Are you a statist?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Sure because I have no clue what it would be a copout to. I've responded to everything. What am I copouting out of? lol

Yeah its a malfunction in the brain that self knowledge can aid. One day one day.

Since you seem so certain of your enlightenment, it shouldn't be hard for you to outline a plan for replacing the current system of coercive taxation and oppressive governance once the "slaves" have been "freed."

@mairuzu

while the government is an abstraction, its reality is self-evident, because its agents aren't just random individuals, their behavior is coordinate and largely determined by said government's hierarchy and ideology. this very concrete collective agency justifies the use of the term. now, you may claim it has no legitimacy and therefore no authority, but it most certainly has power, which is really the core of the issue.

now please: how would the non-aggression principle be maintained in a hypothetical voluntary society? how would the economy of this hypothetical society be organized exactly?

@inimal

Its a brief summary of what most people argue against telling them that taxation is coercive. I'm sure that is the main point. As well as the social contract not existing in the sense that I have to pay because a group of people say I have to.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's a copout because I asked if you had a solution for this moral travesty and you replied with a paragraph of "fight the machine, throw off the shackles of the system" tripe.

Since you seem so certain of your enlightenment, it shouldn't be hard for you to outline a plan for replacing the current system of coercive taxation and oppressive governance once the "slaves" have been "freed."

I am only one man. If I say I have a solution I would just be government and force everyone to do as I say. All that is needed is for people to give up the religion that is statism and their illusion of authority and realize how destructive it is. You can imagine all the types of governments theres been around with people imagining their right to rule. I can't blame them though, indoctrination works well on the child mind as they grow.

I can only free myself. It begins in the mind.

"I prefer the tumult of liberty over the quiet of servitude" as that slave owner would say.

I shake the cages all I can and let people know how compliance is destructive. How these turn to empires and empires fall. It most likely wont happen in my time but I'll gladly aid it.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
I am only one man. If I say I have a solution I would just be government and force everyone to do as I say. All that is needed is for people to give up the religion that is statism and their illusion of authority and realize how destructive it is. You can imagine all the types of governments theres been around with people imagining their right to rule. I can't blame them though, indoctrination works well on the child mind as they grow.

I can only free myself. It begins in the mind.

YouTube video

YouTube video

we are talking about anarchy, these are pretty good 🙂

No its not but the first step is seeing the cage you're in.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
No its not but the first step is seeing the cage you're in.

Ya and we don't even need an authoritative mod of some kind.

As for the 3D printers, I hope that advances quick.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
You can keep repeating "its real its real, I say its real" over and over but you've yet to provide any proof. The arbitrary lines drawn on a map that we imagine in our heads? That's not REAL. Have you ever thought about what the word "real" even means? It seems like this is yet another inevitable semantics battle. The people in costumes are real. They have guns, those are real. They have buildings with logos, those are real. What is NOT real is the AUTHORITY that is IMAGINED by a COLLECTIVE to have. That authority is not real.

What is Freedom to you? Are you free from taxation? Are you free from democratic rule? These laws that say you cannot do this and you have to do that?

What is slavery to you?

You said freedom is REAL and then you're trying to say voluntary (which is freedom) isnt real?

Its amazing how you guys bash Anarchy while you live with it everyday. 😆

You don't have the government in your social affairs do you? You love having the freedom to pick what to eat, what to buy and what to wear. Yet you are indoctrinated so well to defend your masters you call government and need them to be there for everything else and then some. I'm sure you dont favor the wars and killing children with drones we collectively pay for. If you do then, theres no point arguing with me. You'd be a fool.

I agree with you there, it's more or less semantics we're talking about here.
The power a state can and does exercise is very real and that's more than enough proof for me(all moral, philosophical, and ethical questions aside).

I know very well that I'm not free from taxation or democratic rule, I know that my freedom is not unlimited, but I'm not a slave either. It's always nice to hear someone call me a slave so I can be reminded just how far off from a slave I really am.

I'm not saying a voluntary society isn't real or couldn't be real, but there's nothing preventing someone from declaring it not real and attempting to enforce his/her rules on others.

Actually, my government doesn't build drones or start wars and only helps with peacekeeping missions. I have my hands more or less clean on that one. Regardless, I have nothing but cold apathy for my government and wouldn't be sorry to see it go if we had some sort of a post-scarcity tech going on. That, however, is still a pipe dream. Until then, it's better the devil you know...

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
To annoy you, I guess. Also, oil.

Stupid USA, even invading my make-believe islands for oil. 🙁

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd entertain arguments against it, but taxes to me are like a byproduct, not an actual issue themselves. Like, tax rate should be = spending rate, and I'm sure there are interesting arguments about how or where to raise that revenue from, its just not as interesting to me. If it isn't reasonably possible to pay the bills without the income tax, then you sort of need to have it, or you need to rethink spending.

This may seem odd but 3-4 years ago, we had this same exact conversation. We both agreed that, while we would prefer the utopia where everyone gets along without the need of government, things like government and taxes are a necessary evil.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
...but I'm actually really a fan of how Nietzsche put it. Some people are naturally more powerful and willing to harm others for, literally, no good reason. Some limitations need to be put on those "powerful" individuals to prevent them from enacting the worst forms of violence against us. Thus, the social contract is like, a self-limiter. What is more interesting to me, is there must be a window of how much limitation a person needs vs their own personal desires designed by evolution, and we only limit as much as we had to so that we survived. Its like, the limit of how much of a dick we can be to each other... idk, I'm a geek for evolutionary arms races...

We (coursework) never covered that stuff regarding Nietzsche (the powerful and social contract). That sounds interesting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We (coursework) never covered that stuff regarding Nietzsche (the powerful and social contract). That sounds interesting.

Wait, I didn't say that!

Originally posted by 753
@mairuzu

while the government is an abstraction, its reality is self-evident, because its agents aren't just random individuals, their behavior is coordinate and largely determined by said government's hierarchy and ideology. this very concrete collective agency justifies the use of the term. now, you may claim it has no legitimacy and therefore no authority, but it most certainly has power, which is really the core of the issue.

now please: how would the non-aggression principle be maintained in a hypothetical voluntary society? how would the economy of this hypothetical society be organized exactly?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What is Freedom to you? Are you free from taxation? Are you free from democratic rule? These laws that say you cannot do this and you have to do that?

This line of reasoning leads to absurd results.

"I should be free to do this and that."

this = raping children and old people

that = hunting down humans for sport

We give up "this" and "that" for other freedoms. You are free to live your life without having to fortify your abode from the perpetrators of "this" and "that." If you have to constantly watch your back and the backs of your loved ones, your other freedoms take a drastic hit.

I am positive that there are those out there that really really really wish they could openly exercise the freedoms of "this" and "that", but they are restricted from doing so because we have, as a people, generally agreed that some sort of laws and police-force are necessary.

Now, you and I obviously agree that we've gone a bit ape-shit with all the rules we call "laws" in the US. There are so many different opinions out there at what level these laws should govern that we cannot do much about our current situation. However, I noticed something: those people that are between 15-35 are getting pretty damn tired of this over-governing. Just guessing, but I think we will eventually see quite a few law changes over the next 3 decades...at least, a loosening of the laws. It would help if people like you ran for public office.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Wait, I didn't say that!

DAMN QUOTE TAG COPY-PASTE SHIT!

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I agree with you there, it's more or less semantics we're talking about here.
The power a state can and does exercise is very real and that's more than enough proof for me(all moral, philosophical, and ethical questions aside).

I know very well that I'm not free from taxation or democratic rule, I know that my freedom is not unlimited, but I'm not a slave either. It's always nice to hear someone call me a slave so I can be reminded just how far off from a slave I really am.

Its definitely not overt slavery. People operate better when they are allowed to choose in a free-ranged farm. We become batteries of the state or tax cows. Its whatever you want to call it but definitions should be put down before debates 😛

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
[B]
I'm not saying a voluntary society isn't real or couldn't be real, but there's nothing preventing someone from declaring it not real and attempting to enforce his/her rules on others.

Oh well yeah, there's nothing preventing free speech and people preaching their religions either but they do. I'm sure the mob does this but they mostly profit off government created black markets in the first place, due to their "laws" and all. Words backed up by guns and collective acceptance.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory

Actually, my government doesn't build drones or start wars and only helps with peacekeeping missions. I have my hands more or less clean on that one. Regardless, I have nothing but cold apathy for my government and wouldn't be sorry to see it go [b]if we had some sort of a post-scarcity tech going on. That, however, is still a pipe dream. Until then, it's better the devil you know... [/B]

Do we truly know our governments or what they do and the sort of control placed on our economies? hmm

Better no devil at all.

Government/taxation/etc are not a perfect system, but they are better than the alternative. Without them there would be little choice but to live in small collectives each eking out an existence. If one had need of something from another locale, then one would have to communicate with the people there and make some kind of arrangement. Likely a consensus would have to be reached by a group within that collective to make sure that everyone would feel safe about the transaction, and so on and so fourth. This would either remain small time and be a situation in which everyone lives with a general sense of unease, or it would build into a government system of some sort.

The only times I read or see anything close to utopias is in novels and films in which there is an incredibly small population whose entire set of needs is met without issue, and this generally accomplished by a great utilization of advanced technology. A planet with billions in population, haves and have nots, and a myriad of cultures and religious in all likelihood is an environment incapable of existing as anything like a utopia. We could come relatively close if interactions were kept to a relatively small scale, but that's not likely to happen either. Governments may give the illusion of freedom in some senses, but it is that same system that makes it relatively safe to travel as you like and to interact with those you choose to.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may seem odd but 3-4 years ago, we had this same exact conversation. We both agreed that, while we would prefer the utopia where everyone gets along without the need of government, things like government and taxes are a necessary evil.

well, I'd say in the modern world they are currently necessary, sure

Originally posted by dadudemon
We (coursework) never covered that stuff regarding Nietzsche (the powerful and social contract). That sounds interesting.

I only really know him from a Religion and Violence course I took. He doesn't talk about it specifically, but his conflict between the Ubermench and social norms can kind of be seen as that compromise between liberty and society. I'm not even sure Nietzsche would support a social contract, as he saw these moral systems as destructive in many ways. Which is true, for as much as society does benefit us, it also does tremendous harm.

God, now that I'm even thinking about it, that struggle, the strong being oppressed by the many, is like, personified in its most terrible way by Elsworth Thooey in Rand's Fountainhead...

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Oh well yeah, there's nothing preventing free speech and people preaching their religions either but they do. I'm sure the mob does this but they mostly profit off government created black markets in the first place, due to their "laws" and all. Words backed up by guns and collective acceptance.

that sort of misses the point though... yes, government makes the black market because it specifically makes things illegal. sure. And with no government, there is no black market. However, what you still have are people willing to exploit each other for financial gain, now operating as the only market that people have no choice but participate in.

the government isn't the absolute cause of all exploitative behaviour.

Originally posted by 753
@mairuzu

while the government is an abstraction, its reality is self-evident, because its agents aren't just random individuals, their behavior is coordinate and largely determined by said government's hierarchy and ideology. this very concrete collective agency justifies the use of the term. now, you may claim it has no legitimacy and therefore no authority, but it most certainly has power, which is really the core of the issue.

Yeah they are working within the illusion of it just as people put up christmas trees and hand out presents on christmas except your gifts suck ass (for those that celebrate) Its imagined and part of it is the wide acceptance toward it, similar to slavery. I have to keep bringing it back to that 😛

The power, and what I'm trying to tell others if its possible, is their acceptance and silence about it. The obedience. But you can be apathetic to it of course as well as rattling some cages.

[QUOTE=14275032]Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
[B]
now please: how would the non-aggression principle be maintained in a hypothetical voluntary society? how would the economy of this hypothetical society be organized exactly?

That's what I'm currently trying to look into and there are many who would like those answers as well, whom already embrace the principle. I'd hope that people would do whatever type they'd like as long as its voluntary. I'm not saying there wont be bad people but I'd say they are products of government in the first place with the war on drugs and the police state. I'm sure people, as we've become more advanced, will figure these things out. Just have to start at home in the family, with the correct parenting and using the non-aggression principle there.

There would be Dispute Resolution organizations as some would call them, that would handle protection. I'm sure, with a free market, there will be many wanting to provide their protection as a service. Its hard to tell what it would look like because I'm sure a lot of people would want different types in their own towns as they somewhat do now.

The transfer toward it is another good question. Might take generations. Maybe sooner if you say something.

Originally posted by Oliver North
God, now that I'm even thinking about it, that struggle, the strong being oppressed by the many, is like, personified in its most terrible way by Elsworth Thooey in Rand's Fountainhead...

The weak cannot oppress the strong. Power is a relationship, you can only be powerful relative to another person. The oppressed are always the weak. Any argument based on the idea that its bad for the weak to control the strong is absolute gibberish.