Tyler H

I'm torn on this one guys; I would love to see Stef review this movie...... but I would hate for his head to explode..... Hmmm Edit: Video didn't post in original

Boy you must really hate Mike, lol

Welcome! I took flak for waiting a year, now I don't feel so bad!

You should call in and enlighten the whole community through debate with Stef, unless you've already done that I'd love to listen.

I think this is a great point. With the government, once you get past "the border" things get easier, but in a free society "the border" just moves once you take over some piece of land - a rubber band border if you will.

It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that there are two different concepts floating around in the thread: what will a free society look like in the future, and how do we deal with problems now. Philosophy is like nutrition; it helps us make good decisions on a daily basis to avoid disasters in the future caused by the build-up of bad decisions. Nutrition can't help you during a heart attack and philosophy can't do much when we are in the middle of a statist cluster-f**k of violence and quasi-slavery. The OP was directed at possible atmospheres conducive to a hypothetical free society in the future so I will focus on that. The most important thing to remember when contemplating a free society, in my humble opinion, is that it will not come about until there is a philosophical and moral revolution. Just like slavery is outright rejected by all civilized societies today, so will be the initiation of force in the free society of the future. A free society and a majority of enlightened citizens (for lack of a better term) go hand in hand; you cannot have one without the other. This is such a gradual transition that I can't believe there would be such a huge disparity between nations that one the size of America would go an-cap and any of the others would have the resources or global support to invade, but it's fun to play with the ideas anyways. So how do we protect this society from invasion? The nuclear option is probably an emergency action of last resort even though historically it seems to be an effective deterrent. Assuming we all agree on the benefits of free markets, we know that the wealth created by this society will be unimaginable to us. If there is a need to amass a significant amount of resources to mount a defense then there will be no problem in their procurement. It appears that we will have terminators (hopefully without the associated A/I) to help with that long before we get a free society so it's hard to judge what the defense would even look like, but you can see how being the wealthiest society would significantly deter other societies from attacking. Keeping in mind that the population of a free society has rejected statism, the invading nation has a significant problem in controlling the populace. There is no system in place to extract taxes from people. It will need to be taken at gunpoint or looted. Considering what's possible with bitcoin if wealth is stored digitally theft will be practically impossible. These are just a few of my thoughts, let me know what you think. To me, maintaining a free society is the easy part - getting there though... It's a tough row to hoe for sure. A note on the thread title - I don't understand why minarchists hold the position they do; they understand that competition and free trade are beneficial in all areas of human interaction, but when it comes to defense suddenly a forced monopoly somehow transcends this natural phenomenon to produce the best possible result. If you allow for the initiation of force in any area at all, it can always be justified by power-hungry sophists to be necessary for some other reason in some other area. The is the very reason why the minarchy the United States started as has become the empire we see today.

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy will answer a lot of these questions. If you have questions after I'd be happy to offer my opinions.

That sounds right... Stef has made the fat guy/diet book analogy a lot but yeah I'm pretty sure that particular statement was in that presentation.

I think that's in line with what we're saying; reject can be ambiguous but I think he meant dismiss, not invalidate or disprove.

I'm not sure I understand, why would it be helpful? Unfortunately I am not very educated in Greek and Roman mythology; my knowledge in that area consists of what I learned from God of War, lol. As far as I know we could be agnostic about those "gods" because, however unlikely it may be, they don't have any contradictory qualities.

Thank you, I did not know that; I was only familiar with the religious meaning of the word. I retract that part of my statement.

I'm looking too!

Very well put. I'd like to add that if you see someone consistently act in opposition to the "philosophy" they profess then it is certainly a red flag. It would be in the interest of sanity and time to dismiss such sophistry on those grounds alone. It still doesn't mean what they say is wrong, but there a billion idiots touting "truth" so dismissing fat guys selling diet books is in your best interest if you really want to lose weight.

I think "faith in the scientific method" is a contradictory statement - faith is belief without evidence and the scientific method is based on evidence. The point the atheists make against the agnostics is that the God described in the bible is given contradictory properties and therefore we know it does not exist. Often at this point the goal post is moved to describe God in a way that isn't contradictory but then they are talking about some other being not the one described in the bible. I think we can be agnostic about anything non-contradictory, sadly the Judeo-Christian God does not fall into this category.

There are quite a few with similar rants (for lack of a better term). I'll let you know if I come across it. Do you have a rough idea when it was published?

Yea!!!! Like red!!!!!!

I live in Taxachussetts close to the NH border. That's cool you had an anarcho-leaning professor, how did you come to know?

Is there any due process? What about thieves? What about people who actually want restitution which prisons and death penalties do not provide?

I think transitioning overnight is impossible - a slow transition from "housing" to actual rehabilitation would be the goal. It's difficult (to say the least) to predict what the free market will produce to satisfy the needs of its customers but allowing for that possibility is the first step. Making sure the profits gained are the result of less criminals, not more, is the second; the best way I know of producing this effect is the insurance model. I would imagine the cost would be included in your DRO premiums. The DRO Is incentivized to prevent criminality because it costs them money in the form of restitution and correction. I don't think prisons would look anything like they do today. They would actually be interested in lowering recidivism.

I'm not sure what you mean.... If you're asking for an example in which the aforementioned "God" violates his own standard for morality then I put forward the fact that the bible says God commands man not to murder, yet He murders men, women and children en masse for some pretty inconsequential actions. He turned Lot's wife to salt for looking back at the destruction of her home and the brutal conflagration of all her friends.

What I am saying is that the concept of God described in the bible violates the moral rules set by that very same God. If you believe that the bible is true then God is immoral by God's own standards. I don't need to define morality to observe the fact that someone has violated their own standard of morality as they have defined it. However I do think man's conception of God is immoral since it is used to bully, control and defraud people; at the very least it is in the aesthetically negative category of UPB (which is what I accept as the definition of morality).

Good point. I'm comparing what people say God said to what people say God did.

It says the police chief said he was, is there a reason to doubt him?

Comparing God's standards to God's actions.