Ask a Market Anarchist
Offline (This was posted before and a little discussion ensued, but it was all lost due to a server crash. Unfortunately I couldn't get any more than the original post, from the Google cache.)
My two favorite definitions of market anarchism are:
"Market anarchism" is a broad term referring to the theory that voluntary free market relationships can – and should – replace all existing coercive state authority. It is derived from taking the principle of the non-initiation of force to its ultimate conclusion, and accepting that if using violence is wrong for one person, then it is wrong for every person. If stealing is wrong for me as a private citizen, then it is also wrong for everyone – including those in the "government." - Stefan Molyneux
"Market Anarchism is the doctrine that the legislative, adjudicative, and protective functions unjustly and inefficiently monopolised by the coercive State should be entirely turned over to the voluntary, consensual forces of market society." - C4SS
As I mentioned on another topic, anarchism is a political parallel to atheism. Most arguments for or against anarchism have a parallel to an argument for or against atheism. Minarchism and anarchism have the same relationship as deism and atheism (if you've got some time to spare, [url=http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn079.htm]this[/url] is an excellent read, it rebuts Objectivist arguments against anarchy).
A moral principle is true if it applies to all people equally. If it's wrong for me to do something, it's wrong for the people in the government to do the same thing. If I went around taxing my neighbors at gunpoint, I would be seen as a criminal, but if I become an IRS agent, doing the exact same thing is suddenly considered acceptable.
Individuals own themselves, ownership is absolute irresponsible dominion. Using coercion against anyone except in self-defense is unjustified because coercion goes against self-ownership. All governments, even minarchies, require coercion because - a government is a monopoly (if it wasn't a monopoly it would be a market, which is the opposite of government), and a monopoly requires coercion against any competitors. Also, governments necessarily use coercion against the people they rule - taxation is coercion since if you don't pay your taxes, you are jailed and if you resist in self-defense, ultimately you're shot. Same with law, etc.
Anarchy does NOT mean destruction and chaos as the state and media want you to think. An-archy means no rulers, no State. War is probably the greatest chaos of all, and wars are started by governments (private individuals can't finance wars on their own or can't be bothered to, while governments can easily fund them through taxpayers).
The word "market" in market anarchism refers to the voluntary free market (what we have today is not a free market, as opposed to what they teach in some economics classes) taking over all necessary services currently monopolized by the State and funded by money stolen at gunpoint.
For more on market anarchy, there are plenty of good websites such as: [url=http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html]Anarcho-capitalist FAQ[/url], [url=http://jim.com/anarcho-.htm]Brief explanation of anarcho capitalism[/url], [url=http://www.simplyanarchy.com]Simply Anarchy[/url], [url=http://www.voluntaryist.com]Voluntaryist.com[/url], [url=http://www.strike-the-root.com]Strike the Root[/url], and many others.
Any questions about or objections to market anarchism, post them here.
Anarchy...Such a beautiful concept when viewed through the eyeglasses of theory, just like Communism.
With 11 million people in Ohio (my home state) alone, there were 462,000 crimes. 40,000 were violent, 280,000 were thefts. Now I'd say Ohio is a relatively peaceful state compared to others, and that's quite a lot for 1 year.
Now, if you expect that a country as large as ours is, for 462,000 people in a single state to start obeying the law, then I'd say you're beyond optimistic and going into crazy.
If there is no government, who do you suppose will deal with these criminals? The individual person? That's promoting violence to deal with violence. What's to stop us from foreign invaders? Our local militia? Our lack of nuclear weapons? What's to stop a modern day Hitler from riling the populous into an Atheist (just an example) slaughtering mass of people? You're putting a LOT on personal responsibility.
You speak as if an army could only be formed by a government. If there is no government, people have access to weaponry without government bans on these weapons, then how do you suppose that a very charismatic individual, with access to money and no laws to keep him from stealing, could obtain weapons through an unregulated system, convince a small army (even 100 people would do) of some crazy, or even sane cause, and then let loose on the unprotected people of the country. No police, no army, no protection for the innocents.
What about leaving the government open to ANY that want to take it? Even if you somehow managed the entire country that anarchy was in any way a good idea, you then have to manage to convince them to STAY that way. 20 years later, what if the Church (who has NEVER passed an opportunity to take control and oppress when it can without losing too much public support) decides that they want to rule the country? What happens if a corporation becomes a monopoly on a certain good, then expands, takes over another good, and another, and another, until one company owns everything?
Why are taxes a bad thing? I think I missed that one. Why is it a bad thing to pay what your government needs to exist? Is it really worth having some more money if there is no government to enforce the money? Without the government, that 100$ bill is just a piece of paper.
If a country is working for the individual instead of the group, it is bound to fail. If individuals care for individuals, then it's social survival of the fittest, which is in no way even close to a good thing.
Not to spark any harsh feelings after just meeting you noor.
[quote=Hrkman]Anarchy...Such a beautiful concept when viewed through the eyeglasses of theory, just like Communism.
With 11 million people in Ohio (my home state) alone, there were 462,000 crimes. 40,000 were violent, 280,000 were thefts. Now I'd say Ohio is a relatively peaceful state compared to others, and that's quite a lot for 1 year.[/quote]
Actually, the State is responsible for more crimes than have been committed by private criminals. Hundreds of wars, genocides, police brutality cases, etc. and billions of innocent people have been murdered at the hands of governments (including democracies), not private criminals.
[quote]Now, if you expect that a country as large as ours is, for 462,000 people in a single state to start obeying the law, then I'd say you're beyond optimistic and going into crazy.[/quote]
I don't expect all people to be good/peaceful/nonviolent in a market anarchy. There'll always be criminals no matter what, but I'd say you're beyond crazy if you think violence without a State will actually be more than [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_lethal_wars_in_world_history]this[/url] (99.99% of those are State-committed).
[quote]If there is no government, who do you suppose will deal with these criminals? The individual person?[/quote]
Market police and courts. Same thing, but no monopoly funded by money stolen under gunpoint. If an individual wants to defend himself that's fine also.
[quote] That's promoting violence to deal with violence.[/quote]
It's self-defense, and it's the same under a State anyway.
[quote]What's to stop us from foreign invaders?[/quote]
Market defense is much more efficient than State armies. Under a State-monopolized defense system, you have no other alternative and they don't have any real incentive to protect you, while under the free market offers competition, lower prices, and an incentive for private protection agencies to protect you (if they don't serve you well, the deal is over and they lose a customer).
[quote]Our local militia?[/quote]
Incentive. A private army is funded by customers which would mean that if they attacked their own people, they'd lose their customers and go out of business. Under a State the army can fuck up since they get their funds through coercive taxation and they're the only ones out there so you have no alternative.
[quote]Our lack of nuclear weapons? What's to stop a modern day Hitler from riling the populous into an Atheist (just an example) slaughtering mass of people? You're putting a LOT on personal responsibility.[/quote]
The State is far more likely to do that since they don't base themselves on good reputation unlike private protection agencies. It was statism that allowed Hitler to kill the Jews. If a fundamentalist nut tried to hire a private army and kill all the atheists, they'd have to bear the costs of the weapons used. War and genocide is not cheap. The ruling class doesn't have to worry about price incentives since they get their funds from taxpayers.
[quote]You speak as if an army could only be formed by a government. If there is no government, people have access to weaponry without government bans on these weapons, then how do you suppose that a very charismatic individual, with access to money and no laws to keep him from stealing, could obtain weapons through an unregulated system, convince a small army (even 100 people would do) of some crazy, or even sane cause, and then let loose on the unprotected people of the country. No police, no army, no protection for the innocents.[/quote]
Bullshit. You're completely attacking a strawman here. There are laws against stealing (enforced by protection agencies) and you're forgetting that war is expensive. Look up the costs of the current War in Iraq (last time it was like $320 billion). Even if it was a tiny army, they'd be dealt with by the victims' protection agencies by getting their pants sued off.
[quote]What about leaving the government open to ANY that want to take it?[/quote]
An opt-in "government" is fine by me but it's not a government, it's a voluntary market organization. A government is a monopoly, if it was an opt-in "government" it's not a monopoly, it's a market where services are funded through voluntary user fees instead of taxation.
[quote]Even if you somehow managed the entire country that anarchy was in any way a good idea, you then have to manage to convince them to STAY that way.[/quote]
Let them believe whatever they want to as long as they don't act upon it. As long as state-worshippers don't start to form a government and attempt to tax people under the point of a gun, they'll be fine.
[quote]20 years later, what if the Church (who has NEVER passed an opportunity to take control and oppress when it can without losing too much public support) decides that they want to rule the country?[/quote]
The State only offers an opportunity for the church to take control of power. Without the State, the church won't have much power. And in a market anarchy, if the church initiated coercion against people (such as trying to enforce religion-based laws) it would immediately be seen as criminal, unlike under the State where it's considered okay.
[quote]What happens if a corporation becomes a monopoly on a certain good, then expands, takes over another good, and another, and another, until one company owns everything?[/quote]
Corporations are creations of the State and wouldn't exist under a free market. If a private business tried to become a monopoly, it would have to use force against competitors, which would be seen as criminal (Unlike under a State where the State's monopoly on roads, banks, courts, police, etc. is seen as perfectly legitimate). The private business would suffer several problems - loss of customers, loss of respect, loss of funds, loss of money due to other companies suing them for employing coercion.
[quote]Why are taxes a bad thing? I think I missed that one.[/quote]
Taxes are immoral because they are theft. Theft is deprival of property without consent of the owner. If you don't pay your taxes, you are thrown into jail and if you try to escape you're shot. The basis is coercion, violence.
[quote] Why is it a bad thing to pay what your government needs to exist?[/quote]
Why is it a bad thing to pay what the mafia needs to exist?
[quote]Is it really worth having some more money if there is no government to enforce the money? Without the government, that 100$ bill is just a piece of paper.[/quote]
Fiat money is useless and only exists because of the State's monopoly over currency. My guess is that gold and E-gold will be the dominant units of money, but monetary units in a market anarchy will be whatever the market wants it to be.
[quote]If a country is working for the individual instead of the group, it is bound to fail. If individuals care for individuals, then it's social survival of the fittest, which is in no way even close to a good thing.[/quote]
A group is comprised of individuals. If all the individuals in a group are successful that's not a bad thing at all. A market society is based on rational self-interest and self-determination.
[quote]Not to spark any harsh feelings after just meeting you noor.[/quote]
Same here.
It seems as though you think that NOT having the State would end political disputes, as if there would be no more War. Very few wars happen without people wanting them to. With the exception of a few, where the population was lied to to fight a war, you can't get people to fight unless they have a reason. Even when soldiers learn they were lied to, they still fight to defend their country. Regardless of if there's a state to organize such a military, that won't stop the people from doing so too, especially in countries were religious violence is common. Do you think not having a country saying they can attack each other would stop Israel from going at it?
For paragraph 2, same thing. People will wage war no matter how much it costs. Who's gonna stop a US citizen who gets pissed at some mexicans, kills some, Mexicans get pissed, kill some US citizens, and this escalates to a war. Where is the diplomatic figures to stop this nonsense? This happened in the previous Mexican-American War, and it could surely happen again. America has developed as a country since then and now that we have a global system of keeping peace, and most wars are no longer fought over territory, I don't see us fighting Mexico again. But if we have no diplomatic relations with a country, what's to stop all out war? Companies because they'd lose trading partners? Then wouldn't that be the same as governing us?
So now companies have police and courts? How would these be any less brutal or improper than a government system of police and courts? Now, instead of having the government punishing and firing police when they are found to be extremely unfair, you can have markets that own police, and these police have no lawful limits behind them.
And no, it is not suggested that your first way to deal with someone is to deal with them yourselves in the US system of law. It's best to report it, ask for protection, turn them in for a crime. I have yet to read something that says "before you try the lawful way of doing things, if someone is threatening you with violence, shoot them". It is suggested that if someone is shooting you to shoot them back, but that's a different story. Violence is supposed to be the last option.
The government has no incentive to protect me? When is the last time the government decided "Instead of defending my country, I'm going to just let some country invade us and walk in the door". Especially in a Democratic system. Incentive? You want to get re-elected, or give your party a good name. The market has a military now too? They have police, military, prisons... Sounds like a government except they don't tax you, which I fail to see as a good thing.
It cost 320 Billion to fight a 4 year war, to supply a large army with weapons, food, armored vehicles, bombs, airplanes, shelters, minor aid to Iraq, and many other smaller costs. To get your hands on some weapons to a somewhat small group of people isn't that hard, just look at terrorist groups. The last thing I remember an army being afraid of was being sued, but I guess It's a little frightening to a man with an M16.
So an opt-in government that lies to you is fine, as long as you don't have to pay taxes to them. You may say "well, if people didn't want them controlling them any more, they could just stop funding them and therefore force them out of office". Even after Republicans learned that Bush had lied his entire 4 years in office, they still re-elected him for a 2nd term. They had a perfectly legit way to get him out of office....no dice.
The state only allows the church to take over power? No it doesn't, it is it's job not to. That's why we have separation of church and state. Without the state, the church won't have much power? Since when has the church been getting power from the State, and not many devout and rich followers? How many of these markets do you think will be run by Atheists? If only 1% of the US population is Atheist, and most people say they would never vote for an Atheist simply BECAUSE he's Atheist, then why would the major corporations have that much against Religious establishments trying to take power? They may, as the founding fathers did, realize that mixing politics and religion never led to good things, but they may realize that "Hey, religion is a good business tool". The founding fathers weren't worried about making a profit. Markets, on the other hand, could see the reasoning for using Religion as a tool for selling goods, and let it's power increase unchecked.
Ok, what if a business instead attempted to take over an entire market legally? I'll avoid the M-word, but what if they completely control a market simply by running their opponents out of business without brutal business tactics? What force could stop them? Even worse, what if a rich business goes corrupt? Would it be any better than a corrupt government?
Taxes may indeed be theft, but that's like saying using a prison system, they are criminals because they are kidnappers, or that by killing a terrorist with a bomb before he goes off, that they are murderers. Some "crimes" are required.
Why is it bad to pay the mafia? Because the mafia is an illegal establishment, made illegal by the state, who requires money to protect me from themselves, and money that is used to increase the personal wealth of a cruel man.
How is this different from the state? What does the state use the money for? Buying drugs? Last I checked, it was ALL used to improve the lives of the American population. If the Mafia started doing that, then I pay them too.
If all the individuals are successful, that's GREAT. Now get all 300,000,000 individuals, some who have mental, physical, and emotional disorders, some who are elderly, some who are children, and make ALL of them be successful. Who takes care of those who fall behind?
[quote=Hrkman] It seems as though you think that NOT having the State would end political disputes, as if there would be no more War. Very few wars happen without people wanting them to. With the exception of a few, where the population was lied to to fight a war, you can't get people to fight unless they have a reason. Even when soldiers learn they were lied to, they still fight to defend their country. Regardless of if there's a state to organize such a military, that won't stop the people from doing so too, especially in countries were religious violence is common. Do you think not having a country saying they can attack each other would stop Israel from going at it?[/quote]
Technically there's no guarantee a war won't break out in a market anarchy, the same way there's no guarantee a bomb from aliens won't blow us up tomorrow. We're talking about how [i]likely[/i] a war in a market anarchy is compared to a war under a State. Private individuals are far less likely to waste their own hard-earned money on a war, unlike a State which simply uses other people's money. And the former would have to bear the repercussions of their deeds such as victims suing them (which isn't possible under the State since the State monopolizes the courts).
[quote]For paragraph 2, same thing. People will wage war no matter how much it costs.[/quote]
WAR COSTS BILLIONS. Why would any normal person waste billions of his hard-earned money on a conflict?
[quote] Who's gonna stop a US citizen who gets pissed at some mexicans, kills some, Mexicans get pissed, kill some US citizens, and this escalates to a war. Where is the diplomatic figures to stop this nonsense?[/quote]
What the fuck. The diplomatic figures are the causes of the war. Politicians are the ones who start wars.
And how would that conflict be handled under a monopoly State? It'd be handled the same way in a market anarchy, without the monopoly part, just market arbitration organizations and private agencies.
[quote] This happened in the previous Mexican-American War, and it could surely happen again. America has developed as a country since then and now that we have a global system of keeping peace, and most wars are no longer fought over territory, I don't see us fighting Mexico again. But if we have no diplomatic relations with a country, what's to stop all out war? Companies because they'd lose trading partners? Then wouldn't that be the same as governing us?[/quote]
"Countries" don't have relations, individuals do. Look up "ambiguous collective." It's the State that suffers from this problem because the State can start a war anytime and coerce citizens into fighting, spend billions of taxpayer money on it, and the ruling class doesn't have to give a fuck about it since it's not affecting them. If a private individual hired a private army, the army wouldn't have an incentive to do wrong (such as murder innocents) because they'd lose their reputation and therefore customers. If they still killed innocents, they'd get their pants sued off along with the person who hired them in the first place. Not so under a State.
[quote]So now companies have police and courts? How would these be any less brutal or improper than a government system of police and courts?[/quote]
INCENTIVE. There actually is an incentive for market courts and police to serve customers better. If they don't do their best in maintaining fairness, their reputation goes down, they lose customers and go out of business. The agency with the best customer satisfaction will be the one that fares best business-speaking. Competition amongst different agencies gives them an incentive to do their work better than the other ones.
Under a monopoly, none of those hold true. A monopoly can fuck up and you have no other options.
[quote]Now, instead of having the government punishing and firing police when they are found to be extremely unfair, you can have markets that own police, and these police have no lawful limits behind them.[/quote]
Yes there are. Customers simply purchase services from whatever police agency is reputed to be the most fair/lawful/etc. and corrupt ones lose customers and go out of business.
[quote]And no, it is not suggested that your first way to deal with someone is to deal with them yourselves in the US system of law. It's best to report it, ask for protection, turn them in for a crime. I have yet to read something that says "before you try the lawful way of doing things, if someone is threatening you with violence, shoot them". It is suggested that if someone is shooting you to shoot them back, but that's a different story. Violence is supposed to be the last option.[/quote]
Hahaha no. The "lawful" way of doing things under the State, is violence - the State is the biggest perpetrator of violence. They'll throw you in jail for not following their arbitrary laws and if you try to escape you'll get shot.
[quote]The government has no incentive to protect me? When is the last time the government decided "Instead of defending my country, I'm going to just let some country invade us and walk in the door".[/quote]
That doesn't prove there is an incentive. Look up police brutality, the arrests and kidnappings, the murders committed by the State - they basically "protect" you from other States only so they can commit more immoral acts against you.
[quote]Especially in a Democratic system. Incentive? You want to get re-elected, or give your party a good name.[/quote]
Just because you can choose between two alternatives in a monopoly doesn't mean there's no monopoly. Suppose Coke declared itself the only producer of soda drinks and forced others such as Pepsi and Sprite out of business. But the Coke corporation says that there will be different varieties of Coke being produced and people get to vote on them. Does this mean that Coke has a real incentive? (They don't because they're the only soda-makers)
[quote]The market has a military now too? They have police, military, prisons... Sounds like a government except they don't tax you, which I fail to see as a good thing.[/quote]
They aren't a government - there is NO COERCIVE MONOPOLY. A government has two main characteristics - it funds itself through coercive means (if you don't pay your taxes you're ultimately shot) and they use coercion against competitors making them a monopoly of services.
[quote]It cost 320 Billion to fight a 4 year war, to supply a large army with weapons, food, armored vehicles, bombs, airplanes, shelters, minor aid to Iraq, and many other smaller costs. To get your hands on some weapons to a somewhat small group of people isn't that hard, just look at terrorist groups. The last thing I remember an army being afraid of was being sued, but I guess It's a little frightening to a man with an M16.[/quote]
How does government deal with terrorists? If it does certain things that would be immoral if done by other people (such as taxation) it's morally wrong, and if it takes steps that would still be considered moral if done by other people, a State isn't necessary to deal with terrorists.
[quote]So an opt-in government that lies to you is fine, as long as you don't have to pay taxes to them.[/quote]
I consider an "opt-in government" a contradiction. A government is a monopoly of force, if it's voluntary it's not a government. If I found out a market organization was lying to me I would immediately stop buying services from them.
[quote]You may say "well, if people didn't want them controlling them any more, they could just stop funding them and therefore force them out of office". Even after Republicans learned that Bush had lied his entire 4 years in office, they still re-elected him for a 2nd term. They had a perfectly legit way to get him out of office....no dice.[/quote]
Options being offered within a monopoly does not mean it's not a monopoly anymore.
[quote]The state only allows the church to take over power? No it doesn't, it is it's job not to. That's why we have separation of church and state.[/quote]
What? If you're talking about America certainly not. Religion has a HUGE influence on the State. If you're talking about other countries like UK that's because the people tend to be less religious there.
[quote]Without the state, the church won't have much power? Since when has the church been getting power from the State, and not many devout and rich followers?[/quote]
Banning of gays from bars, anti-abortion laws, tax-exempt churches, witch exorcisms, etc. were all State-supported.
[quote]How many of these markets do you think will be run by Atheists? If only 1% of the US population is Atheist, and most people say they would never vote for an Atheist simply BECAUSE he's Atheist, then why would the major corporations have that much against Religious establishments trying to take power? They may, as the founding fathers did, realize that mixing politics and religion never led to good things, but they may realize that "Hey, religion is a good business tool". The founding fathers weren't worried about making a profit. Markets, on the other hand, could see the reasoning for using Religion as a tool for selling goods, and let it's power increase unchecked.[/quote]
All anarchists are atheists or at least against organized religion so religion wouldn't be much of an issue in a market anarchy. If any religious nut tries to take over he'll immediately be shot down by a private defense agency.
[quote]Ok, what if a business instead attempted to take over an entire market legally? I'll avoid the M-word, but what if they completely control a market simply by running their opponents out of business without brutal business tactics? What force could stop them?[/quote]
Other businesses emerge out of incentive to fulfill market demands. If there's a demand for some product that creates an incentive for organizations to provide for it due to profits. If they tried to force competitors out of business that wouldn't be seen as legitimate.
[quote] Even worse, what if a rich business goes corrupt? Would it be any better than a corrupt government?[/quote]
If a business goes corrupt, reputation goes down, customers quit, business loses profits.
If a government goes corrupt, that doesn't happen since people have no alternative to go to.
[quote]Taxes may indeed be theft, but that's like saying using a prison system, they are criminals because they are kidnappers, or that by killing a terrorist with a bomb before he goes off, that they are murderers. Some "crimes" are required.[/quote]
What the fuck. Killing a terrorist is self-defense, not a crime. Let me ask you this: suppose I go around asking my neighbors for their money and I threaten to shoot them if they don't give it to me, and I use the money to pay for road repairs, would it be morally just?
[quote]Why is it bad to pay the mafia? Because the mafia is an illegal establishment, made illegal by the state, who requires money to protect me from themselves, and money that is used to increase the personal wealth of a cruel man.[/quote]
That's basically mafia X declaring mafia Y criminal. Both of them are illegitimate under common law - except for that a State declares a mafia illegal, how are their basic deeds any different?
[quote]How is this different from the state? What does the state use the money for? Buying drugs? Last I checked, it was ALL used to improve the lives of the American population. If the Mafia started doing that, then I pay them too.[/quote]
Taxes pay for the War in Iraq, foreign aid to dictators, the war on drugs and the State's numerous monopolies, etc. How the fuck can stealing someone's money under gunpoint help people in any way? Even if it did that doesn't justify the immorality of it in the first place. Why would you expect other people to handle money better than the people who worked hard to earn it? And if the Mafia came to your house and threatened to shoot you if you didn't give them a portion of your money, and spent the afternoon weeding your lawn, does that make their deeds justified?
[quote]If all the individuals are successful, that's GREAT. Now get all 300,000,000 individuals, some who have mental, physical, and emotional disorders, some who are elderly, some who are children, and make ALL of them be successful. Who takes care of those who fall behind?[/quote]
Private charities, family and friends, insurance, etc. If you don't think anyone would give a damn, the same thing applies to State politicians too and if something applies to government as well, it can't be used as an argument against market anarchy.
Regardless of a State or Market, the people will always be offended by insults, and the people will always give insults, especially to what they hold dear. Having no State would not stop religious wars, nor wars of terrorism. You also said that the Market could have a private army/police force. What's to stop them from using their large funds to start a war? They'd lose money, granted, but if the people supported such a war due to insult, then they would gain immense popularity by supporting a war effort, and therefore would gain.
Why would a person waste their hard earned money on a war effort? Why would a person waste their hard earned money giving it to a church, or spending it on a X-box 360? Because people are willing to spend money on what they believe is right, or what they want. Money is not the only motivator in this world.
With your "losing reputation" idea, you're assuming that the people would be against a war. Let's say instead of a few individuals mildly insulting the Mexicans, 80% of the country decided that Muslims should be hunted down and slaughtered across the globe. The markets would be forced to support the people, or lose major business. Having incentive of customers and support goes both ways, for causing them to do good, and also to do what most would consider morally evil.
Let's consider competition between current businesses. Let's say Market A and Market B sell the same product. Market B makes it better to get more customers, while Market A makes it cheaper to get more customers. In this scenario, Market A almost always wins. So if you think the interest of the customer is the TOP priority of a market, then you are very mistaken.
The customer must purchase the police force or jail of his choice? If he doesn't pay...he doesn't get law...Isn't that a little like theft? Oh wait, you have a choice to NOT to get the law. Let's see how protected are then.
You've been using the tax paying exaggeration way too often. Since when is an officer supposed to shoot someone before other methods, especially when someone doesn't pay their TAXES. The only way you're likely to get shot by an officer for not paying your taxes is by assaulting him, or shooting first.
IRS tax penalty:
You may have to pay a penalty of 1/2 of 1% of your unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month after the due date that the tax is not paid. This penalty cannot be more than 25% of your unpaid tax. You will not have to pay the penalty if you can show good reason for not paying the tax on time.
The worst punishment I say was 6 months of jail time. Your story of paying taxes or getting shot is TOTALLY flawed. You're assuming that you use physical resistance against another person for collecting taxes or trying to arrest you. You call that "self defense". That's like saying a man who assaults an officer who's arresting him for murder is self defense on the man's part. The crimes, whether not paying taxes, or as deep as murder, are tried separately than you "resisting arrest". The crime of not paying taxes in NO way results in you getting shot unless you choose that.
The State in no way supports police brutality. It is not a robotic force that controls police men either. Last I checked, policemen were people. The State doesn't ask policemen brutal, or to take advantage of power. That's the people themselves, and people will be around whether the State is there or not.
You call the government a "monopoly". If by that you mean that it is the only choice and has no opposition, I disagree entirely. It is written into the very document that started our state that if we ever feel that our government is oppressive, we have not only the right, but the responsibility to revolt. Your coke analogy is also faulty. In said analogy, Coke gains from which ever person you choose. There is no almighty entity to gain from other side winning an election. If one side wins, they gain. If the other wins, they gain. There is no one who gains from either of them winning, only from one or the other.
(P.S. Sprite is owned by the Coke Company)
I think with your next point about how the government deals with terrorists,, you admitted that the government must take immoral steps to deal with problems, or let the problems deal with them. Yes, you have to murder terrorists and tax to get money for such, but if you don't, they will do immoralities to you. Name a single human being who doesn't do something immoral. Even if it's minor, or infrequent, we try to live morally, but some things we either do accidentally, or are FORCED to deal immorally. The people ruling the State are still people. The people ruling MARKETS would still be people. How does a Market deal with terrorism? NOT kill them? Fund it with their precious money that you constantly use an excuse for them to help us? If a market is run solely for the ultimate gain of money, and only cares for the citizens out of reason for the citizens to buy from them, how is that a more moral system than taxation?
You say you don't believe an opt-in government is possible, but you used the same phrase earlier. I'll just drop it then, since I was obviously confused about it.
Already discussed what I meant about your monopoly, so I will also skip that paragraph.
The majority of Americans are religious. The People are part of the State. Some religious VALUES end up as law. How would this be different under a market? If a market wants more customers, what won't it do to get a religious majority's money?
(Side question: What laws would be followed? Would each company have it's own laws and you abide by their own, or is their a universal code of laws that the whole country would magically have that could be agreed upon without having a State, and undebatable by the many different markets that want things their way? If their are no laws, why would you need privately owned police and prisons in the first place?)
All anarchists are atheists? Doesn't this go DIRECTLY against another topic you started explaining Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist anarchy? If all anarchists are atheists, doesn't that bring up another HUGE difficulty that not a single person has ever been ever to do before, and disprove God to devout believers who are so sure of it in their hearts, who won't listen to reason? This would be nice if we could do it NOW, but last I checked, Atheists were still around the 1 or 2% range of the American population. Hardly anyone is willing to get rid of religion for an anarchy, even if it WAS a good idea.
Just because companies form when old one's die, that doesn't remove the possibility of a market becoming too huge, even with legitimate ways of doing so. If one of these superamazing markets become corrupt, that doesn't mean people will stop going to them. If they provide the cheapest product, the consumer could care less who it got that way. Not to mention, since when were people the first to hear about a market going corrupt?
You COMPLETELY missed the point of my paragraph. If you kill a terrorist, it's murder. Not criminal murder, but murder. You call it "self defense" as a nice title to make it seem less like murder, but it's still murder. Would it be better to NOT murder this man, because it's morally wrong to you? You'll still be murdering a man, even if it's to save many other's lives. I could also say the same about your theft. Sure, taxes are theft, in the same way killing a terrorist is murder, and in the same way that having a prison system is kidnapping, and the same way that Atheism is a religion, and Anarchy is a system of government. When the English language falls apart to mean whatever you want it to mean, then sure, Taxes can be theft for all you care.
Well, you totally read the beginning of the next paragraph incorrectly, because it's entire basis was the 2nd paragraph, which I will instead talk about. First of all, I already went over the gunpoint comparison. Secondly, you mention all the bad things a government uses the money for. 1) The American people selected who to put into office. 2) They supported most of the topics that you spoke of. 3) It's not like the government pays for SOME health care, providing free education to public schools, road repair (which you did mention), Pension, Social Security...4)You make it so it's the STATE that is spending the money to support dictators, when it is the people running the State who make these choices. The State could exist without such spending.
Private Charities, family and friends, and insurance are ALL examples of working for the group rather than working for the individual, which was my entire point with that paragraph, as response to your previous statement that the individual working for the individual is better.
[quote=Hrkman]Regardless of a State or Market, the people will always be offended by insults, and the people will always give insults, especially to what they hold dear. Having no State would not stop religious wars, nor wars of terrorism. You also said that the Market could have a private army/police force. What's to stop them from using their large funds to start a war? They'd lose money, granted, but if the people supported such a war due to insult, then they would gain immense popularity by supporting a war effort, and therefore would gain.[/quote]
Wars would be [i]far less likely[/i] without a State. Historically anarchist societies have been far more peaceful compared to their counterparts with a State. To flip your question around: what's to stop a State from starting a war over an insult? Market armies and police would have to 100% bear the consequences (along with the cost) of their actions unlike a State - Bush and other rulers will just leave without having to bear any consequences of the war in Iraq (except maybe a bad name). If a private army had just invaded Iraq and blew up innocents in the name of "serving their home country," every one of them would get their pants sued off. Guess why this isn't possible with a State's army and court monopoly.
[quote]Why would a person waste their hard earned money on a war effort? Why would a person waste their hard earned money giving it to a church, or spending it on a X-box 360? Because people are willing to spend money on what they believe is right, or what they want. Money is not the only motivator in this world.[/quote]
Ever see people giving billions of dollars to churches, or spending it on games? If you got into a dispute with someone would you spend a hundreds of billions of dollars on hiring a private army, AND that too you would likely get your head blown off if a victim attacks you, and/or have to repay for whatever damage you did?
[quote]With your "losing reputation" idea, you're assuming that the people would be against a war. Let's say instead of a few individuals mildly insulting the Mexicans, 80% of the country decided that Muslims should be hunted down and slaughtered across the globe. The markets would be forced to support the people, or lose major business. Having incentive of customers and support goes both ways, for causing them to do good, and also to do what most would consider morally evil.[/quote]
If the markets did that they'd have to bear complete responsibility and they'd have to [i]pay for the consequences[/i]. Not so under a State. All the tracking people and murdering them would cost billions, and not many private agencies would be willing to pay all that - the customers would have to pay them billions for the weapons. And historically anarchist societies barely participated in wars while States have murdered trillions over time.
[quote]Let's consider competition between current businesses. Let's say Market A and Market B sell the same product. Market B makes it better to get more customers, while Market A makes it cheaper to get more customers. In this scenario, Market A almost always wins. So if you think the interest of the customer is the TOP priority of a market, then you are very mistaken.[/quote]
What makes you think Market A will win? It'd depend on the customer. Lots of people are willing to buy a $300 digital camera instead of a $10 disposable camera, or long lasting leather gloves over cheap disposable ones.
[quote]The customer must purchase the police force or jail of his choice? If he doesn't pay...he doesn't get law...Isn't that a little like theft? Oh wait, you have a choice to NOT to get the law. Let's see how protected are then.[/quote]
If you don't sign up with an insurance agency and your house burns down, you'll find insurance limited and expensive. Same with protection. And there's no jail since the primary goal of market courts is to ensure the aggressor restitutes the victims' rights, not locking them up for years.
You don't "get" law from an insurance agency, the same way you don't get gravity from a science experiment. Private defense agencies just enforce the law.
[quote]You've been using the tax paying exaggeration way too often. Since when is an officer supposed to shoot someone before other methods, especially when someone doesn't pay their TAXES. The only way you're likely to get shot by an officer for not paying your taxes is by assaulting him, or shooting first.[/quote]
If I don't pay my taxes, I'm sent to jail. If I try to escape being stolen from, I'm ultimately shot. And if someone takes your property, you are justified in shooting him. Same with an officer. Just because they're wearing a shiny badge doesn't mean they have any more rights. They're just ordinary people.
[quote]IRS tax penalty:
You may have to pay a penalty of 1/2 of 1% of your unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month after the due date that the tax is not paid. This penalty cannot be more than 25% of your unpaid tax. You will not have to pay the penalty if you can show good reason for not paying the tax on time.
The worst punishment I say was 6 months of jail time. Your story of paying taxes or getting shot is TOTALLY flawed.[/quote]
[url=http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/77697.htm]2.5 years in jail for avoiding taxes[/url]. If you don't pay your taxes, they'll track you down and if you still resist letting them rob you, they'll drag you to jail and if you resist they'll have to use the gun in order to get you to submit to them stealing your money.
[quote]You're assuming that you use physical resistance against another person for collecting taxes or trying to arrest you. You call that "self defense". That's like saying a man who assaults an officer who's arresting him for murder is self defense on the man's part. The crimes, whether not paying taxes, or as deep as murder, are tried separately than you "resisting arrest". The crime of not paying taxes in NO way results in you getting shot unless you choose that. [/quote]
State-law is not the fucking same as common law. Common law is basically do anything as long as you don't INITIATE coercion against someone else. In the case of murderers, the murderer is the one who [b]initiated[/b] the coercion. With taxes, the [b]State initiated[/b] the coercion. Resisting yourself against the IRS is self-defense.
[quote]The State in no way supports police brutality. It is not a robotic force that controls police men either. Last I checked, policemen were people. The State doesn't ask policemen brutal, or to take advantage of power. That's the people themselves, and people will be around whether the State is there or not. [/quote]
The policemen are a part of the State - they're used by the State as a tool to enforce the unjust laws. The difference between a brutal private criminal and a policeman is that the private criminal is seen as what he is - a criminal. When an ordinary man shoots a police even in self-defense, it's considered a crime under the State law. When a policeman shoots someone even not in self-defense, it's considered just. Policemen and the rest of the State are people, therefore they are subject to the same morals as ordinary citizens are.
[quote]You call the government a "monopoly". If by that you mean that it is the only choice and has no opposition, I disagree entirely. It is written into the very document that started our state that if we ever feel that our government is oppressive, we have not only the right, but the responsibility to revolt.[/quote]
Does that include abolishing it? ALL governments are oppressive - they RULE people, which is coercion, slavery. Governments tax, if I attempted to tax my neighbors I'd be a thief, governments impose manmade laws, if I did that I'd be a criminal. Government is people, therefore it does not have any special authority to do that which I have no right to. Secondly, I am part of "we the people" and if I started a revolution against the State, I'd be thrown in jail for treason. Stop believing the lies they teach you in State-controlled schools.
[quote]Your coke analogy is also faulty. In said analogy, Coke gains from which ever person you choose. There is no almighty entity to gain from other side winning an election. If one side wins, they gain. If the other wins, they gain. There is no one who gains from either of them winning, only from one or the other.[/quote]
Just because there are options within a monopoly doesn't mean it's not a monopoly anymore. Even if Coke was giving a choice they as a whole are gaining and if they used force against competitors they are a monopoly.
[quote](P.S. Sprite is owned by the Coke Company)[/quote]
Brain freeze, sorry.
[quote]I think with your next point about how the government deals with terrorists,, you admitted that the government must take immoral steps to deal with problems, or let the problems deal with them. Yes, you have to murder terrorists and tax to get money for such, but if you don't, they will do immoralities to you.[/quote]
How the fuck can you expect to use immoralities such as taxation in order to stop immorality? It's self-defeating.
[quote]Name a single human being who doesn't do something immoral. Even if it's minor, or infrequent, we try to live morally, but some things we either do accidentally, or are FORCED to deal immorally.[/quote]
Do you agree or disagree that this force is immoral? If yes, then go ahead and explain to me how does a State maintain its rule over a territory without initiation of force. If no, then explain to me the circumstances where coercion is okay just because it's being done by a group of people calling themselves a 'government.'
[quote]The people ruling the State are still people. The people ruling MARKETS would still be people. How does a Market deal with terrorism?[/quote]
Better than the State without legitimized coercion, certainly. A private army with limited funds would send a small team to locate the terrorists, instead of blowing up millions of innocent individuals like State armies do. The terrorists would get their asses dragged to court and prosecuted and have to restitute their victims.
Also, rule = coerce. Market = voluntary. A market by definition cannot have rulers.
[quote]NOT kill them? Fund it with their precious money that you constantly use an excuse for them to help us? If a market is run solely for the ultimate gain of money, and only cares for the citizens out of reason for the citizens to buy from them, how is that a more moral system than taxation?[/quote]
Taxation is the State asking for your money and threatening to shoot you if you don't pay. User fees is you choosing to pay for a voluntary service. If I walk into your house and snatch the money that you were gonna pay for a new hi-fi, and I say I'm going to use the money to pay for your insurance, would that justify my taking of your money?
[quote]You say you don't believe an opt-in government is possible, but you used the same phrase earlier. I'll just drop it then, since I was obviously confused about it.[/quote]
It's a phrase but in reality it's a contradiction. "Married bachelor" is a phrase but a contradiction - if I use that phrase that doesn't mean I believe there is such a thing.
[quote]Already discussed what I meant about your monopoly, so I will also skip that paragraph.
The majority of Americans are religious. The People are part of the State. Some religious VALUES end up as law. How would this be different under a market? If a market wants more customers, what won't it do to get a religious majority's money? [/quote]
You'd have to pay them entirely out of your own pocket if you want it enforced. Under the State all you have to do is help get a fundie nut elected and he can make up a law and enforce it with tax money. It's FAR easier under a State.
[quote](Side question: What laws would be followed? Would each company have it's own laws and you abide by their own, or is their a universal code of laws that the whole country would magically have that could be agreed upon without having a State, and undebatable by the many different markets that want things their way? If their are no laws, why would you need privately owned police and prisons in the first place?)[/quote]
[url=http://www.mises.org/story/2497]Market-Chosen Law[/url] pretty much answers your questions.
[quote]All anarchists are atheists? Doesn't this go DIRECTLY against another topic you started explaining Jewish, Christian, and Buddhist anarchy? If all anarchists are atheists, doesn't that bring up another HUGE difficulty that not a single person has ever been ever to do before, and disprove God to devout believers who are so sure of it in their hearts, who won't listen to reason? This would be nice if we could do it NOW, but last I checked, Atheists were still around the 1 or 2% range of the American population. Hardly anyone is willing to get rid of religion for an anarchy, even if it WAS a good idea.[/quote]
Read what I said again ("All anarchists are atheists [i]or at least against organized religion[/i]"). Read any writing by Leo Tolstoy or a religious anarchist and you'll see they're against organized religion because of the authority, etc. that religion is about.
[quote]Just because companies form when old one's die, that doesn't remove the possibility of a market becoming too huge, even with legitimate ways of doing so. If one of these superamazing markets become corrupt, that doesn't mean people will stop going to them. If they provide the cheapest product, the consumer could care less who it got that way. Not to mention, since when were people the first to hear about a market going corrupt?[/quote]
And I guess the victim of corruption would just sit around on his/their asses and do absolutely nothing, just letting themselves get exploited?
[quote]You COMPLETELY missed the point of my paragraph. If you kill a terrorist, it's murder. Not criminal murder, but murder. You call it "self defense" as a nice title to make it seem less like murder, but it's still murder. Would it be better to NOT murder this man, because it's morally wrong to you? You'll still be murdering a man, even if it's to save many other's lives. I could also say the same about your theft. Sure, taxes are theft, in the same way killing a terrorist is murder, and in the same way that having a prison system is kidnapping, and the same way that Atheism is a religion, and Anarchy is a system of government. When the English language falls apart to mean whatever you want it to mean, then sure, Taxes can be theft for all you care. [/quote]
Taxes are INITIATION of coercion. Killing a terrorist is not - the terrorist is the aggressor, the initiator. I believe I've gone over this earlier.
[quote]Well, you totally read the beginning of the next paragraph incorrectly, because it's entire basis was the 2nd paragraph, which I will instead talk about. First of all, I already went over the gunpoint comparison. Secondly, you mention all the bad things a government uses the money for. 1) The American people selected who to put into office.[/quote]
I am part of the people and I know I did not select anyone so that falls apart.
[quote]2) They supported most of the topics that you spoke of.[/quote]
I am part of the people and I don't support it. Majority does not make right. If most of the people wanted someone murdered that doesn't justify it.
[quote]3) It's not like the government pays for SOME health care, providing free education to public schools, road repair (which you did mention), Pension, Social Security...[/quote]
If I snatch your money, threaten to drag you into jail and spend the money on buying you new stuff, I guess my taking your money is perfectly justified according to your logic. It's like a master offering a slave a meal and saying that the meal justifies his rule over the slave.
[quote]4)You make it so it's the STATE that is spending the money to support dictators, when it is the people running the State who make these choices. The State could exist without such spending.[/quote]
The State IS people. No spending is a result of the State not getting any income (taxes). A State is not a State without coercive taxation, simple as that. The moment it runs itself on voluntary user fees, it's a market organization.
[quote]Private Charities, family and friends, and insurance are ALL examples of working for the group rather than working for the individual, which was my entire point with that paragraph, as response to your previous statement that the individual working for the individual is better.
[/quote]
Insurance? How is insurance working for the group? And as for the others, a handicapped person is an individual. "Group" is an abstraction without a mind of its own, only an entity with a mind can work for others. It's the individuals within the group that choose to help others. If someone chooses to voluntarily help others, great, but if someone coerces an obligation onto someone else, it's slavery.
You can't flip the question around. We're not discussing whether or not a State would start a war over insult, we're discussing whether or not a Market would be more successful at stopping such an event. Just saying the State could start a war in no way says the Market wouldn't. Regardless, you said the Market would have to pay the consequences of the war, which in no way answers if the people supported said war. If anything, the market would gain from a war if supported by the people. Who's to "sue their pants off" if they're supported by 80% of the country? And since when was getting your pants "sued off" a deterrent from murdering someone? Last I checked, people would kill for a lot less than getting sued.
And yes, I do see people spending billions of dollars on churches. Maybe not each individual spending that, but Televangelists (not even considered a typo by my computer :O) make millions each year, not to mention if you added the Tithes of every church in the nation each year, and all the money spent on video games, and all the money spent on things people want but don't need, You'd get a pretty high number. You're question is ludicrous because not many people HAVE billions of dollars, but many people could, and if you Had Billions of dollars, would you spend it on what you want?
The Main point of the entire paragraph is that the Market's actions are based totally off of achieving monetary gain, and can easily be used either way. They'll do whatever the consumer wants if it means more consumers. In all your examples, this is magically a good thing. This is in no way better than the State. Sure, the State does bad or good things, but a market would be just as likely to do these things, which makes a peaceful nation just the same under either. You also say Anarchist societies are generally less likely to participate in wars. Yeah, because they are minuscule countries that rarely declare, or partake in wars in the first place, and most of these anarchist civilizations last for a few years (with some exceptions).
What makes me think market A will win? Common practice. Look at Wal-Mart. It achieves cheap products through immoral means, but they still come out on top. Sure, specialty stores still exist where you can buy your 300$ gloves, but Market A always dominates Market B. It is also apparent in the food market. Cheap foods, McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, are also the Giant Industries with Billions of Dollars, but you can still go get a 30$ Steak from that nice Expensive restaurant. It just doesn't have 1,000,000,000 locations world wide.
Insurance and Protection of your basic rights as a human are totally incomparable. I don't believe a government should provide free insurance to every citizen, because Insurance and your Rights are on different levels. Would you prefer to be homeless after a fire, or just open to being publically raped and murdered? Every country has homeless people, and unemployment. Who protects their rights? They can't afford any type of protection. Their insurance definitely would come after their right to live, and many Americans live without insurance, while no one living under the state is allowed to be killed because they couldn't buy a private defense agency to protect them.
You apparently still don't see what's wrong with the getting shot, because you said it YET again. The action of not paying taxes WILL NOT GET YOU SHOT. Every time, you add the "Try to escape prison", or "Try to resist". These are entirely different crimes. You're in the position you're in because you failed to obey the law, whether you like it or not, but that doesn't give you the right to resist it or escape it, nor should it. And you're still using oversimplification as if it was a successful tool for ANYTHING except pissing people off. There are immoral things that people must do to avoid even less moral things. i.e. shooting a man who is planning on killing 100 people but won't just submit. i.e. taxing people to use for the Government's uses, which , in an ideal State system, would include benefiting the people. The State may currently spend it on things that the people disapprove of, but that's the actions of the people running the State, not the idea of the State. Of course the State isn't perfect, but a Market wouldn't be either, and the people running it would also no doubt do things against the people. The Republican party still has massive support through out the country, even though they've done so many disagreeable things. So would a Market system. People have the choice to choose any party they wish if they decide theirs isn't suiting them, and so it is reasonable to assume that in a Market system, where people have just as much choice, that they would act the same.
Oh, and your link didn't quite give the effect it was supposed to. That guy got 2.5 years for Tax FRAUD. That's cheating the system to gain more money for himself. Good luck trying to find someone who thinks that's not wrong.
Technically, the criminal in both situations initiated the coercion. The Tax payer still initiated the coercion because he didn't obey the law. It is the man of the law's duty to arrest a law breaker. By resisting, you are resisting the man who is doing his job because you didn't do yours.
Oh yeah, last few times a policeman shot someone without reason, they definitely did NOT appear on the news for weeks, get fired, and put under arrest. That was totally my imagination.
Ruling someone and Owning someone are entirely different concepts. A market would not rule people in the same way a government does? The government only "rules" me by setting laws that I have to follow. You've already said that there would be at least some law in a Market system. If that's what you consider "ruling", then sure. Try and find a place where people aren't ruled at all. If you tried to tax your neighbor, yes, you would be a thief. If you weren't a law enforcer in a Market system, and you tried to arrest a man, even if you think he deserves it, you're still a criminal. And your "stop listening to school" is honestly pathetic. You have no reason to believe that the government is brainwashing children besides to try to fit your own means. You would have no proof beyond trying to fit it with your idea of what the government is, which isn't proof at all.
But there is no monopoly behind the election! With Coke, when you have Coke vs. Sprite or whatever, they're both owned by Coke. No matter what happens, Coke gains from this. In the Democratic system, The State does not gain from which ever candidate is picked. There is no mastermind behind it all who will gain something regardless of which Party wins. It is Party vs. Party.
So you are against killing someone who is about to blow himself up on the subway? You are committing the immorality of killing someone, but in doing so saving hundreds of lives? You are causing a lesser immorality to stop a greater.
I was speaking moreso about Morality in general, where sometimes simply by circumstance we are forced to do something immoral to stop something even worse.
Again with the court scaring Terrorists away from their cause...How is that at all a deterrent? Oh gnoes, courts! Now I am completely without likelihood to murder ever again. Most people, if given the ability, would commit more crimes, and more people would be committing them if being sued was their worse enemy, as opposed to, I dunno, death. The State did attempt to hunt down these terrorists too, and failed before resorting to what I personally believe was a terrible decision. Still, just because you say a Market super squad is gonna find terrorists a lot easier than the State is in no way based upon fact or reasoning.
Excuse me if I don't consider protection of rights a "voluntary service". I already mentioned Abortion Terms: Potential Human or Parasite, both are what a fetus is, but both reflect a different viewpoint trying to make their opponents look more like monsters, and just because you call it theft and I call it tax doesn't mean both aren't correct, theft just sounds harsher, like killing a Potential Human sounds harsher than killing a parasite. That seems like all you do, is simplify terms to seem crueler than they are. How often does it occur that someone is shot for not paying taxes? Once a year? Twice a year? And yet you word it so that it seems as though every time you don't pay your taxes, you'll get shot, and as I already went over, the lack of paying taxes isn't even the real crime. Making it sound crueler than it is in no way strengthens your argument, but just makes you seem more desperate. Thousands of men and women much smarter than you and I have seen the necessity of a government and the necessity of taxes to continue a government. Communism utterly fails (Just mentioning this because in that 2nd link you sent me, it mentions the same private defense as a Communistic idea also), and all countries larger than a hair that attempt Anarchism fail because it can't control a large country. If it was an effective system, It would be used. If it's ineffective, it'll be used by 3rd world countries and revolutionary countries for about 4 years until they realize it indeed fails.
What? I didn't really get your part about "paying out of the pocket" to enforce religion. I'll just simplify the question in case you didn't get it, or maybe I'm just slow xD : If the majority of the population is religious, wouldn't a market more likely use religion to get more customers? Many companies do it in the State, but in a Market Anarchy, when the Market has actual power over the people, would this not be more dangerous?
(Continuing answer to the Paragraph above without trying to make the question too hidden or complex). There is no opposition to inducing religion into a market. In the State, regardless of being overlooked on occasion, there is at least a basis of Separation of Church and State. In a market, there would be no punishment for using religion as a tool to gain more money.
If you just mean against organized religion, than I truly don't know what your point is. Being against organized religion is definitely better than being for it, but just because you don't share your belief in the improbable with others doesn't make it any more true.
Honestly, I think that the common consumer would be fine buying from a corrupted market if the prices were cheaper, especially if A) The Corruption was secret, or B) It wasn't taken out on the consumer, but rather the workers in Africa who are making the product for 30¢ an hour.
Taxes are only initiation of coercion if you refuse to pay them. Therefore, the man not paying his Taxes are the coercers. There are plenty of warnings saying that you will indeed be punished for not paying taxes. The existence of Taxes in no way initiates the coercion, for many people do not resist taxation at all, and no problems ensue. The refusal to pay taxes is when you break a law, therefore initiating problems.
1) Alright, you didn't select anyone, but you had the ability and the right to. You chose not to for reasons I don't know, for if I could I would gladly take advantage of a system that lets me choose the leadership of my nation.
2) Majority doesn't make it right, no, but try pleasing every single person in the entire country and see if it's even possible. If the Majority selects something, then it is pleasing the most possible people.
3) There you go again with ludicrous examples as if they in any way were comparable. This was mainly debunking your whole "All tax money is poorly spent" thing, where you just listed everything bad tax money is spent on. Regardless, your examples have fundamental flaws of thinking that I support individual theft, which is what most of your insane examples entail. Just by common experience you can see that Anarchism fails in most examples of it's existence, especially in larger countries. Just because you say we don't need taxes doesn't mean we don't. It's obvious that governments have formed over time based on the system of taxation. A requirement for early civilization to be considered a civilization is usually a caste system or a government. Early people were anarchists, and they grew past that stage. let's not devolve.
4) But you're assuming a state must spend it's money on such thing as supporting dictators to be a State. Arguing that that's a bad reason to tax people, due to the State's actions, is arguing that the State is under poor leadership, which I don't disagree with. The State could still exist though, and be a state, without using it's taxes for evil means, and attacking the idea of a State and attacking it's Current president are two different things.
Jesus, you really like exaggerating and using "Abortion Words". "If someone coerces an obligation onto someone else, it's slavery". Slavery is yet again claiming a human as property, or something that can be owned. A government in no way does that. If your mom says you HAVE to walk the dog, or you're grounded, is that slavery, or doing an obligation to your household?
Just an fyi - the above is one of the longest posts and with my super-busy schedule lately I think it's gonna take a while more for me to post my rebuttal.
It's fine. I often shove off reading incredibly long posts for a while too. I never feel like it's really worth the time...Then I usually start one and don't finish it for another two days or so.
[quote] Slavery is yet again claiming a human as property, or something that can be owned. A government in no way does that. [/quote]
If you read [i]1984[/i], youd know this solgan: [b]SLAVERY IS FREEDOM[/b].
Slavery donest always mean physically property. In the US any convict thats been realeased cannot vote, own a gun, and sometimes cant leave the country. Does that sound like freedom?
Here's a [url=http://http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=139225]site[/url] that shows some other examples also.
Me denying slavery was kind of a minor word choice correction in all this, not really a major point of the argument...Anyways...
Dictionary.com :
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person (a slave to a drug).
I don't think a novel is the best source for a definition. Slave most often means physical, but can also include mental domination of another being. The Government in no way dominates your physical or mental self. Removing a few rights when you have committed a crime is not slavery. The government never forces you to do anything in your example, They only restrict you from doing things. If your mom takes away your computer time because you talked back to her cruelly as a child, is that slavery?
Personally I'm fine with a convict not owning a gun. I'd be fine with MORE people not owning guns. I completely understand sometimes not allowing people to leave the country either, if the crime was serious enough. Not voting is agreeably harsh. Regardless, these punishments were not given for no reasons. Convicts means that they committed a crime. Want to keep voting? Don't commit a crime! You're being taken out of a system because you broke the laws of the system.
Oh, and the link didn't work =/. Took me to...Http.com. which comprised of "search for this, lol".
In addition, It seems as though using slavery is yet again just another "Abortion Word" that seems to be constantly recurring in noor's posts, so I didn't think about it TOO hard.
[quote]Me denying slavery was kind of a minor word choice correction in all this, not really a major point of the argument...Anyways...[/quote]
I wasnt going against the whole agrument. I was debating the concept of slavery in Goverments. Now US doesnt have slavery. Im saying about the idea of how it could happen.
There's two types of slavery in my brain:
I Physcial own
II Watching/Controling/Commanding A Person (Im not talking about some kid and his mother, Im talking about you as a 30 year old man with a camera always watching and listening to you everyday and everywhere.) It sounds controlling, but this is to the exterme which would be called a slave to the goverment.
[quote]I don't think a novel is the best source for a definition.[/quote]
Actually [i]1984[/i] would be the best book when it comes to the subject of Socalism. Sorry the link didnt work, but in your free time I recomend reading a summary of it on the web. Ive read it twice and I dont like books.
[quote]
If your mom takes away your computer time because you talked back to her cruelly as a child, is that slavery?[/quote]
I couldnt see how thats slavery (Note two above).
[quote]
Personally I'm fine with a convict not owning a gun. I'd be fine with MORE people not owning guns.[/quote]
If a convict wants a gun, their gonna get it, no matter what. I got an AK-47 and a Mack 10, do you think ATF knows? If you suggest Guncontrol laws, those laws are ignorant. My evidence:
I People who [b]follow[/b] laws arent criminals. Criminals [b]break[/b] the laws.
II People then [b]dont[/b] carry a gun, but criminals do because they [b]break[/b] laws.
III Common cannot defend themselves from the armed criminal since they [b]follow the laws[/b].
(Thats of course if you believe in the above)
I agree that Slavery could indeed be in a government, as it was before in US history more literally, and as no doubt is in your II Definition in certain parts of the world, but slavery in the context of noor's post was saying the very fact that we have a government slavery, which is what I was debating against. It is clearly wrong to say that that kind of slavery can't exist, or doesn't exist, but it is just as wrong to say that it must exist for a government to be a government.
I guess we're arguing different things, which makes it a little more difficult. To further debate your points, I would have to keep making assumptions about what I was debating with noor, which I suppose is not the stance you're taking.
" People who follow laws arent criminals.
Criminals break the laws.
II People then dont carry a gun, but criminals do because they break laws.
III Common cannot defend themselves from the armed criminal since they follow the laws."
I. No Gun Control law that I think fitting is taking away your first amendment right to bear arms, but moreso limiting it from automatic weapons, which in no way are needed for defense.
I. People following laws have legal weapons and are taught how to use them properly.
II. Common people carry guns and know how to use them, and criminals have guns with no proper instruction.
III. Common people have the same access to weapons as an armed criminal, but with proper instruction from trained professionals, and therefore have better chances of protecting themselves.
[quote]I. No Gun Control law that I think fitting is taking away your first amendment right to bear arms, but moreso limiting it from automatic weapons, which in no way are needed for defense.[/quote]
They already have a law for automatic weapons it goes like this:
a. Weapon MUST BE before 1982 and Registered
b. The goverment can enter your home at [b]anytime without a warrant[/b].
c. They cost a little over 6 thousand dollars, which means evryone who owns one isnt a criminal since of the registering and price.
d. Criminals normally use a form of a 9mm or 40/45 caliber; due to its affordably, accurately, and liably of the weapon. A 9mm can costs just 200 dollars. My Uzi cost 300 dollars with a suppressor. Its a semi-auto. Autos are crappy, they built up too much gun powder in the camber (except the AK and SKS family).
e. Making automatic weapons illegal doesnt stop criminals, since weapons like AR, AK (or SKS), and M6s can have their clips changed to automatic. It just (once again) limits its ownably to just LawEnforcement and Criminals.
The Admen your thinking of is the 2nd one. And people dont understand its context. It doesnt say you can bear arms to their understanding, it says you have to right to bear arms for a milita.
[quote]I. People following laws have legal weapons and are taught how to use them properly[/quote]
Correct, but criminals can get legal weapons too, thats why there's classified ads in the newspaper. Their not in the ATF records because their sold under a Bill of Sale instead.
[quote]II. Common people carry guns and know how to use them, and criminals have guns with no proper instruction.[/quote]
Wrong. I live in New Orleans and [b]EVERYDAY[/b] a murder is caused by a 9mm or 40/45 cal Handguns. They know how to exactly to shoot a gun.
[quote]III. Common people have the same access to weapons as an armed criminal, but with proper instruction from trained professionals, and therefore have better chances of protecting themselves.[/quote]
a. Not everyone is trained by a professional.
b. If Gun Control is active in your State your training would be useless. Which further proves my point of Gun Control's unimportantance.
This topic isn't really on gun control at all, and I never disagreed that gun laws are good either, so I really don't know where this is going. I simply agree that automatic weapons should be illegal and you should purchase weapons legally. My point was never that gun control was important...In fact, my point was more along the lines of being against Market Anarchism, however long ago that was, and against using "Abortion Words" to strengthen an argument...
I don't really have a debatable quarrel with you Cahill, unless you too support Market Anarchism, which I would gladly continue this topic...
I'm not against or for Market Anarchism, I was debating the concept of illegal weapons and how its pointless. Here's my point:
When you buy a weapon legally it doesn't change anything. This is how it goes:
Now that's today's rule for an auto, and criminals get them somehow. If its illegal, the over Three Hundred Thousand automatic weapons will sell and multiply like wild fire. The point is no matter if it's illegal or not the auto-weapons will still flourish. So, why make it illegal so citizens can't have them.
Going to be brief here...
[quote=Hrkman]
With 11 million people in Ohio (my home state) alone, there were 462,000 crimes. 40,000 were violent, 280,000 were thefts. Now I'd say Ohio is a relatively peaceful state compared to others, and that's quite a lot for 1 year.
[/quote]
Start with the question "Why do people steal?" Similar questions can be applied to the violent crimes also. By in large, I think you will find that, quoting Emma Goldman, "A society gets all of the criminals it deserves." Now, there exists a small percentage of the population with (mental) problems that cause them to lack critical social skills that the rest of us have. They would exist in any society. This is not an argument against anarchism, but rather an argument for it: do you want to risk someone like being in control of many (possibly many, many) peoples lives?
To noor: What do you think of [url=http://www.infoshop.org/faq/]An Anarchist FAQ[/url]?