Republicans are idiots.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

The government doesn't work exactly according to any one person's ideals.  

Who's ideals does it work for?

xsanguine wrote:

Nope. I'm well aware bad people will always exist. I'm not aware of you asking that question before. Before you were asking how I felt about you air dropping everyone in the desert of Australia with no food or water and acting like that is somehow related to the conversation we're having about the concept of government. Government exists right now, today, and we have people being shot, stabbed, etc. every day. Having a legal fiction that steals 30% of everyone's income and enslaves people for possessing plant alkaloids has no bearing on the existence of violence. So why have it?

What is keeping me from entering your home and butchering you and your family tonight, Pervis? Do you have government agents perched outside of your house, guarding you every hour of the day? I imagine you don't. There is nothing keeping me from killing everyone in your household and taking off with your belongings. The reason I don't do that and your neighbors don't do that? Because most people are not sociopaths. The existence of government does not affect that.

We have government and there's still crime - so that must prove that government does not stop any crimes.

Do you realize how asinine that is?

Also, my family is fine. Thanks for not murdering us!

xsanguine wrote:

Who's ideals does it work for?

It created the internet you're using, and you wouldn't even entertain a hypothetical situation without government-created infrastructure - so it works for some of your ideals.

You are either free or you are not, Pervis. There's certain liberties we're allowed and then there's others that are punished and people's lives ruined over a plant or plant alkaloids... or simply for being the wrong color.

And I was just illustrating a point, I wish you and your family the best of health free of any semblance of force or violence.

Good day.

xsanguine wrote:You are either free or you are not, Pervis. There's certain liberties we're allowed and then there's others that are punished and people's lives ruined over a plant or plant alkaloids... or simply for being the wrong color.

And I was just illustrating a point, I wish you and your family the best of health free of any semblance of force or violence.

Good day.

Do you bother voting? If so, whom have you voted for?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Do you bother voting?  If so, whom have you voted for?

Believe it or not I voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

I have a problem needing to find permission to live and do what I want in my private life. When all it takes is a slight majority of people to control the other almost half of people through by threat of violence... that's a scenario I just can't get behind or justify.

xsanguine wrote:

Believe it or not I voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

I have a problem needing to find permission to live and do what I want in my private life. When all it takes is a slight majority of people to control the other almost half of people through by threat of violence... that's a scenario I just can't get behind or justify.

There doesn't seem to be any politician who has your views and a reasonable chance to win. Most people recognize that some things are better done together, and even the ones who say they don't like government will still call the city when they hit a pothole, or demand military action when foreigners start fucking with us. So you might want to run yourself or sit every election out; there really aren't any other options that suit you.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

There doesn't seem to be any politician who has your views and a reasonable chance to win.   Most people recognize that some things are better done together, and even the ones who say they don't like government will still call the city when they hit a pothole, or demand military action when foreigners start fucking with us.  So you might want to run yourself or sit every election out; there really aren't any other options that suit you.

Of course there's not a politician who shares my viewpoint; my position is the anti-politician. I wouldn't trust the ambitions of a politician who claimed to support those ideals. Politicians are not in the business of eliminating their very lucrative careers. Why would someone looking to abolish a central authority that uses violence and force to achieve its' objectives because they realize that concept is immoral... run for one of the very positions that relies on the use of force and threat of violence to achieve its' objectives?

Who said anything about not doing things together? If you're in a voluntary society you are working, voluntarily, with others to get the things done that are most needed by the people based on their specific needs... voluntarily. That's a free market. "Liking" government (or not), as you put it, has no bearing on the ability to work with others. People don't need to be forced with violence to get things done.

xsanguine wrote:

Of course there's not a politician who shares my viewpoint; my position is the anti-politician. I wouldn't trust the ambitions of a politician who claimed to support those ideals. Politicians are not in the business of eliminating their very lucrative careers. Why would someone looking to abolish a central authority that uses violence and force to achieve its' objectives because they realize that concept is immoral... run for one of the very positions that relies on the use of force and threat of violence to achieve its' objectives?

Who said anything about not doing things together? If you're in a voluntary society you are working, voluntarily, with others to get the things done that are most needed by the people based on their specific needs... voluntarily. That's a [i]free[/i] market. "Liking" government (or not), as you put it, has no bearing on the ability to work with others. People don't need to be forced with violence to get things done.

You're really stuck on violence, and it appears that you believe government causes all of it. I've seen a fair amount of violence between private citizens. Did the government put them up to it? And what would happen in your no-goverment dreamland if someone were to disagree with you and punch you in the face? What would happen if someone were to take a fancy to your wife and force himself upon her? Do you just take care of it yourself?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You're really stuck on violence, and it appears that you believe government causes all of it.

Straw man bolded.

There's a reason I refer to violence and enslavement a lot in the context of government rule. But I'm getting the impression you have no interest in understanding my position and it becomes clearer in each response you're avoiding any attempt at understanding my position.... if I didn't already know you from Wells and know that you're one of the best posters from that board, in my opinion, I would begin to assume you're trolling me at this point.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
I've seen a fair amount of violence between private citizens. Did the government put them up to it?

Again with the logical fallacies...

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
And what would happen in your no-goverment dreamland if someone were to disagree with you and punch you in the face?  What would happen if someone were to take a fancy to your wife and force himself upon her?   Do you just take care of it yourself?

The same way it is dealt with it now? I don't know about you but I don't have any police escorts or bodyguards... if someone wants to punch me in the face they're going to just punch me in the face. Same goes for the man who fancies my wife and wants to force himself upon her. The only option, typically at that point, is self-defense. I have to assume there will be a market for safety, crime prevention and justice in the future as there is today, I don't anticipate a perfect utopia at any point in time.

xsanguine wrote:

Straw man bolded.

There's a reason I refer to violence and enslavement a lot in the context of government rule. But I'm getting the impression you have no interest in understanding my position and it becomes clearer in each response you're avoiding any attempt at understanding my position.... if I didn't already know you from Wells and know that you're one of the best posters from that board, in my opinion, I would begin to assume you're trolling me at this point.



Again with the logical fallacies...



The same way it is dealt with it now? I don't know about you but I don't have any police escorts or bodyguards... if someone wants to punch me in the face they're going to just punch me in the face. Same goes for the man who fancies my wife and wants to force himself upon her. The only option, typically at that point, is self-defense. I have to assume there will be a market for safety, crime prevention and justice in the future as there is today, I don't anticipate a perfect utopia at any point in time.

I said "it appears..." Since you disagree with that, then you acknowledge that there would be violence in a no-government society. And when someone punches you in the face or assaults your wife, those acts of violence may well be answered with acts of violence. That's exactly what I'd expect to happen, and it paints a less peaceful picture than you've been indicating.

Those who could afford private security would do okay, unless the threat comes from an entity more powerful than the security force. Those who couldn't afford private security would have to be well-armed and physically powerful, or reclusive and lucky.

And having a market for justice means that poor people would likely just have to suck it up if they can't right the wrongs themselves.

Despite our current problems, poor people do have a chance at justice. I don't see how they'd get it in a system in which it's sold to the highest bidder.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I said "it appears..."  Since you disagree with that, then you acknowledge that there would be violence in a no-government society.

Yes, Pervis... I disagree with the straw man you're presenting. I've never stated that bad people will stop existing sans government. The government doesn't need to be responsible for every act of violence in the world in order for me to point out their use violence/enslavement is a maxim of its existence. Yes, violence will still exist in a stateless society... I haven't given any indication that violence will somehow become extinct.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

And when someone punches you in the face or assaults your wife, those acts of violence may well be answered with acts of violence.  That's exactly what I'd expect to happen, and it paints a less peaceful picture than you've been indicating.

I'd expect that to happen, too. It's what happens now. Responding to force with force is legitimate, it's self-defense. So it's not that I'm attempting to paint a rosy picture within that context, but I would take the position when taking into account all of the variables that make up a society of people use to voluntarism and based around the non-aggression pact.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Those who could afford private security would do okay, unless the threat comes from an entity more powerful than the security force.  Those who couldn't afford private security would have to be well-armed and physically powerful, or reclusive and lucky.  

Not at all. I think what you would see is businesses providing much of the funding for a peaceful public forum with which to sell their goods in. A business cannot operate a successful business if their potential customers aren't leaving their homes out of fear when walking down the street. What is the incentive for this individual who becomes "more powerful than the security force" to use violence against all else? Do you believe there are far more sociopaths than normal, well-adjusted people? I'm just not sure where the motive is for these mad max individuals to exist and operate in the manner you're suggesting let alone assuming the majority of others will sit back and not contribute, voluntarily, to a peaceful society. I mean, I'm a pretty skeptical dude but even I can see that good people just looking to live out their lives peacefully far outweigh the men that "just want to watch the world burn".

Here in Brooklyn, most of the businesses in my particular stretch (Knickerbocker ave in the Bushwick section) have private security posted both outside and inside the stores. Now I'm not a business man but this is a concept that would probably be expanded upon in a free market. You don't have to be a millionaire to be able to defend yourself and/or join a collective with other individuals to pitch in for a 'neighborhood security' that are common these days in many neighborhoods.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

And having a market for justice means that poor people would likely just have to suck it up if they can't right the wrongs themselves.  

Despite our current problems, poor people do have a chance at justice.  I don't see how they'd get it in a system in which it's sold to the highest bidder.

That's interesting because I hear complaints for the very opposite... that the poor, minorities, etc. don't get any shot at justice and are overlooked in favor of wealthier residents by our court system. Besides that, the system we have right now actually perpetuates the poor being poor and offering nothing other than a bare minimum to live off of... but provides zero incentive to become productive rather than to remain a dead weight on the system.

I really think you're underestimating the ingenuity of people to voluntarily come together and get done what they need to get done. When it comes down to it, this model for society that I ascribe to for the future isn't that much different than what we have now just instead of a behemoth government telling you that you must fund all of its activities or else be prepared to have guys with guns take you away to a cage to exist... these things are funded voluntarily.

It's also a philosophy that wouldn't be implemented overnight. As a society we need to work towards quelling violent, adversarial reactions to everyday problems. But that's kind of hard to do when we support a violent, adversarial system. It's kind of hard to tell a child violence is wrong when you're hitting them as punishment for whatever transgression they commit.

Feel free to peruse the following that address some of these issues in-depth. Or just skip it and go ad hominem again... I guess I'm still game either way.   

Anarchist response to crime



This next one is pretty long but if you're truly interested, Pervis, it gets in-depth specifically regarding handling crime in a free society.



Thanks for taking time to discuss this with me, too, P. It's one of my favorite topics to talk about.

I am not anti government as long as the government respects private individuals rights within the framework of natural law.

The problem now is we have been in the process do ceding more and more power and control to the federal government since WWI and has been exploding ever since.

federal governments agencies and powers have become way too overreaching and they are not even elected!

As far as what would we do without government my answer is that we would operate within the framework of consent. We would have stronger local and state governments and would be held much more accountable to we the people.

At this point we don't even know what the heck is going on. a new federal agency is going rogue every minute and abusing its powers. It isn't a new problem with Obama and and I laugh at everyone who blames everything on him when the problem has been really been growing for 100 years but he sure hasn't been part of the solution.

It is getting ridiculous and my answer to pervis private army nonsense is that in a free market no one is going to do business or trade with that guy.

Also people are going to ban together to defeat him. I am not saying that we should not have a government only that the free market and self interest is a very powerful and positive driving force and that people are forced to get along with each other more than you give it credit for.

xwing wrote:I am not anti government as long as the government respects private individuals rights within the framework of natural law.

Has that ever been a maxim of the U.S. government? Has that ever existed within any government?

xsanguine wrote:

Yes, Pervis... I disagree with the straw man you're presenting. I've never stated that bad people will stop existing sans government. The government doesn't need to be responsible for every act of violence in the world in order for me to point out their use violence/enslavement is a maxim of its existence. Yes, violence will still exist in a stateless society... I haven't given any indication that violence will somehow become extinct.



I'd expect that to happen, too. It's what happens now. Responding to force with force is legitimate, it's self-defense. So it's not that I'm attempting to paint a rosy picture within that context, but I would take the position when taking into account all of the variables that make up a society of people use to voluntarism and based around the non-aggression pact.



Not at all. I think what you would see is businesses providing much of the funding for a peaceful public forum with which to sell their goods in. A business cannot operate a successful business if their potential customers aren't leaving their homes out of fear when walking down the street. What is the incentive for this individual who becomes "more powerful than the security force" to use violence against all else? Do you believe there are far more sociopaths than normal, well-adjusted people? I'm just not sure where the motive is for these mad max individuals to exist and operate in the manner you're suggesting let alone assuming the majority of others will sit back and not contribute, voluntarily, to a peaceful society. I mean, I'm a pretty skeptical dude but even I can see that good people just looking to live out their lives peacefully far outweigh the men that "just want to watch the world burn".

Here in Brooklyn, most of the businesses in my particular stretch (Knickerbocker ave in the Bushwick section) have private security posted both outside and inside the stores. Now I'm not a business man but this is a concept that would probably be expanded upon in a free market. You don't have to be a millionaire to be able to defend yourself and/or join a collective with other individuals to pitch in for a 'neighborhood security' that are common these days in many neighborhoods.



That's interesting because I hear complaints for the very opposite... that the poor, minorities, etc. don't get any shot at justice and are overlooked in favor of wealthier residents by our court system. Besides that, the system we have right now actually perpetuates the poor being poor and offering nothing other than a bare minimum to live off of... but provides zero incentive to become productive rather than to remain a dead weight on the system.

I really think you're underestimating the ingenuity of people to voluntarily come together and get done what they need to get done. When it comes down to it, this model for society that I ascribe to for the future isn't that much different than what we have now just instead of a behemoth government telling you that you must fund all of its activities or else be prepared to have guys with guns take you away to a cage to exist... these things are funded voluntarily.

It's also a philosophy that wouldn't be implemented overnight. As a society we need to work towards quelling violent, adversarial reactions to everyday problems. But that's kind of hard to do when we support a violent, adversarial system. It's kind of hard to tell a child violence is wrong when you're hitting them as punishment for whatever transgression they commit.

Feel free to peruse the following that address some of these issues in-depth. Or just skip it and go ad hominem again... I guess I'm still game either way.   

Anarchist response to crime



This next one is pretty long but if you're truly interested, Pervis, it gets in-depth specifically regarding handling crime in a free society.



Thanks for taking time to discuss this with me, too, P. It's one of my favorite topics to talk about.

I listened to a bit of that podcast.  From what I gather, people who do bad things, as reported by a reputable source, could be shunned by the marketplace.  If a daycare provider says you beat your kid, restaurants and stores would just stop serving you, your bank would close your accounts, etc.  That is a completely screwed up system.  First, the word would have to get out, which would mean all businesses would be listening for gossip on everyone, then all businesses would have to decide on the credibility of the source (in most cases without ever talking to the source or the alleged wrongdoer), and then they'd have to all make the decision that they'd rather do without that person's money no matter how much money it is. And if that daycare provider was mistaken or lying, somebody just got royally fucked.

I can't understand your idea that all people are so moral (and all share so many of the same morals) that they'd turn down even great sums of money because society would frown on them for taking it.  It's a tremendous misreading of human behavior.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I listened to a bit of that podcast.  From what I gather, people who do bad things, as reported by a reputable source, could be shunned by the marketplace.  If a daycare provider says you beat your kid, restaurants and stores would just stop serving you, your bank would close your accounts, etc.  That is a completely screwed up system.  First, the word would have to get out, which would mean all businesses would be listening for gossip on everyone, then all businesses would have to decide on the credibility of the source (in most cases without ever talking to the source or the alleged wrongdoer), and then they'd have to all make the decision that they'd rather do without that person's money no matter how much money it is.  And if that daycare provider was mistaken or lying, somebody just got royally fucked.

I can't understand your idea that all people are so moral (and all share so many of the same morals) that they'd turn down even great sums of money because society would frown on them for taking it.  It's a tremendous misreading of human behavior.

In the case of a child being physically harmed, you're going to be looking at much more than the market place shunning you. The scenarios where a free market would handle matters in the various ways you described would be in much more mild cases than that. If there's a child being beaten you're going to have people wanting to get much more involved than just the market place shunning those parents, in fact the community would and should have a moral responsibility to do so... that child wouldn't be in the care of those violent parents for very long.

xsanguine wrote:

In the case of a child being physically harmed, you're going to be looking at much more than the market place shunning you. The scenarios where a free market would handle matters in the various ways you described would be in much more mild cases than that. If there's a child being beaten you're going to have people wanting to get much more involved than just the market place shunning those parents, in fact the community would and should have a moral responsibility to do so... that child wouldn't be in the care of those violent parents for very long.

Keep in mind that this was just an accusation from someone deemed reputable by society. It looks like your system inspires a lynch mob mentality.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Keep in mind that this was just an accusation from someone deemed reputable by society.  It looks like your system inspires a lynch mob mentality.

Not at all. Again, Pervis, why assume everyone is going to throw away everything we've developed over the past thousand years (especially with regards to a justice system) just because the state no longer exists? You're entire perception of anarchy/minarchy/voluntarism is the same perception I had, in college, before any research had been done.

Throughout history, we've taken everything we've learned/developed and applied it to a new system of society. We would do the same here.

xsanguine wrote:

Not at all. Again, Pervis, why assume everyone is going to throw away everything we've developed over the past thousand years (especially with regards to a justice system) just because the state no longer exists? You're entire perception of anarchy/minarchy/voluntarism is the same perception I had, in college, before any research had been done.

Throughout history, we've taken everything we've learned/developed and applied it to a new system of society. We would do the same here.

That's what the guy was saying in the podcast. If we get rid of our government judicial system, there really isn't a workable replacement. I don't see people volunteering to sit and hear arguments or pay for the buildings to use for the courts, and I don't see everybody just agreeing to abide by the decisions. It would be a disorganized mess of rules and punishments made on the spot, easily influenced by power and money, and far less likely to be just.

Do you do business with child-beaters? I might, because I don't know who has beaten kids and who hasn't. But in the system talked about on the podcast, everyone somehow has to keep track of who the bad guys are. "That'll be ten dollars, sir, but first I'll need your identification so I can search the database of bad people and make sure it's okay for me to sell you something." It might be best to bring back scarlet letters.

If a guy is said to be a thief, and nobody will do business with him, can his wife still buy things at the stores? Is there anything preventing him from making online purchases under her name? Is there any way to take a violent and dangerous person out of the general population without killing them?

It's stunning to me that the more you thought about it, the more you liked anarchy. What do powerful people do today to allow them to screw other people over? They lobby and bribe to try and keep government out of their business. Having no government is exactly what the most unscrupulous powerful people would want, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't take full advantage of it.

Your philosophy is based on everybody choosing to do what's right, even when it's more difficult or more costly - and when everybody has different ideas of right and wrong. Homosexuality? Gun-ownership? Coasting through a stop sign when there's no traffic? Loitering? You'd find differing opinions on most issues, but somehow you'd have to get people to play along with a punishment for something they don't think is wrong. It's just not possible.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

That's what the guy was saying in the podcast.  If we get rid of our government judicial system, there really isn't a workable replacement.  I don't see people volunteering to sit and hear arguments or pay for the buildings to use for the courts, and I don't see everybody just agreeing to abide by the decisions.  It would be a disorganized mess of rules and punishments made on the spot, easily influenced by power and money, and far less likely to be just.

You're being a bit short-sighted again, Pervis. How did the towns on the frontier in the 19th century ever come to organize their own courts and system of rules, independent of a federal government on a purely local scale? Why would it be a disorganized mess... do you think people are going to just sit around with their thumbs up their butts and then throw their hands in the air and proclaim "we just can't figure it out..."? How is a system built on voluntary interaction any more influenced by money than a system of non-voluntary rule?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Do you do business with child-beaters?  I might, because I don't know who has beaten kids and who hasn't.  But in the system talked about on the podcast, everyone somehow has to keep track of who the bad guys are.  "That'll be ten dollars, sir, but first I'll need your identification so I can search the database of bad people and make sure it's okay for me to sell you something."  It might be best to bring back scarlet letters.

Well... banks and businesses have come up with a great system that is accessible by anyone with regards to figuring out who can pay their bills on time and not... it helps them determine who to do business with with regards to loaning money or renting living arrangements.

Some businesses have developed a system for consumers with regards on who to hire for things like home improvement, day care, etc. AngiesList is one company that comes to mind.

But getting back to a situation where someone is physically harming another individual...

Here's an excerpt; Center For A Stateless Society - Justice Without A State

"In general, people tend to prefer to not have much violence in their daily lives. I’m not talking about movie violence or even fighting sports, but violence that is an active danger to life or impediment to living. Where is there pervasive violence in today’s world? Usually at the bottom end of power imbalances.

In powerful countries, it’s where the least powerful people live that drug wars are fought most vigorously and police most become an occupying army intent on scoring points for the precinct’s statistics. In countries where most people have few options, they are more likely to risk everything for messiahs of violence or see life as a cheap expenditure. Oppression breeds further crime.

Where people have the opportunity, they agree on rules and expectations pretty frequently and set up mechanisms for dealing with rule breakers. If there is a demand for something, people will find a way to fill it. A reasonable level of safety is broadly desired, and who wants child molesters, serial murderers, and the like around anyway?"

Violence is only a reasonable reaction to force... someone abusing children would definitely fall into the category of initiation of force.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

If a guy is said to be a thief, and nobody will do business with him, can his wife still buy things at the stores?  Is there anything preventing him from making online purchases under her name?  Is there any way to take a violent and dangerous person out of the general population without killing them?  

1. I'd imagine people would allow her to buy things at the store... maybe not, but I'd assume so.
2. Probably not, she can make purchases online, sure.
3. There probably is... but if you're dealing with a violent and dangerous person you're going to want them outcasted from your community, locked up if they won't leave the community, and if they insist on using violence within the community but aren't locked up they'll probably end up dead, anyways. Very similar to how it works now.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

It's stunning to me that the more you thought about it, the more you liked anarchy.  

It's stunning to me that people believe rule by 1% corporate interests is somehow benevolent... or that people are as vehemently adversarial to voluntary interaction. You would think people would choose to live free from an entity that claims a monopoly of violence for itself and enslaves individuals under arbitrary laws.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:What do powerful people do today to allow them to screw other people over?  They lobby and bribe to try and keep government out of their business.  

Is that what they do? From my understanding they lobby to make government work for them while excluding others through various laws and loopholes. Many of the requirements for entering an industry by companies is made difficult to near impossible based on the lobbying efforts of the big corporations that already ingrained themselves into that industry.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Having no government is exactly what the most unscrupulous powerful people would want, and there's no reason to believe they wouldn't take full advantage of it.

Why would that be? Who would they pay to make sure they can corner an industry and keep competition out of their particular industry through over-regulation? Who is going to allow them to create & enforce a fictitious entity (the LLC) that bears no responsibility for its product when things go wrong?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Your philosophy is based on everybody choosing to do what's right, even when it's more difficult or more costly

Not at all, I just expect people to act within their interests... as bad as we naturally must be (according to you), only 2.4 million out of 330 million people are locked up... which is actually a higher than average number when compared to the rest of the world. That's less than 1%. The vast majority of people are actually peaceful people that want to live in a peaceful society. Becoming a hoodlum and stealing from your fellow man is not going to be within your best interests when you are effectively outcast from a society that no longer wants you.. this was the case in the Old West, people lived by their reputations.. before computers and databases and digital imagery and GPS.... with the technology we have now... that reputation will follow you wherever you go.

More difficult? It was more difficult fighting the British in order to stop the taxation by the King than it was to fight and gain independence than say just accepting their system of rule and governance and paying their tax... but the people wanted independence and freedom from the perceived 'taxation without representation', and so, difficult or not, they worked for it and earned it. It's a shame the spirit of that fight has been perverted into the pure oligarchy we now have.

Even more shameful is that people are defending such a system... religiously even. Shit, take a look at Wells and the fellatio over the Constitution... as if it were handed down by an omnipotent being from the Heavens is pure and all that is good.... when really it was just written by rich guys who owned other humans and believed in enslavement and ACTUAL racism (not simple prejudice sold as racism)... which.... sounds very familiar to the same types of guys writing our laws now....

Why do you assume it would be more costly or difficult? Not only that... is cost and difficulty really a good argument when dealing with the fact we're enslaving people for having a plant in their pocket or stealing their money by threat of violence?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

and when everybody has different ideas of right and wrong.  Homosexuality?  Gun-ownership?  Coasting through a stop sign when there's no traffic?  Loitering?  You'd find differing opinions on most issues, but somehow you'd have to get people to play along with a punishment for something they don't think is wrong.  It's just not possible.

Everyone will always have different ideas, P... that's where the market comes in and handles it voluntarily, without the violence of the state. We've come quite a ways in our society... in the 18th and 19th centuries the question was what if everybody has different ideas regarding witchcraft, premarital sex, leprosy, being nice to your slave, etc? In 150 years it'll be something else. An an-cap, voluntary society is rooted in Libertarianism; essentially your rights only cease when it infringes on the rights of another. It's a society that lives by the non-aggression pact; don't harm, don't steal.

"A free society would encourage better behavior by opening numerous opportunities for self-improvement and social cooperation. Sure there will always be people who appear irredeemable, but how many would there really be? More importantly, how can they be treated and possibly re-integrated into society while they are kept from harming the rest of us? Anarchy offers numerous options for experimentation, in contrast to the state which offers a politically-entrenched machine which profits from suffering. Anarchy allows different arrangements to compete for popular support without the benefit of entrenched power or the political limiting of options. Government compels acquiescence."

xsanguine wrote:

You're being a bit short-sighted again, Pervis. How did the towns on the frontier in the 19th century ever come to organize their own courts and system of rules, independent of a federal government on a purely local scale? Why would it be a disorganized mess... do you think people are going to just sit around with their thumbs up their butts and then throw their hands in the air and proclaim "we just can't figure it out..."? How is a system built on voluntary interaction any more influenced by money than a system of non-voluntary rule?



Well... banks and businesses have come up with a great system that is accessible by anyone with regards to figuring out who can pay their bills on time and not... it helps them determine who to do business with with regards to loaning money or renting living arrangements.

Some businesses have developed a system for consumers with regards on who to hire for things like home improvement, day care, etc. AngiesList is one company that comes to mind.

But getting back to a situation where someone is physically harming another individual...

Here's an excerpt; Center For A Stateless Society - Justice Without A State

"In general, people tend to prefer to not have much violence in their daily lives. I’m not talking about movie violence or even fighting sports, but violence that is an active danger to life or impediment to living. Where is there pervasive violence in today’s world? Usually at the bottom end of power imbalances.

In powerful countries, it’s where the least powerful people live that drug wars are fought most vigorously and police most become an occupying army intent on scoring points for the precinct’s statistics. In countries where most people have few options, they are more likely to risk everything for messiahs of violence or see life as a cheap expenditure. Oppression breeds further crime.

Where people have the opportunity, they agree on rules and expectations pretty frequently and set up mechanisms for dealing with rule breakers. If there is a demand for something, people will find a way to fill it. A reasonable level of safety is broadly desired, and who wants child molesters, serial murderers, and the like around anyway?"

Violence is only a reasonable reaction to force... someone abusing children would definitely fall into the category of initiation of force.



1. I'd imagine people would allow her to buy things at the store... maybe not, but I'd assume so.
2. Probably not, she can make purchases online, sure.
3. There probably is... but if you're dealing with a violent and dangerous person you're going to want them outcasted from your community, locked up if they won't leave the community, and if they insist on using violence within the community but aren't locked up they'll probably end up dead, anyways. Very similar to how it works now.



It's stunning to me that people believe rule by 1% corporate interests is somehow benevolent... or that people are as vehemently adversarial to voluntary interaction. You would think people would choose to live free from an entity that claims a monopoly of violence for itself and enslaves individuals under arbitrary laws.



Is that what they do? From my understanding they lobby to make government work for them while excluding others through various laws and loopholes. Many of the requirements for entering an industry by companies is made difficult to near impossible based on the lobbying efforts of the big corporations that already ingrained themselves into that industry.



Why would that be? Who would they pay to make sure they can corner an industry and keep competition out of their particular industry through over-regulation? Who is going to allow them to create & enforce a fictitious entity (the LLC) that bears no responsibility for its product when things go wrong?



Not at all, I just expect people to act within their interests... as bad as we naturally must be (according to you), only 2.4 million out of 330 million people are locked up... which is actually a higher than average number when compared to the rest of the world. That's less than 1%. The vast majority of people are actually peaceful people that want to live in a peaceful society. Becoming a hoodlum and stealing from your fellow man is not going to be within your best interests when you are effectively outcast from a society that no longer wants you.. this was the case in the Old West, people lived by their reputations.. before computers and databases and digital imagery and GPS.... with the technology we have now... that reputation will follow you wherever you go.

More difficult? It was more difficult fighting the British in order to stop the taxation by the King than it was to fight and gain independence than say just accepting their system of rule and governance and paying their tax... but the people wanted independence and freedom from the perceived 'taxation without representation', and so, difficult or not, they worked for it and earned it. It's a shame the spirit of that fight has been perverted into the pure oligarchy we now have.

Even more shameful is that people are defending such a system... religiously even. Shit, take a look at Wells and the fellatio over the Constitution... as if it were handed down by an omnipotent being from the Heavens is pure and all that is good.... when really it was just written by rich guys who owned other humans and believed in enslavement and ACTUAL racism (not simple prejudice sold as racism)... which.... sounds very familiar to the same types of guys writing our laws now....

Why do you assume it would be more costly or difficult? Not only that... is cost and difficulty really a good argument when dealing with the fact we're enslaving people for having a plant in their pocket or stealing their money by threat of violence?



Everyone will always have different ideas, P... that's where the market comes in and handles it voluntarily, without the violence of the state. We've come quite a ways in our society... in the 18th and 19th centuries the question was what if everybody has different ideas regarding witchcraft, premarital sex, leprosy, being nice to your slave, etc? In 150 years it'll be something else. An an-cap, voluntary society is rooted in Libertarianism; essentially your rights only cease when it infringes on the rights of another. It's a society that lives by the non-aggression pact; don't harm, don't steal.

"A free society would encourage better behavior by opening numerous opportunities for self-improvement and social cooperation. Sure there will always be people who appear irredeemable, but how many would there really be? More importantly, how can they be treated and possibly re-integrated into society while they are kept from harming the rest of us? Anarchy offers numerous options for experimentation, in contrast to the state which offers a politically-entrenched machine which profits from suffering. Anarchy allows different arrangements to compete for popular support without the benefit of entrenched power or the political limiting of options. Government compels acquiescence."

It looks like you're trying to drown me in rhetoric, but you're really light on specifics. All I get is an "I'd imagine" or "probably". You fell in love with an ideology while having no idea if it could work - and you don't care to think too hard about it.

If something bad happens in your ideal world, someone comes along and says, "He did it!" Then the accused is automatically shunned by everyone in the society, because they're all part of a non-binding pact. And you seem to think that make sense.

Your complaint about being enslaved over a plant is just silly. There are laws against drug possession. Those laws are starting to fall, because minds are changing - just like minds have been changing on gay marriage. Our system allows for that. What if people in your system are against drug use? Would you not get punished for a plant?

Your claim that I said "we" are "bad" is not true; it's the type of strawman argument that you've accused me of. We have different morals. I've seen several gun threads in which people have said they'd shoot to kill if someone broke into their house. You'd find a lot of people who disagree with that. Since you equated your system with the Old West, I guess people would be allowed to do that. What a peaceful, non-violent society that would be!

Your system is great in your imagination, but when you work out the specifics of its application you see how flawed it is.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

It looks like you're trying to drown me in rhetoric, but you're really light on specifics.

That's certainly not my intention and I'm sorry you feel that way. I try to cram a lot of information behind the philosophy in response because I feel it is relevant to the specific questions asked. I've always been accused of being long-winded (online as well as in-person) and I'll try to be a bit more succinct going forward..

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
All I get is an "I'd imagine" or "probably".  You fell in love with an ideology while having no idea if it could work - and you don't care to think too hard about it.

Here's the thing, P... you're asking me to imagine how communities plan on handling very specific things. Realistically, communities are going to handle things differently from one to the next... the overriding theme to that is a rejection of force and violence. That's something that needs to be worked on in the now in order to operate that way. Our society does not value those ideals currently... just like they didn't value racial equality up until the 60's and just like they didn't value sexual equality up until recently.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
If something bad happens in your ideal world, someone comes along and says, "He did it!"  Then the accused is automatically shunned by everyone in the society, because they're all part of a non-binding pact.  And you seem to think that make sense.

?
Not at all. Sometimes you give me the impression you don't even read anything I write and just respond to some Cliff Notes version you've compiled. If you're initial sentence is correct then maybe that's my fault but I've included some quotes from links that address this specifically and they even give some of their ideas on how that can be addressed with regards to arbitration and reputation. Being a former Democrat I hate having to use this term with other Democrats because it's gathered such a pejorative steam behind it but the market can easily determine these things. Of course some of the specific think-tank's ideas are only the infancy in what would be a developing philosophy. But again, under a society that respects a rejection of force and violence. Society already agrees, universally that killing someone else (in instances other than self-defense) is wrong. They also agree stealing is wrong. When society can expand beyond mere specifics of force and violence and encompass that ideal all around these things are not hard to figure out, with the market right behind it ensuring it falls within society's standards (of the universal rejection of force & violence).

I'd love to keep going and expand further... but I'm going to stop right there so as not to appear to orate an entire manifesto (because I know you hate that shit).

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Your complaint about being enslaved over a plant is just silly.

There are tens of thousands currently enslaved (and an undetermined amount of non-violent 'traffickers') and more than half of Americans that would disagree with you.

Drug War Facts: Drug Offenders In The Correctional System
New Pew Poll Reveals Americans Ready to End War on Drugs

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
There are laws against drug possession.  Those laws are starting to fall, because minds are changing - just like minds have been changing on gay marriage.  Our system allows for that.

But does it? If we have more than half of Americans against it, as stated above... many of whom don't even believe in the philosophy I'm particularly espousing (meaning they believe in using force and violence to achieve their personal ideals)... and yet we're still enslaving people right now, is the system really allowing for that? Barack Obama conned a lot of people by giving the impression he would fight to end the prohibition of marijuana and we're in the second term and he hasn't said much on the topic. If he ends the war of drugs before leaving office I will obviously eat my shoe, but by virtue of being a politician and being beholden to certain interests... usually to secure a future post-presidency, something tells me nothing substantial will happen. By virtue of the system.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
What if people in your system are against drug use?  Would you not get punished for a plant?

Then they wouldn't use drugs or wouldn't deal with those who do drugs. That's a... ugh... free market. Of course if you plan to run a business that shuns all drug use (tobacco, marijuana, alcohol... cocaine, heroin, etc), you're going to have to be prepared to limit how many customers you can even do business with, as I'd imagine most people take part in some controlled substance.

No, if you're in a society that has been groomed to reject the force and violence over others... unless that person acts in a manner that leads you to have to defend yourself against force/violence from them... then there's no reason to "punish" them. There's nothing to punish them for! There's nothing wrong with having marijuana or cocaine or heroin or psychedelic mushrooms in your pocket. There's nothing particularly "wrong" with using any of those plants or plant alkaloids, either. The only time that becomes a problem is if that person acts in a manner of violence to others... and that would be the case whether they're using any of those plant/plant alkaloids or not.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Your claim that I said "we" are "bad" is not true; it's the type of strawman argument that you've accused me of.  We have different morals.

I don't think we have that different of morals, honestly. We may think we believe in different ways of getting there but for the most part I don't think we disagree on morals.

The reason why I assume you think we are bad is because you believe we need other humans controlled by corporate business interests to use force and violence against us in order to act properly. Government makes little sense unless you assume that those in government and those who put them in positions of power are acting rationally.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
I've seen several gun threads in which people have said they'd shoot to kill if someone broke into their house.  You'd find a lot of people who disagree with that.

Yeah, until that person breaking into their house kills/rapes the homeowner... and then not many people disagree the victim should have defended themselves, up to and including use of a firearm. If you're going to initiate force against someone you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of someone who has no clue why you're there and what you plan on doing... not to mention by actually BREAKING into their home have scared them into believing they are an intended target of violence... all of this assuming it's some huge misunderstanding why an individual is breaking into their home. If their fears are correct than I'm not sure how you can justify NOT allowing someone to use deadly force against someone who wishes them bodily harm.

I don't believe the vast majority of people want to actually kill someone. I don't believe there's that many people sitting in their kitchen in the dark just waiting all their lives for a burglar to break into their homes just so they can shoot them dead. I do think people want to feel safe in their homes on their private property and that's what elicits those kinds of responses when they imagine being woken in the middle of the night by their front door being kicked in or a bedroom window being broken.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Since you equated your system with the Old West, I guess people would be allowed to do that.  What a peaceful, non-violent society that would be!

I used the Old West because it's one of the few examples of communities (still within a mind set that they are to use force and violence to solve their problems, mind you) that existed absent a monopoly of force and violence for a snippet of time. But while we're on the topic... historians actually believe the Old "Wild" West was actually quite a peaceful time with very little in the way of conflict. Conflicts did happen, of course, but much of this "Wild West" crap is simply a Hollywood creation.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
Your system is great in your imagination, but when you work out the specifics of its application you see how flawed it is.

No, P, I just believe when we raise children with ethics we can have an ethical society. Maybe in my lifetime, maybe not... but society is going to move forward one way or the other (like I said, if you think this system of governance or society is going to remain static you're ignoring history) and I'd rather be one of the ones pressing for a future society based on freedom and the rejection of force/violence rather than allowing it to move in the opposite direction.

As much as I harp on the...."founding fathers' (which that term still gives me douche chills cause of the over-the-top religious impressions) for being slave owners and murderers... they understood monarchy was not the only way to govern a society and looked for a better way. What they found worked for their time period and outlasted their lifetimes. Now I'm not trying to be the next George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or even the next John Locke... I just believe a certain philosophy is possible and the more I and others that think like me can get others to reject all forms of force/violence we can start to break down, piece by piece, this tax farm that is government.

I hope I haven't "drown you out with rhetoric".... I've tried addressing your points as acutely as I feel possible.

And sorry for the grammatical mistakes, run on sentences, etc./.  

I think it's obvious I wasn't an English major.

I'm an Independent. I'm not exactly anti gov, but a SMALLER gov would be ideal.

and I find it funny that if Republicans are such "idiots", then how come so many of them are part of the 1 percent? We need Madhatter over here to explain this

Freddie_Quell wrote:We need Madhatter over here to explain this

Please god no.

Freddie_Quell wrote:I'm an Independent. I'm not exactly anti gov, but a SMALLER gov would be ideal.

and I find it funny that if Republicans are such "idiots", then how come so many of them are part of the 1 percent? We need Madhatter over here to explain this

Serious? The 1% puts them in office to do their bidding. They need idiots to keep them where they are.

DWags wrote:

Serious?  The 1% puts them in office to do their bidding. They need idiots to keep them where they are.

Nothing says freedom like getting to vote on the only two guys allowed to be voted on for any type of government position, due to ownership of the entity known as government by the wealthiest corporate entities.

I just can't wait to do my civic duty! How about you?!

Yeah, this guy isn't an idiot.

Man Shouts At Animatronic President Trump Because #Resistance

Plenty of people have mocked President Trump’s penchant for adding the word “sad” as commentary at the end of a tweet. But in this case, there’s really no other way to describe this except to say it’s sad. This man went to Disney’s Hall of Presidents and when the animatronic President Trump started to take the oath of office, he began shouting “Lock him up!” He filmed the whole thing, of course, so he could gain admirers among “the resistance.”

Ministry of Twitter Goodthinker @Melvin_Udall_ 2h2 hours ago
More
Replying to @JayMalsky
You yelled and cursed at a robot, in front of children. You aren't brave. You aren't smart. You selfishly took away from the experiences of others. People spend thousands to go there, pig. Now people will remember the asshole leftists screaming profanity.

Are you a necromancer or something Goose? This thread is old af

AnomanderRake wrote:Are you a necromancer or something Goose? This thread is old af

It’s been upsetting him for more than 3 years and he was waiting until he found the perfect story of a liberal finally doing something as dumb as his tea party heroes so he could bump it.