U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 08:17 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Intent does not matter in your case. If the actions of one individually negatively affect the individual rights of another, your concept of inalienable rights for individuals is no longer salable.

For example the judgment of aggressive behavior that you say happens with intent does in consequence withdraw that persons individual rights you deem naturally for consequence.

A voluntary example is debt, if by consequence of property prices and capital ownership an individual has no privilege to gain land or provide productive labor, are they not an abject slave?

And if so how does that fit with your ideology. I know you said the last part is "unintersting, unrelated and factually wrong" but I disagree.

In fact it is very important. Why are you an anarchist/capitalist? Its an important question because it determines the affects of what you want.

And you do want something, that is why you care about state enforcement. And anarcho-capitalism is a society like any other:



So the question is are you an anarchist because you believe property owners should manage economic transactions, or are you an anarchist because you want the freest possible individual.

I think it is the latter in which case you have to consider what freedom means to you and the best policy to pursue it.
There is no policy. I want nothing.

Answer please:

A. Man is born into a social contract with a ruling State.

B. Man is born free from any contractual obligations and the only way to enter into a contract is to be free from duress and have the cognitive ability to do so.

A or B. Answer please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,650 posts, read 2,669,483 times
Reputation: 2565
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
There is no policy. I want nothing.

Answer please:

A. Man is born into a social contract with a ruling State.

B. Man is born free from any contractual obligations and the only way to enter into a contract is to be free from duress and have the cognitive ability to do so.

A or B. Answer please.
What does contract mean?

You're born into a society with rules and laws. Anarcho-capitalists, as I explain, believe in the same thing.

And policy is how these rules are organized and set.

Now answer this: Is the property owned by an individual a place governed by that individual. And who decides the punishment for trespassing on that land.

And why is the individual deprived of their liberty when they commit a crime in your world?


If you are upset with tight regulation of social and economic life, that is a product of economic development and population density, not the nature of governance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:28 PM
 
Location: 15 months till retirement and I can leave the hell hole of New Yakistan
25,364 posts, read 14,065,996 times
Reputation: 6524
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings View Post
He seems like a reasonable philosopher. He even supported a modest social safety net it seems libertarians have drifted far from the likes of Hayek and Friedman. Friedman also supported a universal basic income.
libertarians are about liberty….personal freedom.....the exact opposite of the "you need the big government" anti-freedom crowd
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:52 PM
 
4,600 posts, read 903,785 times
Reputation: 1930
Wonder if he is somehow related to that sexy actress named Salma Hayek.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:06 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
What does contract mean?

You're born into a society with rules and laws. Anarcho-capitalists, as I explain, believe in the same thing.

And policy is how these rules are organized and set.

Now answer this: Is the property owned by an individual a place governed by that individual. And who decides the punishment for trespassing on that land.

And why is the individual deprived of their liberty when they commit a crime in your world?


If you are upset with tight regulation of social and economic life, that is a product of economic development and population density, not the nature of governance.
So no answer?

Thought so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,383 posts, read 1,819,619 times
Reputation: 3301
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
So no answer?

Thought so.
I feel like your position is to rigid. Its similar to the logical arguments religious fanatics construct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:05 AM
 
6,951 posts, read 2,539,407 times
Reputation: 3789
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings View Post
I feel like your position is to rigid. Its similar to the logical arguments religious fanatics construct.
Logical consistency IS rigid. There is a reason that proof theory includes the word "rigorous." A valid proof must withstand rigor.

A better way to phrase your feeling is that you feel like No_Recess' position (and mine) is too resistant to exception and/or nuance. And that feeling would be spot on.

The argument itself is indeed rigid, as any logically consistent/valid argument must be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,650 posts, read 2,669,483 times
Reputation: 2565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Logical consistency IS rigid. There is a reason that proof theory includes the word "rigorous." A valid proof must withstand rigor.

A better way to phrase your feeling is that you feel like No_Recess' position (and mine) is too resistant to exception and/or nuance. And that feeling would be spot on.

The argument itself is indeed rigid, as any logically consistent/valid argument must be.
Its ideologically consistent, not logically.

Logic involves looking at the truth of each situation. If you say Governance is immoral, that is your one truth. But it doesn't mean it can be applied to every situation; nor does it give you an answer to every question.

A better way to implement principle is in asking what sort of society you envision, and then look at policy that best prompts that future. If policy you support no longer brings you to your end goal, then you drop that policy.

I asked No_Recess if his policy (deregulating the state, handing governance to property owners) does not lead to a society of free individuals, would he still support it?

Its an important question and I hope you will answer it. Its not a debate about what will happen, but where your motives lie.

If anarcho-capitalism say gives private equity firms power over companies, pile said companies with debt, bankrupt them, and then make low wage earners dependent on debt and force them to rent rather than own capital, would you still support the same policy?

Please answer because its important to know what you want. Is it the means or the end. If it is the means then that stands as loyalty towards policy which is illogical in nature.


I'm not being antagonistic, I swear. I just want to know what ancaps want. Anarcho-capitalism is a set of policies and principles.

As I explained in my last post, respect for private property and punishment of aggression are universal rule sets that organize a society. If you believe an individual forfeits these rights (freedom from aggression and right to ownership) when they trespass on property or commit a crime, you are building a rule set universal to a society.

So you can't say you don't support a policy, you do. Is property its own state? Does the owner have total rule in that space? Can they punish individuals who enter into that territory? If so that is a rule of governance.

The point of society is to promote economic transaction in an equivalent sphere.

So yes anarcho-capitalism is a society. Nothing wrong with that.

But again my question is: Do you support these policies for the sake of these policies or do you support them for some end goal (a society where people are free to pursue their own individual social and economic desires).

If (and only if) your desired policies lead (lets say) to a society of abject slaves who own no property (since prices are high and the land owner controls governance) would you still be an anarchist.

I'm not saying it will happen, and you can give a hundred arguments as to why it won't. But that's not the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,650 posts, read 2,669,483 times
Reputation: 2565
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
So no answer?

Thought so.
A state is a form of governance meant to allow economic transactions. There has to be a universal rule set by which this can happen.

When you are born into a family or a tribe, you are born into a group with mutually aligned rules. No killing each other, producing shared labor, etc.

If set values are not followed the family/tribe can no longer function. Same with property ownership. If governance of property by owners is not universally followed, then the individual practice of social and economic behavior can no longer be promoted.

Please try to understand what I am say, anarchism is a form of society like anything else.

Contracts can only exist inside of a larger set of governmental power. You and I can dislike the state and the form it takes, but anarchism is only an alternative to it.

So no, people are not born under contract, but they can only act under a set of mutual realities.


Now please answer my question, are you an anarchist because you want to maximize individual pursuit of economic and social desires, or because you want governance and economic transaction to be managed by property owners?

If it is the former, and your policy does not lead to the desired outcome, you will have to change your policy.

Remember principles do not come from supporting certain policy, it comes from having a vision for what you want society to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:54 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,895 posts, read 9,691,589 times
Reputation: 9743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian View Post
Logical consistency IS rigid. There is a reason that proof theory includes the word "rigorous." A valid proof must withstand rigor.

A better way to phrase your feeling is that you feel like No_Recess' position (and mine) is too resistant to exception and/or nuance. And that feeling would be spot on.

The argument itself is indeed rigid, as any logically consistent/valid argument must be.
I've tried every way out of this (anarchy). Again, that's the irony in the whole debate.

If I enter into a social contract at birth I literally have no recourse on anything because a higher claim has been made on my life than I can assert. Once I validate that paradigm I no longer have rights.

Statists think we do this for kicks? For convenience?

It's hell.

Christ, I just posted in the doorbell cam thread how I lost money by disassociating myself from Ring. As a consultant I can't advise, even passively, private individuals to associate with a business that actively subsidizes the State.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top