corey if you expect me to believe you've read a letter on a page of anything ancap i've got a bridge to sell you. you haven't. it's obvious.
i'm no expert but i can tell you're totally ignorant of it. i'm talking about a society that lacks force, not leadership.
every argument you've made is easily deflated or addressed in the most basic introduction to anarcho capitalism. if you weren't so adamantly loyal to the state and close minded, you might find out that anarcho capitalism is for you.
why do you love force so much? what is it about violence that is so appealing?
man the government sucks
of course i have questions. that's what seperates us two; i question everything. when GWB says "iraq has bombs! colin powell used crayons and a thesis to prove it!" i call bullshit.
i routinely read up on the view points of respected scholars from other schools of thought. Michael Shermer is one of my favorite new intellectuals to read and he's not anarchist. he's just smart.
i don't think because it's in a book, it's perfect. i believe in it because it is right.
forget about examples - can you debate the theory with me for just a minute, or are you afraid you'll lose?
i routinely read up on the view points of respected scholars from other schools of thought. Michael Shermer is one of my favorite new intellectuals to read and he's not anarchist. he's just smart.
i don't think because it's in a book, it's perfect. i believe in it because it is right.
forget about examples - can you debate the theory with me for just a minute, or are you afraid you'll lose?
No, I'm not afraid of losing because it is impossible. How could I lose a debate on opinions? There is no right or wrong. That is where we differ as well. I'm willing to accept others opinions and you only believe yours are correct.
Suppose I was debating against something I knew nothing about (again, I will stress that this is not the case here but lets pretend). Why are you so quick to tell me not to reject it so quick when meanwhile you have no problem with others accepting without knowing much about it. Why? Because you don't care if people know anything about it or why they accept it. All you care is that people do. You hate opposition. Congratulations, you're well on your way to fascism.
Suppose I was debating against something I knew nothing about (again, I will stress that this is not the case here but lets pretend). Why are you so quick to tell me not to reject it so quick when meanwhile you have no problem with others accepting without knowing much about it. Why? Because you don't care if people know anything about it or why they accept it. All you care is that people do. You hate opposition. Congratulations, you're well on your way to fascism.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
i thrive on opposition.
but it's tough when you're opposing me from nothing. you say you're tolerant, so am i. i don't fully believe in absolute morals as there's no way to determine them naturally.
i only know that man is rational and therefore must act as such to realize his potential.
what you do you believe? do you even know? there's a different between being tolerant and being flat out wishy washy.
as for your supposed tolerance... read this.
but it's tough when you're opposing me from nothing. you say you're tolerant, so am i. i don't fully believe in absolute morals as there's no way to determine them naturally.
i only know that man is rational and therefore must act as such to realize his potential.
what you do you believe? do you even know? there's a different between being tolerant and being flat out wishy washy.
as for your supposed tolerance... read this.
There's one thing in that passage that I strongly disagree with. According to LeFevre, only voting in politics is an act of force against others. He believes that by "voting" when you buy something you are not forcing anything against anybody else. Not true. If I choose NOT to buy from you I'm FORCING you to sell something else otherwise you won't survive. If you continue to try and sell something nobody is buying, it won't be long before you suffer. Say I was the only single customer that bought that particular good. Because noone else is buying it, I no longer have the choice to buy it because the seller is no longer offering it.
Also, if the majority of a group buys one thing, you are forcing it against others. This is in contrast to what LeFevre states as well. If most people decide to buy cars, then the roads are not safe for people who choose to walk on them. If I want to be on the road, I too would need a car. Again, I'm forced into something based on other peoples consumer "votes".
There is no difference between Political voting and Consumer voting.
Sorry if that isn't "philosophical" enough for you.
Also, if the majority of a group buys one thing, you are forcing it against others. This is in contrast to what LeFevre states as well. If most people decide to buy cars, then the roads are not safe for people who choose to walk on them. If I want to be on the road, I too would need a car. Again, I'm forced into something based on other peoples consumer "votes".
There is no difference between Political voting and Consumer voting.
Sorry if that isn't "philosophical" enough for you.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
Corey, how can your non-action be an act of force against me when, if you didn't exist at all, i would still sell to a different person?
an act of force must be deliberate - you can't force anybody to do anything by doing nothing. because if you didn't exist, the circumstances would be unchanged.
how can not-acting become an action? it's impossible.
if i stop selling brand y jelly beans because you were the only one buying them, i haven't forced you to do anything. Once again, if i stopped existing, you would be faced with the same circumstances.
however, when you vote, you are binding others to your decision. if you stopped existing, circumstances would change. you are taking action to coerce others to obey your will.
they're different.
an act of force must be deliberate - you can't force anybody to do anything by doing nothing. because if you didn't exist, the circumstances would be unchanged.
how can not-acting become an action? it's impossible.
if i stop selling brand y jelly beans because you were the only one buying them, i haven't forced you to do anything. Once again, if i stopped existing, you would be faced with the same circumstances.
however, when you vote, you are binding others to your decision. if you stopped existing, circumstances would change. you are taking action to coerce others to obey your will.
they're different.
Last I checked, purchasing something was doing something.
Selling something is also doing something.
Could I walk down the middle of a highway and not worry about anybody forcing me off? I didn't buy a car, but you did.
Selling something is also doing something.
Could I walk down the middle of a highway and not worry about anybody forcing me off? I didn't buy a car, but you did.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
you see, you CAN step out on to the road. nobody is going to stop you from doing that. you can, at your own peril. the consumers who use their vehicles would likely attempt to navigate around you. you run the risk of physical harm as a result of your action.
it's much like walking out in front of a shooting gallery. you take a significant risk, and you're in a place you have no business being.
however, if you violate a government law, you will be ultimatley punished by death. and it will be called "moral".
it's much like walking out in front of a shooting gallery. you take a significant risk, and you're in a place you have no business being.
however, if you violate a government law, you will be ultimatley punished by death. and it will be called "moral".
But why is that road there in the first place? I didn't have anything to do with it and I don't want it there. There used to be a playground there.
The choices of others dictate the way I have to live.
You keep bragging about your philosophy, but have you even studied one bit of sociology?
The choices of certain groups directly affects other groups. If all the rich people decide to live in the nicer neighborhood, the poor people are forced to live in dumps.
So how is this different from politics?
The choices of others dictate the way I have to live.
You keep bragging about your philosophy, but have you even studied one bit of sociology?
The choices of certain groups directly affects other groups. If all the rich people decide to live in the nicer neighborhood, the poor people are forced to live in dumps.
So how is this different from politics?
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
the road is there because the guy who wanted it paved (the contractor) either owned the land already or struck a deal with the owner of the land.
the road is there because consumers needed a road and where there is a need, there is a chance for profit.
that's why the road is there.
your housing location has nothing to do with mine, and everything to do with how much money you make. a poor person can't afford to live in a nice upscale home. it's got nothing to do with the rich person living there.
if i lived in the ghetto and then one day won $100 billion, i'm pretty sure i could find a rich family to sell their home to me. everything has a price.
every law is punishable by death in the end. if you refuse to submit to prosecution, the government will kill you.
the road is there because consumers needed a road and where there is a need, there is a chance for profit.
that's why the road is there.
your housing location has nothing to do with mine, and everything to do with how much money you make. a poor person can't afford to live in a nice upscale home. it's got nothing to do with the rich person living there.
if i lived in the ghetto and then one day won $100 billion, i'm pretty sure i could find a rich family to sell their home to me. everything has a price.
every law is punishable by death in the end. if you refuse to submit to prosecution, the government will kill you.
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
let me get this straight here.
Corey, you argue that voting with ballots and voting with dollars is more or less the same because if everybody buys product x, then product y will stop selling therefore forcing the seller of y to take on a new job.
you contend this is the same as how the government forces people to obey it's commands.
essentially, you say that private force is no different the government force, right? my buying a park and building a road "forces" you to stop using the park, and i did this without your consent.
well corey, you're absolutely right. both private and public processess involve force.
i earned my right to that property, and to make rules pertaining to it. just as i earned my right to buy so much of product x that product y goes out of business. the government did nothing to earn it's position of power over me, it does not have a right to dictate to me how i should use my property and my life.
i suppose i may have mislead you a little about my beliefs. i am not opposed to force, i am opposed to agression. we are not pacifists, we just don't throw the first punch.
Corey, you argue that voting with ballots and voting with dollars is more or less the same because if everybody buys product x, then product y will stop selling therefore forcing the seller of y to take on a new job.
you contend this is the same as how the government forces people to obey it's commands.
essentially, you say that private force is no different the government force, right? my buying a park and building a road "forces" you to stop using the park, and i did this without your consent.
well corey, you're absolutely right. both private and public processess involve force.
i earned my right to that property, and to make rules pertaining to it. just as i earned my right to buy so much of product x that product y goes out of business. the government did nothing to earn it's position of power over me, it does not have a right to dictate to me how i should use my property and my life.
i suppose i may have mislead you a little about my beliefs. i am not opposed to force, i am opposed to agression. we are not pacifists, we just don't throw the first punch.
Cool.
To be honest with you, I agree with a lot of things you say. I too am a capitalist at heart. I merely believe that having a government in place is advantagious, but hey, that's me. I believe that it is possible to change and shape the government in a manner that satisfies the people, while you do not. No problem, we disagree.
I'm a believer that the government is there to protect and ensure our freedoms, not take them away. As soon as I am provided with enough physical evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I'll join your side. Until then, I will say what I want, buy what I want, and live the way I want.
To be honest with you, I agree with a lot of things you say. I too am a capitalist at heart. I merely believe that having a government in place is advantagious, but hey, that's me. I believe that it is possible to change and shape the government in a manner that satisfies the people, while you do not. No problem, we disagree.
I'm a believer that the government is there to protect and ensure our freedoms, not take them away. As soon as I am provided with enough physical evidence to the contrary, then perhaps I'll join your side. Until then, I will say what I want, buy what I want, and live the way I want.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
Corey, many libertarians or voluntaryists would agree with you.
http://www.capitalism.org
take their tour. see if you like it.
i myself would not mind a state if it's only function was defense of my liberty. however i fail to see how drug laws, income taxes and ridiculous bills like the patriot act do any of that.
i advocate self-government. i want more personal accountability, more personal defense of my own interests. If the state existed as "back up" to my personal defense of myself i don't think i would mind them in that role.
http://www.capitalism.org
take their tour. see if you like it.
i myself would not mind a state if it's only function was defense of my liberty. however i fail to see how drug laws, income taxes and ridiculous bills like the patriot act do any of that.
i advocate self-government. i want more personal accountability, more personal defense of my own interests. If the state existed as "back up" to my personal defense of myself i don't think i would mind them in that role.