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.
Initiating force is immoral. Self-defense and retaliation (in the form of scorn/shunning) are perfectly moral. It's that simple.
I walk across a plot of land and you say its yours and/or build a fence to prevent me. You are the initial of force. I agree it is that simple.
Quote:
Unlike the state, us anarcho-capitalists don't reward/incentivize bad behavior. On the contrary, we would like to use extreme shunning to really punish wrong doers. Unfortunately the state will not let us punish people as to mold behavior.
Saying you re not like a state doesn't mean you are not. If you rule over land you are a government and you use force. Otherwise you cannot claim property that you never created.
Quote:
The state is an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all, mythical entity the has no authority yet hordes the means of production. It is the definition of a force initiation.
Undifferentiated from any claim to own land.
Quote:
Let force come to my door, as long as its not promoted by the state and a state doesn't inhibit my ability to defend myself.
If you want to trust the government and its rule to protect you and promote your ability to defend yourself go right ahead. A few decades in the CJ field including loss prevention tells me you'd be a fool to do so.
We certainty have a foolish government. Its well beyond the scale of manageability . Not only does a large federal government have too large a size to manage, it largely eliminates competition. Why can't we just go back to the states which provides competition just like a free market? Choose your own government , but with a mutual defense pact and trade union.
However your approach is a direct route to totalitarianism. Just like Montesquieu said, the more freedom you have, the closer you are to losing it. The Maiden protest in Ukraine is just another example. The resolution in the revolution often results in a new despotic power that the freedom of revolution provides. I mean you do realize this has been tried. Maxism that freed workers became Leninist " war communism" and is something else entirely.
I just don't get it. All it takes is one in a million to join ranks and anarchists become slaves.
We must have continually present to our minds the difference between independence and liberty. Liberty is a right of doing whatever the laws permit; and, if a citizen could do what they forbid, he would be no longer possessed of liberty, because all his fellow-citizens would have the same power.
Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu
THE power of the sword is more sensibly felt in an extensive monarchy than in a small community. It has been calculated by the ablest politicians, that no state, without being soon exhausted, can maintain above the hundredth part of its members in arms and idleness. But although this relative proportion may be uniform, the influence of the army over the rest of the society will vary according to the degree of its positive strength. The advantages of military science and discipline cannot be exerted, unless a proper number of soldiers are united into one body, and actuated by one soul. With a handful of men, such an union would be ineffectual; with an unwieldy hosts it would be impracticable; and the powers of the machine would be alike destroyed by the extreme minuteness, or the excessive weight, of its springs. To illustrate this observation we need only reflect, that there is no superiority of natural strength, artificial weapons, or acquired skill, which could enable one man to keep in constant subjection one hundred of his fellow creatures: the tyrant of a single town, or a small district, would soon discover that an hundred armed followers were a weak defence against ten thousand peasants or citizens; but an hundred thousand well disciplined soldiers will command, with despotic sway, ten millions of subjects; and a body of ten or fifteen thousand guards will strike terror into the most numerous populace that ever crowded the streets of an immense capital.
Gibbon, The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
The Mongols demonstrated the same principle. A very small group controlled an asonishig amount of territory. You just don't have an ideology that is applicable to humans. You'd be lucky to see it work on ants and termites.
A small group that has no control over a valuable resource may work for awhile.
I walk across a plot of land and you say its yours and/or build a fence to prevent me. You are the initial of force. I agree it is that simple.
Huh? Why would I build a fence?
Quote:
Saying you re not like a state doesn't mean you are not. If you rule over land you are a government and you use force. Otherwise you cannot claim property that you never created.
Anarcho-capitalists believe in self-ownership and very limited private ownership from the fruits of our labor or using resources at a certain time to sustain ourselves.
Quote:
Undifferentiated from any claim to own land.
There has to be a certain level of work via personal labor to claim the usage (not really ownership as you would define it) of land. I'm not a sociopath nor am I a psychopath. Statists believe the world is full of them at a clip of around 99%.
Say I find a nice spread by a lake and set up shop. House, pipes, water, heat, AC...the whole nine yards. One day I come home and I find a stranger in my house. He says he lives there now.
I wouldn't panic nor would I need to use violence against him. My reputation within the community and thru the clauses of my voluntary contracts/associations would make the stranger's life so miserable he would be out rather quick. With any luck, depending on the foresight in my contracts, the man wouldn't be able to barter/buy any service/product in a 100-mile radius.
This is the opposite of your statist world where private citizens are helpless against psychos/bad folks.
The "law" is riddled with "rights" for them. This is why burglars sue homeowners when they sprain their ankles running out the back door.
Yeah, that's fantastic justice Sam provides you.
The "small government" theory is hogwash...btw.
Look, the social contract is a fake. A sham. It's Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny all in one. A human being cannot enter into any agreement simply by being born. If you believe that...I can't help you.
The only way the public sector gets money is through taxation, which is forcefully taking money from people whether they agree to it or not. It's the mafia model. The private sector can only get your money if you decide to give it to them (or by bribing the state to legislate money to them...forcing people to buy their insurance or creating excessive regulations to prevent competition from springing up). I don't see how there's any argument against that fact.
That's brilliant. Let's privatize policing and if you don't want to pay for it (or can't afford to) then the cops won't show up when you call 911. Privatize fire and if you are late paying your bill your house burns down. Privatize road construction and your street would end at your property line because your neighbor decided they didn't want to pay for the road in front of their house. lolol
That's brilliant. Let's privatize policing and if you don't want to pay for it (or can't afford to) then the cops won't show up when you call 911. Privatize fire and if you are late paying your bill your house burns down. Privatize road construction and your street would end at your property line because your neighbor decided they didn't want to pay for the road in front of their house. lolol
I'm sorry you don't have much of an imagination. There are more options than having one police force you pay for or not, and one fire department you pay for or not. Those examples have been done so many times that it isn't worth addressing...Muh roads, muh fire, muh police...
I'm sorry you don't have much of an imagination. There are more options than having one police force you pay for or not, and one fire department you pay for or not. Those examples have been done so many times that it isn't worth addressing...Muh roads, muh fire, muh police...
How about addressing it to those who haven't read previous posts about this. Enlighten us because I haven't read these posts either
I'm sorry you don't have much of an imagination. There are more options than having one police force you pay for or not, and one fire department you pay for or not. Those examples have been done so many times that it isn't worth addressing...Muh roads, muh fire, muh police...
Oh that's a dandy answer, seems like someone doesn't have an answer
When you privatize a government service, it becomes for profit.
It works for some things like like shipping or education as long as there is still a government alternative to compete with.
I does not work for things like Law enforcement, Military, or Prisons where having to turn a profit or compete is inherently bad for society.
Privatization is just bad..
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.
