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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
What good would that do? As I said in an earlier post, it's naive to think they'll rule against themselves, or go along with something that goes against their own interests.
The state relies on people's belief in it's legitimacy in order to exist. Someone like me coming along and pointing out that it isn't legitimate will be met with full resistance.
Honestly, I view it as the mafia demanding money because you're in their territory, and someone says that you should ask them to stop if you have a problem with it. Wouldn't be surprised if that did more harm than good.
The government in this country is voted into office by the people; the mafia on the other hand is all by "appointment" with guys who all grew up together and are usually the same ethnicity. Not a good comparison
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
So if I come over to your house early one morning as you sleep, mow your lawn, and then knock on your door and say "Hey Phil, I just cut your grass for you. That will be $500"...you'd pay me?
And btw...I have a gun pointed straight at your head as I deliver that bill.
So what's it going to be? Would you pay me? If so, would you have a problem with that (especially if I do it every week)?
Cuz that's exactly what you are promoting.
A better analogy is the rent you pay your landlord every month, I've never had a landlord hold a gun to my head....
You and your landlord have a personal contract consented on prior to services rendered.
He maintains the land/structure. He owns it. You voluntarily consent to the terms in which you may live on that land in that structure.
That was a softball. You can do better than that.
If you voluntarily live here as a citizen, your consent is implied, and carries the force of a written contract. Live with it or find somewhere that everyone thinks like you do.
Nothing. Obviously. If there was something substantive to say, they'd say it. When not, but have a desire to disagree all the same, something like this is said. An all too common strategy; it's internet discourse 101, if it can be called discourse. Bland, substance-less words stringed together masquerading as a clever, pithy statement; likely read in the voice of Clint Eastwood for the author but read in the voice of PeeWee Herman for everyone else.
First, in the section of the post of mine you quoted, chaos results.
Second, because when two parties are in a dispute, there's a higher authority to appeal to. And no, a collection of non-state individuals is not a higher authority because they will join a group only when it is to their advantage to do so, i.e. if they get something out of it or prevent a bigger bad from happening to them. Even then, definitions are going to vary far too widely among individuals to make this kind of collective security reliable. All this makes ad hoc alliances formed to deal with one specific event untrustworthy get-togethers at best. This reason does a lot of explain the first.
Third, given humanity's track record, humans simply cannot be trusted to behave peacefully and non-exploitatively toward others who are weaker in some way than they are. In this case, organized representative republics are the lesser of the evils. Any other arrangement will definitely lead to increased instability and insecurity for the individuals.
As for "rule", I simply go by the common everyday idea of what "rule" means in a societal/governmental context.
Again, "taking stuff" is slavery ONLY if society as a whole gets money in return for it. EVERYBODY has their taxes go to programs they dislike and even detest (for liberals, it's charter schools and voucher programs, plus overfunding of national defense; for conservatives its abortion or even birth control for minors). No social situation is perfect, not even an ancap one. It's that social democracy is the least bad of all governments - see Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Germany especially for details, but practically every NW European country will do.
Oh, BTW, I listed programs taxpayers benefit from. Beyond the oft-stated national defense and police force (internal defense for individuals and society), there's also mitigating against natural disasters. I benefited several times from Mississippi River levees, which the private sector would never found profitable to build, nor even could afford to build on its own, without tax funding. Hell, I don't mind MY OWN tax dollars going to help people in California prepare for earthquake mitigation, nor do I mind my tax dollars going to work fighting western forest fires or the effects of Superstorm Sandy (have we even paid for that one yet?). In your system, only the very wealthy would find any benefit and/or relief from harm. The other 99% and certainly 50%, "Too bad, so sad, but that's life". No thanks! Give me a state responsive to the people's needs any day over the absence of any state at all!
A good chunk of this is just assertions, so I'll just respond to that with my own...nope, I disagree.
Keep in mind that the burden of proof is not on me to prove that such and such "works" in a voluntary society, but I'm responding anyway. The burden is really on you to prove that force against peaceful people is a truly necessary evil.
Dispute resolution - You can agree to third party arbitration, which acts as a higher authority. In the case that someone doesn't agree to this, one general concept to deal with it is to refuse services to the alleged criminal until they clear their name. I won't do a full explanation right now, so I'll leave it at that.
The humans can't be trusted thing - That's exactly why you can't give some of them political power over the rest of us.
Taking stuff from people without their consent isn't made okay by giving them something in return. A trade has to have agreement from both sides.
Being forced to pay for things you disagree with - yes, exactly. The fact that it happens to everyone doesn't justify it. You should be able to withhold your money from causes you think are evil or damaging.
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.
