Just Chillin

Wow RoseCodex, a fantastic reply with fantastic insights and depth; I really appreciate your time. I've known this person for about a year and am not too familiar with his childhood, but from what he has told me, he did not suffer very much punishment for his actions; he believes he was "too free" and frequently characterizes his mother as a very passive individual. His parents were divorced so his father wasn't too much in the picture; I don't know much about him. So is it reasonable to assume that maybe this person received a decent amount of attention (he was not very much "socially ostracized") from his parents/mother especially and that perhaps this links with his fear of DRO ostracism; he is afraid of being alone or not being noticed. But according to the mainstream, he believes that physical force (spanking in his childhood) would have been warranted, and perhaps this is why he is more sympathetic with government action/physical force. But I have no idea; I've yet to study childhood and psychology in detail.

Thank you gentlemen, I appreciate your responses. I guess I will just have to brush his claims off, since they have no logical basis but are instead emotional attacks.

Hello fellow AnCaps; I recently had a discussion with a friend about a voluntary society and this person was very concerned about the difference between DROs and a state. Specifically, he was questioning me about the difference between having to pay a fine to a government for violating a law and having to pay increased rates to a DRO for violating a DRO law. Of course the difference is that failing to comply with the government means that the last resort of enforcement is the initiation of physical force, whereas the DRO may revoke their side of the contract and refuse to do further business with the individual, excluding him from social and economic life. This person was very perplexed at the thought of being economically ostracized, claiming that it was much more fascistic than the government's punishment of physical force. When I pushed on the moral question of force and pointed out the gun in the room, he claimed that I was paranoid and crazy and proposing an even more "forceful" society than what we have now. Did I go wrong anywhere? If I did, please explain. And, if not, how do you guys deal with people who respond in this fashion? Thanks!