Cornetto97

I see so it's like a duty of care, the child can't take care if itself, and so in having a child you naturally accept the care that the baby can't provide itself. And so if one can assume the child would want to be cared for, then by accepting stewardship over the baby's property rights, one should take care of that baby.

1. Yeah, in Australia we still have multiculturalism, it has been drilled through my head for basically all my school years. Difference is we make it just a little harder for illegal immigrants and those who can't afford it to come and drain the public purse. Granted we still have problems with crime hot spot areas, which tend to mostly have ethnic people living there, but it's not nearly as bad as Canada, UK and indeed nothing in comparison to Europe. I can definitely see the correlation that can happen when you have a mixed bag of incompatible cultures all clamored into the country sucking off the welfare state - a massive back log and overuse of the public health system - even still in Australia we have long waiting times for our public system, and we are much more homogeneous. 2. oh yes, basically socialist policies are all culminating to a disastrous collapse, this broken window fallacy of inability to defer gratification, and draining the public purse to have the state subsidise everything for you, is going to grind to a halt and become like japan with a perpetually fading middle class, and a literally dying population (they aren't that crazy on kids it seems). They can maintain and reinvest into that broken window that creates no capital, and actually appropriates it, but the demographic curb in so many developed countries is going to be disastrous for the socialist welfare states, the public sector and the middle class. there will simply be way too many dependent on government unemployment benefits or pension in particular, and now with Europe's introduction of "peaceful" (regressive cultured) "refugees" (welfare vacuums) they have just accelerated this impending collapse, and made the collapse that much more dangerous. 3. well the child is your property and you retain property rights to it in so far as you are its carer, and its guardian, however the babay still retains self ownership in some form and the use of force is not allowed to be initiated against them by anyone. so it can bea sort of unilateral contract that is implied, but really can't be enforced to certain extents. no one can force care of the babies upon the parents and the parent can't force the baby, so it is different to the unilateral contract you have by virtue of being born in a country with the state, i think it may be more a sort of you had the baby so by virtue of having the baby, you would want to take care of it. And if it was an accident, then abortion would be used.

So it sort of plays to the fact that seen as all genes wish to survive, and all humans therefore have a sort of instinctive desire to pass their genes on so that they can continue to live, not many people who have children would actually neglect them. And given the idea that ancap society would not have a welfare state or taxes, people who can afford, and can take care of a baby will have babies, and stupid people or the dependent class won't be having as many children.

Oh nice, i was hoping to possibly get a weigh in from a fellow melbournian, and i not only got a melbournian, i got someone who has a husband who works in a public hospital, thanks for the insight. So yeah it's as i was thinking, for the very serious ICU situation and such, public hospitals are used, because medicare takes care of the bill. Meaning it creates a sort of artificial vacuum, that makes it a bad investment for private hospitals to have such equipment. So does America have only private hospitals? Or are there public hospitals but enough demand for privaye hospitals to warrant state of the art r&d?

Yeah so, basically in evolutionary terms, you wouldn't do that as you'd wish for your gene set to survive in your child. And also i guess if this principle occurs in an anarcho society, people wouln only have a baby when they're withing their means, and actually can care for it, because the welfare state is non existent, and neither are taxes, meaning it won't subsidise the stupid people, and the dependent class to have babies when they can't properly care for it.

This is just some general ponderamces i have had about libertarianist thought, and private provision of all services, and also one about the nature of the state, and the public sector. So first of all, i was having a debate with my dad yesterday about the idea that public provision of health should be abolished and be privatised. He was very taken back in hearing this from me, and a good back and forth debate ensued. So i made the point that, privatisation of health care would be a much better alternative, as it would create a competitive health market, with a strong profit motive. His main basis was that if you privatise health care, it would be too expensive, and people may not be able to afford it. He used the strawman of retired people, and unemployed, or just the poor. So he said what if a child was denied service and was left sick because his parents couldn't afford the visit to the doctors. Standard argument, but a very relevant one at that. Of course i recovered with a persistent line of reasoning that private healthcare now is expensive only because of the existance of public health, and a medicare system will subsidise private hospital and GP visits, thus creating artificial demand, and the ability for the private hospitals to raise prices with minimal impact. He still persisted that poor people will not be able to afford it, so i said, it would be in the best interests of a private hospital to accomodate people that can't afford treatment, in order to be seen as compassionate and generous. He never really countered this adequately, and went on insisting that it wouldn't be profitable, and that you can't compare the market forces of consumer goods and services in the private sector to the forces that would apply to health services. I also countered this. This lead him to a rebuttal i couldn't counter. He mentioned that in Australia, in particular Melbourne we have multiple hospitals with some of the leading country, and even world facilities, and innovation - all of which are public hospitals. So it took me back a little in the thought that the public sector is much less efficient and effective, and with this private hospitals should have better facilities. So why would this be? Why do many public hospitals have some state of the art technology, and facilities in many fields of treatment. Can anyone help me understand why this could be a reality? Is it because the state has a monopoly on force and tax, and a monopoly on currency printing? Is it because the existance of seemingly free health care in public hospitals attracts the type of customers who may need the very intricate and complicated procedures and treatments that advanced technology and facilities are used for, thus taking away the need for private hospitals to have such facilities in the status quo? Second thing is, with regard to the operation of the state, and the fallacy that public sector employment drives economic expansion. The fallacy of the broken window pertains to a situation analogous to a whole town breaking their windows so as to help the local glaziers. But this is wrong because it diverts wealth that could possibly be used in the purchasing of new goods, to the maintenance of an already purchased good (the window). Thus in pursuit of supporting the glaziers, you have left producers with less wealth. So could it be said that, the operation of the state is essentially this fallacy. And if you substitute the glazier with the state then it can be said that, any line of reasoning that attempts to support a conclusion that public sector provision of goods and services, leads to employment, which leads to economic expansion is simply fallicious. Because the state in its tax diverts wealth that can be used in the consumption and or investment of a new good, and uses it for maintenance. Maintenance of public services which tend not to generate much re-investent or capital in itself and actually appropriates wealth. Also because majority of tax revenue is used to maintain payments to the national debt, it is still not being used in the production of a good. Furthermore, the state prints money for the provision of public services, thus diverting the purchasing power of individuals, intergenerationally, and subtracting from the amount one can purchase of new goods and services, in the interest of maintenance. It can be said that the state provision of services helps produce, as they can contract their projects out to private sector businesses. However this is still wealth diverted from the private sector, and used generally for a fixed asset that needs maintenance. This stops the wealth being diverted by the state to the business taking the contract from being invested by individuals in consumer goods, or an asset that can produce capital and generate more wealth for the individual. Thus it is still effectively diverting potential wealth from being transferred to other producers, and is therefore not prosperous for the economy, much like perpetual window breaking is not good for the town. So if the fallacy of the broken window is generally supported in the field of economics, the public sector can't be supported, and thus points to a cognitive dissonance in so far as they both believe in and support the fallacy of the broken window. Does this have any validity, and strength as an argument, and counter consideration? Is my reasoning sound, or have I missed something? The next is just a question about Rothbard's theory of natural rights. I have not read much of rothbard's actual writings, but have read a little into his theory around natural rights, again not very much. In the theory of natural rights, (at least from what i have read of it) it is said that a parent can't be forced to feed, clothe, bathe, or take care of his child at all, because to force them to do so would be a violation of an individual's private property. The baby still however has some self-ownership, and can't have the use of force initiated on him, and therefore can't be murdered, can't be forced out of eating or clothing. So is the addressed by Rothbard at all? Like if basically you own your child in so far as people can't initiate force to take it off you, or do something with it, but you can't initiate force against it and murder it however, can neglect it completely, how would this be addressed? Or is it addressed by Rothbard, or ancap theory as a whole? This is not in any way me discrediting or rebutting against ancap theory, it's just that i have seen this used on 2 occasions now to discredit his natural rights theory and would like it if someone can give me some clarity on it.

No problem, it can be quite difficult, especially when posting on social media where you are prone to the mob style, verbal gang attacks people use these days.

Why do you think you may be wrong in giving him sympathy? When you weigh it all up you are well within reason to suggest giving him sympathy. On one hand you have stepped back and looked at the guys situation, seen a hell hole that no one should be subjected to, and said, no prison clearly won't fix him. His upbringing and life in general has been filled with turmoil, multiple arrests and prison sentences. And you have suggested to give him some sympathy, and instead of throwing the iron fist of criminal justice in his face, you have suggested it's best to get to the cause of his behavioural tendancies, (most likely rooted in childhood), and to understand and sympathise with the fact that his life never got to a good start. The plane by the sounds of it crashed on the runway, and never really had a good chance to take off. They on the other hand are vehemently crying for the harshest of prison sentences, in a medieval style burn the witch at the stake, shoot first don't even ask questiins later (let alone before) fashion. They're attacking the pilot without the slightest thought about the actual plane itself. So yeah you're justified in your response. But it is they, the one's who are just denying any examination of causality, the one's who felt so threatened by such a reasoned proposition, that they would commit to vertical attacks in an act to supress you; It is they who should question their response. You gave them your response, and a reasoned peaceful argument, and they responded in a childish manner. So i mean given the manner of their responses, it shouldn't give you pause to question whether your call for sympathy and better understanding is the right response. With regards to the possible help he should get, well sympathy amd empathy would be a start. The guy has clearly rarely been given it especially by those who should be giving understanding and compassion. Intensive therapy, and introspection would also be a good place to start. He really should be intensely helped along in etablishing, and grounding some of the very traumatic experiences of his childhood in particular, and the degree to which he has felt that resonate with him as an adult And whether he feels that has provoked his criminal behaviour in some way, and fostered it even. I mean i guess it shouldn't just be all sympathy, you chose nothing, and it's everyone else's fault type thing, that would be incorrect, and would focus too much energy and possible anger towards external factors out of his control which wouldn't bring about any of the deep introspection needed to begin to help such broken development. Has that helped you out a little?

He clearly has never had anyone in his life to look up to for guidance as a youth, no one there to foster growth in his formative years. From the sound of it his mum neglected him, as many drug ridden mothers tend to do with children. The only other people it seems in his life who could impart on him anything of worth left his life on tragic circumstances. So yeah, if prison was the right way to go then he would not have served 2 prior sentences. So clearly isolating him from society, mixing him in with some much harder offenders, in an environment where corruption and illegal activities run rampant, is not working. So your deffinently right in saying this man will not in any way gain from 15 years in prison, be it any prison for that matter. So he clearly needs some intensive therapy, someone there to help him find a job, give him some accountability by earning his own money. But deffinently intensive therapy. I mean ideally he would be punished by paying damages on the person he attacked, and that's it.

Well i mean you could start with this: http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx#statistics Recidivism, the most clear sign that the criminal justice system is fundamentally a complete misdirection of resources. Resources - as in tax dollars - one thing that tends to get people is when the state is not using tax dollaes efficiently. So you could couple that with the one two punch of USA spending a total of between 60-70 billion dollars a year, in 2008 alone it was at $75 billion()and the fact that it costs on average $23,876 a year to house one inmate, and 30,000 a year for inmate drug rehabilitation. But here's what'll stump them to rehabilitate that same prisoner outside prison... $8,000*. Something like that could be used, and i mean if they are still hysterical after these stats that speak for themselves and refuse to give any empirical data supporting the claim that longer jail sentences go hand in hand with "rehabilitation" and "corrections", then i mean they're clearly not going to listen to anything else but their obnoxious self righteousness. This is American stats by the way, (i assumed since majority of fdr members appear to be from USA or europe i'd just go with USA) it took me about 10 minutes to dig this up, so if you want to get some data from another country if you're not from America then it shouldn't take that long, and odds are the stats will show the same perpetual multi billion dollar production line of yo-yos that constantly come back. *https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States ()https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://cepr.net/documents/publications/incarceration-2010-06.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiiuvyhloTMAhXCxqYKHeg8BJ4QFggkMAM&usg=AFQjCNGmnzoE23ROGOJMe7F5fdsyjKximA&sig2=mkPtZkTGLltWY_L484g5kw

Alright i'll just use the same number format. 1. Yeah, i thought of this, and in a guerilla situation, committe would simply be too inefficient. There'll be slow decision making, because of disagreements, which is not very good in a situation where you need a quick response, hit then hide tactic, so i agree woth you in this point, i guess it would deffinently need a hierarchial structure, not need but it would be much more effective as an armed resistance. The question as to whether this leader will initiate force - i guess that's the issue, if you have a leader in a guerrilla style resistance there isn't really ant checks on him at all. I'm not quite sure about your "brains are more important" point. I can't understamd the explanation you have given for it. 2. Well i mean amassing a nuclear arsenal wouldn't be helping the propsganda that the statist countries would very likely be throwing at an ancap region, and may evoke an invasion. I meant that certain regions can establish a defense DRO that can mobilise in the face of invasion, and yes once all regions are ancap, then it's not needed, and would likely fade away once demand diminishes. One problem with this is, it is a matter of whether there would be demand enough to warrant this business model, and i'd say from the looks of it iceland don't really have much military background, so the people don't pay for a standing army in tax, don't see why a lot of them would pay for it from a DRO. But again maybe the threat of invasion is known, in which case demand would be there to warrant the defense DRO business model. But the next problem is armaments imports. Iceland have very strict gun laws and no standing army. Couple this with the likely embargos they would have from statist nations, and it would be very difficult for the defense DROs to actually get armaments, thus the price would be quite high as well. 3. Yes i agree propaganda would be all over it, but the opportunity for states to be looked at with some form of humanity and just a little respect for human life may not be easily passed up by some. But again it all depends, and I would say that either way it would definently get very clear opposition from all the statist countries, and turbulence would be provoked by stringent economic restrictions. So honestly, you have swayed me, it would appear that iceland is not the best place to have the first ancap society. Perhaps the effort should just continue to be focused towards a general population approach, as oppose to one specific place.

your point about top down organisation, is an intriguing one, but it would be good if you could expand on that thought more, past the historical reason. Why do you think that guerrilla forces are not as effective without strict top down organisation? surely if whole societies can be organised along the exact opposite principles, and be more efficient than a forceful state, then guerrilla forces can? there is no historical context for an ancap society, but you can understand that it would be better than having a state. yes, ancap philosophy and preference to trade go hand in hand, and this tendency towards peaceful trade would also impact on the readiness of the resistance. I guess it would very likely depend on how long Iceland has been Ancap. seen as they have no standing army, quite strict gun laws, so this is a good point. Also you have to take into account the existing culture there, and seen as they have almost non existent defense it would appear they have a culture of peace and comfort. so it could very much depend on how long they have been ancap for. if it has been long enough then surely some form of private defense will have been established in certain regions and on certain properties, as there would be a need for protection from the possibility of invasion, and in a purely free market situation it would be advantageous for this service to be provided somehow. The situation you describe about an occupation purely for the taking of resources, with shoot on sight orders of the locals, this is basically genocidal and would likely be highly denounced by the west, possibly even incur political repercussions for Russia. This is given the west's narrative against anything Russia does. It could also be seen as Russia attempting to make inroads into the EU. Also a good tool to get some voters, add some humanity into governments that are being seen with increasing skepticism in the west, in particular USA.

Oh yes the privelage card, see if cultural marxism didn't rely on vertical attacks of white privelage, or in this case, role playing another culture, it would crumble so spectacularly. Like it would just get trumped from day one (pun very intentional).

No cultural marxists love the idea of proclaiming your culture. Just as long as you're not white. White male to be exact. Especially if your white male and upper class. That shit will get you thrown into the cultural gulags. Can you feel the equality yet?

My mistake i misinterpreted your comment about iran and vietnam before. You were talking about the US toppling monarchies, and i rushed into it without properly reading it, and absorbing it. Sorry about that one