_LiveFree_

The Ptolomiac system was hellacomplicated. Then some jack hole came along and said, "just put the sun in the center, it's simpler." Jack holes are integral to humanity's evolution.

"Happy" is undefined in this study, which is based on self-reporting. A more accurate term to use might be, "What do people find to be most enjoyable." But even then, what kind of people? Age groups? Geographical locations? Societal norms? Basically, there is no data here worth giving any time to. Using the word "Study" doesn't make it one. I remember "studying" in college with a girlfriend. We didn't learn smack about history (no, it was economics we didn't learn).

The argument rests on the person you are talking to and their perception of human beings. "If you believe that most people in the world are evil and need to be controlled, then you can't have a state, which is a monopoly on the initiation of force, because evil people will be drawn to it and inevitably control it. If you believe that a small minority of people in the world are evil and need to be controlled, then you can't have a state because evil people will be drawn to it and inevitably control it. If you believe that all people are good, then you simply don't need a state. If there are evil people in the world, the last thing you want to do is create an apparatus for them to control armies. Name any genocidal dictator in the world. Now take away his ability to command an army. Can he still commit genocide? Does being "evil" naturally give you the power to murder millions, or do you need an organization that people support in order carry out genocide? Put 10 people in a room. Give them all a pistol. Now add Hitler into the room. Give him a pistol. Will he be the only one left standing simply because he's Hitler? Or will the other 10 people survive because their power was equal with a psychopath?" I elaborated in the last paragraph, but that's basically the gist of it. *Edit: You can add... "Psychopaths and sociopaths have no empathy for people. Psychopaths actually enjoy inflicting pain on others. These types of people learn early in life how to pretend to be like everybody else and fit into society without being spotted for what they are. Why in the world would you create a mechanism that rests on the manipulation of public opinion in order to control the most deadliest force? "Oh, you're a murdering psychopath? Well here's a nuke! God bless!""

I think it's a good idea for a community to have a built in reputation mechanism. However, I also think that maybe the rep system here needs a bit of adjusting. It seems to me that people who have donated more are far less likely to abuse the rep system. Why not make it available to only gold or diamond donators and up? This would add a lot more credibility to reputation. It would also reduce the amount of undue negative and positive rep accumulation.

Fair enough. You could be right. However, I don't think I was acting like a moderator at all. Nor was I trying to dictate to, control, overpower, or belittle you or anyone else. I've sent you a PM. We can talk that way. I will not participate in this thread any further.

My level of concern is finally right where it should be. I sincerely apologize for it not being nearly enough earlier when I just dismissed you as a time waster. I believe that you have a lot to talk about. I'll send you a private message. Respond if you like, I really hope you do.

No, no. This is not the way. This is why I was encouraging people to disengage.

My post where I stated your argument back to you.http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37523-why-is-peaceful-parenting-possible-but-peaceful-government-not-possible/?p=343841 Your post where you replied...http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37523-why-is-peaceful-parenting-possible-but-peaceful-government-not-possible/?p=343898 But like I said. I'm not debating you on the topic anymore. It isn't important. Why do you think I was trying to tell you what your position was?

I don't have anything against STer either. I believe the best course of action for him is to not continue with what he is doing here. And by continuing to engage in this is making it worse. However, I disagree with you in that he is making a perfectly valid argument. He is not and that is the problem. The underlying current running through this whole thread was almost touched upon, but then casually dismissed. These things are hard enough to deal with in person or over the phone, to say nothing of a message board. STer, understand that I care about you far more than your argument. An argument is only as sound as the logic it's based upon. To outright reject logic is not a failure of the intellect. It shows a much deeper issue at hand. I would absolutely love to talk with you about that. You're a very smart guy, but you're avoiding what really matters. This is not meant to be condescending at all. I respect you enough to not waste your time and to cut through the fog of intellectualism to the heart of what is really going on. If that is something you'd be interested in, I'd be very happy to talk over PM if you like.

It wasn't for you. It was for the people who think it might be worth spending time debating you.

wow people. stop engaging this thread. listen instead. http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_867_Dismantling_The_State.mp3

That abusive voice in my head. Now I see it as a part of me that actually served, and maybe continues to serve, a purpose. Seeing you treat it with respect seriously deflated its power. Seeing it as a part of me that I can listen to, but not necessarily obey, was something I've intellectually understood, but have never been able to do. Watching you do it was inspiring! You have no idea. I thought about it a lot today and still can't put it all into words. Dude, I can't thank you enough for this video.

podcast 858 may help this conversation. http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_858_Reason_Passion_and_Statism.mp3

I'm only 11 minutes in, and this is damn brilliant! I'm laughing my ass off because that voice is soooo familiar, so accurate! lol Well done! (thumbs up!) -------------- Wow. I view myself differently after watching this. ..just, wow.

An airline company doesn't just compete with other airlines. The purpose of airlines is to facilitate the demand for travel. There are other ways to travel such as by car, bus, train, boat, feet, caravan, horse, or wakeboard. There are a few fallacies all tied up in your friend's response. 1. There is no such thing as the naturally occurring monopoly. (your friend's argument hinges on this one mistake) - If one company goes around buying up all other companies, each company they buy will be more expensive until the final remaining company is just way too expensive to purchase (even for a massive company). Why? Because the competitors will realize what the larger company is doing and, therefore, will price their company higher and higher in a buy out. The only way for a very large company to undercut other very large companies (which will also be buying up small companies) is to use government subsidies. This is why companies are always lobbying Congress; they want laws that will pay part of the cost of producing their goods so that they can sell them cheaper than their competitors. In a stateless society, this would be impossible. Therefore, naturally occurring monopolies are a myth. (a myth created by government to justify more government. But if the government is being lobbied by companies to write law to outlaw monopolies...???) You see? Large companies want to undercut their competitors. They need government law to subsidize the production of their products. Governments can't pass a law without the "support" of the people. Support comes in the form of people being afraid of some threat. The threat presented is large companies becoming monopolies. 100% Twisted! 2. A large company "dumps their prices". - We've already established that a large company can't just go buy everybody out, so this step has no basis in logic or reality. If a large company tries the "dump prices" thing when it has competitors, it will get hammered big time. Most people think that large companies get that way because they make a huge profit on each individual transaction. This is false. A large company is based on millions of tiny transactions where the profit margin is below 4%. If a company saves up enough money in order to maintain a deficit, that means they weren't spending that money on ads, research and development, expansion, bonuses to it's hard working employees, and other things that are necessary to maintain a healthy company. Large companies don't get large by saving most of their profits. If a company is saving when they should be expanding, then they are not keeping up with their competitors and will not be in a position to offer lower prices in the future. They are setting themselves up to be undercut by their competing large company who will be able to offer lower prices without taking a loss. Profits are not made because you can charge a high price, they are made because you can make a product cheaper than the other guy (or you're the only one offering a particular product, i.e. scarcity). This is another reason why monopolies simply do not occur in nature; in the words of Stefan Molyneux, just when you think you've got something special, there's always some asshole out there who can do it better than you. (I'm paraphrasing.) 3. "Walmart is huge and that's why it has lower prices, which drive out small business - and this is because of the free market" fallacy. - Walmart can charge lower prices because it has outsourced manufacturing to China where labor is much cheaper. Why is labor cheaper in China? Wrong question. Why is labor so expensive in the U.S.? Because laws have been passed that require an employer to WAY OVERPAY their employees. Who benefits? Not the employee. He has to turn around and pay higher taxes. The only beneficiary is the government. After all the laws passed to raise wages, the worker is actually making LESS than he used to. (so he should be thanking Walmart for providing goods he can still afford!). In a stateless society, Walmart would be on equal footing with every other business. Small businesses that can't afford to pay high wages (think health care, workers comp, safety codes, taxes) would be able to compete with larger companies much more easily. Your friend is thinking of monopolies occurring in the current political environment. Tell him/her that they do!! The biggest monopoly is the government! Get rid of the big bad and they all fall down! Anyway, a really short reply would be that private individuals would start offering their planes as rides like taxis. This would explode if a large company jacked up the prices. Hell, I'd move to Norway, learn to fly, buy a plane and make epic coin. also,... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q1fSNzYNhg

download the pdf import extension. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTkf2ciZzuM

OpenOffice.org.

STer, You keep moving the goal posts. From what I've seen of you in this conversation, you are not interested in finding the truth, only in winning. Well, I'm not interested in debating you anymore. The criteria for making your case is very simple, yet you continue to dodge it. When I call you on it, you say I'm not addressing your point. This is a waste of time.

Showing evidence of something is at least needed. You haven't even done that. A thought experiment is not evidence. "Show me an example of a machine that is able to carry humans in the air." But this isn't the same because we have examples of other animals that can fly. Flight occurs in nature. Figuring out how to get humans to fly is simply a matter of physics. "Show me a modern day computer 200 years ago." This is silly. A government that is voluntary is a logical fallacy, not a technology. Logic is timeless. What is logical in one time period is logical in another. Show me a square circle. Hasn't happened yet? Well that doesn't mean it can't! . . . no. You can't just make an argument that has no logical basis or evidential proof, and then complain when people don't buy it. You have provided no reasonable logic, you have provided no evidence or examples. You simply have not made the case that there is such a thing as voluntary government. And your original question hinges on "voluntary government" being a real thing or not. If it is not, then your question is invalid. Governments dissolve on their own. They extend themselves too far economically and collapse. When a government collapses, what has happened in the past is that people have set up another one. We want to prevent the new government from forming.

Ok, then show me an example where a government has through peaceful means shrunk.

A thought experiment is useless if it is illogical. Anarcho-capitalism is not a thought experiment. YOU are a real world example of what a life is like without rulers. Do you hold your employer hostage in order to get the job? Do you point a gun at your wife/husband to get them to marry you? All of your personal relationships are voluntary. But, you could have just Wiki'd .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents_similar_to_anarcho-capitalism Also, EBay is a great example where there is little to no government involvement and the community regulates itself. An-cap is the natural state of mankind. Government is the wet blanket trying to stretch itself over the entire race. Where the government can't stretch to, there you are likely to find an an-cap society. The one place the government wants to smother more than anything is the human "spirit" (not to be confused with some fairy tale eternal identity). I've provided you examples. Can you not provide me with some examples of a voluntary government?

It varies, and when you sign up for monetizing your Youtube videos, one of the stipulations is that you do not reveal how much you make in ad revenue. With that said, my experience is about $20 per 10,000 views -ish.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0FC5052954378D3 Stef had a debate on "Atheism Versus Agnosticism". Highly recommended and also very enjoyable.

Uh, no I don't. You need to give an example (as in, it occurred in reality and is not a thought experiment) of a voluntary government. If I say that all oranges are round and then show you example after example, then there is plenty of evidence to support "Oranges are round". But if you then say, "Oranges can also be triangular," it is not logical for me to have to prove why all oranges must be round. All you need to do is provide one, and just one, example of when a government is voluntary. That is all you have to do. Provide one example. You've got 5000 years of recorded human history and the internet. Find one example of when government was voluntary. If you can do this, I will (I must!) no longer be an anarchist. You can completely change my point of view with one tiny little example.

Mike, I remember that video and had the exact same experience on a forum dedicated to a popular political candidate with libertarian leanings who ran in 2008 and 2012. Violence toward children and statism go hand in hand. It was always amazing how these people who were demanding political freedom never thought about how they supported the "non-political" abuse towards others.