B0b Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Hello, I have read articles and listen to programs, but I find some questions inadequately answered. Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them. Even libertarian thinkers are opposed on these subjects. Do you have any convincing argument for any of these subjects? Thank you for your help cause I am a bit lost as to what to do regarding these issues among others. 1 1
regevdl Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Stefan and also Tom Woods (he does libertarian podcasts) has some good discussions about how to debate a statist. The other day someone tried to sell me the idea of universal healthcare and they too brought up the roads in a way as, "well if you are against gub'ment so much, you sure do appreciate the other benefits they offer like roads..." My response to them was, "I don't have a choice. I can verbally disagree but beyond that, if I find something lacking quality that is provided by the gub'ment or I find something they do morally abhorent, I have to pay for it regardless and that I find objectionable". That seems to be a line that generally gets their brain ticking.
Will Torbald Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Hello, I have read articles and listen to programs, but I find some questions inadequately answered. Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them. Even libertarian thinkers are opposed on these subjects. Do you have any convincing argument for any of these subjects? Thank you for your help cause I am a bit lost as to what to do regarding these issues among others. The basic premise is that you don't know and you can't know. Coercion is immoral and that simply means that you must insist that a society based on moral principles instead of coercive laws is required to rescue civilization from barbarism. The practical arguments exist, but it's a never ending rabbit hole. No one is saying that you should prefer liberty because garbage will be picked better off the streets, but because freedom is just good. There are no convincing arguments against someone who wants to control you by force.
dsayers Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Roads This is not an argument. "Libertarian" is undefined. You have not explained how people can exist in different, opposing moral categories where theft is immoral for everybody, except the ruling class. 1
AncapFTW Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Hello, I have read articles and listen to programs, but I find some questions inadequately answered. Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them. Even libertarian thinkers are opposed on these subjects. Do you have any convincing argument for any of these subjects? Thank you for your help cause I am a bit lost as to what to do regarding these issues among others. In an anarchist system, roads and "public bins" (I assume you are referring to trash cans?) would be privately owned, but most likely the various owners would work together to streamline and simplify the system. Immigration would be a non-issue, as any immigrant that can live peaceably and provide for themselves would be welcome. IP is a contested area, as some anarchists (including me) support the idea of having security companies protect ideas and research data, and others basically say "you can't own an idea."
RCali Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Hello, I have read articles and listen to programs, but I find some questions inadequately answered. Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them. Even libertarian thinkers are opposed on these subjects. Do you have any convincing argument for any of these subjects? Thank you for your help cause I am a bit lost as to what to do regarding these issues among others. It does not matter how these so called issues will be resolved, or would be, in a stateless society. It matters only that coercion is eliminated. When such happens, these things will be resolved easily and peacefully.
Carl Green Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them... What are your questions about those topics? 1
mahayana Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Question not satisfactorily addressed to us by B0b. 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Hello, I have read articles and listen to programs, but I find some questions inadequately answered. Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them. Even libertarian thinkers are opposed on these subjects. Do you have any convincing argument for any of these subjects? Thank you for your help cause I am a bit lost as to what to do regarding these issues among others. As others have foreshadowed, what the NAP (non aggression principle) tries to solve for is the contradiction between the State and the individual. Morality must be universal, meaning it must apply to all people all the time. Sure, there are life boat scenarios when the NAP might be difficult to apply, but the NAP is a consistent set of rules for all humanity to be subjected to for the all the practical scenarios we face day to day, and that is what is primary to consider. If it's true that the State is a contradiction, then it does not even make sense to say the state exists. The State would be no different from saying "people who initiate force," and we know that initiating force does two things in every situation it is present. 1) It benefits the person initiating force 2) It comes at the expense of the person who is a victim of the initiation of force These statements are praxeologically true, which it a very strong form of proof, since they cannot be denied without contradicting the premises. You can disagree with the premises, but I think you would need to make quite the case because this has been hashed out over a century now and the conclusions have been unable to be avoided. So when you say that "roads" are an issue, I think you are thinking about morality in the wrong way, severely. And if you excuse me to say so, I think it indicates that you are still emotionally defending the idea of a state. Because it could never be the case that the initiation of force would provide more equitable roads as desires by drivers, compared to a situation in which there was no initiation of force. The physics and economics of road building do not change - whether there is a state or not, they stay constant. It is simply that roads cannot be created for the benefit of others, if these others have force initiated against them. The initiation of force provides good things for bad people, and bad things for good people. That is the equation we here cannot avoid and why we chose to be stateless. I hope that makes things slightly more clear.
Worlok Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Roads and public bins would be privately owned. You already pay for these things with taxes. You probably pay way too much also. Immigration has two parts. If you have open borders and a welfare state, you are essentially paying foreigners stolen tax dollars to not work. Obama administration now allows for illegals to count towards population in voting which pushes votes toward the welfare system. The welfare state usually only steals tax dollars to pay locals not to work and illegal immigrants should not be considered in any manner for a vote of office. The second part is that if you have open borders and no welfare state and politicians don't get a vote bonus for illegals, they are only going to immigrate for better opportunity and will get jobs. Immigration isn't bad. Immigration, welfare state, and counting illegals as population in votes together are bad. I'm not sure what your confusion on intellectual property rights is.
BaconForAllah Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Stefan and also Tom Woods (he does libertarian podcasts) has some good discussions about how to debate a statist. The other day someone tried to sell me the idea of universal healthcare and they too brought up the roads in a way as, "well if you are against gub'ment so much, you sure do appreciate the other benefits they offer like roads..." My response to them was, "I don't have a choice. I can verbally disagree but beyond that, if I find something lacking quality that is provided by the gub'ment or I find something they do morally abhorent, I have to pay for it regardless and that I find objectionable". That seems to be a line that generally gets their brain ticking. Just to follow up, I was talking to someone who offered this: "This is Canada, if you don't like it you can go to another country, no one's forcing you to stay here, just like you aren't forced to shop at Walmart or McDonald's. Countries are all private property holders living in anarchy among one another, you already have anarcho capitalism." I wasn't sure how to reply.
NotDarkYet Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Why is the burden of proof on we those who believe: 1. Morality isn't an opinion 2. Violence isn't the way to solve non-violent problems. ?
thebeardslastcall Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 How will we build the pyramids without the slaves!? This hasn't been satisfactorily addressed either. /sarcasm To say such and such hasn't been satisfactorily addressed is to put forward the thesis that these things both need to be done and they can't be done without violent theft or slavery. You put forward the thesis we must have a 100% foolproof plan for picking the cotton before we free the slaves. What a sinister position. 1
RCali Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Just to follow up, I was talking to someone who offered this: "This is Canada, if you don't like it you can go to another country, no one's forcing you to stay here, just like you aren't forced to shop at Walmart or McDonald's. Countries are all private property holders living in anarchy among one another, you already have anarcho capitalism." I wasn't sure how to reply. That person learned a few new words, but I do not think that person knows any of their meanings. 1
regevdl Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Just to follow up, I was talking to someone who offered this: "This is Canada, if you don't like it you can go to another country, no one's forcing you to stay here, just like you aren't forced to shop at Walmart or McDonald's. Countries are all private property holders living in anarchy among one another, you already have anarcho capitalism." I wasn't sure how to reply. omg. I don't either.!! lol what a weird smoooshing together of completely different things. I would either a. count your loss and move on to the next carbon-based life form that might have a smidgen of a clue to have a more productive conversation or b. go point by point. cut up their argument in more bite size pieces and take one issue at a time. 1. No one is forcing you to stay here. Correct, however through documentation, visa and immigration out and into other countries, it does create a lot of bureacratic snare traps to 'simply' 'just leave' is not as easy as walking out of your private home as no one needs to give you a background check, tax forms, import forms, stamp documentation. If I don't like McDonalds or some private country club, I can actually simply 'just leave' and no one will check my papers and the next privatized property will not check my papers upon entry arbitrarily. 2. Correct. We are not forced to shop at Walmart or McDonalds etc. However we are forced to shop at gub'ment benefits called roads and I guess in Canada, healtcare. Meaning, if Walmart has poor ethical business practice or provides sub-par quality products or service, then I can stop spending my money there and no one will come after me with scary threatening letters saying I have no paid my dues to Walmart. If I am against a gub'ment policy such as certain wars or selling arms to countries of which they first destabalized and then inserted their own dictator, I am forced to pay for that regardless of my opinion or judgement on that. So I can simply verbally oppose military intervention or the quality/lack of quality of healthcare, etc but, unlike at Walmart, I have to keep on paying. If I stop paying, I will get threatening letters to try to scare me into forking over my money. If I stand my ground and ignore those letters, they will send armed men/women to my home. If i continue to stand my ground, I could/will be shot and killed. No WAY private enterprise could or would go to such extreme for me to buy their product or service. I just took my dog to the veterinarian today, if I choose to use the gub'ment provided vet (yes....one actually exists in my country and I have heard nothing but horror stories about him), the private vet will not send armed people to my home demanding I continue buying her service. That is the distinction people need to admit and be aware of. NOW. I give the person (of whom I am debating) the moral agency and opportunity to continue with their viewpoint. In that after I make my case on these issues, I tell them. Look, if you STILL think gub'ment provides the best of all of the products and services, then no problem, but please admit the point that they use force and coercion for you to fund them and we need to stop pretending there is anything moral or altruistic or of quality there. Just say you love what your gub'ment provides and the quality and that you fully understand it is all because of forced funding that it even exists and I'll have more respect of that position than pretending anyway it's so great we should pay for it and why they force people to. lol I use another, shorter version like, "having to force someone to fund your service or product is admission about how bad it sucks. A man/woman who forces another to have sex with them is only admitting how bad they are at convincing the other what value they can provide to convince the other to take upon the sex or relationship voluntarily. Or (since I make jewelry and art). I would be admitting how bad my art is if I had to force or threaten people to buy it or give them the option to leave my store as long as they go through a lengthy bureacratic process (which is a deterrant more than quality control) OR I have a lenghthy, costly and complicated process for anyone wanting to enter my store/gallery (thus deterring them) while simultaneously telling htem, "well if you don't like it...go to the next store...who happens to have the same processes)...which is a form of entrapment.
B0b Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Thank all you for your answers, but why did you all talk about State and moral principles when I wanted concrete answers, examples? Sorry if I did not express myself well. How do we practically handle problems such as trash cans on the streets? Since everyone can use them, who pays for collecting the trash? How do I prevent migrants from a poor (statist) country from begging and camping in the opulent (private) streets ? How can we build a new highway or train railroad, crossing so many private lands if 10% of the people do not want to hear about a highway or railroad? How do you get people not to copy and resell books they did not right if there are no intellectual property laws? If there are no laws, it means it is legal, right? I am all for no State, but before I buy a product, I need to see the instruction manual. I prefer to know how we will handle these problems before we get rid of the State rather than hearing "don't worry, we will find solutions afterwards". I can't buy promises. I am not an abstract person, I need concrete, workable solutions. Does this make me a statist? 1
Torero Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Thank all you for your answers, but why did you all talk about State and moral principles when I wanted concrete answers, examples? Sorry if I did not express myself well. Welcome B0b. How do we practically handle problems such as trash cans on the streets? Since everyone can use them, who pays for collecting the trash?How do we practically handle 'problems' (?) in the present? We make arrangements between each other, right? If you live in an apartment building, or a compound, or whatever, you negotiate with your neighbours and come up with a plan for handling trash, don't we? The recycling industry at present is a valuable industry, so no reason to assume suddenly without a state the trash would not be collected anymore. How do I prevent migrants from a poor (statist) country from begging and camping in the opulent (private) streets ? This assumes a utopian situation where there are no borders between a free society and the statist countries and that a free society cannot protect itself. Why would that be the case? How can we build a new highway or train railroad, crossing so many private lands if 10% of the people do not want to hear about a highway or railroad? Peaceful negotiation. And it opens up new markets for more silent trains, highways, etc. No more ugly fences, yet filled with trees and plants who actually absorb quite some sound as well. People want to see green, market for flora-rich fences would appear and we would not be forced by the State to accept an ugly fence around highways or train tracks. How do you get people not to copy and resell books they did not right if there are no intellectual property laws? If there are no laws, it means it is legal, right? Why wouldn't there be any "laws"? A law is now enforced by the State. But a "free society law", i.e. a contract between people, can still exist in a free society. Also here new markets will pop up; people developing software to protect files from getting copied. Books are just the printed digital texts then. Look at FDR itself; audio books are given out for free, if you want the hard-copy, you pay a small fee. It works! I am all for no State, but before I buy a product, I need to see the instruction manual. I prefer to know how we will handle these problems before we get rid of the State rather than hearing "don't worry, we will find solutions afterwards". I can't buy promises. I am not an abstract person, I need concrete, workable solutions. Does this make me a statist? Did you read an "instruction manual" before registering here? Look around you. Most things are already handled between humans, by humans and for humans in a peaceful way. You wouldn't point a gun at someone to pick up your trash. You wouldn't steal from others to feed your dog. Concrete, workable solutions are part of mankind. Always been. The concrete workable solution for "being cold" was to hunt furry animals, process their skins into clothing and be warm. If your idea is that without a forcing power (i.e. the State) there wouldn't be concrete, workable solutions possible and you take that as the basis for that State, yes, then you would be a Statist. But also it would make you not seeing the millions of human interactions that we have everyday that are not based on force/violence. 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 You're not an abstract person, so why are you asking about things that are nowhere near on the horizon when I have brought up the much more practical, moral problem of the existence of the state today? To do so is to close your eyes to the big giant elephant of a problem in the present, which is that the state exists, and invent abstract non-problems that we here won't ever have to deal with in our life times most likely. Sorry, I just have a hard time imagining that you can't fathom how garbage will be picked up or how roads will be built without the state, and that you're so practical that you would rather talk about lesser problems which don't exist compared to far greater problems which do exist and which are wreaking havoc everyday. You are a bit like the stereotypical farmer who won't talk about the immorality of slavery until you tell him exactly how the cotton is going to be picked, who says he's only not acknowledging the moral argument because he's just so god damn practical. Hundreds of millions dead in a century, capital wasted by the droves in wars which kills even more millions of people, people on chain and leash to curtail their innovation and wealth creation, the near death of western society with political immigration... And you're worried about how trash will be picked up and think your request for exactly how the trash will be picked up is a more practical concern than what I am bringing up about the state? We'll have freaking robots with lasers on their heads which will incinerate your trash and blast the ash out of the galaxy, how is that for practical? I'm not trying to be hostile, but I want my rhetoric to match what I perceive in your message as a flee from the glaring moral problem in front of us in favor of abstract non-problems we won't have to deal with for 100 years. Who really cares how they build the roads once governments stop initiating the use of force against billions of people? I hope that is useful for considering what is the important and practical consideration here, i.e., that the state is immoral and therefore must be ended. Whatever takes its place will obviously be better for everyone who is not currently a victim of state aggression. 1
B0b Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Hello Torero, How do we practically handle 'problems' (?) in the present? We make arrangements between each other, right? If you live in an apartment building, or a compound, or whatever, you negotiate with your neighbours and come up with a plan for handling trash, don't we? The recycling industry at present is a valuable industry, so no reason to assume suddenly without a state the trash would not be collected anymore. Sorry, I was talking about public trash cans in the street. My neighbors do not want to pick up the leaves outside their gates already... This assumes a utopian situation where there are no borders between a free society and the statist countries and that a free society cannot protect itself. Why would that be the case? But who would decide who we should let in? Peaceful negotiation. And it opens up new markets for more silent trains, highways, etc. No more ugly fences, yet filled with trees and plants who actually absorb quite some sound as well. People want to see green, market for flora-rich fences would appear and we would not be forced by the State to accept an ugly fence around highways or train tracks. What do we do if one person does not want to let the railroad go through his property? Why wouldn't there be any "laws"? A law is now enforced by the State. But a "free society law", i.e. a contract between people, can still exist in a free society. Also here new markets will pop up; people developing software to protect files from getting copied. Books are just the printed digital texts then. Look at FDR itself; audio books are given out for free, if you want the hard-copy, you pay a small fee. It works! Who would choose such laws? Suppose 50% of the people want intellectual property right laws and 50% don't. If a person copies and resell a book, he does not violate any contract since he did not buy it in the first place. If your idea is that without a forcing power (i.e. the State) there wouldn't be concrete, workable solutions possible and you take that as the basis for that State, yes, then you would be a Statist. But also it would make you not seeing the millions of human interactions that we have everyday that are not based on force/violence. I do not have any idea, I just want to hear how a few issues would be handled in a stateless society. 2
B0b Posted January 27, 2016 Author Posted January 27, 2016 Matthew, You're not an abstract person, so why are you asking about things that are nowhere near on the horizon when I have brought up the much more practical, moral problem of the existence of the state today? I find these issues very concrete. It is the stateless society that is an abstraction. You are a bit like the stereotypical farmer who won't talk about the immorality of slavery until you tell him exactly how the cotton is going to be picked, who says he's only not acknowledging the moral argument because he's just so god damn practical. Did I hurt someone or said something immoral? Lots of people will not buy the "state is immoral and therefore must be ended". These people will be more convinced by practical considerations. As a matter of fact, these are exactly the questions that my friends and relatives keep asking me. They do not want to hear the "state is immoral and therefore must be ended" motto. This is not my fault. I just asked how it would work, where is the crime? 2
Jer Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Stefan has made a few podcasts on the topics you mentioned. I recommend starting with #1 http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives
Matthew Ed Moran Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Sorry, I wrote farmer but I didn't mean to associate you with slave owning, even though that seemed like the obvious implication of my statement. Sorry about that. What I meant was that you are putting emphasis on a false problem. Stopping the initiation of force is not a problem. The garbage is picked up now. Like I said, you could hold all things equal but what determines if the transaction should take place is whether the individual choice is being allowed in the situation free of aggression. Sure, you can use examples just to show people what consent is, but that'd be the only point. B0b, you're defining false problems which don't exist and redefining them as problems simply because the initiation of force is not being committed. That is a non sequitor and I think you should bring this argument up to anyone who will not accept the moral argument against the state. What is worth arguing about if not about the moral case? You have no idea how it will be in true free market. Point out what is wrong now to them is more important than what could be wrong in a hypothetical future without force. That is what I mean by abstract and not practical. There is nothing wrong with being overly abstract sometimes, but we need to focus on the moral case in my opinion, if we're going to have traction convincing people in our personal lives. Once they agree with the basic premise then we can work towards the hypotheticals, but not until then.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 I am all for no State, but before I buy a product, I need to see the instruction manual. I prefer to know how we will handle these problems before we get rid of the State rather than hearing "don't worry, we will find solutions afterwards". I can't buy promises. I am not an abstract person, I need concrete, workable solutions. Does this make me a statist? Who cares what you buy? It's not like we're going to wait for dickheads who can't even think how to pick up trash unless the state tells them how. You just hire someone to do it you fucking idiot. Please don't pretend you're here for answers. You're one of those jackasses who doesn't even bother to read the entire free book on this website that deals directly with this issue but then proceeds to bombard us with irrelevant questions that you then throw cold water on. If you are concerned that you can't do something without the state then I advise you remain in a state. Please don't get the impression we want you with us. You'd be better off in a state. I just asked how it would work, where is the crime? And people gave you practical answers galore AND gave the argument from morality that shows why it doesn't matter how things will work. Do you have a valid rebuttal or do you just want to keep moving the goal posts every time someone gives you an answer? Unless you can demonstrate one service the state provides that can't be provided without it then you're done. 2
B0b Posted January 28, 2016 Author Posted January 28, 2016 Matthew, I am not putting the emphasis on a false problem, I am asking some smart guys example of solutions to technical problems. Do you see a problem asking questions? My parents told me when I was a kid that all questions were fine. I am also telling you that you would have an even harder time explaining all the people I know and probably almost anyone that the state is immoral and that is the only problem. You have to understand that people not all think like you. Regarding the garbage, maybe I did not express myself well, English not being my language. I was talking about the public bins in the street. You also did not address the problem of the railroad and the single guy that does not want his land to be cut in half, no matter how much money we want to offer him. What is worth arguing about if not about the moral case? You have no idea how it will be in true free market. Point out what is wrong now to them is more important than what could be wrong in a hypothetical future without force. Do I still have the right to talk about what I want? Can’t I try to answer people’s question? If they ask me about railroads, I answer them about railroad. I cannot tell them, the state is immoral. ProfessionalTeabagger, Who cares what you buy? It's not like we're going to wait for dickheads who can't even think how to pick up trash unless the state tells them how. You just hire someone to do it you fucking idiot. Thank you for these kind words. You don’t care what I buy, I understand. The problem is that there are tons of people out there that are just as stupid as me and true statists. If you don’t care what they buy, you will never convince anyone of anything. Think about it. If you cannot even explain things calmly and politely to someone who shows already a certain degree of goodwill, how will you be able to deal with your neighbor in the stateless society to take of one of the issues I raised? Will you start insulting him? Your style contrasts with the style of Stefan. You're one of those jackasses who doesn't even bother to read the entire free book on this website that deals directly with this issue but then proceeds to bombard us with irrelevant questions that you then throw cold water on. If you though that my questions were irrelevant, why did you feel the need to answer my post? What do you know what I read? If answers to my questions are readily available, why no one answered them in one sentence, so that I can move on to other less mundane questions. And people gave you practical answers galore AND gave the argument from morality that shows why it doesn't matter how things will work. I did not get any practical answers, and the morality argument has nothing to do with practical questions. If someone ask me how does this gun works, I am not going to tell him, you don’t need to know, killing people is immoral. You have a long way to go because there are still millions of people to convince that we would be better off without a state, and believe me, these people are even worse than me. Some are even stupider than me. But maybe worse, some are much more intelligent than me, but statists as hell. You will discredit yourself insulting them. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Thank you for these kind words. You don’t care what I buy, I understand. The problem is that there are tons of people out there that are just as stupid as me and true statists. If you don’t care what they buy, you will never convince anyone of anything. Think about it. If you cannot even explain things calmly and politely to someone who shows already a certain degree of goodwill, how will you be able to deal with your neighbor in the stateless society to take of one of the issues I raised? Will you start insulting him? Your style contrasts with the style of Stefan. You've shown no good-will. Your patina of civility is disingenuous. A person showing goodwill would have looked into these basic concepts properly (and would not be asking how will we handle roads?) and would have at least have read the free book "practical anarchy" that's on this website. Your original post was an insult because it was so lazy and made everyone have to drag stuff out of you. Then you now pretend you're just trying to help. It's concern trolls like you I despise the most. I can explain these things in many different ways but with you I choose to do it this way because you're a lazy asshole who moves goal-posts and wastes everyone's time. As for dealing with people like you in a free society, that's the beauty: I don't have to. The only reason we have to prostrate ourselves before your idiotic creationist level questions is because we're subject to the violent state you support. If there was no state we could just say "bye" and have nothing to do with you. If you though that my questions were irrelevant, why did you feel the need to answer my post? What do you know what I read? If answers to my questions are readily available, why no one answered them in one sentence, so that I can move on to other less mundane questions. I didn't answer your post originally. I waited until I saw your responses and they were the predictably disingenuous. If you did read the book on this site and you came here with "How will we handle roads?" then you're a fucking moron. I did not get any practical answers, and the morality argument has nothing to do with practical questions. If someone ask me how does this gun works, I am not going to tell him, you don’t need to know, killing people is immoral. So you're saying not one person gave you a single practical answer? I just told you how to have trash collected. That's practical answer. I just told you there's an entire free audio-book by Stefan that addresses these very questions. But no one has given you any practical answers? You fucking liar. Your "how this gun works analogy" is stupid. The argument is that it doesn't matter how SERVICES government already provide will be provided without them because morality supersedes such practical concerns. Either you make a valid rebuttal to that or you accept it. You have a long way to go because there are still millions of people to convince that we would be better off without a state, and believe me, these people are even worse than me. I don't want you to be convinced and I don't believe you're here to be convinced. I don't need you to grant me freedom. We won't wait for you. Some are even stupider than me. But maybe worse, some are much more intelligent than me, but statists as hell. You will discredit yourself insulting them. This kinda reminds of white people and immigration from the third world. They have this delusional belief that if they are just nice the people from these shit countries will see we are better and want to adopt western secular/ free market values. But it's bullshit. The good people here think if they are nice to filth like you then you will come around to reason. But I know you're full of it. If someone thinks a philosophical position is discredited because the person advocating it was insulting then I'm glad they are not coming on board. Slavery abolitionists didn't get anywhere by being nice to slavery advocates. Why should I be nice to you? What value do you have to provide?
B0b Posted January 28, 2016 Author Posted January 28, 2016 Do not bother commenting my posts, I do not read your full of hatred comments. 2
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Do not bother commenting my posts, I do not read your full of hatred comments. LOL. The poor victim statist. Should we get you fainting couch? I mean, you support and advocate the initiation of force through the apparatus of the state on everyone here but if someone dares respond with nasty comments, well that's just wrong! That's the bully mentality that is shocked when your lesser slaps you back. The fact that you're too stupid to figure out how to pick up trash without the state doesn't give you the right to have your boot on my face. Now fuck off. 1 1
AncapFTW Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 Two trolls getting in a flame wars. I don't know if it's funny or just pathetic. 1 1
Carl Green Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I am all for no State, but before I buy a product, I need to see the instruction manual. What's the manual you're going with now? Got a link? 1
AncapFTW Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 What's the manual you're going with now? Got a link? http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Unfortunately, they sent it to you and drafted your bank account without you knowing. Also, they don't bother looking much at it when making changes to the product, so it's not very accurate.
TheRobin Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 I think the fundamental mistake you're making is that you're asking for a universal solution to individual problems. You ask how "we" can do x. Well, first, there's no "we" in the same sense as before, one town might decide one thing another town another, there might even be a multitude of different solutions even within different neighbourhoods of the same town.So you're really asking "What centralized solution would you put in place, once there's no more central power that can put in place central solutions?"And as people pointed out, there's a book called practical anarchy that you can read for free that has some opinions about how some of these things might be handled, but of course, the main thing we need to understand is that, the future is never anything like the past and solutions which haven't even been invented yet could be very much commonly available at the time we finally get to a free society. 2
Recommended Posts