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.
Hey I'm not anti-corp, I'm just anti the little guy getting crapped on again. When a Corp does things right they should be praised, and clearly in this case they did the right things. In fact, it behooves companies to predominantly do the right things, because good will is really easy to lose and really hard to gain, but when you have it, it can add 20-30% to your bottom line.
It's also somewhat ironic about the road, no? I mean without governments we wouldn't have them, or so we're told ad nauseum.
I was pointing out how government all of a sudden becomes at least somewhat efficient and effective in solving problems when a large corporation needs something done on the ground.
The little people can't get that kind of service hence my fill-your-on-pothole example.
I was pointing out how government all of a sudden becomes at least somewhat efficient and effective in solving problems when a large corporation needs something done on the ground.
The little people can't get that kind of service hence my fill-your-on-pothole example.
Chances are if you fill your own pothole your in violation of several local, state and federal ordinances and statutes.
Nope. No group is coming to your house forcing you to buy them lunch. It doesn't even make sense as an analogy. The group of friends is supposed to be analogous to the government and your home is supposed to be analogous to your home? That's not how analogies work.
It wasn't an analogy, it was a hypothetical.
You said we consent by not moving. I just used your reasoning back at you.
So whats to stop a large business buying up lots of land and then using a private army to gain even more control? Nothing because the businesses would become the de facto state.
The rulers of those businesses would be the equivalent of warlords.
Sentence one is false. We can't even continue because of it.
Consent and proper ownership are the exact opposite of aggression. Aggression can't be committed against a rock or a tree.
You need a victim for a crime (aggression) to occur. Another concept completely foreign to statists.
You’re not understanding my point; the aggression you speak of (to my understanding) is one of infringement towards property rights/land ownership. In such a case the rules of aggression, similar to consent, involve sole ownership of something/somewhere for it to exist.
That doesn’t mean they’re the same, but the terms as you use them legitimate the same concept of private ownership.
Now still, I haven’t received a response to my main question, just false accusations.
Of course corporations couldn't exist legally, but the businesses themselves could. And insofar as the "business" of a company like Exxon could continue, you haven't addressed the crux of the OP's argument.
Which businesses specifically do you see failing in a stateless society?
Most businesses would no longer exist because, without protection from personal liability, few people would be willing to take the risk of operating one. This is doubly true for complex and risky industries like the extraction of natural resources.
Humans are a self organizing social species, we have evolved to be that way. The idea that we could just, as a group, stop organizing ourselves into power structures is a fantasy akin to a single ant trying to convince the hive to stop building ant hills and segregating into specialized tasks.
Humans are a self organizing social species, we have evolved to be that way. The idea that we could just, as a group, stop organizing ourselves into power structures is a fantasy akin to a single ant trying to convince the hive to stop building ant hills and segregating into specialized tasks.
Which would be sound logic if An-Caps were stating that. The two philosophies are, the Non-Aggression principle (thou shalt not initiate aggression, but are free to defend oneself from aggression); and; Respect of property rights.
Voluntary association and hierarchical structures is entirely fine, provided the two philosophies are followed. We do not currently have this anywhere, every government violates one, the other or both of these principles.
Which would be sound logic if An-Caps were stating that. The two philosophies are, the Non-Aggression principle (thou shalt not initiate aggression, but are free to defend oneself from aggression); and; Respect of property rights.
Voluntary association and hierarchical structures is entirely fine, provided the two philosophies are followed. We do not currently have this anywhere, every government violates one, the other or both of these principles.
State-enforced indoctrination has corrupted the perception of otherwise rational/intelligent people.
That's why it's important to keep reminding them of the true definition of things.
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.
