Brandon Buck _BB_

The problem with that argument is that we have no way to know how a business owner would structure his pricing in the absence of sales tax. The likelihood is that due to competition, the prices of goods would not go up and thus, profits would not go up. Ulitmately, the compulsory nature of the tax is all one needs to demonstrate in order to prove it is not voluntary.

I have no problem with people arguing against capitalism but slave labor isn't an argument against capitalism. Nor is government collusion with corporations. Nor are arguments against the banking industry. Capitalism is a child selling lemonade from a table in his front yard. It is a mechanic repairing your car. And, it is Nike paying some sports celebrity a billion dollars for an ad campaign. Nothing wrong with any of those things. As for slave labor, it's wrong not because it is labor... it's wrong because it's slavery. But you don't end slave labor by vilifying capitalism... any more than you end diabetes by vilifying eating. Also, I'm highly skeptical of documentaries which claim slave labor. Are these people actually being forced to work or are they simply being taken advantage of? Don't misunderstand... there is a serious ethical problem with taking advantage of people but to conflate low wages with slavery is a tenuous position. I haven't looked at the video you linked but I have to wonder.... are these people being paid such low wages because the Indonesian government, like China, has prohibited collective bargaining? If so, who is actually hurting these people... GAP or the Indonesian government? Also, what are the alternatives to working for those wages? Begging, theft or starvation? I would support a boycott of GAP if they are indeed taking advantage of people but I can't abide the notion that capitalism is the reason they're doing so and I couldn't support any government action such as trade sanctions against Indonesia or the Indonesian government fining the company, because it wouldn't help those who're being harmed.

Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron. You can point your debate opponent to a dictionary for evidence that taxation is compulsory and then you can point them to a thesaurus for evidence that tax and compulsion are not synonymous. Or, you can ask them if they support consensual rape... if they enjoy watching the sun rise into the darkness... if they eat cow pork... In the end, trade is voluntary. Taxation is not.

Corporations were created by the state for the purpose of protecting their owners from liability and to allow them to rake profits when business is good, while avoiding personal loss when it is bad. In a stateless society, they would exist in as much as the structure of the company is concerned (shareholders, directors, et al) but they would not provide financial impunity to those who're running them. For instance, when BP tainted the gulf of Mexico with oil, the executives who run the company were not held personally liable for the damages caused. The company was but if the company hadn't had the money to make repairs and reperations, those executives would still not have been held personally liable. I suspect that in a stateless society, corporations would protect themselves from loss due to mismanagement through some sort of insurance but that's another topic. As for large income disparities, I don't know what you mean. There will always be those who choose not to be wealthy and there will always be those who choose to be as wealthy as possible. This is a personal choice that people make and it won't change once the state is gone. I think it's safe to argue that executive pay wouldn't be as high as it is now in a lot of industries but there will be income inequality.

So an anarchist society can't exist. That confirms it, unless all kids are taken from their families by force, or their families are forced to raise them a certain way, because if not, there will, as he points out be a State until all families adopt the NAP with parenting, which won't happen naturally. The family cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. As it is and has been since the beginning of time, parents have children and raise them. Their is no choice for the child, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. The parents carry the responsibility for the childs very life, health, education, shelter, clothing, etc... and the child can't do that for himself. The parent can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can the child. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the child has with the parent, and since neither parent nor child can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, the child has to obey the parent. The parent has to, in one way or another, force the child to accept the parent's rules, and the child doesn't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... The parents carry the heavy burdon, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. A parent cannot do that when their child is disrespectful, difficult, willful, and noncompliant. In short, the family "must" embody certain statist principles or else the family unit would dissolve. However that will not happen because parents inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing his child and shaping that child in his image. Without legal interruption in this natural cycle no family can be forced to act in any certain way. With this freedom and responsibility comes variation. With this variation comes disagreement. With this disagreement comes ethics. With ethics comes intervention. With intervention comes law. With law comes punishment. With punishment comes the State. So that's it, really, for voluntaryism as a possible societal structure of some kind. It cant happen. Pure fantasy. There are many reasons aside from the family as STATE angle that makes Anarchy fatally flawed, but this one interests me because the concept was brought about by Stefan, whom may not have realized that he single handedly cornered the Anarchy movement into a position to face such a fatal flaw. Oh well. It sucks, but again we are not merely Anarchists, but are philosophers "first". Your assessment would have merit if child rearing practices were as brutal today as they were in the past. However, they are not. Violence and authoritarianism in child rearing has been on a steady decline for as long as we can find evidence. Thus, it stands to reason that at some point in time, parenting will be non violent and non authoritarian in nature. At that point, there will be no one who enjoys the idea of statism and it is at that point that nation states will be cast aside by humanty. All of this is happening organically. Stefan and others of us who understand that trend are merely seeking to speed the process up.

As has been mentioned, it's the other way. The state is an effect of the family. Likewise, religion. Stef has made that observaiton many times and for many years. Also, Lloyd DeMause describes the Christian religion in "The Origins of War in Child Abuse". The imagery used and the heirachical structure of the religion mirror the child rearing practices of the day.

"I have an idea of how to respond, but not sure about which direction to take this in." It would be nice if you'd answer here as you're thinking, then we could help you polish the answer before you respond to him.

1: If I rephrase it to: "Is it even rational to believe that a world without a shred of anarchism will have sustainable anarchism in the future?" does that make more sense? - Yes it does, thank you. And to answer the question, yes it is. When we look at human history from the perspective of control and violence, we see less and less of both. The logical end to that trend is no control and not violence but, the realistic end is no organized control with a minimum of violence. The issue of minimal state. 2: Why? This seems like a huge oversimplification. There are plenty of "societal" programs and politics which reduce or increase violence (not that I'm saying that couldn't be done without them). My problem is how is anarchy any better? How is an approximation to NAP worse than something that will surely produce laws that accept death penalities for different crimes and non-crimes (like blasphemy or just being a minority)? - On what grounds do you claim an anarchic society will prescribe death as punishment for blasphemey or being a minority? That's an extraordinary claim for which you'll need extraordinary evidence. How can you even conclude that the horrible constitution of the US, which enabled the massive production of capitalism and freedom for a century (more or less). It was so flawed and even then it worked for a long while. The basis at which minarchy and anarchy can work is absolutely the same; people really need to believe in individual freedom, non-aggression and capitalism. Without it states will emerge non-the less. So how is anarchy better in the real world? - Again, extraordinary claims. The constitution didn't enable freedom. It failed to deny it. It also failed to limit the growth of the state and thus, the loss of freedom we suffer today. For this seems to be the main argument; USA was the best approximation to freedom. But it had at no moment a constitution written so clearly it could not be accepted as anything but the meaning of it, which lead to politicians having something to work on to do their twisted acts. - So don't write up a set of rules and don't appoint rulers. With no special rules and no monopoly on their enforcement, who's gonna take your freedom? In truth, America was it's best between the delcaration of independence and the ratification of the constitution... when there was no nation state.

Do you need help refuting this argument or are you just sharing? I ask because this is the most incoherent argument against UPB I've heard and unless you need help explaining it to him, it isn't worth the time.

"Is it even rational to believe that a world without a shred of anarchism will have sustainable state-less societies in the future?" I don't understand this question. Anarchism and stateless society are synonymous. Can you rephrase this question? "The second is a more pragmatic approach to the NAP; which society leads to less initiation of force?" Why would we ignore an known component of statism in order to make an argument for or against it? Ignoring the fact that cancer kills, is it really that bad a thing to have? "and cannot a structure of government with an undeniable strict and uncompromising constitution keep its limit. What about for example the Prime Law?" No. And there is no form of societal organization that can stop an aggressor at the point he commits violence. Contracts with a DRO wil not prevent you from being robbed. Nor will a one paragraph constitution and your ideal nation state.

Given the opportunity, do you think it would be better if you: a) Spanked Stef for reporting the information in the studies he used in the manner he reported them? b) Asked Stef why he reported what he did and what other information he might have been drawing from for the video? If you chose b and Stef was able to provide sound and logical arguments for the structure of the video, should Stef spank you?

"Is passive-aggressive flaming accepted in this forum?" Is your original post still there?

I'm sorry, I should have said omivorous. However, I do see what you're saying. I hadn't thought about food consumption as yet another myth we are told in school. At first glance, the most scientific (as opposed to religious or pro vegan) website I've found suggests that we are indeed suited to consume minimal amounts of flesh. That makes sense, given the similarities we have with carnivores (canine teeth, forward facing eyes) as opposed to those we have with herbivores. "That and the fact that animal products are poisonous to humans pretty much seals the deal." Not at all. Everything we consume can poison us, including oxygen. In any event, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

The only rational excuse for eating meat is that we are a carnivorous species. Animals eat other animals, insects and some will eat a human if the situation presents itself. Thus, there is no moral consideration to be made, biologically speaking. Since we are capable of empathy, we tend toward anthropomorphising creatures that react to sensations in a similar manner to us. For instance, most people won't kick a dog but they will not think twice about stepping on a bug. There are a number of reasons for this but mostly (imo) it is because bugs don't express themselves in a similar manner to humans. We can't empathize with a cockroach because there is little of nothing similar between them and us. All that said, I do empathize with animals and even with insects. As for the insects, I'm mostly concerned with the fact that they are a part of our ecosystem and as such they perform a much needed function. For that reason, I don't kill any insects unless not doing so could endanger my family. i.e., cockroaches carry disease, black widow spiders can cause painful bites, et al. As anumals go, I'm a meat eater and have no interest in changing my diet, although I have cut down my consumption of meat because we simply don't need as much meat as we have available to us. So for me, its a dietary consideration and not an empathy situation. Although, I do make it a point to purchase meats that are raised and slaughtered in the most humane manners possible. I won't touch veal or any other meat that's produced in a clearly inhumane manner. However, the truth of the matter is that to the lamb, being skinned alive by a butcher isn't any different than being chased down by a group of wolves and eaten alive right there on the spot. In both cases, it is suffering pain and it is being killed. If the wolves aren't being immoral, how am I? I'm not. I just choose to treat animals with as much respect as possible while still living my life like the animal that I am.

"What are we waiting for?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

"~taxing depositors would allow Cyprus to avoid implementing harsher austerity measures, including pension cuts and tax increases,~" Right. Because people don't mind paying new taxes, just as long as the old ones aren't increased. Makes perfect sense.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mXPtd3fVkj8]

I didn't base my opinion on no facts. I based it on tons and tons of empirical evidence that has been gathered throughout the years by professionals in the mental health sciences. I said I wasn't a psychologist but I didn't say that I'd never studied the subject. And I don't need a bunch of minutia about the situation in order to tell that this child suffers from abandonment issues and/or neglect. When a cardiologist hears that a man fell out grasping his chest and having trouble breathing, he doesn't need to know what the guy was doing, where he was or what he had eaten that day in order to make a pretty likely determination that the guy had a heart attack. You offered that the kid might have just wanted to fit in. That's fine but the question to be answered is not did he want to fit in? The question is why did he want to fit in... particularly given that he wanted to fit in by being hit. You also argued that the kid may have siffered abanonment before he came to the foster home and that's highly likely. However, you went on to claim that people seek to relive past traumas when they feel comfortable enough to do so. Pardon me for being blunt but, that's incorrect. People seek to reinact traumas because they do not feel comfortable. The reinaction is a means by which the victim attempts to control the past events and the purpose of the reinactment is to relieve the intense stress caused by some environmental trigger. As you might guess, those triggers are events, feelings, smells, words, et al that are similar in nature to the past traumas. Thus, one doesn't need to know the details of this kid's life in order to make a pretty accurate educated guess that there was some sort of environmental stimuli in the foster parent's home that was similar to past traumas the child had suffered and the evidence of such is the fact that he basically asked his foster parents to reinact them for him.

I have no intention of prefacing every comment I make with the caveat that it's my opinion. Moreover, I don't think it's at all reasonable for you to have a problem with what I said because such caveat is not presented. Of course I'm guessing. Like I said before, I'm not responsible for this child's welfare. And if I were, I'd have had sense enough to recommend to the foster parents that the best solution to this problem would be to stop hitting their own kids. This isn't a professional website and I am not a psychologist. I'm just some jaggoff on the internet with an opinion... and I'm not alone.

Great, you gave your best guess and I gave mine. Why is it that your best guess is acceptable and mine is false advertising for a website I don't even work for? You have an opinion and so do I. You shared yours and I shared mine. That's it.

I'm sorry you're flabbergasted. You posted a link to a story on a discussion forum that is very well known for the study and discussion of childrearing practices. Then, you go on and on about the responses people give to this story, seemingly because none of them match your notion of what happened. You fail to consider that a normal, well adjuted human being doesn't have an urge to be hit and instead you insist that this is just some random event with no underlying motivation. I wonder, do you become flabbergasted when a flame appears after you've touched a match to pile of charcoal?

I agree. Note that I said the "common" description of beauty. There are millions of vvery attractive men and women who never make it to the pages of popular magazines.

I didn't read the story. But I didn't have to read the story because I'm not responsible for this child's fate. What I read from those who posted told me enough that I could align his experience with the myriad other childhood experiences that have been recounted, recorded and studied... including my anecdotal evidence. You're asking for empirical evidence that cannot be provided, even by the child himself. If we were able to go to this child today and ask him why he was dismayed about not being hit, do you think he could tell you the actual reasons for his motivation? Most adult addicts have no idea why they actually suffer their particular addictions and many of them don't even know they have an addiction to begin with. We know this because there is ample evidence for it and we know why this child is reacting the way he is to not being hit because there is ample evidence to suggest that he suffers from neglect or abandonment. Of course, we could be completely wrong and this child could have been born with some sort of biological malfunction in his brain but probability speaks against that possibility and science is quite comfortable with probability.

No winner has ever walked away from doing violence.

What's the problem? I have an extremely attractive sexual partner and I don't have any problem. Of course, others might not agree with me but who cares.... she's the hottest woman I've ever seen. [] Once you let go of the need for a partner who meets the common description of beautiful or handsome, you'll find a partner who far exceeds that simple description. I found it by actually becoming friends with a girl for whom I had no initial physical attraction. Likewise, our longest married/together and happiest friends are couples who didn't first feel the desire to bed one another and that's also how Stef and his wife landed up on one another, so to speak.