Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not surprised either. Dismayed? Disappointed? Disgusted? Slightly amused? Yup. Libertarianism is a house of cards. Although, I do think there's something to the phrase, 'There's a sucker born every minute.'
I'm still waiting for probability to assert itself. A house of cards, is, well, sortof fragile.
I'm not surprised either. Dismayed? Disappointed? Disgusted? Slightly amused? Yup. Libertarianism is a house of cards. Although, I do think there's something to the phrase, 'There's a sucker born every minute.'
I'm still waiting for probability to assert itself. A house of cards, is, well, sortof fragile.
What happens to you socialists when you run out of other peoples money?
Of course because the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand,Canada, Belgium, Holland and all other rich industrialized nations run by liberals are obviously filled with mass graves.
Conservative mastodonts forget that there is no single country on this planet that has a successful economy or society that operates based on conservative values. Maybe besides Saudi Arabia. LOL
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-28-2014 at 09:22 AM..
What good are rules if there isn't anybody with an authority to enforce them? Remember? Your society is "voluntary". Nobody can be forced or coerced to do anything.
Wow, the serial killers and child molesters everywhere must be shivering at the thought of their accounts being frozen... Are you for real?
Rules are meaningless if there isn't anybody with an authority to enforce them, don't you get it yet? The law implies coercion, you take coercion out and there is no law anymore and no rules. Law there is not ENFORCED is as good as none.
I think the thing you're missing here (and maybe I haven't it explained well) is that coercion is acceptable if you voluntarily agree to it beforehand. Contracts would be important. With DROs, people would sign a contract for their services. With private police, courts, whatever, they would sign a contract for their protection.
Let's say I entered a contract with a private police force. I'd be protected by them, but I'd also be subject to their punishment if I broke the rules they enforce. If I have a contract with a DRO, I benefit from their services. If I go and steal something and I'm caught, they lock my account and I'm on my own now. You say that isn't much of a deterrent but I disagree. If you are a known thief, murderer, rapist, etc. then having you interacting in that society is very dangerous. It would go against people's own interests to give you food, gas, shelter, or any service. They could, but they'd be supporting someone who is making their life more difficult (and in addition, that person would likely be pressured by others and shunned if they assist you).
Let's say I don't want to enter any contract at all. I'll have no protection or service to resolve disputes so it would be extremely risky. I'd probably be a major outlier. I could trade with people and enjoy the benefits of that community if I maintained good relationships with them...but if I wasn't interacting peacefully with people, I'm stuck trying to survive on my own.
With government, you don't enter any contract (and no, I don't buy the "social contract" argument for one second) and are still subject to the laws. This is where we get into the whole "move to Somalia" argument which has gone nowhere in this thread and I'm kind of tired of discussing it.
Of course because the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand,Canada, Belgium, Holland and all other rich industrialized nations run by liberals are obviously filled with mass graves.
Conservative mastodonts forget that there is no single country on this planet that has an economy that operates based on conservative values. Maybe besides Saudi Arabia.
Socialism is designed to be a transitional period between capitalism and communism. It is designed to be a "non-violent" revolution whereby free people actively choose to be slaves of the fictional collective. It is a perfectly designed evil to destroy any worth of the individual that is not connected to the "greater good". Humans are nothing more than "subjects" whose only purpose is to serve the State. As more "services" are offered, more must be taken from the individual. As more is taken from the individual the more he "needs" the State. In a continual vortex into the oblivion of totalitarianism, people are "offered" more while having more taken from them. Until the point arrives where everything is taken away from the individual and thus the individual is entirely at the mercy of the State's benevolence. Then the State decrees what are the "correct" needs to be filled. Each unit of the State, formerly human beings, are then "allotted" what the State is willing or able to provide. How beautiful. (if we were insects instead of humans )
The mass graves come when there are humans who want to be something other than "units" of the State, or when the State can no longer provide the minimum "needs" of the units.
I think the thing you're missing here (and maybe I haven't it explained well) is that coercion is acceptable if you voluntarily agree to it beforehand.
That is a very slippery slope than will never end well. Perhaps the "coercion" you are referring to is a RETALIATORY force? Retaliatory force is moral. Initiation of force is immoral. So the distinction is simple.
Aggression, coercion, extortion, etc are all initiations of force. Retribution, defense, punishment, etc are retaliations.
What those who are opposed to human freedom are worried about is supposed "anarchy" of people acting freely in the absence of retaliatory force. But no person who believes in maximum moral individual human freedom is advocating the absence of retaliatory force. They hear that no initiations of force are moral and think that that means no force, which could not be further from the truth. All people have a moral right to retaliate against an aggressor, and a voluntary society or association would also have a moral and natural right to retaliate against aggression. Obviously without the right to retaliate, the mentally ill who believe in initiations of force would run roughshod over moral beings. (Kind of like what the State does to individuals now.)
Those who oppose freedom also think that there would be no State without initiations of force. However, you could have a "State" with immense retaliatory force at its disposal while still being completely moral. The State is only evil now because it primarily is an institution of initiations of force against the individual.
That is a very slippery slope than will never end well. Perhaps the "coercion" you are referring to is a RETALIATORY force? Retaliatory force is moral. Initiation of force is immoral. So the distinction is simple.
Aggression, coercion, extortion, etc are all initiations of force. Retribution, defense, punishment, etc are retaliations.
What those who are opposed to human freedom are worried about is supposed "anarchy" of people acting freely in the absence of retaliatory force. But no person who believes in maximum moral individual human freedom is advocating the absence of retaliatory force. They hear that no initiations of force are moral and think that that means no force, which could not be further from the truth. All people have a moral right to retaliate against an aggressor, and a voluntary society or association would also have a moral and natural right to retaliate against aggression. Obviously without the right to retaliate, the mentally ill who believe in initiations of force would run roughshod over moral beings. (Kind of like what the State does to individuals now.)
Those who oppose freedom also think that there would be no State without initiations of force. However, you could have a "State" with immense retaliatory force at its disposal while still being completely moral. The State is only evil now because it primarily is an institution of initiations of force against the individual.
Yes, I misspoke there. Thanks for correcting that.
I think the thing you're missing here (and maybe I haven't it explained well) is that coercion is acceptable if you voluntarily agree to it beforehand.
This is what you believe and I don't. I don't believe we have to ask for anybody's permission to coerce them not to kill, rape or molest children, to use the most drastic examples. That's not optional in any way.
If you believe the society could exist if people could chose if they want to obey the laws against murder, rape and child molesting then you are mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Contracts would be important. With DROs, people would sign a contract for their services. With private police, courts, whatever, they would sign a contract for their protection.
Let's say I entered a contract with a private police force. I'd be protected by them, but I'd also be subject to their punishment if I broke the rules they enforce. If I have a contract with a DRO, I benefit from their services. If I go and steal something and I'm caught, they lock my account and I'm on my own now.
What if you murder somebody? They will lock your account too? LOL Wow, what a punishment.
Are you kidding bud? We have prisons full of people convicted for murder, ape, child molesting and many other nasty crimes. Do you think they'd care if their "account was locked"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
You say that isn't much of a deterrent but I disagree. If you are a known thief, murderer, rapist, etc. then having you interacting in that society is very dangerous. It would go against people's own interests to give you food, gas, shelter, or any service. They could, but they'd be supporting someone who is making their life more difficult (and in addition, that person would likely be pressured by others and shunned if they assist them).
Do you think sociopaths would carry placards announcing to the world who they are?
How would you tell them from the rest of population? What if they moved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Let's say I don't want to enter any contract at all. I'll have no protection or service to resolve disputes so it would be extremely risky. I'd probably be a major outlier. I could trade with people and enjoy the benefits of that community if I maintained good relationships with them...but if I wasn't interacting peacefully with people, I'm stuck trying to survive on my own.
With government, you don't enter any contract (and no, I don't buy the "social contract" argument for one second) and are still subject to the laws. This is where we get into the whole "move to Somalia" argument which has gone nowhere in this thread and I'm kind of tired of discussing it.
What you proposing here is so naive and vague that you have to understand nobody is going to go for it knowing how many sociopaths we have locked up in prisons at this very moment. I understand as an anarchist you can't provide any details how the society would function, you leave this up to the citizens yet you have to realize many of these citizens rely on the society and the government to provide them with medications such as insulin, anti-histamines, asthma-relief medications, psychotropic drugs and many others and not knowing when they would come from does not make anarchy one bit attractive to them and their families.
I said it before and will say it again, anarchy is an utopian concept that does not deal with the complexities of contemporary civilization, doesn't have any provisions for maintaining our electrical, communication and transportation infrastructures in absence of the state but most importantly ignores the fact that maintaining security and public safety is the most important role of the government and for most people much more important than abstract freedom that you advocate. Most people wouldn't see any benefits in dismantling the current societies while it leaves open many questions that have to be answered like internal and external security and healthcare before your system could be even considered as an alternative to anything...
Anarchy is an utopian and simply absurd concept, just like communism before. And just like communism before, trying to implement anarchism anywhere on the planet would result in a bloodbath and mass graves.
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-28-2014 at 10:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
