Do you think Europeans/Canadians rely on their government too much? (soldier, crime)

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by random_thoughts

Example of a successful, organized country where people organize voluntarily, please... None? Thank you.
People did organize voluntarily in this country once, however you do not expect a vote every ten years, do you? We have a society now and your dissent does not mean that this society would dissolve just to please you.



Maybe you can, but just maybe you are just confusing your dreams with reality.

You're right, there has never been a voluntary society in the form that Anarcho-capitalists envision. Why does that invalidate it? There was never a society without slavery until it was abolished either. The U.S. was kind of a unique experiment when it began as well.

I'd like to ask you who you think society is...you say society agrees to certain things and everyone must follow, correct? I find that funny because there is so much divisiveness in politics. If "society" agrees to pay taxes, fund programs, etc. that would mean that everyone agrees to it. What if a portion of "society" doesn't agree with that? They don't count as society? We are all individuals with inalienable rights, no matter what the law says. If the majority wants to violate those rights, the minority has to put up with it or leave? (As an anarchist, there is nowhere to escape it)

Here's one last line of questioning for you:

Does every person have the right to do what he/she thinks is morally right, or refuse to do something they think is morally wrong? If yes, go to the next question. If no, I strongly disagree with you and I hope most people would as well.

Do you think I should be killed for following my conscience? If I don't support a war, should I be forced to fund it anyway? If I don't want to contribute money to a system that breaks one of my foundational principles of morality, should I be coerced into doing it anyway?

If I don't pay taxes, eventually they'll try to take my property, and if I tell them they can't take it they'll try to arrest me, and if I resist arrest they'll probably kill me. Do you support them killing me? I hope not.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Can you have children in a voluntary society? They're not really volunteering, are they? Are they bound by laws?

You can have children if you want to have them. After that, they are dependent on you and didn't volunteer to be there, so I'm definitely against the type of parenting many people use today. I think forcing kids to do what they're told is lazy parenting because there are other ways of doing it, even if it requires more creativity and effort. Don't hit them, don't scream at them. Explain things ahead of time, make agreements if they're old enough for that, maybe "bribe" them as a last resort but I'd avoid overdoing that. I was resistant to this for awhile because I always pictured myself being a strict parent who disciplines my children and makes decisions for them. I've changed my mind after a lot of reading and hearing stories from parents using peaceful parenting methods.

Sorry if that's not where you were going with this...but yes I remain consistent with my principles.

EDIT: If you're asking if having children is wrong because they're born against their will, then no. If they didn't want to exist and could somehow communicate it to us, then I suppose I'd be against it, but that isn't the case. You are conceived, born into the world, then become aware of your existence at some point. If you then wish to not live, I can't forcefully stop you from killing yourself, but I'll try to convince you not to (highly doubt that would happen anyway). As far as not being able to choose your parents, I guess you could say "I didn't volunteer to have you as parents, I was just born here" and you'd be correct. The problem is, what if you say "I'm really glad you decided to have me" and like them as parents? There's no way to know before you have kids, so either way you might be going against what they'll want in the future. I think that's a long-winded over-analytical justification for it.

[random_thoughts]

Originally Posted by T0103E

You're right, there has never been a voluntary society in the form that Anarcho-capitalists envision. Why does that invalidate it?

It doesn't invalidate it. But it proves that the whole concept is pure theory that was never put to the test of real life.

Originally Posted by T0103E

There was never a society without slavery until it was abolished either.

There were many societies without slavery. You're wrong.

Originally Posted by T0103E

I'd like to ask you who you think society is...you say society agrees to certain things and everyone must follow, correct? I find that funny because there is so much divisiveness in politics. If "society" agrees to pay taxes, fund programs, etc. that would mean that everyone agrees to it. What if a portion of "society" doesn't agree with that? They don't count as society? We are all individuals with inalienable rights, no matter what the law says. If the majority wants to violate those rights, the minority has to put up with it or leave? (As an anarchist, there is nowhere to escape it)

You don't have any inalienable rights. That's just a hyperbole. We have prisons full of people whose "inalienable rights" have been effectively revoked.
Now, society can only exist if there is a consensus. Of course there are many different opinions but that why we have a democratic process to work out a solution acceptable to MOST.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Here's one last line of questioning for you:

Does every person have the right to do what he/she thinks is morally right, or refuse to do something they think is morally wrong? If yes, go to the next question. If no, I strongly disagree with you and I hope most people would as well.

Of course NOT! SHould we stop pursuing murderers and thieves just because THEY believe that what they do is morally justified? Thats not how society is organized.

Originally Posted by T0103E

Do you think I should be killed for following my conscience? If I don't support a war, should I be forced to fund it anyway? If I don't want to contribute money to a system that breaks one of my foundational principles of morality, should I be coerced into doing it anyway?

If I don't pay taxes, eventually they'll try to take my property, and if I tell them they can't take it they'll try to arrest me, and if I resist arrest they'll probably kill me. Do you support them killing me? I hope not.

Sorry to hear that. I personally believe that you SHOULD NOT BE FORCED however I also realize that if it was allowed it would set a dangerous precedent and everyone could ignore any laws they chose by claiming they are against their conscience. Dura lex, sed lex.

Like I said before, nobody is forcing to be a part of society. If you don't feel like being a part of it and following its rules then you should think about leaving it.

[random_thoughts]

Originally Posted by T0103E

You can have children if you want to have them. After that, they are dependent on you and didn't volunteer to be there, so I'm definitely against the type of parenting many people use today. I think forcing kids to do what they're told is lazy parenting because there are other ways of doing it, even if it requires more creativity and effort.

Well, parenting involves telling your kids what to do and what not to do, anyway you look at it, and not everything can be explained to a 4 or 5 years old.

What you're postulating here is pure utopia...

You cant have a voluntary society everybody can chose to leave at any given time just like you can't have a highway where people chose which traffic laws they follow and when.

You have to understand, the reason people organized into societies is precisely to avoid that chaos and resulting lack of security. You are trying to take us back to the days of tribal divides but nobody really misses that: we only became successful as species when we organized.

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by T0103E

You're right, there has never been a voluntary society in the form that Anarcho-capitalists envision. Why does that invalidate it? There was never a society without slavery until it was abolished either. The U.S. was kind of a unique experiment when it began as well.

It doesn't. However, it's not even remotely likely that a voluntary society would function. It's possible that space aliens will land on my front lawn tomorrow, but it isn't very likely. A voluntary society goes against human nature.

I'd like to ask you who you think society is...you say society agrees to certain things and everyone must follow, correct? I find that funny because there is so much divisiveness in politics. If "society" agrees to pay taxes, fund programs, etc. that would mean that everyone agrees to it. What if a portion of "society" doesn't agree with that? They don't count as society? We are all individuals with inalienable rights, no matter what the law says. If the majority wants to violate those rights, the minority has to put up with it or leave? (As an anarchist, there is nowhere to escape it)

There has to be some basis for everyone agreeing on what those inalienable rights are. You can't have each individual deciding what his inalienable rights are whenever he wants. Once you have that agreement you can sue if one of your inalienable rights is violated.

Here's one last line of questioning for you:

Does every person have the right to do what he/she thinks is morally right, or refuse to do something they think is morally wrong? If yes, go to the next question. If no, I strongly disagree with you and I hope most people would as well.

No. Just because some psycho serial killer thinks he's on a mission from God to go around killing people doesn't mean he should be allowed to do it.

Do you think I should be killed for following my conscience?

No

If I don't support a war, should I be forced to fund it anyway?

Yes. That's the price you pay for having a military around to defend you when you need it. The military needs to be funded in order to be effective. The military also needs a command structure to be effective. So you need to financially support the military, and in order to be an effective military it needs commanders and those commanders may take actions that you don't agree with. I don't support the occupation of Afghanistan myself but I certainly wouldn't dream of withdrawing my support from the armed forces over it.

If I don't want to contribute money to a system that breaks one of my foundational principles of morality, should I be coerced into doing it anyway?

Yes, otherwise nobody would fund anything.

If I don't pay taxes, eventually they'll try to take my property, and if I tell them they can't take it they'll try to arrest me, and if I resist arrest they'll probably kill me. Do you support them killing me? I hope not.

They won't kill you unless you resist arrest with deadly force. If you resist arrest with deadly force, that would make killing you self defense on their part, and I would support them killing you in that case.

[irspow]

It is strange how people cannot grasp a voluntary society. It is almost as if humans have devolved into insects incapable of seeing humanity as individuals.

Even funnier is the loss of an inability to see a simple underlying principle of voluntarism, agorism, or anarcho-capitalism. It is the concept of initiation of force. Aggression. Whomever initiates force is a criminal, immoral, and evil. (Whether that initiation of force is from a person, group, or government) This basic is intuitive to even a tiny child if it is not a psychopath.

What are inalienable rights? Far from being something that some fictional government grants to a subject, they encompass all actions and freedoms one would have in the absence of aggression, extortion, and force.

The only "freedom" or "right" that a human does not possess is to initiate force upon another. Or in other words, there is no right to force another to act against his own interest. There is no right to use aggression to get what you want. So, if one does not initiate force, there is no other limit upon his rights to act, think, and do whatever he believes is in his best interest.

The only "just" force is retaliatory. There is no moral form of aggression. Once any form of initiatory force is employed there is predator and prey instead of voluntary agreement. The aggressor, whether a person, group, or government, for any purpose, cause, or ideal, is simply an evil aggressor and nothing more. A thug, monster, and tyrant.

A voluntary society is just one whereby no one has a right to initiate force against anyone else. Everything else goes. The only possible moral government is one that only uses retaliatory force to restore the victim of aggression to the just state prior to the aggression. This is not rocket science.

The only thing stopping a voluntary, natural, and free society is that many people are only happy, content, satisfied with their existence if they have a Godvernment to initiate force against their neighbor. They are simply deranged thugs, tyrants, and monsters. The faulty gene in the human race.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by irspow

It is strange how people cannot grasp a voluntary society. It is almost as if humans have devolved into insects incapable of seeing humanity as individuals.

Even funnier is the loss of an inability to see a simple underlying principle of voluntarism, agorism, or anarcho-capitalism. It is the concept of initiation of force. Aggression. Whomever initiates force is a criminal, immoral, and evil. (Whether that initiation of force is from a person, group, or government) This basic is intuitive to even a tiny child if it is not a psychopath.

What are inalienable rights? Far from being something that some fictional government grants to a subject, they encompass all actions and freedoms one would have in the absence of aggression, extortion, and force.

The only "freedom" or "right" that a human does not possess is to initiate force upon another. Or in other words, there is no right to force another to act against his own interest. There is no right to use aggression to get what you want. So, if one does not initiate force, there is no other limit upon his rights to act, think, and do whatever he believes is in his best interest.

The only "just" force is retaliatory. There is no moral form of aggression. Once any form of initiatory force is employed there is predator and prey instead of voluntary agreement. The aggressor, whether a person, group, or government, for any purpose, cause, or ideal, is simply an evil aggressor and nothing more. A thug, monster, and tyrant.

A voluntary society is just one whereby no one has a right to initiate force against anyone else. Everything else goes. The only possible moral government is one that only uses retaliatory force to restore the victim of aggression to the just state prior to the aggression. This is not rocket science.

The only thing stopping a voluntary, natural, and free society is that many people are only happy, content, satisfied with their existence if they have a Godvernment to initiate force against their neighbor. They are simply deranged thugs, tyrants, and monsters. The faulty gene in the human race.

This. And with the bolded part, that would actually make it NOT government. Government is the person/group who is perceived to have the right to rule.

[irspow]

Originally Posted by T0103E

This. And with the bolded part, that would actually make it NOT government. Government is the person/group who is perceived to have the right to rule.

Nice catch. There are some things which are hard to define correctly. To "govern" is to rule, so yes government by definition is an immoral fictional entity. I was trying to define an entity that is only used as a retaliatory force against aggressors.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by irspow

The only possible moral government is one that only uses retaliatory force to restore the victim of aggression to the just state prior to the aggression. This is not rocket science.

If somebody's business releases carcinogens into the environment, how do you make the business owner heal the cancer of those living downwind? Perhaps more interestingly, how do you go about restoring someone to their un-murdered or un-raped state?

I swear, some days it's like Hobbes was just wasting good paper...

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by T0103E

If I don't pay taxes, eventually they'll try to take my property, and if I tell them they can't take it they'll try to arrest me, and if I resist arrest they'll probably kill me. Do you support them killing me? I hope not.

I will let Benjamin Franklin answer that one:

He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.