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 don't want to force anything on anyone. "To advocate anarchism is not to advocate a system. It’s simply to maintain that aggression is unjust, and to recognize that the state commits aggression. If you oppose rape, that does not mean you have to show that “non-rape” or “a world without non-rape” is “workable.” You oppose rape and other private crimes because they are crimes. Likewise, if you recognize the state is criminal, you have to oppose it too. —Stephan Kinsella"
"The only people that should be worried about a free society are those that benefit from force or fraud"
Too bad what you have proposed has been tried countless times over history, human nature can be cruel and unjust.
You say you aren't "forcing" anything but how do you expect this to roll out?
Quote:
****Here's a question for all of you...*****
If you don't believe that non-aggression and voluntary interaction are enough to "run" society, then what are the ways in which state violence should be used against YOU? What things should YOU be forced to fund that you don't really want to fund? What choices should YOU be forced to make that you otherwise wouldn't?
Try not to dodge the question, please.
You dodge other people's questions. Let's be honest, you aren't fully prepared to stand by your principles because you could do so... Convince your family and friends to join and go move to remote location where you can build a very small society to your liking.
No one is forcing you to stay and live under the government's thumb, which you keep deflecting. Life after high school/college might change your views.
I understand the challenge of attempting to rationally persuade folks on a message board or forum like this one - you do very well in presenting your thoughtviews, I respect your take on things.
Thanks
Quote:
If I get what you're saying here, it's more like an 'all or nothing' proposition, that is, the market can, indeed, solve all problems. You seem to reject any alternatives especially those that include government interaction/intervention.
For me, that seems to be a false dichotomy/dilemma, alternatives are limited by denying the possibility they exist.
For me, believing the 'free market' will solve all problems is just as ridiculous/fallacious as believing government will solve all problems. I reject the 'all or nothing' variant & suggest there are many alternatives to consider, that is, there are realistic achievable possibilities & real world solutions. I reject the notion there are perfect solutions, for me this demonstrates the 'perfect solution' or 'Nirvana' fallacy. Some folks say, 'the perfect is the enemy of good.' (for me this expression does not say enough but there have you)
It isn't that it can solve all problems, just that there's nothing that it can't solve that government can, and more effectively in most cases, IMO. I know you disagree, but that's all I was saying.
Quote:
Thanks for attempting an answer to the patient/germ question. Some folks answer that which is at a higher level of evolution should have precedance. They would say the patient has moral precedence because of its higher level of evolution. I think it might be problematic to consider "morality only applies to beings who have the ability to reason," historically & otherwise.
I'm not sure about the higher evolution point. It seems kind of convenient as humans to say that, and there isn't really any principle behind it. It's definitely tough. I have a couple vegan friends and I have a hard time arguing against them about harming animals.
Quote:
I agree it's difficult for us to grasp the unseen consequences. Someone once said something along the lines that the reason it's so challenging to predict the future is we, being human, have a hard enough time truly understanding the present. ...
Definitely true. People should be humble about what they think they know.
Why should he "renounce" his citizenship when it's not even real to begin with?
You give legitimacy to the government if you renounce it.
Since logical rational people (anarchists) don't believe in the social contract you come off a bit irrational suggesting someone disavow a fairy tale (the involuntary state).
On a side note...these threads end up depressing me. Seems like everyone is more grateful for their shackles as each day passes.
- "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." - Harriet Tubman
- "I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I couldn't do the things I wanted."
- "To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate his power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. THE MAN THAT TAKES HIS EARNINGS, MUST BE ABLE TO CONVINCE HIM THAT HE HAS A PERFECT RIGHT TO DO SO. It must not depend upon mere force; the slave must know no Higher Law than his master's will. The whole relationship must not only demonstrate, to his mind, its necessity, but its absolute rightfulness." - Frederick Douglass
Too bad what you have proposed has been tried countless times over history, human nature can be cruel and unjust.
Where has voluntaryism ever been tried? There are examples of the principles working within statist societies (food production, distribution, and commerce are anarchistic...nobody is forced to grow food, sell it, or buy it), but if you think it's been tried, you must be misunderstanding me. I'm not aware of any society that applied the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights universally. The movement is still in its infancy.
Quote:
You say you aren't "forcing" anything but how do you expect this to roll out?
Enough people need to stop supporting the state, and it can just be ignored. No force is needed, and it wouldn't do anything even if it happened that way. People would just create a new state.
Quote:
You dodge other people's questions. Let's be honest, you aren't fully prepared to stand by your principles because you could do so... Convince your family and friends to join and go move to remote location where you can build a very small society to your liking.
No one is forcing you to stay and live under the government's thumb, which you keep deflecting. Life after high school/college might change your views.
I've addressed that, but maybe you skimmed over it. A person isn't free from government by hiding from it. "Running ain't freedom." Moving to some desolate place far from society is not the same thing as living in a free society. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that. Also, let's say I lived on some island where they sacrificed people to the volcano god. I'd want to stay and convince my community to stop killing people irrationally instead of just running away.
FYI, your high school/college comment is pretty unoriginal, not to mention inaccurate.
Where has voluntaryism ever been tried? There are examples of the principles working within statist societies (food production, distribution, and commerce are anarchistic...nobody is forced to grow food, sell it, or buy it), but if you think it's been tried, you must be misunderstanding me. I'm not aware of any society that applied the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights universally. The movement is still in its infancy.
Ahhh now I get it. You propose living in ginger bread houses on sugar plum lane. How does non-aggressive principles hold up during a food shortage, pestilence, or just plain old human greed?
Quote:
Enough people need to stop supporting the state, and it can just be ignored. No force is needed, and it wouldn't do anything even if it happened that way. People would just create a new state.
Nah. You greatly overestimate what makes a viable society. It's all gingerbread houses until a major crisis hits, which is inevitable.
Quote:
I've addressed that, but maybe you skimmed over it. A person isn't free from government by hiding from it.
So how are going to convince billions of people who come from all sorts of walks of life?
Quote:
"Running ain't freedom." Moving to some desolate place far from society is not the same thing as living in a free society. I don't see what's so difficult to understand about that.
I'm just confused how you get to that "free point". How many people do you need? How are going to partition up the land? What happens when a family or group of families shrewdly "own" the most valuable resources and everyone is beholden to their whims?
Quote:
Also, let's say I lived on some island where they sacrificed people to the volcano god. I'd want to stay and convince my community to stop killing people irrationally instead of just running away.
And if that doesn't work? What if they sacrifice everyone you love? Will you convince them up to the moment you are standing on the edge of a volcano?
Quote:
FYI, your high school/college comment is pretty unoriginal, not to mention inaccurate.
Calls it like I sees it.
Quote:
Now answer my question.
Why? Your philosophy isn't compatible with human nature.
I'd fund defense differently and entitlements different in order for my grandkids or kids to have a shot of a decent future.
Ahhh now I get it. You propose living in ginger bread houses on sugar plum lane. How does non-aggressive principles hold up during a food shortage, pestilence, or just plain old human greed?
No you don't get it, actually. In the 1800's, if I said that slavery is wrong and society should stop seeing it as morally acceptable, would that be proposing some utopian society? Obviously not, because we have it now. I'm not saying that all aggression and theft will be gone, as I've said in previous posts. I'm saying that people should stop seeing taxation as acceptable, and stop thinking it's okay to use the government to enforce their personal opinions, or any other initiation of force you can think of. A small percentage of people are sociopaths and have no conscience, but the vast majority of people will stop doing something once they realize it's wrong.
Quote:
Nah. You greatly overestimate what makes a viable society. It's all gingerbread houses until a major crisis hits, which is inevitable.
So how are going to convince billions of people who come from all sorts of walks of life?
I'm just confused how you get to that "free point". How many people do you need? How are going to partition up the land? What happens when a family or group of families shrewdly "own" the most valuable resources and everyone is beholden to their whims?
And if that doesn't work? What if they sacrifice everyone you love? Will you convince them up to the moment you are standing on the edge of a volcano?
Calls it like I sees it.
Most of what you said is irrelevant since you misunderstood my first point. The way you get to that point is the same way any societal norms change. You constantly challenge the current beliefs and show why their wrong. Actually, what usually happens is that the intellectuals and trusted experts will change their minds, and then the masses just follow their lead.
How would a family come to own all the most valuable resources? As far as land goes, people will have their own property or rent it, same as today. The difference is that there's no state acting as the true owner and overruling your property rights. I know you'll have problems with that, but I really don't feel like getting into that whole debate again. There's plenty of stuff online, and I'm sure you're not going into this genuinely looking at how it could work. You're looking at how to disprove it so you can go back to advocating aggression and theft without any guilt.
Quote:
Why? Your philosophy isn't compatible with human nature.
It is, as I explained above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you don't believe that non-aggression and voluntary interaction are enough to "run" society, then what are the ways in which state violence should be used against YOU? What things should YOU be forced to fund that you don't really want to fund? What choices should YOU be forced to make that you otherwise wouldn't?"
Quote:
I'd fund defense differently and entitlements different in order for my grandkids or kids to have a shot of a decent future.
I'm not sure if that was an attempt to answer the question. Name something that you're against that you should be forced to fund, or name something that you do/don't want to do that you should be forced to do/not do anyway.
If you dodge that, I'll assume you're a coward. I also calls it like I sees it.
Why? Your philosophy isn't compatible with human nature.
That entirely depends on your philosophy of human nature.
If you believe the people are fundamentally flawed, and will use any means necessary to achieve there ends, then it's flawed. But then so is any other social construct, because they all pivot on that fundamental flaw. If people use any means necessary to achieve their ends, then that includes governments, and people in governments will use their positions to achieve their ends, and they won't care about the people they're hurting, they'll merely be concerned about their ends.
If you believe that people are fundamentally decent, or even apathetic, then it will function because it's easier and less taxing for the apathetic to get along than be in conflict. Clearly some are not fundamentally decent or apathetic, but societies have dealt with these people before. Non-initiation of violence does not mean pacifist. I'm not going to throw the first punch, but I'm totally prepared to put you in the ground if you do.
No you don't get it, actually. In the 1800's, if I said that slavery is wrong and society should stop seeing it as morally acceptable, would that be proposing some utopian society?
Most of the world's population didn't practice slavery at that time.
Quote:
Obviously not, because we have it now. I'm not saying that all aggression and theft will be gone, as I've said in previous posts. I'm saying that people should stop seeing taxation as acceptable, and stop thinking it's okay to use the government to enforce their personal opinions, or any other initiation of force you can think of. A small percentage of people are sociopaths and have no conscience, but the vast majority of people will stop doing something once they realize it's wrong.
Why would they do that? I think too many people like what pooling resources provides, not every wins but it seems like society is better off. How much have we advanced in the last hundred years technologically? How does education work in your Utopian future? How will projects like the human genome project get funded? Sounds like ginger bread houses mixed with neo-luddism.
Quote:
Most of what you said is irrelevant since you misunderstood my first point. The way you get to that point is the same way any societal norms change. You constantly challenge the current beliefs and show why their wrong. Actually, what usually happens is that the intellectuals and trusted experts will change their minds, and then the masses just follow their lead.
How long have we been around and how often has non-aggression worked? It's not the current belief system, it's human nature.
Give examples of the bolded.
Quote:
How would a family come to own all the most valuable resources? As far as land goes, people will have their own property or rent it, same as today.
But who decides who gets what property in the beginning? What happens when something valuable is discovered on a property that tips the scales in favor of a few over the many?
Quote:
The difference is that there's no state acting as the true owner and overruling your property rights. I know you'll have problems with that, but I really don't feel like getting into that whole debate again.
No state. But there will be arbiters.
Quote:
There's plenty of stuff online, and I'm sure you're not going into this genuinely looking at how it could work. You're looking at how to disprove it so you can go back to advocating aggression and theft without any guilt.
And there's stories about big foot and alien abductions online too. If it hasn't worked before why would work now after we have built our modern society?
Quote:
It is, as I explained above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you don't believe that non-aggression and voluntary interaction are enough to "run" society, then what are the ways in which state violence should be used against YOU? What things should YOU be forced to fund that you don't really want to fund? What choices should YOU be forced to make that you otherwise wouldn't?"
I'm not sure if that was an attempt to answer the question. Name something that you're against that you should be forced to fund, or name something that you do/don't want to do that you should be forced to do/not do anyway.
Human existence requires compromise as absolutism doesn't lead to peace.
I generally disagree with your use of the word "force". You can't just change the meaning of a word to suit your needs. I'm not forced to do anything as if I felt so strongly I could leave the country or merely move to place that better suits my prerogative.
How do you feel about the squatter community of slab city?
Quote:
If you dodge that, I'll assume you're a coward. I also calls it like I sees it.
You can assume what you want. I still say it's ginger bread houses and fairy god mothers on your part.
You have no workable solution or blueprint to your ideals.
That entirely depends on your philosophy of human nature.
If you believe the people are fundamentally flawed, and will use any means necessary to achieve there ends, then it's flawed. But then so is any other social construct, because they all pivot on that fundamental flaw. If people use any means necessary to achieve their ends, then that includes governments, and people in governments will use their positions to achieve their ends, and they won't care about the people they're hurting, they'll merely be concerned about their ends.
If you believe that people are fundamentally decent, or even apathetic, then it will function because it's easier and less taxing for the apathetic to get along than be in conflict. Clearly some are not fundamentally decent or apathetic, but societies have dealt with these people before. Non-initiation of violence does not mean pacifist. I'm not going to throw the first punch, but I'm totally prepared to put you in the ground if you do.
And what if you don't put me into the ground?
The four horseman of the apocalypse have existed in many forms throughout human history for a reason.
- "I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." - Harriet Tubman
- "I didn't know I was a slave until I found out I couldn't do the things I wanted."
- "To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate his power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. THE MAN THAT TAKES HIS EARNINGS, MUST BE ABLE TO CONVINCE HIM THAT HE HAS A PERFECT RIGHT TO DO SO. It must not depend upon mere force; the slave must know no Higher Law than his master's will. The whole relationship must not only demonstrate, to his mind, its necessity, but its absolute rightfulness." - Frederick Douglass
Sound familiar?
The Douglass quote is so transcendent. I suppose it will be til the involuntary state is diffused.
"Annihilate his power of reason" really touches a nerve. I'm nobody special. Maybe an above average IQ, a couple of degrees, and I keep myself out of the way of others. I feel hopeless when so many skilled/intelligent/thoughtful people buy into the state. If only they could see within their own self all the good things they could do in a logical/moral stateless society. So much more than I could contribute.
The panic inducers (as illustrated by your debating opponents in this thread) can only feel fear when thinking of the unknown. The belief that sociopaths and Hitlers are the norm not the exception hence the need for an involuntary state makes me wonder how these people even think life is worth living.
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.
