NonPatrician Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 I remember very clearly some awesome videos by Stefan rebutting some assertions that it would be possible for a person to buy up enough land and soldiers to become a free market dictator. I'm involved in a debate on it right now and would love to drop some of his knowledge bomb videos on them but I'm having trouble locating them. If anyone here has some quick links handy that would be much appreciated. Thanks!
Agalloch Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Don't have those linksright now sorry. But damn that argument is hilarious. Let's rewors it to reveal the insanity! "Without the state, what's to stop someone taking control of the state?" The projection and contradictary leaps statists need to take are mind boggling.
Crallask Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 What prevents popes in an non religious society?
NotDarkYet Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Go to the free book Practical Anarchy. There is a section there. The argument, as I recall is something like. 1. You'd have to employ thousands of people. This would be the same as advertizing your intentions. 2. The training of people for warlike purposes would be insanely expensive, and further announce your intentions to your surrounding communities. 3. DROs would drop you and anbody you employ, because obviously you intend to steal and/or harm others. 4. You'd be throwing away money. If you invested that in the free market you'd get a 6-10% return. War, what do you really get? .... 5. What are you going to do with all these extra cars, houses? 6. The world at large will cut you out of economic interactions. You will be a clear outcast from society. All for what? The only way aggressive war becomes possible is when you can OFFLOAD THE COSTS to taxpayers. If your friend is concerned about violence, they should then be an anarchist. 1
thebeardslastcall Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 We're already there. When you have dictators it's no longer a free society. We're fighting to get rid of them right now, that's what prevents them. To the degree that we can embed free market principles, peaceful parenting and the byproducts of that, which are free peaceful trading, versus violent parenting which leads to religions, statism, and dictators, is the degree to which we can become resistant to dictators and statism. Nothing is preventing rape in any known society other than raising your children well so they won't be the ones doing it and will fight against such abhorrent activities. What prevents statism in a statist society? Or to flip the coin, what prevents peace and free trade in a dictatorship?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 What prevents dictators in a free society? A free society. Invariably any response you provide will have cold water thrown on it. I usually find it better to ask them , "What prevent dictators in a non free society?".
Wuzzums Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Don't distance yourself from the conversation by posting Stef's vids. You're offering them the "you're just parroting this guy's opinions" strawman on a platter. Make the arguments yourself, that way you force them to deal with you directly rather than being a proxy for someone they never met.
dsayers Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 The question itself comes from a statist and collectivist mind set. People who operate in the name of the State are dwarfed in numbers of those who are ruled over. So it's hard for those in that mindset to imagine the majority actually standing up to the one person or gang or company trying to rule the world. As for the collectivist aspect, all you have to do is ask them what prevents people from taking their wallet. Why, THEY DO. And that's a 1 vs 7 billion proposition, yet they manage to pull it off every day. Except where the State is concerned. And that's because the State operates behind a perceived legitimacy. Presumably, you won't have a free society without rational thinkers who are emotionally dependent on the State. At which point, anybody trying to forcibly subjugate others will be recognized as somebody who needs stopping, and then it's 7 billion vs 1. Or 7 billion - X vs 1+X, where X will always be far less than half the world's population. Rationality isn't just a cure, it's an inoculation.
utopian Posted December 2, 2015 Posted December 2, 2015 In the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" the parable of "the great duck dinner" encapsulates the problem at the heart of the topic here perfectly; http://judymorrisreport.blogspot.com/2011/12/great-duck-dinner.html I have argued here somewhat that the state becomes validated in the common man willingly giving himself to it. The state allows those who would otherwise perish of their own foolishness to survive, but only so long as they are dependent on and give power to the state. These people, usually too inept to survive on their own, tend to make up the majority of the population, and so, through a well manipulated process of democracy does the state survive. Because the common man will always choose the easy life over self responsibility and self control. A shorter answer perhaps, is that independence and self integrity prevents the state. But who on earth wants to opt for that? 1
J. D. Stembal Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 The peaceful and voluntary family prevents dictators from taking power because there will be nothing to govern. Authoritarian parenting, augmented by public schools, is training wheels for tax cattle. Humans are made to be ordered around and coerced into submission from the cradle to the grave. Living in a free society will be like living on a different planet.
Recommended Posts