Special Rights

[spidergoat]

The modern government still does slavery via income taxes. The income taxes you pay means you have the work part time for free, with your company paying the government part of your wage. The government should pay the taxpayer so it is not slavery. How does this differ from the plantation owner who has a slave, makes him work 12 hours and if he is in the 50% tax bracket he is a slave for 6 hours per day. Slavery never ended but was repackaged with smoke and mirrors.

The government does pay the taxpayer in the form of government services. Public safety, public roads, schools, public hospitals, public libraries, military protection, bridges, water projects, electrification, flood control, urban zoning, pollution regulation, food safety, water and sewage processing, product safety, drug regulation, agricultural subsidies, erosion control, import regulation, fishery management...

 

[Michael]

Yes, it's called the "private sector".

I know you like to think 'private sector' is some vampire or demon. "Yes, it's called Satan" Blaa Blaa.... Bwahh haa haa haa....

Um, No.

The "private sector" is in reality free-market relationships. That is, free interaction between private people. Like the relationship you share with your child. So long as no force is involved, THAT is the free-market. Taken together, this is called the "Private Sector". To think you should have to pay the State to share a relationship with your child is sociopathic - born out of a lifetime of propaganda. Oh course, even these relationships will no longer be private soon enough. Let's hope we get a full House and Senate and Hitlery in and free free free this baby right to the bottom. God I can't wait. We've grown dependency to 49.7%, just a little more and we can really get the ball rolling down hill.



I notice you're not addressing the Ethical issues. Why? You don't want to see what conclusions can be drawn from the application of moral universals?

 

[Michael]

If you want to support the country, feel free to stay.

Good ole' appeal to National identity. Reminds me of the Muslims in the middle east who kill the infidel for not supporting 'Islam'. You may have met Islam? He's a nice guy if you don't piss him off and keep making your payments on time. I once measured me some 'Islam'. While it looked quite thick, I found it didn't weight anything at all.

So, if I'm not a good "Patriot" then I'm free to leave is it? How very moral you are indeed.

I am quite happy to support the country that's given me the opportunities it has.

"The Country" did, now did it? Did it give you your coffee this morning? Did it give you your computer now did it? Not some Chinese working in a factory somewhere? Not some Colombian farmer?

Good ole' appeal to National identity. You've got to love that one. You get people to do all sorts of heinous evil in the name of God and Country. (you'll notice the these two fallacies like to walk hand-in-hand with one anther. A solid one-two punch to the brain that generally knocks the sense out of 99.9999% of people.).

So? You're entire Ethical basis for arguing to utilize force against innocent people is the flip side of the "Good Muslim" coin? Instead of religious identity you're going with "National Identity". I'm an American.

And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free.

LOL... what a joke.

Well I hate to break it to you but 'Nations' are just lines on a map - and you were born and stamped with a National Identity through no virtuous actions of your own and as such you gain no virtue or entitlement from it. Such an argument is equally as illogical as a Muslim in Malaysia having a birth certificate stamped "Muslim" on it at birth - without having formed any type of superstitious belief - and expecting to go to Allah-land for simply being told 'You're a Muslim'.

You were stamped "United States Citizen" through no moral actions you took. No different than the fattened up theocratic-cattle your argument mirrors. Only as a 'Free' American, you're fattened up tax-cattle.

Nope. I have never supported clowns pointing guns at people. That's your strawman.

Sure you do, here's one of your victims here: Irwin Allan Schiff

This old man was places in a rape-cage by people wearing a blue-monkey suite and carrying a gun. He'll more than likely die in that cage. Oh, but hey, now you can define yourself by your delusional National Identity Stamp.


Notice I stated victim. When you were ignorant you could at least claim that much as your defense. But, you're no longer ignorant. You're a willing participant. This nearly 90 year old man, was taken from his family by very real sociopaths wearing blue-clown costumes with idiotic shinny badges, carrying very real guns and tossed into a rape-cage for the crimes of trying to set people like you free. And you dare claim your 'country' gave you opportunities. Your 'country' gave you something? Really? Did it now? Are you sure you're thinking correctly? Did God give you something as well?

As a word of advice, thinking in analogy is a mental short-cut, often leading to erroneous conclusions. You may want to try not doing it when attempting to make a sound argument.

 

[Michael]

The government does pay the taxpayer in the form of government services. Public safety, public roads, schools, public hospitals, public libraries, military protection, bridges, water projects, electrification, flood control, urban zoning, pollution regulation, food safety, water and sewage processing, product safety, drug regulation, agricultural subsidies, erosion control, import regulation, fishery management...

The Government doesn't provide many of those services, it acts as a poorly-run overly expensive redistribution machine. Taking a 20% cut off the top as 'consultation' fees. It often gives out lucrative contracts to well connected friends (see ObamaCare website and how Obama's buddies who paid millions in 'lobbying' moneys were given 100s of millions in return - as well as a well paid vacation to Spain for the wife of one political donor).

The first fact to understand is that IF society wants those services, then they will be provided to society. With a free-market, sound money, law and private property, ALL services can be provided. Including schools built, hospitals, libraries, water managed - all of it. The ONLY thing that limits services is the limit places by the actual environment / physical reality. That's it. With properly functioning money - goods and services people want MUST be provided for in a free-market. Which is why you'll find the internet evolves very quickly to provide people with what they want. There's little, if any, State between people to prevent them from forming relationships. Thus, the Government isn't some 'magical' being that *poof* makes these building and services appear. It's a group of people not unlike any other - except it has the legal ability to initiate force against INNOCENT people. That's it. Everything is built (one-way or another) by a privately owned company - including all of our military hardware (poorly as it is built mind you).

There's no need for society to turn to State-backed use of force.

Not to mention, the evidence clearly shows (time and time again) that private individuals do a much better job of managing resources, providing services and protecting property than public servants. When it's your land, or your business reputation on the line, when it's the quality of your product that determines if you get return business, when it's you that will be held personally liable, people do a much better job than a bureaucrat who quite frankly couldn't give two f*cks.

Take the roads for example, in 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, killing 32,885 and injuring 2,239,000. This dwarfs the deaths in 2010 for the "War on Terror". We normalized to roads. It one thing government like to make - and make them they do. But, how do we 'know' they're value for money? We don't. Perhaps if all roads were built privately, we'd have a lot fewer of them. Perhaps people would use public forms of transport more often. Perhaps our entire society would look different. With less roads maybe communities would be shaped differently. Maybe houses would within walking distances to many amenities. Maybe we wouldn't be melting our planet with CO2? Who knows? We can't know. What we can know is that the Government likes to make roads because it's relatively easy and so now we have roads everywhere. Only the State can provide such a poor product that 12 full years of State run education and the outcome is graduating students (Graduating!!!) whom are not able to understand what they read and are barely able to write. While we can't see it, this IS the quality of all other Public Services - including the roads.


Yet, this isn't my argument. While I find it of no surprise that the State provides overly prices service that's crap. I'm not then making a pragmatic argument. My argument is based on the non-aggression axiom. If we want to live in a civilized society, then we have to stop resorting to violence - in ALL it's guises. This means universalizing the concepts we were (well, most were) taught as children and applying them to adulthood. EVEN when it comes to something like 'Special Rights'.

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

The Country" did, now did it? Did it give you your coffee this morning?

Well, it was delivered to the grocery store I purchased it from on the public roads, probably spent some time in a train car, too. Whatever, the few cents on the dollar you paid paid for that. If the public roads and railways, not to mention the ports and traffic control towers(if it was shipped UPS)didn't exist your morning coffee would still be somewhere in Brazil or Jamaica or Hawaii. And lets not forget the Navy that keeps the shipping lanes safe, the police that make sure it doesn't "fall off a truck", the power companies(a government regulated enterprise)that deliver reliable electricity, the UL inspectors that make sure your coffee maker doesn't set your house on fire and the firefighters to put it out if it does.....

Taxes are the price you pay to live safely in this country, pay them, go to jail or leave.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

Good ole' appeal to National identity. Reminds me of the Muslims in the middle east who kill the infidel for not supporting 'Islam'.

We'd all be better off if they just left the area they didn't like.

"The Country" did, now did it? Did it give you your coffee this morning?

I don't drink coffee. It did give me the weather report this morning.

Did it give you your computer now did it? Not some Chinese working in a factory somewhere?

Japanese worker actually.

This old man was places in a rape-cage by people wearing a blue-monkey suite and carrying a gun. He'll more than likely die in that cage. Oh, but hey, now you can define yourself by your delusional National Identity Stamp.

The strawman argument again!

OK, you seem to like them. Let's switch to that mode.

So, Michael, you don't like the state having any authority, do you? If a rapist was raping your wife, and intended to murder her when he was done, you would want a policeman to give him a pat on the back, tell him "good job!" and walk away, rather than have him become an evil agent of the state, a "clown" that "points a gun at him" and takes him to a "rape cage?"

You really care about people that little, that you would rather have someone rape and kill your wife than take action against them? For shame, Michael, for shame! Most people, fortunately, are not as OK with rape and murder as you are. I am glad I don't live in the violent society you envision.

 

[iceaura]

With a free-market, sound money, law and private property, ALL services can be provided. Including schools built, hospitals, libraries, water managed - all of it.

That's probably not true - at least, no one has ever managed to set up market based schools, hospitals, libraries, sewer and water systems, etc., for anyone but the very wealthy in any society, and no one has ever described such markets or how they would work.

Several theorists and researchers have described the several typical failure modes of market based approaches to public services like those, from Gresham's Law to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons to the abstractions of Rene Thom or the mathematical study of equilibria. The takehome is simple - whoever provides the public goods and services that have focused costs but generalized benefits will be a government, more or less by definition. So if you want sewers and roads and schools and libraries for regular people to use, your question is: who do want that government to be?

 

[Michael]

Well, it was delivered to the grocery store I purchased it from on the public roads, probably spent some time in a train car, too. Whatever, the few cents on the dollar you paid paid for that. If the public roads and railways, not to mention the ports and traffic control towers(if it was shipped UPS)didn't exist your morning coffee would still be somewhere in Brazil or Jamaica or Hawaii. And lets not forget the Navy that keeps the shipping lanes safe, the police that make sure it doesn't "fall off a truck", the power companies(a government regulated enterprise)that deliver reliable electricity, the UL inspectors that make sure your coffee maker doesn't set your house on fire and the firefighters to put it out if it does.....

Taxes are the price you pay to live safely in this country, pay them, go to jail or leave.

So, in KSA, where the State is a Theocracy and the God "King" owns all, he can say to the common person the same sort of bullshit you just said, and you'd be in complete agreement because "The King" pays for the Public roads and railways to be built. He pays for the ports and traffic control towers. He paid for the Navy. His people run the power companies that deliver reliable electricity to the peons. The Taxes he forces people to pay, is the price they pay for living in such a wonderful Islamic Republic.

If they don't like it, they can go to jail, have their head chopped off or leave.

Oh, and the people do indeed support their king. They overwhelmingly support him (those that don't can leave). Oh, and the King pays to ensure women can't drive. You know, because that's "The Will of The People". AND gee, if it's the will of the people, then I guess Ethics can kiss it's arse good bye because who gives a flying f*ck about what's moral when we have the superstitious security blanket called National Identity to cling to.


Oh, I notice you forgot to mention that the US government is also the planets largest polluter, incarcerates the most people per population of any country. That the roads are so crap, over 2 million people are injuries on them every single year. Who's Public Schools are so crap that some graduate students with a 47% functional illiteracy rate, is now spying on innocent Citizens and lost two wars in the ME due to incompetence at the cost of $2 trillion dollars.


No no, don't mention those. OH, and certainly don't address the moral topic. I mean, pfffff.... what? This is only the Ethics subsection. Wouldn't' want to accidentally discuss moral universals or anything.

 

[Michael]

So, Michael, you don't like the state having any authority, do you? If a rapist was raping your wife, and intended to murder her when he was done, you would want a policeman to give him a pat on the back, tell him "good job!" and walk away, rather than have him become an evil agent of the state, a "clown" that "points a gun at him" and takes him to a "rape cage?"

As soon as you stated the word 'rape' we understand that the sex is not concentual. Thus, the rapist is initiating force against an innocent person. This is immoral if we universalize the non-aggression axiom.

Which, according to you, shouldn't be universalized. You seem to think that IF the rapist were a Civil Servant THEN it's perfectly fine if they rape my wife. Do you understand that? You clearly support the State when it initiates violence against INNOCENT people, yet feel repulsed by a rapist doing the same thing.

I'd like to see you square that circle.


So, suppose rape was legal. The "People" had voted. Your wife was dragged away for breaking the new law of needing to be raped - and was raped. She resisted the State, and was placed in Prison (this has and doe happen in some countries). Is THIS insanity moral action? This IS the outcome by applying universalization to your support of the State to initiate force against innocent people. Which is why you still support income tax - a transaction tax on the laborer, the worker, selling the only thing they have - the actions of their body. Which itself is nonsensicle. Why should the State have a claim to 30% of the goods from the actions of a worker? Does it claim 30% of the prison time for the actions of a murderer? No. Which makes sense given nothing the State does follows ANY ethical principles at all.


As for the police officer, she has no bearing on the ethics of rape and is a red herring.

 

[Michael]

That's probably not true - at least, no one has ever managed to set up market based schools, hospitals, libraries, sewer and water systems, etc., for anyone but the very wealthy in any society, and no one has ever described such markets or how they would work.

No one had ever managed to set up a society with all the amenities without Slavery. No one had ever described such markets or how they would work.

Until they did.

There's plenty of research and scholarly work that describes free societies and how they would work. Just because we don't have experience living in such societies, doesn't mean we accept Slavery. No one knew what live would be like without Slavery. But *gasp* it was a hell of a lot better for the Slaves and got even better when Jim Crow STATE Laws were ended.


By the Gods people cling to their National identity! Never mind the total destruction of our monetary system by our Government bailing out their crooked Banking buddies. Never mind that this system was set up BY crooked banking cronies. Never mind the NSA spying on innocent Citizens. Never mind the made-up Wars on Drugs, Wars on Terror, Wars on Commies, etc.. etc.. etc... No no no.. It's all for God and Country!

Several theorists and researchers have described the several typical failure modes of market based approaches to public services like those, from Gresham's Law to Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons to the abstractions of Rene Thom or the mathematical study of equilibria. The takehome is simple - whoever provides the public goods and services that have focused costs but generalized benefits will be a government, more or less by definition. So if you want sewers and roads and schools and libraries for regular people to use, your question is: who do want that government to be?

You are using the word Government incorrectly. Government ONLY distinguishes itself from other organizations of people by one aspect: It's legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people.

The truth is, no one knows what such a modern society will look like. I say will, because it's an inevitability. That said, there's certainly many books written that attempt to describe exactly HOW such a society CAN be structured.

Example: The Political Economy of Choice

I find people hate the idea of personal freedom. They despise it. The notion they have to go out and work WITH people, scares the shit out of them. Thanks to 12 years of "Publicly" funded education, most lack the skill TO create goods and services and thanks to the Banking Oligarchy that runs our monetary system - they couldn't access the needed capital even if they did know how to. All of that said, this WILL come to pass. Most humans are not sociopaths and truth (including ethical truths) is never suppressed forever. One truth people are coming to understand is that prosperity comes from trade. Free-trade. With better communication, this will become more evident.

Oh, I had a list of four questions regarding a coffee owner, worker, and buyer - what were your answers?

 

[iceaura]

No one had ever managed to set up a society with all the amenities without Slavery.

That is not true.

No one knew what live would be like without Slavery.

I don't think you have made a single completely accurate claim of historical event or physical fact on this forum. That one was vague enough to pretend to, but look at stuff like this:

(B) The Brazilian State simply stopped forcing runaway Slaves to return to their owners and Slavery ended without a peep. No Civil War, nothing - when the Government stopped facilitating Slavery, Slavery ended.

You mean when the government interfered in the free market in slaves? No, slavery did not end in Brazil when the government stopped enforcing free market purchase contracts on human beings.

When every claim of historical and physical fact you make is wrong, false, mistaken, even goofy, the oddity is that you don't seem to have paused to reconsider the worldview that depends on the lot of them - haven't you backchecked any of this stuff, even the ones people have provided you with links and so forth to fix?

There's plenty of research and scholarly work that describes free societies and how they would work

There is no work, even theoretical, that provides a realistic or workable "free market" based construction and maintenance of a city's sewer system in an industrial society. For starters.

More widely: Almost nothing with predominantly generalized benefits and focused costs can be provided by a "free market", because the beneficiaries cannot be brought into the exchange - there's no way to trade value for value.

You are using the word Government incorrectly. Government ONLY distinguishes itself from other organizations of people by one aspect: It's legal obligation to initiate force against innocent people.

That's exactly how I used it (given your special definitions of "innocent" and "initiate" and "force", naturally - I know who I'm replying to here). Here it is again:

The takehome is simple - whoever provides the public goods and services that have focused costs but generalized benefits will be a government, more or less by definition.

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

So, in KSA, where the State is a Theocracy and the God "King" owns all, he can say to the common person the same sort of bullshit you just said, and you'd be in complete agreement because "The King" pays for the Public roads and railways to be built. He pays for the ports and traffic control towers. He paid for the Navy. His people run the power companies that deliver reliable electricity to the peons. The Taxes he forces people to pay, is the price they pay for living in such a wonderful Islamic Republic.

Anarchy is idiocy in the modern world and doesn't survive contact with others, it always devolves into rule by force. A kingdom is the end result, a Theocracy is a kingdom of priests(the head of Islam in Iran is worth 85 billion dollars). So your philosophy is to blame for the King's existence. And a King can run a country any way he pleases. But I wouldn't want to live there.

A Republic is the answer the Founders came up with to do away with the Anarchy that might makes right(and kings)and the Theocracy of the Divine Right of Kings(or just plain Theocracies). They did it through a social contract, the Constitution, in order to take care of the public business every country must do. The powers and duties of our government are written within, and so are the rights of the people. There are mechanisms to change the Constitution if it becomes necessary, and, in the end, the people rule themselves. It's messy, but it is way better than what Anarchy gave us, warlords carving out kingdoms from the backs of their people because they were the strongest. This communal government requires funds to do that business and taxes provide those funds. We all own the roads because we all paid for them. We do not give Anarchists a right to refuse to pay their fair share, they use it, they are protected by it, it makes it possible for them to prosper and we all payed for it by mutual agreement. So, if they try to refuse to pay the same thing as everyone else does we put them in jail for tax evasion or they can find another country to leach off of(good luck, it's mostly the same everywhere, death and taxes you know).

Grumpy

 

[Michael]

Anarchy is idiocy in the modern world and doesn't survive contact with others, it always devolves into rule by force. A kingdom is the end result, a Theocracy is a kingdom of priests(the head of Islam in Iran is worth 85 billion dollars). So your philosophy is to blame for the King's existence. And a King can run a country any way he pleases. But I wouldn't want to live there.

And democracy is a kingdom where illiterate idiots try to tick the boxes next to the squiggly lines they're meant to know how to read. I fail to see what any of this has to do with "Ethics" - you know, the subsection we're in.

A Republic is the answer the Founders came up with to do away with the Anarchy that might makes right(and kings)and the Theocracy of the Divine Right of Kings(or just plain Theocracies).

Anarchy is might-makes-right is it? Nice one. For someone with such deep and profound understand of volentarism - you almost appear to know nothing. Oh, that's because you didn't bother to read up on anything to do with Anarchy - you didn't even bother to find out what the f*cking word even means. But you're more than happy to make post-hoc agreement with your initial bias. The entire POINT of Ethics is NOT to do that. To instead determine what the squiggles means and then follow deductive logic to derive a conclusion.

All you've don'e it said this: When I was a child, my mommy and daddy taught to be believe in the State and to respect "The Founders" and *gasp* that's exactly what I unquestioningly did. This is the reason why I brought up the KSA - you're acting religious. Only instead of the Qu'ran, it "The Constitution". Instead of Mohammad and His Merry Men, it's "The Founders". Instead of the Caliphate it's America. Instead of Muslim it's American. And etcetera.

To persue Ethics (this section) means leaving personal ill conceived and preconceived notions aside and following logic to it's sound conclusion.

They did it through a social contract, the Constitution, in order to take care of the public business every country must do.

The US Constitution is NOT a social contract. There's no such thing as a "Social Contract". One more time: THERE IS NO SUCH THING A SOCIAL CONTRACT. "Social Contract" is just another common mental short-cut people make to justify some preconceived idea they have and want to justify. You, I nor anyone signed a social contract. If I were born in KSA, and didn't WANT to be a suicide bomber, I shouldn't have to be one. If some dumb-arse tells me everyone took a vote and I have to be one and then set about perpetrating violence against me - that's immoral. If they argue that no it's not because there's a "Social Contract" in place - they'd be wrong. If these dumb-arses thought violence against me was OK because through my birth I unwittingly, involuntarily, signed a magical "Social Contract" and used this to justify their violence against me - they'd be wrong and their actions would be immoral.

to pay their fair share, they use it,

Oh, it just keeps getting better. You want to know what a 'real' fair share is? It's when one uses sound money and *gasp* voluntarily pays it for a good or service. See how simple this is? An example would be the "Public" Zoo or the "Public" Museum or the "Public" Art gallery unlike the "Public" Roads or the "Public" Library - you pay to enter. And in that way we know the 'value' of this to the public.

But, hey, don't let logic get in the way of a good analogy - and we all love to live in world's populated by good analogies now don't we?

 

[Michael]

....

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was interrupting your hissy fit. Anarchy always DEVOLVES into might makes right because no one voluntarily gives away any of their money(imagine the Koch brothers funding the government), when it becomes necessary for everyone to contribute to common goals Anarchists collapse into a seething mass of personal views on the matter, someone eventually has to bust some heads to get things done, the most successful head buster becomes king. So much for your philosophical non-sense. We have rules because individually we are unruly, selfish and irresponsible toward the common good. We can't help it, we were born that way. Civilization must be taught, it isn't natural. And as imperfect as our Constitution and form of self governance is, it's better than any other form of government. Government by, for and of the people has worked pretty well for over 200 years, in those 200 years many of the other advanced countries have adopted various forms of republics as well, and the whole world is better for it. Where has Anarchy ever worked longer than it took for some strong man to crush it? Answer, nowhere except on the very fringes of civilization, not a place most would want to live in.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

As soon as you stated the word 'rape' we understand that the sex is not concentual. Thus, the rapist is initiating force against an innocent person.

Right. But from your own arguments you can't have a clown with a gun forcing him into a rape cage! Thus you support freedom for those very rapists.

IF the rapist were a Civil Servant THEN it's perfectly fine if they rape my wife.

Nope. I just said you oppose the government's rights to stop rapists - thus you support freedom for rapists.

As for the police officer, she has no bearing on the ethics of rape and is a red herring.

The "police officer?" You mean the evil clown with the gun who might put the rapist in a rape cage? You have told us several times how much you hate them and would do anything to see their reign ended. Even if it means freedom for rapists.

Why would you want someone to rape your wife without fear of being stopped? Don't you care about her? Is the freedom to rape a core principle for libertarians?

 

[Michael]

billvon,
What I find interesting here, is you don't seem to get YOU are the rapist in your own analogy. YOU are the one that supports the use of force against innocent people.

Right. But from your own arguments you can't have a clown with a gun forcing him into a rape cage! Thus you support freedom for those very rapists.

I didn't say she can't have a private security officer to protect her - of course she can. However, in this case, it's the public police officer who is legally rapping her.
That's the whole point.
The woman is being raped, force is being used against her - she's an innocent person.
The man is being taxed, force is being used against him - he's an innocent person.

It's the blue suited monkey with the big gun initiating the force. AND, if you don't think it is, maybe you need to take a look at the statistics around non-violent "criminals" (innocent people) who are stuffed into the State-run Public Prisons in the USA. Given we have the most people per population in prison, and the State spies on all communication between so-called free "Citizens", and the State regulated almost all interactions between so-called free "Citizens", one could argue we presently live IN a Police State. Similarly to North Koreans, most people don't recognize their cage, see themselves as 'free', think the 'regulations' are their to help them - because the sociopaths in government care for them.

Nope. I just said you oppose the government's rights to stop rapists - thus you support freedom for rapists.

No, you made it clear you will happily violate the non-aggression axiom, including dragging a 90 year old man from his home, from his family, from his children and tossing him into a prison - if it gives you want you want. Like OblahmaCare. You also made it clear, that while it's possible to conceive of a world where people forsake rape and instead procreate voluntarily, you'll take a pass on that one.

The "police officer?" You mean the evil clown with the gun who might put the rapist in a rape cage? You have told us several times how much you hate them and would do anything to see their reign ended. Even if it means freedom for rapists.

I don't 'hate' anyone. A police officer who violates the non-aggression axiom is acting immorally. This is a fact. That isn't to say a police officer can't take moral actions. It's only to say the Public police is OBLIGATED to, by Law, initiate force against innocent people. Given the Police Officer freely chooses their occupation - this means they freely chooses to violate the non-aggression axiom and take immoral action.

This is very different from Private Security: Private Security can act to protect property (save the rape victim), they can act to apprehend the person who damaged property (the rapist), but can NOT act to apprehend someone who is innocent - that is to say, can not arrest the rape victim. A public police officer CAN and DOES arrest rape victims. It's happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan - which are Democratic Republics and which have make it illegal to BE a rape victim!

So, one more time - the rapist in your analogy is YOU.

 

[Michael]

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was interrupting your hissy fit. Anarchy always DEVOLVES into might makes right because no one voluntarily gives away any of their money(imagine the Koch brothers funding the government)

No it doesn't. And the Koch brothers wouldn't be able to fund the Government because there'd be NO government to fund. At present - YES, they most certainly DO fund the government. Thanks, you make a GREAT argument for why we can never have a long lasting Republic, because (as Plato made clear in the Republic) it will ALWAYS devolve into the mess we have today.

when it becomes necessary for everyone to contribute to common goals Anarchists collapse into a seething mass of personal views on the matter, someone eventually has to bust some heads to get things done, the most successful head buster becomes king.

Why would a bunch of anarchist want a King who could legally violate their property rights (body) they wouldn't.

So much for your philosophical non-sense.

This sentence is an oxymoron.

We have rules because individually we are unruly, selfish and irresponsible toward the common good.

Yeah? An anarchy also has rules. A good example of an anarchy is your local PRIVATELY owned shopping mall. Private stores with private security and private citizens shopping. Yes, there IS security - but guess what it's not devolving into - a Kingdom. And it wouldn't. BUT, what WILL devolve into a Kingdom is a Republic with a lot of centralized authority.

Maybe you need to crack open a history book. But it's f*cking hard to go from self-rule to king-rule without being conquered. Just look at the Germanic tribes. Someone would try to become 'King' and they were deposed off in short order. Compare with Rome, a Republic. Because Rome had everything in place FOR centralized ruler - all it took was one to step up and take it. And that's exactly what happens. China was 'united' because a single ruler was able to conqueror OTHER States - what wasn't united were the Mongolians. Because there was nothing in place to rule. Once the State apparatus is in place, it's a short step to one-man rule.

An anarchy would therefor be MORE resistant to dictatorial rule. Republics are primed for it. As a matter of fact, you will see more consolidation of power into the hands of the POTUS as time goes on. If the economy truly crashes, hell, even now I am certain most Americans would support a king if he did make their lives better economically. Pathetic as that is, historically, it's the likely outcome.

We can't help it, we were born that way. Civilization must be taught, it isn't natural.

You may have read a comment of mine on not spanking and teaching children to think logically? That said, civilization is the opposite of the State. Civilization is free-market interaction between free people, the State is coercion. The State is therefor ANTI-Civilization.

And as imperfect as our Constitution and form of self governance is, it's better than any other form of government.

Oh? I think you'll find many Chinese disagree. So too would many Australian.

Government by, for and of the people has worked pretty well for over 200 years, in those 200 years many of the other advanced countries have adopted various forms of republics as well, and the whole world is better for it. Where has Anarchy ever worked longer than it took for some strong man to crush it? Answer, nowhere except on the very fringes of civilization, not a place most would want to live in.

1,000 years of Irish Anarchy

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

Why would a bunch of anarchist want a King who could legally violate their property rights (body) they wouldn't.

Kings aren't known to ask the permission of the rabble. A king seizes power if there is no organization to oppose that happening. Anarchists have no such organization. Republics do.

An anarchy also has rules. A good example of an anarchy is your local PRIVATELY owned shopping mall. Private stores with private security and private citizens shopping.

Too bad no one can get there on the PUBLIC roads, too bad there's no army to keep the neighboring country from just taking it, nor police to keep your puny mall cops from getting slaughtered by roving gangs.,Too bad you have no water, sewage or power, no phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury Too bad your store is stocked with food that will kill you or at least give you food poisoning, mercury in your shellfish, e coli on your lettuce and salmonella in your mayo. And no government, no courts to enforce your rights to financial compensation for the damages. Grow up, Anarchy is a temporary situation that is either supplanted by a reasonable government or by an unreasonable king, your choice. Anarchy is the political equivalent of a pencil balanced on it's point, it's going to fall down, the only question is which way it will point after the fall.

You obviously know nothing about history, it is replete with kings cutting out kingdoms, the might making the King's right divine(the clergy knew which side of their bread was buttered). And a country in anarchy was just ripe for the plucking. Soon you have kingdoms abutting one another with nary an anarchist to be found alive. Republics are relatively new, but they are still here, kingless. Even the last of the Monarchies are more facade than rulers. And once again, name one single country that is filled with Anarchists for more than a few weeks, heck, name a single town that has an Anarchist population and lack of government. You can't, because Anarchy does not survive contact with it's enemy, civilization.

Grumpy

 

[Michael]

Kings aren't known to ask the permission of the rabble. A king seizes power if there is no organization to oppose that happening. Anarchists have no such organization. Republics do.

:bugeye:

No, that's not historically accurate. See: Rome. It's much easier for a Republic to become a dictatorship because the State is already in place and all is needed is a single Proconsul/President/Prime Minister/Military General to step up an seize the power. It happened to Rome. It happened to 'Socialist' Germany. It happened to Russia, and is somewhat happening again. It could probably happen right now in Greece.

It's the natural evolution a Republic.

An Anarchy OTOH is extremely difficult to seize and control. Which is why China decided instead to build a wall. Which is why Romans built a wall. Which is why German tribes eventually sacked Rome. Sure, with outright genocide and a disproportionate unbalance of power you can eradicate other people, such as what the Statist's did the Native American populations, such as what the Statist's did to the Anarchic Irish. Such is how the Statist decimated Africa, Australia, India, etc... But, societies evolve and with it technology. What was once only possible to organize through State power is now possible through a mobile phone.

The days of the State are numbered.

Too bad no one can get there on the PUBLIC roads, too bad there's no army to keep the neighboring country from just taking it, nor police to keep your puny mall cops from getting slaughtered by roving gangs.,Too bad you have no water, sewage or power, no phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury Too bad your store is stocked with food that will kill you or at least give you food poisoning, mercury in your shellfish, e coli on your lettuce and salmonella in your mayo. And no government, no courts to enforce your rights to financial compensation for the damages. Grow up, Anarchy is a temporary situation that is either supplanted by a reasonable government or by an unreasonable king, your choice. Anarchy is the political equivalent of a pencil balanced on it's point, it's going to fall down, the only question is which way it will point after the fall.

All of these services can be (and many are) provided by the private sector at lower cost and higher quality - which is why the US military pays mercenaries when it actually wants anything done correctly, and why our top Universities are private: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University , Columbia University, Stanford University, Yale University. I like how you jump to the Government providing electricity and lights while neglecting to mention these services - along with television, radio, etc... where inventions from the PRIVATE sector. You literally have Left pointing Right and Up point Down. Everything you THINK the Government provides is provided by Private industry.

AND you have the GALL to talk some shit about 'roving gangs' if we didn't have the Government???? WTF planet do you live on??? ALL major US cities are indeed run by roving gangs! Jesus - they tend to develop out of PUBLIC housing slum projects born of illiterate PUBLIC school graduates. I doubt there's a business anywhere in the major city not paying some gang protection money not to come bust their windows out. Not to mention half the police force ARE competing with the gangs for the money themselves!

You obviously know nothing about history, it is replete with kings cutting out kingdoms, the might making the King's right divine(the clergy knew which side of their bread was buttered). And a country in anarchy was just ripe for the plucking. Soon you have kingdoms abutting one another with nary an anarchist to be found alive. Republics are relatively new, but they are still here, kingless. Even the last of the Monarchies are more facade than rulers. And once again, name one single country that is filled with Anarchists for more than a few weeks, heck, name a single town that has an Anarchist population and lack of government. You can't, because Anarchy does not survive contact with it's enemy, civilization.

What are you crapping on about???

You seriously think that when the USA Government shut down last month that 'roving gangs' and 'kings and queens' started plotting their take over? Mad Maxx and his Kewl Car was just waiting to round up 310,000,000 Americans and enslave them in Thunder-dome. I mean, what plant do you live on? Over here in the REAL world our REAL Government takes 30-50% of our labor in forced tax, makes up wars, sells our children to the bankers penny's on the pound, spys on us, regulated all interaction - f*ck you can't even sell liquore, drive a cab, wipe your arse without paying someone in government for the permission to do so. AND the gangs DO run the cities by walking along PUBLIC roads and busting up shop windows if they don't get their protection money. But what doesn't happen is Gangs doing that shit in shopping malls. Why? Oh, because they're Anarchic! They're private property protected by Private Security.


You don't have to worry about Kings and Queens ruling you as they already do. They own much of the Banks that lend money to our Government so it can bribe you with goodies it can't produce itself and must by in the market. Our government pays rich Banksters back plus interest by squeezing peon-workers of their labor. So, you don't have to worry about being taken over - it already happened. A century ago to be precise.