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.
In Ancapistan bullying and tyranny would still occur it would just be corporations and rich people instead of the state which apparently is somehow better? In fact it seems very unlikely that such a society would remain stateless as corporations would create state like structures.
How do you envision that happening when the population doesn't acknowledge the corporation's right to rule over them? A corporation can't control 300 million people by brute force, so it would have to be some other way.
But yeah, of course bullying and tyranny would still occur. Bad people will always exist. It just wouldn't be systematic large-scale bullying and tyranny. If you told some ancient tribe to stop sacrificing innocent people to the gods, and they replied "Murder will still exist even if we stop"...well yeah...so?
It doesn't appeal to anyone with functioning brain cells. How has anarchy worked out as a societal construct in the past? Are we seriously having this ridiculous discussion? I have some tin foil hats you may be interested in.
Anarchy isn't a "societal construct". It's natural law.
A societal construct would be the social contract which is what you believe in. You know, the one that says you're contracted to the prevailing rulers of the geographic area in which you happened to slide out of a vagina in.
How do you envision that happening when the population doesn't acknowledge the corporation's right to rule over them? A corporation can't control 300 million people by brute force, so it would have to be some other way.
It wouldn't necessarily happen overnight over time as people become more disenfranchised it would not matter if they consent to it or not they would be serfs under a new master. A great example of this happened in Colorado in the late 19th and early 20th century. A handful of large conglomerates controlled coal mining so wages were kept low. The miners demanded fair pay and striked and the coal mining executives sent in soldiers to suppress the miners culminating in several high profile massacres of workers like the Ludlow massacre of 1914 or the Columbine massacre of 1927. Those miners did not consent to be shot simply for wanting higher pay but it happened anyway because the power was heavily in the owners favor. With even less of a state to hold people like that in check you would have runaway tyranny it would just be a company instead of a government.
Consider yourself extremely lucky that Statism exists. I suspect folks like you would get eaten alive (metaphorically speaking) if your fantasy world actually came to fruition. The video was a 12 minute whine-a-thon. In summary: "whah, whah, whah....I don't like it when I have to make compromises for the sake of society as a whole....whah, whah". Petulant infants.
Statism is why the U.S. can bomb people all over the world.
Statism is why the government can throw you in jail for smoking a plant or sniffing a white powder made out of a plant.
Statism is why the government can steal your money and property from you without you being charged with a crime.
Statism is why black people were forced to use separate drinking fountains and were prevented from buying guns to protect themselves.
You really don't know how to formulate an argument do you? Name calling and baseless assertions are not that.
What you're saying is that the minority must sacrifice their rights to the majority, or else they're whiny crybabies.
Speaking of children, it reminds me of a kid I grew up with. He would try to bully people, and when they stood up for themselves he'd act like they were the bad guy. It's hypocritical, just like statism.
It's every textbook, stereotypical response. Statists can't refute with facts so they fall back on cliches like Lord of the Flies, Somalia, strongmen, "who will build the roads," etc.
In Ancapistan bullying and tyranny would still occur it would just be corporations and rich people instead of the state which apparently is somehow better? In fact it seems very unlikely that such a society would remain stateless as corporations would create state like structures.
In Ancapistan there would be no corporations, as corporations are State creations.
Anarchy isn't a "societal construct". It's natural law.
A societal construct would be the social contract which is what you believe in. You know, the one that says you're contracted to the prevailing rulers of the geographic area in which you happened to slide out of a vagina in.
The reason coal companies, like railroad companies, were so powerful was due to State interference, otherwise known as crony capitalism. The lobbies for those industries controlled the politicians, like Raytheon, Northrup-Grumman, and Lockheed do now.
My concern is that without any government, organized crime rings would take over. Business owners being intimidated into paying for "protection", street justice, turf wars, etc.
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.
Are we seriously having this ridiculous discussion? I have some tin foil hats you may be interested in.
