the 50k people killed in Mexico over the last 5 years would still be alive.

Crime would still be around. Mass murder wouldn't pay so well though.

So you think Drugs create cartels? Then why isn't everyone a part of one? Because these consistently bad people have chosen an alternative way of life. take away drug opportunism and they will find some other means to take from others. You are not going to change the nature of these Men by legalizing drugs. Maybe it will not pay as well, but the same Men will be manipulating, stealing, and taking by violence wherever they end up. Drugs did not create their willingness to be violent when opportune.

If I had the monopoly on hosting, if you had to pay me for hosting, and I had no competition that you could turn to how great of a job would you expect from me?

I'd have guaranteed clients.

I'd have no competition to worry about.

I wouldn't give a shit how fast your site loads or if you're happy. I could charge whatever I wanted.

Same deal.

You give security companies competition, and they're going to do whatever they can to provide a great service. They'll be on top of any calls. They know that any corruption would hurt their profit margins.

They want to charge more I'll switch providers. They want to do a shitty job I'll switch providers.

Competition is a good thing.

This argument is simplistic. Competition is good. There is no argument with that. The argument is with the implementation of that competition with a group that has the power of force over others. I would like Police agency competition, fair enough I can see advantages, but it is impractical. Especially when fugitives leave jurisdictions. You see, as I pointed out earlier, your police force will do violence against others without their consent. Then where is the guarantee of due process? Where are the protections for the poor etc? What if I am innocent, your Police just brought me to a judge that I did not agree to and they brought me there by force. What recourse do I have against this violent intrusion? what power do I have to ensure a fair judge? If you are paying the judge/arbitrator and I have no money, do you think I will be getting a fair trial? What if you and your Police are wrong?

You mean the minority that makes up 90% of the prison population? Or the minority that makes up 90% of the homeless population?
If your grandmother was being attacked would you not help her? How about an elderly neighbor? I know I would. I think most would.

I mean the "minority" of any group. Be it economic, cultural, racial, religious, or otherwise. Of course as individuals we would help them, but what about the White Supremacist, or the accused Abusive Spouse? No one likes these people, who gives them fair representation? there are a lot less people around to help when you are not part of some "accepted" group.

When you meet a new person do you assume he is evil or out to hurt you? That'd be a shitty way to live. Without the corruption that comes with power, mankind throughout history has proven to be pretty kind and remarkable.

Most Men act good most of the time. The problem is that good people also do bad things for a variety of reasons. You do not know who you are dealing with ever. I absolutely know my surroundings at all times. It is a reality of where I was raised. I know people that will cut you down right in the middle of laughing at you jokes and enjoying their time with you. I know there are a lot of great people in this world and yet given the right opportunity would I trust them? Would you? You would leave your little daughter with a stranger? You would leave your bag of money with them? How about a winning lotto ticket?

You trust advertisements? This forum is full of nice people who are probably good people, yet they lied for their own gain, pushing products they joke are ineffective. They say things like "poor fatty thinks a pill will solve their problem" - is that not the definition of heartless? How many overweight people have many underlying issues? How much is our culture damaged by body image? How about all the porn on this very forum? You think that is OK? You think its fine that many desperate girls sell themselves for so little? You think that Man is good? What then is your definition of good?

 

[REIMktg]

I never claimed to have all of the answers.

My guess would be you'd default and your credit would be hurt for future loans/transactions. Sort of like today.

The key is that my statement, "will you force me" has implications. What right do you have to force me to show up for court or do anything under the threat of violence? I mean, if I have not entered into agreement with you that establishes such provision. You can say I did "X" against you and suddenly you have created that power within yourself to use force against me. It is your word that has just violated my person. Maybe it would damage your long term reputation, maybe I could win in court against you, but that does not discount the fact that you used force simply by your word. You created the power to use the threat of violence against me simply by saying it. Wow.

If you committed a violent crime against me then yes. I would force you. Or disable/kill you, depending on the circumstances.
Just like if you broke into my place right now. I'd tell you to get on the ground and if you don't comply I'd force you.
I'd still need the burden of proof. And again, asking me for all of the answers is like asking an astronaut what life would be like after we colonize Mars. He could guess. He doesn't know.

Of course there are situations that are clear as day. The burden of proof? By wo's standard? Your Police, your judge, your paid jury? What about those that are not. Ones where there is evidence and yet not a clear cut case? What if I am not very smart and have no idea what to do about defense? Are you going to pay for it? Is your court or Police force. This is important because I see no protection for the poor and disadvantage in this proposed system. In fact, if you are not very smart, you are screwed under this system because you can give away your personal rights by contract. There are rules, remedies, etc codified into law in the current system that protect those individuals, even individuals under duress. But you are advocating a system that has no protection against a bad decision. I have made a lot of bad decisions in life and I am thankful that there are protections in place to even protect me from myself. Anyone young can laugh or make fun of that, but the older you get the more you will understand.

How will we live after the dollar collapses? How will we live when WW3 breaks out and we're under martial law? How we live when multiple EMP's explode and we're without power for 5 years?
I don't fucking know.

I was laying out factual current situations, not speculations. You can say all of these things will happen and I might even agree, but there cannot be a discussion on that topic because it has not panned out yet. The situations I put forth happen every day and therefore are not speculative, they are real, tangible problems.

I do believe that our only options right now are peace or decimation. And peace isn't profitable for States.

Actually peace is more profitable. If you are saying it is not profitable for the defense industry then I will say neither will it be for your Private Police force. The problem is with the voter and those they elect. You have a problem with people, as do I.

When did I say you wouldn't be subject to a fair trial?

I said it. I asked how can I get a fair trial if I am poor? Who is paying for my representation? Who is paying for the judge? The courthouse, etc? Some will say their will be private charity organizations that will do this, but as I stated before what if I am not a sub-group that society wants to support? What if I am accused of child abuse or battering a spouse? Not many organizations step up to protect the un-popular. Those that do, how will they hear of my case especially if it is held in some small backwoods community?

It wasn't about business with Saudi Arabia. It was about ongoing occupation and manipulation of Governments in the region for over 50 years.
I personally believe it's deeper than that. But taken at face value, their was plenty of motive for an attack. Iran. Iraq. Afghanistan. Etc etc.
We've been involved in nation building there since long before you or I were born.

I am not arguing support of the current system nor for Imperialism. I do believe in stopping States that have a policy of sponsoring terror. You can say the US does the same - say what you want. The system is broke, we know this. But it is Man that makes that system. I do not want nukes in the hands of those that have stated they will use them? No. Every additional person that has access to nukes becomes more dangerous.

Saddam was a CIA puppet. Bin Laden was a CIA puppet. I have no time to get into this right now but it's well documented.
Your Government can imprison you indefinitely, or have you killed, for ANY reason, and you're worried about who would pay for it under an alternative system?
We haven't abandoned shit. We've skyrocketed towards a MUCH more barbaric system within the last couple of years, and we keep going down that path.
If things stay on this path we'll be begging for debtors prisons. We have fucking secret torture camps bro.

They are not really very secret. Once again, these violations are by Men and there would be nothing within Anarchy that would stop them save for the Men that take part speaking out. The people could stop these if they wanted to, they don't. The same as if within Anarchy. It would be happening, but without exposure and outrage nothing would be done. People would just disappear and no one would hear from them again. The system is broken, but at least it could be changed. Under anarchy there will be no change, no accountability, nothing - nothing more than we have now. Its not a fix, at best it is a draw between the two systems.

You can't fix Government with Government.

It's absolutely corrupt.

The "people" don't elect anyone. Did the "people" elect Bush? No. The people don't mean shit. The people are asleep. Whatever happens Tuesday (my guess is Obama), it's been written in the books long before the votes were tallied.

The people do matter. The electoral college is a system that the people have chosen not to change. Once again, these are the same people you want with ultimate control in Anarchy. Ultimate control of creating the threat of violence out of thin air to suit their personal agenda. A ssytem where there is less accountability than today because it is not Government that created all of these violations of human rights, it is the men within Government. You can say it is the power given them by Government, but they will have that power in anarchy. There will be large defense agencies, how else do you protect from foreign invaders? Same crap. It's Mans nature.

 

[scottspfd82]

No. People are corrupt with or without power. Plenty of crime is committed by the most powerless segments of society. Man has a problem, its himself. People steal, manipulate for advantage, lie, do bad things, violate agreements, break contracts, set others up, etc. People do what people do. Some people even write entire websites and supporting materials all in claim that one diet ingredient will give them the edge in weight loss. You see, people want what they want and do what they can to get it. are there people that stick to one moral code over another? Of course, but even these people are not consistent and are subject to failure, even if it is to a standard they set for themselves. It's Man's nature and has nothing to do with power.

Power corrupts.

When you give a small group the power to profit from violence, you get war. Look at who profits from our wars. There's a reason we've been at war over a decade now. And it has nothing to do with security.

Sure, individuals can be harmful.

But they don't slaughter millions of people.

Because that violence is subject to rule of law, due process, and a host of other checks and balances. Why do you think the US has so many police agencies?

Because Governments naturally seek to expand control over the people.

They not only perform a specific function they also deliver cross accountability to other enforcement agencies. All of these are publicly accountable to a set system of rules and procedures. Can you point out abuses? Sure you can, but I can point to a thousand more times when they are compliant with these rules.

Like when the CIA is running guns into Mexico? Or smuggling coke into the US? Or assassinating innocent people? Or torturing them? Or arresting US citizens without trial and sending them to secret prisons?

Private agencies will be accountable to those that hire them. Where's the protection for the poor, the downtrodden, the less intelligent, etc? Private agencies are not the answer, in fact it could easily be said they will have much more power than Govt agencies with less accountability? Who is going to pay for all this cross accountability in Anarchy if everyone opts for their own provider?

They'd be accountable to the market.

You wanna worry about the poor? I've worked in homeless shelters. Here are the poor...

1. Military veterans. Many who don't kill themselves end up hooked on alcohol or drugs.

2. Those with substance abuse problems are circulated through prisons instead of properly treated. Hence they end up back on the streets.

3. Those who are genuinely down on their luck. Hard times.

You know what causes poor people?

Taxation. Not just the ~30% in income taxes. Property tax. Sales tax. Economic manipulation. Exploitation of the people.

Don't talk to me about "the poor" when you're defending the institution that spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out banks who signed off on toxic investments.

You're defending the institution that prints money, inflates fiat currency and consistently plunges our people into trillions of dollars in debt through negligent spending. A debt so HUGE that the taxes they STEAL from us barely cover the interest.

You want to worry about the poor? Let's take just a fraction of the money we spend on murdering children overseas and give it back to the people. That'd help the poor more than any government program ever has.

You argue about the poor while defending an institution that can't turn a profit from engaging solely in murder and theft.

So you think Drugs create cartels?

Yeah. I think that a $360 billion annual trade sounds pretty lucrative when the alternative is starving.

Then why isn't everyone a part of one? Because these consistently bad people have chosen an alternative way of life.

Bullshit.

Many of these people work with the Mexican Government. Many more work with our Government. They're recruited at a young age, and indoctrinated to into THE MOST LUCRATIVE TRADE ON THE PLANET under the guise of Government support.

They don't see themselves as criminals. They're working with the people who make the fucking laws. It's well documented that the CIA covertly trains and oversees the operations of the largest and most violent cartels.

You see, as I pointed out earlier, your police force will do violence against others without their consent.

No, they won't.

They don't have the right to initiate violence.

I mean the "minority" of any group. Be it economic, cultural, racial, religious, or otherwise. Of course as individuals we would help them, but what about the White Supremacist, or the accused Abusive Spouse? No one likes these people, who gives them fair representation? there are a lot less people around to help when you are not part of some "accepted" group.

By the most conservative estimates, based on DNA testing, and accounting for all of the cases where DNA testing can't overturn a case, 2.5%-5% of the prison population is innocent. Conservatively.

5% would be over 100,000 innocent people in prison, many for the better part of their lives or on death row.

If you're okay with that then I don't know what to tell you. I think we can do better.

The Innocence Project - About Us: FAQs:How many innocent people are there in prison?

Most Men act good most of the time. The problem is that good people also do bad things for a variety of reasons. You do not know who you are dealing with ever. I absolutely know my surroundings at all times. It is a reality of where I was raised. I know people that will cut you down right in the middle of laughing at you jokes and enjoying their time with you. I know there are a lot of great people in this world and yet given the right opportunity would I trust them? Would you? You would leave your little daughter with a stranger? You would leave your bag of money with them? How about a winning lotto ticket?

Common sense would still be important without Government. No, I wouldn't leave my daughter with a stranger. Or The Pope. I don't see why that matters.

You trust advertisements? This forum is full of nice people who are probably good people, yet they lied for their own gain, pushing products they joke are ineffective. They say things like "poor fatty thinks a pill will solve their problem" - is that not the definition of heartless? How many overweight people have many underlying issues? How much is our culture damaged by body image? How about all the porn on this very forum? You think that is OK? You think its fine that many desperate girls sell themselves for so little? You think that Man is good? What then is your definition of good?

My definition of good doesn't involve millions of dead innocent people rotting in mass graves.

So far every State in history has given me that. I don't see how it could be worse.

 

[REIMktg]

....

All of the bad you stated is just as likely under Anarchy. Government is made up of Men. Man's nature is bad. You do not have a corner on understanding the poor and blaming it on Government is ridiculous. There have been poor before Government. Man is flawed in countless ways. Anarchy does not fix this, nor does Government.

You do not have examples of atrocities that were of Man, only examples from Government and therefore Govt is bad? That's the flow of logic around here and yet it is foolish. Anarchy and Government will both have Men in power. Men who at the sound of their voice can reap violence and the use of force on others. There is less accountability in Anarchy than under many Governments across the world. You don't think there will be torture, secret prisons, etc under Anarchy? One day everyone will wake up and play by a different set of rules? These things will all still happen as each property owner sees fit to "protect themselves".

As for the innocent in prison. They have public paid judges etc to hear their appeals. Why would you possibly think it would be bettter under Anarchy when that incarcerated individual has no public paid avenue of redress and was convicted by a private judge and jury that was paid for by the accuser. You think less people will be imprisoned in these private run prisons without accountability.

At the core of all of these evil things are Men. They will always seek more power. Say I run a police force and one town is a seeming threat to a town under my protection. One day that town disappears. Who did it? Who knows? It's just done. What happened to NAP? Oh, I believe in NAP, I do not know what happened to that town, but since no one is using the land I think I will set up shop. Sure there are records of ownership, but the owners disappeared and are not using it now. Oh some rich relative with a police force in New York is investigating my Police force involvement? Let them come down and sort things out..... Bam! A war.

Why advocate for a system just as bad as the one you are in? At least the one you are in gives you rights of redress. You can be heard and if you are compelling you will gain a following, with that following you can make change. I gave step by step directions in a previous thread, yet no one even wants to step up and take action. If they will not do it now, then why would then do it under Anarchy? the reason is because it is too much trouble. Man is flawed.

It's all one big circle jerk, just like this discussion.

 

[scottspfd82]

I have to sleep and work. This will be quick. Typo's guaranteed.

All of the bad you stated is just as likely under Anarchy. Government is made up of Men. Man's nature is bad. You do not have a corner on understanding the poor and blaming it on Government is ridiculous.

Taxation and imprisonment lead to poverty. What % of blacks are impoverished? What % are in prison?

There have been poor before Government. Man is flawed in countless ways. Anarchy does not fix this, nor does Government.

When was there poverty before Government?

You do not have examples of atrocities that were of Man, only examples from Government and therefore Govt is bad? That's the flow of logic around here and yet it is foolish. Anarchy and Government will both have Men in power.

Anarchy means without rulers. Yeah, men can acquire power. But no one can have the monopoly on power. HUGE difference.

Men who at the sound of their voice can reap violence and the use of force on others. There is less accountability in Anarchy than under many Governments across the world.

Any evidence to back this statement up? It seems to me that accountability under the state is designed to serve the interest of the state.

You don't think there will be torture, secret prisons, etc under Anarchy? One day everyone will wake up and play by a different set of rules? These things will all still happen as each property owner sees fit to "protect themselves".

Do you think we'll ever stop burning witches? Do you think we'll ever stop beheading those that believe the Earth is round? Do you think we'll ever stop selling our daughters for 3 goats and a chicken? Do you think we'll ever stop throwing babies off of mountains because they have a birthmark?

Do you think we'll ever stop 30 year old Kings from forcing 6-year old brides to marry them? Do you think we'll ever stop building empires under slave labor?

etc. etc.

Self-defense doesn't equate to aggression.

As for the innocent in prison. They have public paid judges etc to hear their appeals. Why would you possibly think it would be bettter under Anarchy when that incarcerated individual has no public paid avenue of redress and was convicted by a private judge and jury that was paid for by the accuser. You think less people will be imprisoned in these private run prisons without accountability.

Who says they'd have no redress or council?

You think we don't run private prisons today who's whole profit model is based on locking as many people up as possible for as long as they can?

At the core of all of these evil things are Men. They will always seek more power. Say I run a police force and one town is a seeming threat to a town under my protection. One day that town disappears. Who did it? Who knows? It's just done.

Then you would experience the consequences of blowback. You have no right to initiate violence.

As opposed to today, where the state can call any country or individual a threat for any reason and act as they see fit. That's working out great.

What happened to NAP? Oh, I believe in NAP, I do not know what happened to that town, but since no one is using the land I think I will set up shop. Sure there are records of ownership, but the owners disappeared and are not using it now. Oh some rich relative with a police force in New York is investigating my Police force involvement? Let them come down and sort things out..... Bam! A war.

Oh no! A war? That NEVER happens today.

Why advocate for a system just as bad as the one you are in? At least the one you are in gives you rights of redress. You can be heard and if you are compelling you will gain a following, with that following you can make change. I gave step by step directions in a previous thread, yet no one even wants to step up and take action. If they will not do it now, then why would then do it under Anarchy? the reason is because it is too much trouble. Man is flawed.

If you're content with the current system, more power to you. Life is good now. Give it 10 or 20 years. Maybe less.

Your system is based on VIOLENCE. Mine is not.

Your solutions are based on force. Mine are not.

It's all one big circle jerk, just like this discussion.

Tell that to your grandkids.

 

[guerilla]

You don't think there will be torture, secret prisons, etc under Anarchy?

All we know for sure is that exists under statism.

The genocide against the Jews and native Americans? Statism.

The enslavement of blacks? Statism.

The mistreatment of children? Statism.

Nuclear assault? Statism.

Seems like your position in the argument has a miserable record.

How about you answer for the above?

I think to a man, we're all pretty comfortable talking about a decentralized society that is based around peaceful interaction between individuals.

Or you can keep jerking yourself off, and thinking that somehow you're part of a larger circle jerk. Whatever delusion floats your boat.

 

[REIMktg]

Taxation and imprisonment lead to poverty. What % of blacks are impoverished? What % are in prison?

Blacks were held down and hurt for decades. It was not long ago that they were lynched, not allowed to be equal, etc. The culture evolved and Govt set and enforced universal rules of equality. There are still repercussions for the past - I mean they have not had much time to re-group relative to the devastation put on them. Under Anarchy, you could still have segregation communities - of course the Blacks would have to "choose" to live within these communities and then they would be on forums like this saying ""why should I have to move, I don't want this". Heaven forbid their parents under duress do not "agree" to their rights being taken away or put into motion where their children do the same. What is the age of accountability under anarchy anyway? Any minority under Anarchy within any community is screwed. Oh, its all good, we have NAP. Like I said, who protects them from themselves? Oh, under Anarchy no one can. well, Govt does. It was a rough road though, but Govt did change and was fixed by the people - something Anarchists around here claim is not possible.

When was there poverty before Government?

First, I said "poor" not "poverty. Are you really claiming there were no poor, serfs, servants, slaves, and working poor before Govt. Is that even a claim?

Anarchy means without rulers. Yeah, men can acquire power. But no one can have the monopoly on power. HUGE difference.

So you are saying this mysterious thing called "Government" has a monopoly on power? Who gives them that power? Man. Who is the Govt accountable to? Man. What does Man do most of the time to fix the problem? Nothing. The same under Anarchy. Man is lazy and flawed and will not take action unless it suits them or greivances become too much. Maybe we are at that point, fine then, vote, run for office, blog, get press, change things. It is possible, but few go through the effort. Same under Anarchy. There may not be a monopoly on power under Anarchy, but there will be those vying for more and more power until they have it. It is the insatiable nature of Man. You cannot escape it and it will happen under Anarchy, it simply will not be called 'govt".

Any evidence to back this statement up? It seems to me that accountability under the state is designed to serve the interest of the state.

My evidence was in an earlier post where I stated that a man can, under the threat of violence, bring up another Man to a private judge who adheres to laws that the Accuser wants. This is not even a discussion of clear cut facts, but when the evidence is not so clear. I will ask again, if we do not agree to a judge will you "force me to"? This is the basis for me saying that a Man, at the sound of his voice, can force another Man to a judge/arbitrator. This would be by force if his Police force backs him. Round and round we go.

You ask about accountability? To whom is the Judge/Arbitrator accountable? The one who pays him? Most judges today are elected or chosen by those we elect. If publicity of an unfair judge does not get them removed in today's system why do you possibly think it would happen under Anarchy?

If you say Govt is only accountable to Govt then why do politicians constantly "spin" opinions? Why do they spend so much on elections? Why do they care so much about public opinion? Because they are accountable, that's why. If you fail to see them being held accountable the problem lies with the same Men who will be responsible for accountability under Anarchy. It's all a joke. Man is at the core of both systems and if they do not care then that will not change under another system.

Do you think we'll ever stop burning witches? Do you think we'll ever stop beheading those that believe the Earth is round? Do you think we'll ever stop selling our daughters for 3 goats and a chicken? Do you think we'll ever stop throwing babies off of mountains because they have a birthmark?
Do you think we'll ever stop 30 year old Kings from forcing 6-year old brides to marry them? Do you think we'll ever stop building empires under slave labor?
etc. etc.
Self-defense doesn't equate to aggression.

First off, culture and society changes. It may appear that man is evolving, but Man is adhering to the culture they are born into. Man is the same as he was, just taught differently. Of course under Anarchy who knows what people will be taught. You can say they will be taught NAP, but they are taught not to do worng to this day and they still do. The number of Men that knowingly go against NAP, even when odds are they will get caught, is amazing. This is because Man does not always act in his own long term self interest.

Who says they'd have no redress or council?

You think we don't run private prisons today who's whole profit model is based on locking as many people up as possible for as long as they can?

Who's going to pay for their council? Maybe there will be organizations to support some, but what about the disfavored minority within a local system? I said all of this in previous posts, you just want to ignore it.

Then you would experience the consequences of blowback. You have no right to initiate violence.
As opposed to today, where the state can call any country or individual a threat for any reason and act as they see fit. That's working out great.
Oh no! A war? That NEVER happens today.

Yeah good luck with getting this universally applied. NAP or not there will be those that believe in proactive violence to stop a mounting threat. It would be in their own self interest to do so and to assume they would not is not being honest. It will all be done under self defense.

Yes, war happens today, but you are not being honest with your answers. Anarchists act like only Govt cause war and atrocities, I was saying that it will happen either way.

If you're content with the current system, more power to you. Life is good now. Give it 10 or 20 years. Maybe less.

Your system is based on VIOLENCE. Mine is not.

Your solutions are based on force. Mine are not.

Your system is based on violence. If anyone claims I did something against them they can, under the threat of violence, bring me to a private court. One to which I do not agree. Tell me how this is not so. I have not been convicted, just accused. This is a complex world, not all crimes end with you having me at gunpoint in your living room and even then who's to say you did not drag me in there? You can, at your word, have me brought in by your Police force under the threat of violence. If you say that the Police force would have a reputation to maintain then what? they decide if the evidence is good enough and then I am brought in under threat of violence? It's all the same. Your system is clearly undergirded with violence.

 

[REIMktg]

All we know for sure is that exists under statism.

The genocide against the Jews and native Americans? Statism.

The enslavement of blacks? Statism.

The mistreatment of children? Statism.

Nuclear assault? Statism.

Seems like your position in the argument has a miserable record.

How about you answer for the above?

I think to a man, we're all pretty comfortable talking about a decentralized society that is based around peaceful interaction between individuals.

Or you can keep jerking yourself off, and thinking that somehow you're part of a larger circle jerk. Whatever delusion floats your boat.

Ah, here's the rub. I am arguing for the ideal state, one that does not do the wrongs above. I am not arguing for the current state just as you cannot argue for a current Anarchist society that is not in some way reliant on peace provided, at least on the grand scale, by a State.

For the record. The state stopped child labor. The state stopped slavery. The state stopped the Jewish genocide. Now the State as it stands is not even the one I am advocating, but even in its flawed form, it did evolve. How under Anarchy would these things be resolved? At least I have an example of positive change. You do not even have a functioning society to point to.

 

[slayerment]

Ah, here's the rub. I am arguing for the ideal state, one that does not do the wrongs above. I am not arguing for the current state just as you cannot argue for a current Anarchist society that is not in some way reliant on peace provided, at least on the grand scale, by a State.

For the record. The state stopped child labor. The state stopped slavery. The state stopped the Jewish genocide. Now the State as it stands is not even the one I am advocating, but even in its flawed form, it did evolve. How under Anarchy would these things be resolved? At least I have an example of positive change. You do not even have a functioning society to point to.

Ideal Ancap > Ideal State

Undeal Ancap > Unideal State

Either way you skin it Ancap is better. Better, however, is subjective as better to some is freedom and choice while better to others (most) is serfdom and control.

Child labor is not a bad thing. Corporations are not forcing children to work under Ancap or even Capitalism. If children are working it is because their parents view this as better than them not working. Do you want to tell other parents how they should raise their children? What makes the state the expert on what parents should do with their children? Why not have the state raise children and make every decision for children?

Slavery was already on its way out without the aid of the state.

Jewish genocide was a direct result of the state.

 

[mattseh]

BBC - History - British History in depth: The Royal Navy and the Battle to End Slavery

Interesting article about British anti-slavery efforts. It seems the British state ended up doing quite a lot to reduce slavery.

Slavery is still not completely eradicated today, there are slaves within countries where slaves are illegal. Some of these slaves are children. Some are sex slaves. there are prosecutions against slave owners. How would anarchy solve the modern slavery issue? Or has "consent" been given by these slaves somehow?

 

[pinchyfingers]

I don't think anarchy would solve slavery, but eventually capitalism will.

 

[WickedJoe]

Slavery is still not completely eradicated today, there are slaves within countries where slaves are illegal. Some of these slaves are children. Some are sex slaves. there are prosecutions against slave owners. How would anarchy solve the modern slavery issue? Or has "consent" been given by these slaves somehow?

Dooooood.. all ya gotsta do is tell those slave owners that it's wrong not to follow NAP and they'll give up their slaves. Ghahh.

Or if that doesn't work, dontcha know the free market will work everything out right in the end??. Sure, first the slaves will be expensive. But eventually there will be so many slaves that they'll be super cheap.. so cheap that the slaves can pay for themselves and buy their own freedom! Boom, slavery cured by the free market.

 

[guerilla]

How would anarchy solve the modern slavery issue? Or has "consent" been given by these slaves somehow?

I am loathe to recommend anything by Walter Block these days, but he has written extensively on "slave contracts".

But simply, in a world where the prevailing wisdom is that each man is his own owner, then there is no slavery except on the margins. Indeed, this is the world we live in now, as opposed to say, 1,000 years ago, when nearly everyone was a slave or serf.

Now we're just serfs.