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.
How did the coal mine hold people down? That makes no sense whatsoever. Did they put a gun on people's heads? Did they limit their ability to travel? What did the coal mine do exactly?
Many coal mining companies did not pay people with actual currency. They limited the ability of people to move freely and basically enslaved them. I know that you are aware of the recent history of coal mining and share cropping and how both of these "businesses" disregarded the "rights" of others and forced them into poverty and slavery.
I don't know any single libertarian who's not aware of what the business can do to damage our freedom.
Take Google for example, it got so large that it cornered the search world. Because it's leaning left politically, it has banned many type of searches. It could very well influence the election if it wants to.
I didn't say that there weren in regards to the bold. I said that Libertarians do not see that both business and government can do damage to our freedom. One is not "better" than the other.
I didn't say that there weren in regards to the bold. I said that Libertarians do not see that both business and government can do damage to our freedom. One is not "better" than the other.
You can choose not to purchase anything from a business. You can't opt out of government. There is the difference.
Well I am an anarchist libertarian who thinks everything should be privately owned, for the record. I don't even trust private businesses more than government, I just prefer organizations that people can ignore rather than ones that have societal permission to take your stuff and enforce their will on you.
I also think you misunderstood what I said about the fact of life thing...I agree that the market is a fact of life. I was saying government (or a ruling class, to use a different term) is not a fact of life. They used to say slavery was a fact of life because of human nature, but clearly not. People just had to stop treating it as acceptable behavior.
As for what I said existing today, definitely not. The majority consenting is not the same as each individual consenting. You also got into a social contract type of argument, which always drives me insane, but I don't think I've discussed it with you before...so nothing personal. It just makes me want to smash my head against the wall. So the points I'd make are:
1. It isn't the burden of the person minding their own business to move if others are initiating force. If you're on your own property and Walmart decides to harass you, it isn't you that needs to deal with it or move, even if your neighbors all support Walmart. They need to stop harassing you.
ETA: Forgot to mention on slavery - unfortunately it is a way of life in the human experience. You forget that worldwide slavery is still in existence. It will never be completely abolished IMO. It is something that humans do - take advantage of other, seemingly weaker individuals and make them slaves. It has always happened. Oddly enough, the reason why it no longer is in existence "legally" in this country (legally quoted because it is still illegally in this country) is because of government intervention.
2. There is currently no free society on Earth, so saying I consent by not moving doesn't really work. It's like if there were 10 houses you could choose to live in, and each one had a designated guy that came in every night and jumped on your bed...so you say you don't want any guy jumping on your bed and you're told "well you agreed to it by living in this house, and if you don't like it you can move to one of the other houses"...where you'll have the same problem.
By that logic, government can do no wrong because everyone consents to it. If we don't like it, we can just move. Being left alone isn't an option at this time in history.
Again, business and government like you alluded to before the bolded sentence can both cause harm. Both businesses and government can steal from you for instance. So both can do the bold.
In regards to the red, government (i.e. a ruling class or "governing body") is a "fact of life."
In ever society there is a ruling class or governing body. Even amongst family units there is a governing body. This is a natural thing in regards to the human experience.
The reason why you say your #2 in that there is "currently no free society on Earth" is based upon the fact that a "free society" how you envision it in an anarchist Libertarian way, cannot possibly exist....ever....at all. This is because humans, as a part of the human experience will ALWAYS create a governing body. It has always been that way and always will be.
You all can come up with scenarios to try to explain and rationalize an anarchist mindset but the fact of the matter is that to continue an anarchist Libertarian type of society, one MUST create an anarchist Libertarian government. Creation of a governing body is a MUST. As a human, you cannot by-pass the fact that government must exist.
I will reiterate that I never stated that government was "better" than "the markets." I stated both were a human creation and both will always exist. You cannot one without the other. Due to that IMO (and this is my particular view you can take it or leave it as you will but wanted to put it out here primarily for people who may be reading and considering being an anarchist Libertarian - give them something to think about) you can NEVER have a truly Libertarian society because government is a part of the human experience just like free markets are a part of the human experience.
ETA: In regards to slavery, it is a part of the human experience. Slavery has always been around and will always be around because humans will always seek to take advantage of other, seemingly weaker humans and enslave them. Also FWIW it is interesting that you mention slavery since "legally" it no longer exist (legally quoted because it does still exist in an illegal fashion) because of government intervention.
The issue with arguing ResidingHere2007 is that she is unable to make the paradigm shift. her frame of reference for everything is the government. I've debated her several times, and when we talk about private schools she keeps saying things how public schools are superior to private school. A statement that can't even be proven since private schools are not a monolith and public schools are. She thinks monolithically, so when you say "market" she is viewing "market" as a monolith the same way government is. She hasn't made the shift away from non-monolithic thinking, and that's a huge problem I see with statist.
Many coal mining companies did not pay people with actual currency. They limited the ability of people to move freely and basically enslaved them. I know that you are aware of the recent history of coal mining and share cropping and how both of these "businesses" disregarded the "rights" of others and forced them into poverty and slavery.
I know another group of people forced to use a certain currency and for these folks if they don't it's the cage or death.
They are commonly referred to as "Americans". And you're one of them.
Those coal miners could walk out and move along. Your comparison is absurd.
The issue with arguing ResidingHere2007 is that she is unable to make the paradigm shift. her frame of reference for everything is the government. I've debated her several times, and when we talk about private schools she keeps saying things how public schools are superior to private school. A statement that can't even be proven since private schools are not a monolith and public schools are. She thinks monolithically, so when you say "market" she is viewing "market" as a monolith the same way government is. She hasn't made the shift away from non-monolithic thinking, and that's a huge problem I see with statist.
Well yeah.
I mean...statism requires you get real comfortable with the logical/moral inconsistencies.
I agree to dig a ditch for you and you pay me $10. A guy out of the blue walks up and takes $3 of the payment at job completion...at gunpoint.
= Strong arm robbery
I agree to dig a ditch for you and you pay me $10. A guy with a costume on claiming to be from the "government" walks up and takes $3 of the payment at job completion...at gunpoint.
= Taxation
I'll never be able for the life of me understand how anyone can rationalize that but so goes life.
If a business is the only one that sells what you need, you cannot chose to not purchase anything from it.
Then there is demand, and someone will create a competing business. You're asking about monopolies. Fun fact, there has never been a monopoly that the government hasn't help create. This is where you lack of business sense is showing.
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.
