Why do people in government get an exemption from morality?

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

It simply means that all of your claims about virtues of stateless, libertarian societies are as good as unicorn stories.

Yeah, and so was the internet before it existed, and cars, and airplanes... etc... Duh.

You don't think our government and society is successful? I do.

Pfft. Yeah, sure.

The enormous national debt means success, right? The erosion of rights in the name of fighting terror means a successful government, right? They suck at what they do, period.

"Bla bla, statism, bla bla corrupt, bla bla based on force" just like a broken record..

Translation: "I have no rational argument against what you are saying so I won't address it what so ever."

Wake up and smell the roses! Take a look look around: this "corrupt institution" build this country, it's infrastructure, with a society that's better educated, healthier and safer than EVER before. Same here and invariably in any other developed country.

Fallacy.

Before cars, horses handled transportation. Before cars, the societies that had better transportation used horses, therefore, the ultimate answer to transportation is horses, right?

According to your logic the answer would be yes.

You think the institution of state is corrupt and we are cult members? I don't have to come with any bs about how great this society is, everybody can see. You guys are cult members pushing your mindless and full of holes propaganda about a political system that never was and most likely never will be. You are cult members believing in your nonsense that has NEVER been proven to actually WORK IN REAL LIFE outside of academic discussions.

Name calling is against the rules of the forum.

At one point, internal combustion engines had NEVER been proven to actually WORK IN REAL LIFE outside academic discussions. By your logic, they should have never caught on because at one point they didn't exist.

Still relying on nothing but logical fallacies, I see. Easier than trying to defend the irrational with logic, isn't it?

Everybody reading this topic realized long time ago that you guys are talking about an utopian society that has never been proven to work. I am sorry but we will rather stick to our imperfect, yet predictable and proven through centuries traditional society.

Uh, society has changed WILDLY throughout the centuries. Thanks for exposing your ignorance again, in case anyone was still in doubt.

[urbanlife78]

Tax season is upon us.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

Internet, cars, planes are technological advancements which had to be invented, libertarianism / anarchism / agorism however, have been around for quite some time, so your comparison doesn't make any sense.

You guys go around and promote this crazy story as an alternative yet no society was ever crazy enough to organize itself based on this Utopian philosophy.... Coincidence?

I am pretty sure though, that the end result would be similar to communism/socialism: great rhetoric, great ideas and horrible reality when Utopian ideology met reality and then some opportunists simply taking advantage of the situation.

Exposing one absurdity should be enough for this poster.

Exposing the absurdity of your own argument for all to see.

You seriously just dig your hole deeper. If libertarianism/anarchism/agorism, *three separate things *, have never been tried, how have they "been around for quite some time"?

Logic, kid, logic.

Does that mean that galactic travel has "been around for quite some time", because people have talked about how it would work, but haven't done it yet?

All you can do is call names and avoid arguments while posting fallacious drivel, it is amusing.

(Post Script: Utopian means a society aiming for a state in which everything is perfect, which is not what anarchists, libertarians, or agorists are aiming for. A society that rejects the initiation of force on peaceful people has nothing to do with perfection.)

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

You don't understand? The ideologies of libertarianism / anarchism / agorism have been developed and formulated long time ago and still no nation was ever crazy enough trying to organize itself based on these absurd philosophies.

Here I agree, both galactic travel and anarchism/libertarinism/agorism belong to the genre of science-fiction.
Right next to unicorn stories.

No. Utopian means "impossible in reality" - synonym: unrealistic.

Here:

"Adjective[edit]
utopian (comparative more utopian, superlative most utopian)

Ideal but often impractical; visionary.
a utopian project
of or pertaining to or resembling a utopia
utopian happiness
Synonyms[edit]
unrealistic"

utopian - Wiktionary

1. What's absurd about a society that isn't based upon the initiation of force?

2. What is utopian about it? More specifically, what's utopian about people interacting voluntarily? I think it's way more utopian to think that violence and force will do any good in creating a civil society. People just argue over the right combination or amount of it. Its like saying we need group to violent dominate us to protect us from anyone else that wants to violently dominate us.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

You try to apply terms from your utopian ideology to explain real life problems. Don't.
There is no such a thing as "initiation of force" in real life. There is only human interaction, based on human psychology.

Not sure what you mean by that...so if you're minding your own business and I come up and punch you, it didn't really happen in real life?

Because whenever people organize they create governing bodies. That's the most effective way to organize.

Thats the thing...if there was an airplane that crashed on an island and the survivors decided to just live there, what would make the most sense? Every man for himself? Somebody is given the power to rule the others? People just live and work together without a king or ruling class?

A scenario I imagine is that you have 5 guys on this isolated island...guy #1 is a charismatic guy, and he goes to guy #2 and says "you trust me right? If you put me in charge of everybody, I'll make sure those other 3 guys don't try to hurt you or steal from you. Ill represent you and force those guys to do what you think is best for everyone. I'll even provide some services for you." Guy #2 starts worrying about the other guys and thinks about how life would be great if only his ideas were enforced...so he decides to agree to that deal.

Guy #1 proceeds to go to guy #3 and give the exact same speech. Then guy #4, then guy #5. They all agree to this deal in hopes that their ideas are enforced on the others. In the end, the guy who benefits is guy #1. He rules the island...he doesn't really do what they all want (and he can't...they all have differing opinions so he can't truly represent them) and he hurts them if they disobey him, but they think "well this isn't a perfect system, but without our ruler we'd just descend into chaos."

If I were on the island, I would have said "....why do you need to rule us? We can all work together as equals and accomplish the same things. If someone causes trouble, we can organize to protect ourselves and deal with that person."

But "the force and violence" as you call it built a pretty good society where only a small percentage is complaining...
Then again, there is no chance that everyone will ever be satisfied at the same time.

By the way, can you tell when if there was ever a society based on voluntarism? When and where?

As has been said already, it doesn't matter whether there has been one yet or not. There was never a society as free as the U.S. before, but it ended up becoming the most wealthy. The founders were pretty radical for their time. I actually do have a couple examples though...Ireland and Iceland were both stateless societies at certain points in history. I forget the details but I know it was for a couple hundred years.

Also, there are so many examples of "anarchy" in action in our everyday lives. Look at grocery stores...people grow and make the food, people deliver it to the stores, people sell the food, and people buy the food. All of that happens without anyone being forced to do it by a higher authority. If there were laws forcing food to be grown, delivered, and distributed to everybody, I GUARANTEE many people would say "without government, we'd all starve. Who would create all the food and provide it for us?"

Reminds me of the old soviet joke where the two women are standing in line for their weekly food rations and one complains about the long lines and how little food they get and the other says "you should feel lucky...In the western countries the government doesn't give out any rations at all!"

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

Yes it did, but trying to describe real life events with SUBJECTIVE terms like "initiation of force" fail to explain anything.

It's not a subjective term. Initiating force is being the one who uses violence or force first. If I attack you, you can use force back to defend yourself, but whoever uses force against a non-violent person is the one who is wrong.

No, you can't accomplish the same things without establishing who is in charge. Every cooperation requires coordination, every team needs a leader to make sure that we don't double our efforts.
It's very simple and intuitive and that's why people do it each and every time there is group effort to do anything. It's not about causing trouble, it's all about teamwork and effectiveness.

I agree, but that leader shouldn't be allowed to RULE over everyone. The thing I'm against is saying it's okay for that person to initiate force, even if they are "the leader".

What does growing food has to do with organizing the entire society on that principle? That's a different scale altogether.

I'm saying that people don't need someone threatening them with violence in order for things to function. Food is extremely important, but we don't have anyone forced to produce, sell, or buy it. We have a huge surplus of food actually...it was just one example of how important things don't require force to be accomplished. If people want it, they aren't gonna stand around not doing anything about it because nobody is giving them orders.

If Trotsky won the power struggle, Russia could have experienced blessings of anarchy instead of communism. Do you think the lines for food would be longer or shorter than under the bolsheviks?

Not sure about that one but if people are allowed to interact freely, trade freely, start a business freely...I'd bet there would be more than they ever need.

Anarchy is just a lack of a political system...not a new system. Nobody is "running society" because nobody can run society. They can pretend they know what's best for everyone, but that requires knowledge and wisdom that no person can ever have. I don't have the right to boss you around and take your money because I know what's best for you, and I hope I get the same respect back.

[Annuvin]

Originally Posted by texdav

Both JFK; Nixon and Clinton on left huge stains on the presidency for me.

Nixon aside, are you saying that the sexual escapades of JFK and Slick Willy are in some way more shameful and have left bigger stains on the Presidency than the shenanigans that have taken place in the White House ever since Baby Bush was elected in 2001?

In 2001, the national debt was $5.7 trillion.
In 2015, the national debt stands at a staggering $18 trillion and counting.

Good to see the extramarital affairs of JFK and Clinton are more important to you than the financial future of your grandchildren.

[Xander_Crews]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

You don't understand? The ideologies of libertarianism / anarchism / agorism have been developed and formulated long time ago and still no nation was ever crazy enough trying to organize itself based on these absurd philosophies.

The ONLY philosophy this discussion is about, is the rejection of force being initiated upon peaceful people. It is so incredibly telling, that you think rejecting initiation of violence upon peaceful people is "absurd".

You do realize that galactic travel ideas have been developed and formulated a long time ago, still nobody has ever executed those ideas... that means that space travel between galaxies will never happen and is simply absurd, right?

That is the logical conclusion to your argument, because you are relying on a fallacy and you are too uneducated to even realize it.

Here I agree, both galactic travel and anarchism/libertarinism/agorism belong to the genre of science-fiction.
Right next to unicorn stories.

Cute, you don't think that technology can advance us far enough to get outside of our galaxy... because it hasn't happened yet. Thanks for pushing your credibility to new lows.

At one point people with your mindset thought cars were impossible, look what happened. You should try joining the Flat Earth Society, they share your level of reason almost completely.

No. Utopian means "impossible in reality" - synonym: unrealistic.

Ha, ha ha, let me rip your ignorance apart. Remember when I told you to keep digging? Thanks for obliging.

If synonym for Utopian means impossible in reality, that would mean time travel is Utopian, that would me that getting more energy out of an event than was put in, was Utopian. To be Utopian it has to be a society that is trying to create a perfect world AND impractical. Maybe you should read definitions before you post them?

The clear answer here, is your your comprehension sucks. If you think that Utopias are simply "impossible societies" and that they don't, by definition, aim to create an ideal or perfect world, you either can't read your own definition, or can't comprehend it.

Here:
"Adjective[edit]
utopian (comparative more utopian, superlative most utopian)

Ideal but often impractical; visionary.
a utopian project
of or pertaining to or resembling a utopia
utopian happiness
Synonyms[edit]
unrealistic"

Libertarians/anarchist/agorist are NOT trying to create an "ideal" world, they all accept fundamentally that the world can NOT be "ideal". They are proposed systems of governance to reduce the bad in a world where Utopia is impossible.

Lol, seriously thanks for taking the shovel from my hands when I asked you to dig a deeper hole for yourself and then moving dirt so vigorously, it is a hoot. I define Utopian for you, and then you say "Nuh, uh, It is THIS definition!". You then post a definition that shows that I was right and that you are only using the partial definition to speak dishonestly. Classic.

I think this is why very few readers are deciding to jump in on your side, they might agree with you, but they don't want to be on your "side" and be associated with your nutty jumps in logic, fallacious arguments, and straight up lies.

[T0103E]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

Of course it is absurd as force is necessary. We need to force people to obey social rules otherwise we would have... anarchy.

Would you say there needs to be one set of rules that everyone obeys?