Anarcho Capitalism

Originally posted by Ancapitan
I am not arguing about the path to it, just like I wouldnt argue about the path to abolish all slavery. I'm saying slavery is wrong.

[...]

Similar to slavery, people need to see the reality and morality behind what they view as normal in their every day life.

you do realize that the moral of the story of the Abolitionists is that they did exactly what you refused to do. They thought of a plan to free slaves and did it, they didn't just sit around going "wouldn't it be nice..."

This isn't a "well-what-are-you-doing-about-it" criticism, but rather, a criticism saying that if you can't think of a way forward to achieve your goals, that is a flaw with you and your beliefs.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you do realize that the moral of the story of the Abolitionists is that they did exactly what you refused to do. They thought of a plan to free slaves and did it, they didn't just sit around going "wouldn't it be nice..."

This isn't a "well-what-are-you-doing-about-it" criticism, but rather, a criticism saying that if you can't think of a way forward to achieve your goals, that is a flaw with you and your beliefs.

You do realize we can think of a plan as soon as everyone escapes from this illusion as they have when they realized owning slaves is wrong?

This doesnt mean plans *arent being thought up of now. I'm talking about what Im debating, i'm not talking about planning. We can have another topic on that.

Originally posted by Ancapitan
You do realize we can think of a plan as soon as everyone escapes from this illusion as they have when they realized owning slaves is wrong?

so the old let someone else do it routine?

Originally posted by Ancapitan
This doesnt mean plans are being thought up of now. I'm talking about what Im debating, i'm not talking about planning. We can have another topic on that.

see, the problem is, no matter how much people might agree that our society (A) now is corrupt and that AC (B) is morally preferable, the criticism is that going from A to B is untenable and that B will still contain all of the problems in A.

Simply restating your blather about how awesome B is doesn't address anything, and you are now back to the tactic of just saying "I don't want to talk about it" when you are wrong.

defend your position like a man, or really, just gtfo.

Lol, again, what I'm debating in this thread is not about the path toward it, we can discuss that in another topic because I (as well as other people who want to achieve a stateless society) are attempting to answer these questions and figure out a way. You keep bringing it up as if I want someone else to do it lol. (by the way, you cannot free other peoples minds as you can obviously tell, you can only change yourself and those closely around you)

When a couple of people wake up to the fact that slavery is wrong and that one man cannot rightfully own another man, then they start telling people how slavery is wrong, 1800's version of you comes in saying WELL YOU JUST GONNA LET SOMEONE ELSE DO IT OR WHAT?! lol. You have to wake the masses up before you even attempt something as dangerous.

But again, you can only change yourself but continuously brining up the fact that slavery is wrong will eventually slip into peoples heads. Its better than saying nothing.

so you can't defend your position?

Originally posted by Oliver North
see, the problem is, no matter how much people might agree that our society (A) now is corrupt and that AC (B) is morally preferable, the criticism is that going from A to B is untenable and that B will still contain all of the problems in A.

Lol the myth and religion of statism is going to fall once people finally see how destructive it actually is. That is a nice opinion and all but I disagree completely.

Originally posted by Oliver North

Simply restating your blather about how awesome B is doesn't address anything, and you are now back to the tactic of just saying "I don't want to talk about it" when you are wrong.

defend your position like a man, or really, just gtfo.

I've defended my postition morally. Your result is a gun and my compliance as the alternative. You are not worthy of a debate. You are swaying from the topic.

Again, you can only change yourself while speaking about the immorality of statism. Just like having the guts and awareness to speak out about slavery.

Again, I've already defended my postition. What answers are you looking for that I don't have to provide? My position is that statism is morally wrong and accepting it and being a silent little slave is cowardice. You seem to be making up a position I have to defend, lol.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A question to DDD and/or ON, because you guys seem to be somewhat knowledgeable where AC is concerned: is there a potential for corporations to grow into the niche left vacant by government in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Again, corporations are a government created/backed up entity. They grow due to patents backed up by government. They grow because of regulations on everyone trying to open a business.

The free market (only existing underground or in small areas and black markets) would cripple "corporations". Corporations love government and hate the free market. You dont have to be too knowledgable to understand this either.

People think BIG BUSINESS can become the next government. LIke competing DROs. Its absurd. In a free society, everyone already escapes the illusion of authority. Why cant corporations get power now? No one is duped into thinking they have the right to rule and that they are government. Saying that business, who must obey their consumers, will take over, its just intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, okay, that makes more sense, now. We have a government that disobeys the same laws they are there to enforce/regulate such as "don't murder someone" but then we have drone strikes that kill tons of innocent people: murder 2 in most states if it were done by any citizen. Yes, I agree: that's crap and unfair. I also consider income taxes to be legalized robbery. I do not consent to have that money taken from me. It is taken from me at virtual gunpoint. I especially do not consent to income taxes because there are far better taxing systems out there that I would voluntarily participate in such as a comprehensive excise tax tax system with no income taxes. I am not given that choice. Therefore, it is legal robbery by the government. Just because it is legal does not mean it isn't robbery.

"...robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear."

In my case, income taxes are robbery, plain and simple.

If i cannot tax, and I havent given anyone permission to "tax" me, then no one else can claim themselves "government" and tax. This is the illusion, that you can somehow grant someone authority over others. That a congress from 200 years ago has authority (which it can somehow pass down) over my income and life.

As for the "voluntary tax" which is the sales tax, its still theft. Whoever is imposing that tax is stealing, even if we purchase things voluntarily, the prices go up and we end up paying more than we should while they collect the taxes from businesses.

Originally posted by Ancapitan
I've defended my postition morally.

Why should anyone care about a moral defense of a practical thing?

Say I prove it is morally preferable that all people have psychic powers. If a critic comes along and points out that we can't have psychic powers I can't fall back on its morality as a defense against that argument. This is Hume's "is-ought gap" just because the world should be a certain way doesn't mean it is or will be that way. If anarchocapitalism is to matter you have to show it has a morally preferable version (I disagree) and that the morally preferable version is possible. Actually I think most people would demand proof that the morally preferable version is a likely outcome of aiming for anarchocapitalism.

Originally posted by Ancapitan
If i cannot tax, and I havent given anyone permission to "tax" me, then no one else can claim themselves "government" and tax. This is the illusion, that you can somehow grant someone authority over others. That a congress from 200 years ago has authority (which it can somehow pass down) over my income and life.

Whether they have legitimacy and the "right" to do so is more debatable, but authority isn't something you can will away by saying "I don't believe it" and closing your eyes and clicking your ruby slippers together, unless of course you believe that one day everyone--not just the salt of the earth but politicians, military leaders, and other authority figures--decides "you know what, this is wrong, let's not tax anyone", then it might be that easy to nullify a government's authority.

Originally posted by Ancapitan
black markets

the black market is probably the system most corruptible by resources and is nearly defined by violence given there is no legitimate system of conflict resolution.

The job of the AC should be to describe why their system would differ from traditional black markets, not to use them as an example of how markets should work.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just as an aside, it's Da-dude-mon (like a digimon that's also a dude) not "Da-du-demon" (like the demon of that name) uhuh

Just saw this: yes, thanks.

Originally posted by Ancapitan
...black markets...

That's where you can buy slaves. Trust me, I watched Django.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just saw this: yes, thanks.

I thought it was a Jamacanized reference to The Dude...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why should anyone care about a moral defense of a practical thing?

Not sure why you are even bringing this up since I'm not arguing what people should care about, simply that they should be aware of what is moral and immoral. Chances are, though, that people usually to tend to care about what is moral and immoral. Even you. Perhaps not about statism since people are indoctrinated into such a religion, but if you're going to deny that you have moral standards then theres no point in debating you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Say I prove it is morally preferable that all people have psychic powers. If a critic comes along and points out that we can't have psychic powers I can't fall back on its morality as a defense against that argument. This is Hume's "is-ought gap" just because the world should be a certain way doesn't mean it is or will be that way. If anarchocapitalism is to matter you have to show it has a morally preferable version (I disagree) and that the morally preferable version is possible. Actually I think most people would demand proof that the morally preferable version is a likely outcome of aiming for anarchocapitalism.

Asburd and abstract scenario. I'm dealing with reality and the immorality of statism.

Just because the world should not condon slavery doesn't mean it should or will, no, but it did. Whether you want to deny it or not, most people believe in the non-aggression principle.

This is akin to you asking me "if abolishing slavery is to matter, you have to show it has a morally perferable version (i disagree) and that the morally preferable version is possible.) No. I dont have to show if its possible at all, slavery is wrong. Owning another human is wrong.

Is it universally preferable to not be stolen from? If you prefer to be stolen from then it is not theft, you are handing it out. So it is universally preferable to not be stolen from, it is universally preferable to not be forced to do something, for it you prefer to be forced then you are not being forced. Therefore it is morally preferable to not be stolen from nor forced to do something, which is the very essence of government.

How can you not reject any moral claim, which is suppose to be universal, which becomes reversed for a particular group of individuals (Government) as valid? By the governments own standard, its immoral. It claims the initiation of force is wrong, but that is how it operates. Stealing is wrong and it will punish you for doing so, yet it continously collects extortion money and calls it taxation. Entering contracts against peoples will is wrong and punishable, yet I am somehow bound to this ficticious "social contract".

Its a relationship that violates the same moral principles that it claims to uphold. It is by definition, immoral.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They do have authority. That's not an illusion, it's as close to a fact as anything in the world.

Before we get into semantics yet again, when I say that the "authority" is an illusion, I am referring to their "RIGHT" to do what they do. Sure the mob can have authority with its power, but no one seems them having the just, moral right to do what it does. THAT is the illusion. As well as this "social contract" to go along with it sealing the deal.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

Whether they have legitimacy and the "right" to do so is more debatable, but authority isn't something you can will away by saying "I don't believe it" and closing your eyes and clicking your ruby slippers together, unless of course you believe that one day everyone--not just the salt of the earth but politicians, military leaders, and other authority figures--decides "you know what, this is wrong, let's not tax anyone", then it might be that easy to nullify a government's authority.

#1. There is no document or procedure where any person, or group of people, can grant to another person a "right" which the first person or group didn't have to begin with. Therefore, congress cannot have acquired, and does not have, the right to do anything you don't have the right to do yourself.

#2. You cannot have a moral obligation to do what you think is wrong. Whenever there's a conflict between what authority commands and your own conscience, you have the right to disobey, but if that's true then the one giving orders isn't authority since authority means the one with the right to rule you and the one you must obey.

#3. No document or ritual can alter morality and make an evil act good. Either a man made law matches objective morality, in which case the law is redundant and irrelevant, or it conflicts with objective morality in which case it is illegitimate and should be disobeyed

Originally posted by Oliver North
the black market is probably the system most corruptible by resources and is nearly defined by violence given there is no legitimate system of conflict resolution.

The job of the AC should be to describe why their system would differ from traditional black markets, not to use them as an example of how markets should work.

I tried to use the black market as a close example to what a free market is. Essentially the black market is government created to begin with. Its close but not close enough.

I operate just fine with my weed dealers and people on craigslist. But we are still using federal reserve notes which are a controlled currency of debt so I guess it doesnt literally count as a free market.

Its funny watching atheist defend such a religion.

Originally posted by Ancapitan
I tried to use the black market as a close example to what a free market is. Essentially the black market is government created to begin with. Its close but not close enough.

so, in what way does AC address the issue of violence being inherent to a system with no conflict resolution mechanism?

Originally posted by Ancapitan
I operate just fine with my weed dealers and people on craigslist.

oh, well, you don't get shot picking up a dime bag

you convinced me, there is no violence in the drug market

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, in what way does AC address the issue of violence being inherent to a system with no conflict resolution mechanism?

The premise of your proposition is that the state is addressing the issue of violence well. Which is completely false. It is possibly the most violent entity known to man. Its not reason, not eloquence, it is force.

Are you saying that people cannot voluntarily set up a protection agency in the absense of a government, a group of people forcing it to happen?

Are you saying that people cannot voluntarily purchase protection agencies in this free market?

Originally posted by Oliver North
oh, well, you don't get shot picking up a dime bag

you convinced me, there is no violence in the drug market

There doesn't have to be and you don't have to go to some shady dealer to deal with such violence. Besides, this violence that can stem from the black market is due to government preventing you from the many open sources you can purchase from due to the wanted items legality.