Anarcho Capitalism

Anyone study the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism? (or an-com, an-syn)

Its intorduced by Murray Rothbard. Its based on the non-aggression principle and voluntary exchange in the absensce of force and extortion known as the government. It recognizes the illusion that is known as government authority. It deals with ownership and property, based on the fact that you as a human being own yourself.

Back to my convo with dadudemon

I'm pretty sure war-time anarchy has proven your point completely and utterly wrong: all sorts of human atrocities occur. Of course, there are all sorts of reasons why people go apeshit in situations like that

Anarchy is not without rules, its without RULERS. You and I, in the absense of government, are not going to strangle one another similar to the non belief in god. Its a principle that I'm sure we both agree with.

What I'm talking about is a transition out of statism when civilization matures, which it eventually will as it did with getting rid of slavery, and not the being-abandoned-by-the-child-called-it-mother-known-as-the-state type of anarchy. You're referring to somalia from what it sounds like. We must be clear on what we are referring to.

...but you cannot argue that a decent policing system actual prevents crimes from occurring. You cannot reasonably expect old people and children to be able to fight off attackers, either. A trained and educated police-force is a great way to prevent things like "this" and "that".

I'd argue otherwise. I've been robbed in my own house one block away from a police station, you can literally see it from my house. Its ridiculous. Not only do they kill many innocent people, if you've been paying attention to the news, but their presense doesnt hinder these crimes. When seconds count, cops are only minutes away. They enforce unjust laws. They are nothing but obedient lap dogs with your occasional "hero". Do you know that cops are not obligated by law to protect you? We can hire better, if you believe in the free market. UNder our control with our currency.

You have to question the premise of the propositions. When the us is continously killing children and elders, through forieng policy and domestic policy, the state is FAR from solving that. If you believe it is, it has fooled you greatly with its indoctrination for you to be dependent on it.

YouTube video

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Mairuzu
So the government has to take your freedom to give you freedom? Take your freedom from doing this and that, like smoke pot in certain places and all these regulations, and to keep what you earn? Its sounds illogical doesn't it? It never turns out good. The freest society that the US was turned out into such a giant beast and does insane unimaginable things with our acceptance and imagination toward it.

To your first question, yes: that's been covered/stated already. To the rest, I pretty much agree.

Isn't that just absurd? lol. They have no right, no authority and supporting it is in fact immoral. Its no different than supporting slavery on a moral standard. In fact, its more dangerous. The government itself was the one responsible for enforcing it on such a great scale due to assisting on capturing these slaves.

This question makes no sense. As in...it is incoherent. I think I know what you're trying to ask so I'll rephrase your question:

"We end up having to pay for a government and wend up with people disobeying these laws, anyway?"

or maybe you meant to make a statement instead of asking a question:

"There are those that can pay the government to disobey these laws and commit these acts that we don't want done."

I'm questioning your logic and the premise of your propsitions. The government gets away with what it deems as illegal and wrong. This false ethical system is a dangerous religion. The government, made up of people, disobey these laws.

We can certainly have a voluntary police force. But that does not solve the problem I responded to and you are addressing. You only eliminate taxes by having a voluntary police force. You still create the problem of the loss of freedoms because:

1. You created laws that restricted freedoms/choices.
2. You established a police force to enforce #1.

If you eliminate taxes, and peoples belief in authority, similar to eliminating their belief that they can own a man, then you eliminate the superstition known as government authority. You are not creating laws, what are laws? They are nothing but opinions with guns. You and I naturally agree not to attack eachother, its an unspoken law. To think we need government to tell us what to do is as silly as religion.

There is no loss of freedom. How is there a loss of freedom when you get rid of rulers? What does the word freedom mean to you? Freedom to steal from people to hire someone to protect you?

This "police force" can only operate as much as it has customers like any business. It has to obey the consumer, unlike what we have now that obeys THE STATE.

Tell that to the thousands upon thousands of gay couples that are now married.

Or how about our great grandparents that saw the fall of Prohibition?

Lol, begging their masters to do these simple little things government has no bussines in? its such a slave like plea. All the while they funnel their money to this beast so they can maintain a drug war, cause genocides with endless wars. These little ends do not justfity the means at all. How are you so blind from seeing that?

What about the granting of voting rights to our women (my great parents are all dead, now, but most of them were around when it happened).

You don't need a government to get that done. You really don't see how silly it is begging the masters?

Finally, what about all the fine African American men and women that got some nice new freedoms after the Civil Rights movement?

And look how they are treated now in the prisons with this drug war lol. Come on.

The defeatist attitude you're using is unproductive. You're sounding just like every single other person out there that complains but does nothing. You as a person can do something about the things you don't like about the government. Run for public office, get elected, push your freedom agenda, and get followers.

Lol Strawman, its not a defeatist attitude at all. This is on a moral basis and you're so obedient to the state, its almost sad. In fact its very sad. You're defending it with every fiber. I am doing something by using my voice and showing people like you how foolish you've become, even though hard to admit, by being a product of the state that created your obedience and mental dependence.

You should re-read the OP Q&A again

I'm not too worried about killers. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws with your argument about freedom. It leads to absurd/stupid conclusions about freedom.

The killer gain power in your system and do what you think they're preventing. They call themselves leaders in your system and the people funnel their money to operate their destruction.

If anyone has a flawed arguement, it is your illusion that is government authority that you've been trained well to acknowledge and give in to.

And as for Ush.

Incidentally, you lying about about it being 'no-one's work' that you just pasted in here is contemptible. At this point, you are just a liar causing trouble, not the slightest bit interested in any actual useful process of debate or argument, and on that basis I don't want your threads.

The author of this simple example of debates does not take credit for it nor does he believe in intellectual property therefore no one owns these texts and letters and whether I copied it or wrote it out myself makes no difference at all. Does it?

It seems that this is your own opinion which doesnt even matter in the slightest since Ive managed to discuss things for 4 pages.

I was very into this stuff a couple years ago, you could probably find copies of your current posts that I wrote about 4+ years ago.

A slave doesn't just become interested in being free. He lives it in his own personal life as best as he can while discussing it with as many as he can. That's my opinion on it.

So have you abandoned Ron Paul at this point?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
A slave doesn't just become interested in being free. He lives it in his own personal life as best as he can while discussing it with as many as he can. That's my opinion on it.

Deep

I don't give a damn what you think about due credit, Mairuzu. First of all, it's simple posting courtesy not to simply copy other people's stuff here, possibly misleading others into thinking the content is yours. Secondly, mass posting material with no context is basically baiting for arguments of no value. Thirdly, your three day ban for your continuing bad attitude is something for you to think about- keep on acting like this and the ban will be permanent.

this degree of extremism strikes me, really, as no different than Dolos with technology:

"how will you end violence"

"technology" or "volunteerism"

as if everyone in the world wouldn't jump at that opportunity if there were a reasonable plan for how to accomplish it

Originally posted by Oliver North
this degree of extremism strikes me, really, as no different than Dolos with technology:

"how will you end violence"

"technology" or "volunteerism"

as if everyone in the world wouldn't jump at that opportunity if there were a reasonable plan for how to accomplish it

No one has made an argument to end violence. But you can greatly reduce it by not believing in the dangerous superstition known as government authority. Governments are indeed responsible for massive amounts of violence due to peoples belief in it while they funnel their money toward its operations which consist of violence. Government is force.

I might as well help Mairuzu 313

Originally posted by Wittig
But you can greatly reduce it by not believing in the dangerous superstition known as government authority.

reduce it compared to what?

violence certainly doesn't go down in an area when the government stops policing it.

also, one of the reasons I moved away from anarcho-capitalism is stuff like this. It is one thing to have theories about government and what have you, it is another to believe bewilderingly wrong things about how humans behave. The government doesn't cause violence. The best you can say is institutions like the military, police or state allow people who would otherwise be socially destructive an outlet to behave in that way in a modestly justified fashion. Removing the state doesn't remove those people. Sure, it doesn't give them a badge with which to abuse from a seat of justified authority, but in a system that recognizes no authority, that is moot. In fact, with no system of justified authority that holds the monopoly on the use of force, there is nothing you can do to defend yourself against these people.

Originally posted by Wittig
Government is force.

No, force is force and anyone with power is powerful.

What's the phrase? "Open your eyes, sheeple!"

Government is force?

Didn't Mariuzu spend the entire other thread trying to argue that the government doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Government is force?

Didn't Mariuzu spend the entire other thread trying to argue that the government doesn't exist?

It's like saying "ghosts aren't real, but a ghost killed my father, so wake up, you simpletons, and see the ghosts flying around you so that you can banish them and make a world without ghosts"

Well, I can see where he's coming from.

*nods* Ghosts are creepy.

His name is Robert Paulson.

alright, to put it with the least amount of nuance possible, my main criticism of anarcho-capitalism is this:

every society would need to, immediately, enact a system that is, at best, pragmatically indistinguishable from government. The whole argument against the state, at that point, becomes semantic rather than theoretical. If anarchy is supposed to be the criticism of all types of power structures, it cannot accept what would be necessary for an anarcho-capitalist society to exist, because, in reality, the power systems that would be needed to ensure "volunteerism" would be equal, in power and authority, to any state, if not equal in name.

I call myself more of a deconstructionist or absolute anti-socialist at this point, rather than an anarchist, if we wanted to be really technical...

Originally posted by Oliver North
reduce it compared to what?

Are you not aware of the endless wars that these governments took part in with their nationalistic cattle used as cannon fodder? Killing and dying for your state. Don't be lazy. It's about 240 million people in one century.

Originally posted by Oliver North
violence certainly doesn't go down in an area when the government stops policing it.

Violence goes down where they continue to commit violence. That isn't difficult to understand. No drone bombs, no massive wars. No war on drugs. Violence would dramatically go down when people stop believing in this false collectivist idea.

You act as if I'm going to assault you or my neighbor in the absence of government. The absence of government does not change principles. If people are violent then the logical conclusion is not to give them authority to operate. Then again the belief in statism isnt all that logical to begin with but as we can see people still defend it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
also, one of the reasons I moved away from anarcho-capitalism is stuff like this. It is one thing to have theories about government and what have you, it is another to believe bewilderingly wrong things about how humans behave. The government doesn't cause violence. The best you can say is institutions like the military, police or state allow people who would otherwise be socially destructive an outlet to behave in that way in a modestly justified fashion. Removing the state doesn't remove those people. Sure, it doesn't give them a badge with which to abuse from a seat of justified authority, but in a system that recognizes no authority, that is moot. In fact, with no system of justified authority that holds the monopoly on the use of force, there is nothing you can do to defend yourself against these people.

You moved away from volutnary exchange in persuit of what? Force? Threats? Violence to solve problems and violence to gain virtue?

Violence is the very essence of government. You saying that the government doesnt cause violence is the most idiotic thing ive read from you so far. Remove the state doesnt remove the people, no, but it removes them from POWER. Do you see the mafia doing what the government does on that big of a scale? NO. Because people dont IMAGINE an obligation to pay them and that they are justified rulers. But to willingly funnel money toward these crooks is not logical at all.

Again, this is a moral standpoint. Taxation is extortion. I signed no contract to be a slave of the collective. You seem to be avoiding this at all costs.

You are greatly misunderstanding VOLUNTARY authority and NONVOLUNTARY authority that is BOUND to you just by living on a specific piece of dirt. Your points are moot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, force is force and anyone with power is powerful.

What's the phrase? "Open your eyes, sheeple!"

Oh geez. Lets be more clear then since it seems people are purposely being ignorant. How does the government operate? With the monopoly on violence and force. It forces you to do things and not to do things but it typically uses threats/coercion/intimidation. And if you dont comply, you will be forced to pay or forced to go in jail and forced to stay. If you dont think it forces you to pay, then just try not paying taxes.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Government is force?

Didn't Mariuzu spend the entire other thread trying to argue that the government doesn't exist?

Yes I am right, people are purposely being ignorant for the sake of it.

Government AUTHORITY is an illusion. They do not have the right and people IMAGINE their AUTHORITY.

Government, a group of people who claim to have a monopoly on the use of force and violence in a given area, uses its force and power (granted by the collective) to operate. Its really simple people, really.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I understand it, his argument was that government is a kind of mental cage that we unenlightened sheeple construct, and it's only as real as we allow it to be.

It's like saying "ghosts aren't real, but a ghost killed my father, so wake up, you simpletons, and see the ghosts flying around you so that you can banish them and make a world without ghosts"

Ive defined government. If you cant refute the definition then stick to it and stop strawmanning.

The illusion of authority is "a mental cage" if thats how you want to put it.

Your example is fail. Ghost are in fact not real so how could it kill your father? Stupid comparison. Government, a group of people, ARE REAL. The authority isnt real. Its really sad that I have to keep repeating this lol

Originally posted by Oliver North

every society would need to, immediately, enact a system that is, at
best, pragmatically indistinguishable from government.

It does not have to be immediate. All it has to do is be VOLUNTARY. Again, not difficult to understand.

Originally posted by Oliver North

The whole argument against the state, at that point, becomes semantic rather than theoretical.

When you dont lay the definitions down at first. Sure.

Originally posted by Oliver North
If anarchy is supposed to be the criticism of all types of power structures, it cannot accept what would be necessary for an anarcho-capitalist society to exist, because, in reality, the power systems that would be needed to ensure "volunteerism" would be equal, in power and authority, to any state, if not equal in name.

No, not really. Paying a business to protect you, voluntarily, without the excess baggage, is not at all the same as government that is forced upon you. NOT THAT HARD

Originally posted by Oliver North

I call myself more of a deconstructionist or absolute anti-socialist at this point, rather than an anarchist, if we wanted to be really technical...

Anarchist is free from rulers. Not rules. Do you want a master telling you what to do and what not to do?

I feel like Mairuzu may not just be banned for 3 days...

Bummer