# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Anarcho-capitalist FAQ

## Conza88

*FAQ*
_




			
				   1. What is anarcho-capitalism?
   2. Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?
   3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?
   4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?
   5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?
   6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?
   7. Are anarcho-capitalists anti-war?
   8. What are the myths of statism?
   9. What are the myths of socialism?
  10. Why don't you just leave?
  11. Are there different types of anarcho-capitalism?
  12. How do anarcho-capitalists compare with other anarchists?
  13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?
  14. Who are the major anarcho-capitalist thinkers?
  15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?
  16. How would anarcho-capitalists handle the "public goods" problem?
  17. Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?
  18. How might an anarcho-capitalist society be achieved?
  19. What are some major anarcho-capitalist writings?
  20. Where can I find anarcho-capitalist web sites?
			
		

_Discuss.

----------


## libertea

> 9. What are the myths of socialism?


That people won't take care of each other without the almighty government's intervention.

Over 1 Billion voluntary donations raised for victims of Sept. 11.
61 Million raised for Katrina Victims.
The Catholic Church in the US is equivalent to a Fortune 500 Company, purely via donations.
Lance Armstrong Foundation Raises 52 Million a year and is worth 65 Million.
Red Cross 2.1 Billion

American Institute of Philanthropy A-Z list

A
AARP Foundation 
Accion International 
Accuracy in Media 
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) 
ACLU Foundation 
Action Against Hunger - USA 
Action on Smoking and Health 
Africa Action 
Africa-America Institute 
African Wildlife Foundation 
Africare 
AFS-USA
AIDS Research Alliance 
Air Force Aid Society 
Alaska Conservation Foundation 
Alley Cat Allies 
ALM International / American Leprosy Missions 
ALS Association  National Office 
ALSAC/St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital 
Alzheimers Association / Alzheimers Disease & Related Disorders Association 
Alzheimers Disease Research, a program of the American Health Assistance Foundation 
American Action Fund for Blind Children and Adults / American Brotherhood for the Blind
American Association of the Deaf-Blind
American Association of State Troopers 
American Association of State Troopers Scholarship Foundation 
American Brain Tumor Association 
American Breast Cancer Foundation 
American Brotherhood for the Blind / American Action Fund for Blind Children and Adults
American Cancer Society 
American Council of the Blind  National Office 
American Deputy Sheriffs Association (ADSA)
American Diabetes Association 
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research 
American Farmland Trust 
American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens
American Forests 
American Foundation for the Blind 
American Foundation for Disabled Children
American Friends Service Committee 
American Health Assistance Foundation 
American Heart Association / American Stroke Association 
American Humane Association 
American Indian College Fund 
American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / Council of Indian Nations / Native American AID / National Relief Charities / Navajo Relief Fund / Sioux National Relief Fund / Southwest Indian Relief Council
American Indian Youth Running Strong / Christian Relief Services Charities 
American Institute for Cancer Research 
American Jewish Committee 
American Jewish Congress 
American Jewish World Service 
American Kidney Fund 
American Leprosy Missions / ALM International 
American Life League
American Liver Foundation 
American Lung Association / Christmas Seals  National Office 
American Near East Refugee Aid 
American Parkinson Disease Association 
American Printing House for the Blind 
American Red Cross 
American Refugee Committee 
American Relief Association / AZ Indian Heritage Association / Four Corners Indian
American Rivers 
American Social Health Association 
American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
American Stroke Association / American Heart Association 
American Studies Center / Radio America
American Veterans Coalition
American Veterans Relief Foundation 
Americans for UNFPA (formerly U.S. Committee for U.N. Population Fund) 
Americans United for Separation of Church and State 
AmeriCares 
Americas Second Harvest / Second Harvest 
Amnesty International of the U.S.A. 
AMVETS National Headquarters
AMVETS National Service Foundation 
Animal Legal Defense Fund 
Animal Welfare Institute 
Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith & Foundation 
Arc of the United States  National Office 
Armed Forces Aid Campaign / US Armed Forces Iraq Casualty Appeal / TREA Memorial FoundationNew Listing
Armed Services YMCA of the USA 
Army Emergency Relief 
Arthritis Foundation 
Arthritis Research Institute of America
Arthritis Trust / Rheumatoid Disease Foundation 
Asia Foundation 
Asia Society 
Asian-American Legal Defense & Education Fund 
Asian Relief / World Villages for Children
Associated Humane Societies

Association for Firefighters & Paramedics
Association on American Indian Affairs 
Autism Speaks 
Avon Foundation/Avon Walk for Breast Cancer

B
Bailey House (formerly AIDS Resource Center) 
Bat Conservation International 
Beckman Research Institute / City of Hope 
Best Friends Animal Society 
Big Brothers / Big Sisters of America  National Office 
Blinded Veterans Association 
Bnai Brith International / Hillel Foundation 
Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute 
Bowery Residents Committee 
Boy Scouts of America  National Office 
Boys and Girls Clubs of America  National Office 
Boys Town / Father Flanagans Boys Home 
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence 
Bread for the World 
Bread for the World Institute 
Breast Cancer Fund 
Breast Cancer Research Foundation 
Brookings Institution
Brothers Brother Foundation 

C
Cal Farleys Boys Ranch and Affiliates 
Camp Fire USA  National Office 
Cancer Care 
Cancer Center for Detection & Prevention / Breast Cancer Relief Foundation
Cancer Federation
Cancer Fund of America
Cancer Recovery Foundation of America
Cancer Research Institute 
CARE 
Carter Center 
Catalyst 
Catholic Charities
Catholic Medical Mission Board 
Catholic Relief Services 
Cedars Home for Children Foundation 
Center for Community Change 
Center for Constitutional Rights 
Center for Reproductive Rights 
Center for Science in the Public Interest 
Center for Victims of Torture 
Chesapeake Bay Foundation 
Child Find of America 
Child Welfare League of America
A Childs Dream / Youth Development Fund
A Childs Wish Foundation / Childrens Charity Fund
Childhelp
Childhood Leukemia Foundation
Children Incorporated 
Children International 
Childrens Cancer Assistance Fund / National Childrens Cancer Society 
Childrens Cancer Research Fund 
Children's Charitable Foundation
Childrens Charity Fund / A Childs Wish Foundation
Childrens Defense Fund 
Childrens Inn at NIH 
Childrens Wish Foundation International
ChildSight / Helen Keller International 
Christian Appalachian Project 
Christian Childrens Fund 
Christian Foundation for Children and Aging 
Christian Record Services 
Christian Relief Services Charities 
Christmas Seals / American Lung Association - National Office 
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation 
Church World Service 
Citizens Against Government Waste
City Harvest (New York City) 
City of Hope / Beckman Research Institute 
Coalition Against Breast Cancer
Coalition for the Homeless 
Coalition to Salute Americas Heroes / Help Hospitalized Veterans
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Committee for Missing Children
Committee to Protect Journalists 
Common Cause 
Common Cause Education Fund 
Compassion & Choices 
Compassion International 
Concerns of Police Survivors (COPS) 
Concord Coalition
Conservation Fund 
Conservation International Foundation 
Council of Indian Nations / American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / National Relief Charities / Native American AID / Navajo Relief Fund / Sioux National Relief Fund / Southwest Indian Relief Council
Cousteau Society 
Covenant House 
Crohns & Colitis Foundation of America 
CureSearch / National Childhood Cancer Foundation 
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation 

D
Dakota Indian Foundation
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation 
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute / Jimmy Fund
David Livingstone Missionary Foundation
Deafness Research Foundation
Defeat Diabetes Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife 
DELTA Rescue 
Delta Society 
Diabetes Action Research & Education Foundation 
Diabetes Research & Wellness Foundation
Diabetes Research Institute Foundation 
Diabetes Trust Foundation 
Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International 
Direct Relief International 
Disabled American Veterans
Disabled Veterans Association
Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation
Doctors of the World - USA 
Doctors Without Borders - USA 
Don Stewart Association / Feed My People / Feeding Americas Hungry Children / Southwest Indian Childrens Fund
Doris Day Animal League (merged with HSUS) 
Ducks Unlimited 

E
Earth Island Institute 
EarthJustice (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense) 
Easter Seals 
Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
Elephant Sanctuary of Tennessee 
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation 
EngenderHealth (formerly AVSC International) 
Environmental Defense 
Epilepsy Foundation & Research Foundation

F
Family Care International New Listing
Farm Aid 
Farm Sanctuary 
Father Flanagans Boys Home / Girls and Boys Town 
Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) 
Feed My People / Don Stewart Association / Feeding Americas Hungry Children / Southwest Indian Childrens Fund
Feed the Children / Larry Jones Ministries 
FINCA International 
Fire Victims / Firefighters Charitable Foundation 
First Candle / SIDS Alliance - National Office 
Fisher House Foundation 
Food Bank for New York City (formerly Food for Survival) 
Food for the Hungry 
Food for the Poor 
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics 
Fortune Society 
Foundation Fighting Blindness 
Foundation for AIDS Research (formerly AMFAR) 
Foundation for Children with Cancer
Freedom Alliance
Freedom from Hunger 
Fresh Air Fund 
Friends of Animals 
Friends of the Earth
Fund for Peace 
Futures for Children 

G
Gaia - Movement Living Earth Green World Action USA 
Gay Mens Health Crisis 
Gifts in Kind International 
Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.  National Office 
Girls, Inc.  National Office 
Give Kids the World 
Global Fund for Women 
Global Hunger Project 
Goodwill Industries International  National Office 
Gorilla Foundation
Grameen Foundation USA 
Greenpeace, Inc. 
Greenpeace Fund, Inc. 
Guide Dog Foundation for the Blind 
Guide Dogs for the Blind 
Guide Dogs of America 
Guiding Eyes for the Blind
Guttmacher Institute 

H
Habitat for Humanity International  National Office 
Hadassah 
Hale House Center & Affiliates 
Heart Support of America
Heifer Project International 
Helen Keller International / ChildSight 
Helen Keller Services for the Blind 
Help Hospitalized Veterans / Coalition To Salute Americas Heroes
Heritage for the Blind New Listing
Heritage Foundation 
Hillel Foundation / Bnai Brith International 
Hispanic Scholarship Fund 
Hole in the Wall Gang Fund 
Homes For Our Troops 
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Campaign Foundation
Human Rights First (formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights) 
Human Rights Watch 
Humane Farming Association 
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 
Huntingtons Disease Society of America 

I
Immigration & Refugee Services of America / U.S. Committee for Refugees & Immigrants 
In Defense of Animals 
Interfaith Alliance 
Interfaith Alliance Foundation 
International Campaign for Tibet 
International Childrens Fund 
International Eye Foundation 
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews 
International Fund for Animal Welfare
International Medical Corps 
International Peace Institute 
International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War
International Planned Parenthood Federation  Western Hemisphere 
International Rescue Committee 
Interplast 
Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund 
Islamic Relief - USA

Izaak Walton League of America 

J
J.A. Worldwide (formerly Junior Achievement)  National Office 
Jane Goodall Institute 
Japan Society
Jewish Fund for Justice (Premerger with JFSJ)
Jewish National Fund 
Jewish War Veterans of the USA 
Jimmy Fund / Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Judicial Watch
Junior Police Academy
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International 

K
Keep America Beautiful  National Office 
Kids Wish Network

L
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 
Lance Armstrong Foundation 
Larry Jones Ministries / Feed the Children 
Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund
League of Women Voters Education Fund
League of Women Voters of the U.S.
Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund)
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society 
Lifesavers
Lighthouse International (formerly New York Association for the
Blind) 
Little Sioux / Rosebud Educational Society / St. Francis Indian Mission
Lupus Foundation of America  National Office 
Lupus Research Institute 
Lutheran World Relief 

M
Macular Degeneration Research, a program of the American Health Assistance Foundation 
Make-A-Wish Foundation 
MAP International 
March of Dimes Foundation 
Marine Mammal Center 
Marine Toys for Tots Foundation 
Mays Mission for the Handicapped
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger 
Media Research Center
Medic Alert Foundation United States
Medical Teams International 
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 

Mennonite Central Committee 
Mental Health America (formerly National Mental Health Association) 
Mercy Corps 
Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund
Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinsons Research 
Military Ex-Prisoners of War Foundation
Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation
Miracle Flights for Kids / Angel Planes
Morality in Media
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Ms. Foundation for Women 
Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation 
Multiple Sclerosis Association of America
Multiple Sclerosis Foundation 
Muscular Dystrophy Association 
Muscular Dystrophy Family Foundation

N
NAACP & NAACP Special Contribution Fund 
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund 
NAMI & Mind of America Foundation 
NARAL Pro Choice America
NARAL Pro Choice America Foundation
National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD) 
National Alliance to End Homelessness 
National Anti-Vivisection Society 
National Arbor Day Foundation 
National Association for the Terminally Ill
National Association of Chiefs of Police
National Association of Police Organizations & Subsidiaries
National Audubon Society
National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund 
National Cancer Center

National Cancer Coalition
National Cancer Research Center / Walker Cancer Research
National Caregiving Foundation
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children 
National Childhood Cancer Foundation / CureSearch 
National Childrens Cancer Society / Childrens Cancer Assistance Fund 
National Childrens Leukemia Foundation
National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare
National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence  National Office
National Council on Aging 
National Diabetes Fund / Project CURE
National Emergency Medicine Association / National Heart Council 
National Federation of the Blind
National Foundation for Cancer Research 
National 4-H Council 
National Glaucoma Research, a program of the American Health Assistance Foundation 
National Heart Council / National Emergency Medicine Association 
National Hemophilia Foundation  National Office 
National Humane Education Society 
National Jewish Health
National Kidney Foundation 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 
National Legal Aid & Defender Association
National Military Family Association 
National Multiple Sclerosis Society  National Office 
National Organization for Rare Disorders 
National Organization for Women (NOW)  National Office 
National Osteoporosis Foundation 
National Park Foundation 
National Park Trust 
National Parkinson Foundation
National Parks Conservation Association 
National Relief Charities / American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / Council of Indian Nations / Native American AID / Navajo Relief Fund / Sioux National Relief Fund / Southwest Indian Relief Council
National Rifle Association 
National Rifle Association Foundation 
National Right to Life Committee, Inc.
National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund 
National Right to Work Committee 
National Right to Work Legal Defense & Education Foundation 
National Society to Prevent Blindness / Prevent Blindness America 
National Trust for Historic Preservation 
National Urban League  National Office
National Veterans Services Fund
National Vietnam Veterans Committee
National Wildlife Federation 
Native American AID / American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / Council of Indian Nations / National Relief Charities / Navajo Relief Fund / Sioux National Relief Fund / Southwest Indian Relief Council
Native American Heritage Association 
Native American Rights Fund 
Natural Resources Defense Council 
Navajo Relief Fund / American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / Council of Indian Nations / National Relief Charities / Native American AID / Sioux National Relief Fund / Southwest Indian Relief Council
Nature Conservancy 
Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society 
NCOA National Defense Foundation
Negative Population Growth
New Israel Fund & Signing Anew 
North Shore Animal League of America 

O
Ocean Conservancy (formerly Center for Marine Conservation) 
Omaha Home for Boys
Operation Lookout National Center for Missing Youth
Operation Smile 
Operation USA 
ORBIS International / Project ORBIS International 
Oxfam-America 

P
Pacific Legal Foundation
Paralyzed Veterans of America 
Parents Television Council
Parkinsons Disease Foundation 
Pathfinder International 
PCI - Media Impact 
Peaceful Valley Donkey Rescue
Pearl S. Buck International 
People for the American Way
People for the American Way Foundation
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 
People-to-People Health Foundation / Project HOPE 
Phoenix House Development Fund 
Phoenix House Foundation 
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 
Physicians for Social Responsibility 
PKD Foundation  
Plan USA (formerly Childreach) 
Planet Aid
Planned Parenthood Federation of America 
Ploughshares Fund 
Police Protective Fund
Population Action International 
Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) 
Population Council 
Population Institute 
Prevent Blindness America / National Society to Prevent Blindness 
Prevent Cancer Foundation 
Prevent Child Abuse America - National Office 
Prison Fellowship Ministries 
Project Concern International 
Project CURE / National Diabetes Fund
Project HOPE / People-to-People Health Foundation 
Project ORBIS International / ORBIS International 
Proliteracy Worldwide 
Prostate Cancer Foundation New Listing
Public Citizen 
Public Citizen Foundation 
Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund

Q
No Listings

R
Radio America / American Studies Center
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 
Rainforest Action Network 
Rainforest Alliance 
Reach Out and Read 
Reading is Fundamental 
Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic 
Red Cloud Indian School
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice 
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Educational Fund 
Research to Prevent Blindness
Resources for the Future 
Rheumatoid Disease Foundation / Arthritis Trust 
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 
Ronald McDonald House Charities  National Office 
Rosebud Educational Society / Little Sioux / St. Francis Indian Mission

S
SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions) - National Office 
Salesian Missions
Salk Institute for Biological Studies 
Salvation Army  Central Territory 
Salvation Army  Eastern Territory 
Salvation Army  Southern Territory 
Salvation Army  Western Territory 
Samaritans Purse 
San Francisco AIDS Foundation 
Save the Children 
Save-the-Redwoods League 
Scholarship America 
Second Harvest / Americas Second Harvest 
Seeing Eye 
Seniors Coalition
Seva Foundation 
Shiloh Ministries  New Listing
Shriners Hospitals for Children 
SIDS Alliance / First Candle - National Office 
Sierra Club 
Sierra Club Foundation 
Simon Wiesenthal Center 
Sioux National Relief Fund / American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / Council of Indian Nations / National Relief Charities / Native American AID / Navajo Relief Fund / Southwest Indian Relief Council
Smile Train
Soldiers' Angels
S.O.S. Childrens Villages - USA 
Southern Poverty Law Center 
Southwest Indian Childrens Fund / Don Stewart Association / Feed My People / Feeding Americas Hungry Children
Southwest Indian Foundation
Southwest Indian Relief Council / American Indian Education Foundation / American Indian Relief Council / Council of Indian Nations / National Relief Charities / Native American AID / Navajo Relief Fund / Sioux National Relief Fund
Special Olympics
St. Bonaventure Indian Mission & School
St. Francis Indian Mission / Little Sioux / Rosebud Educational Society
St. Josephs Indian School
St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital (ALSAC) 
St. Labre Indian School Educational Association 
Starlight Starbright Childrens Foundation 
Starr Commonwealth Schools 
Stem Cell Research Foundation, a program of the American Health Assistance Foundation 
Student Conservation Association 
Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD)  National Office 
Sunshine Foundation 
Susan G. Komen for the Cure

T
TechnoServe 
Tiger Haven
TREA Memorial Foundation / Armed Forces Aid Campaign / US Armed Forces Iraq Casualty Appeal New Listing
TREA Senior Citizens League
Trout Unlimited 
Trust for Public Land 

U
UMCOR (United Methodist Committee on Relief)  New Listing
UNCF / The College Fund 
Union of Concerned Scientists 
United Cerebral Palsy Associations  National Office 
United Jewish Communities
United Spinal Association / Wounded Warrior Project 
United States Association for UNHCR 
United States Deputy Sheriffs' Association
United States Fund for UNICEF 
United Way of America
U.S. Armed Forces Iraq Casualty Appeal / Armed Forces Aid Campaign / TREA Memorial Foundation New Listing
U.S. Committee for Refugees & Immigrants/ Immigration & Refugee Services of America 
U.S. English
USO (United Service Organizations)

V
Vanished Childrens Alliance 
Veterans for America
Veterans Fund New Listing
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. and Foundation 
Veterans of the Vietnam War & The Veterans Coalition
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund 
Vietnow National Headquarters
Volunteers of America

W
Walker Cancer Research / National Cancer Research Center
Wilderness Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
William J. Clinton Foundation 
Will Rogers Motion Pictures Pioneer Foundation 
Wishing Well Foundation USA
Witness for Peace
Women for Women International 
World Concern (Program of Crista Ministries) 
World Emergency Relief / Childrens Food Fund 
World Jewish Congress (American Section) 
World Neighbors  
World Resources Institute 
World Villages for Children / Asian Relief
World Vision 
World War II Veterans Committee, a program of American Studies Center
World Wildlife Fund 
Wounded Warrior Project / United Spinal Association 

X
No Listings

Y
YMCA of the United States  National Office 
YWCA of the USA  National Office
Young America's Foundation 
Youth Development Fund / A Childs Dream

Z
No Listings

----------


## Conza88

bump for JTL.

----------


## noxagol

1: What is anarcho-capitalism?

This is a form of society in which there is no single, monopolized, use of force and law making. In essence, each person is a government unto themselves, their kingdoms are their property. Only under such a system can people achieve any sort of equality in that each person has equal power but their power cannot be put upon others except those who agree to it. 

2. Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?

Anarcho-capitalism is the maximum amount of freedom possible. If you wish to be free to do as you please, so long as you do not harms others, and keep the fruits of your labor, then you are an anarcho-capitalist.

3. Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?

No. Chaos is not conducive to freedom. An anarcho-capitalistic society would not produce chaos, but instead would produce mass peace because during peace people are able to better their lives. Only governments seek to wage mass scale wars using some bogus excuse. It is the divide of nationalism that governments create that cause wars. 

4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?

Depends on your definition of a perfect world. For me, yes it is utopian, but it is a possible utopia because it does not garuntee paradise for everyone. It does, however, garuntee that people who do something good will be rewarded and those who do not will be punished. Each person must survive on their own merits, charity aside. 

5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?

Hardly. Business can only exploit the worker and the consumer with the aid of government to keep competition at bay.

6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?

It grants the most freedom to everyone. It treats everyone as equals. It creates incentives to work hard and do good and punishes laziness and doing evil. 

7. Are anarcho-capitalists anti-war?

Very much so. War is an aberration that is caused by governments, the other aberation.


10. Why don't you just leave?

And go where?

11. Are there different types of anarcho-capitalism?

Not that I know of. It's hard to have different variations of absolute freedom for all.

12. How do anarcho-capitalists compare with other anarchists?


13. Is anarcho-capitalism the same thing as libertarianism?

It is the logical conclusion of it.

14. Who are the major anarcho-capitalist thinkers?

Murray Rothbard comes to mind.

15. How would anarcho-capitalism work?

Each person can do whatever they like, so long as they do not take or harm anything that does not belong to them or anyone else, unless they have permission to do so from the various people and owners.

16. How would anarcho-capitalists handle the "public goods" problem?

There is no such thing as public property or public goods in an anarcho-capitalistic society.

17. Have there been any anarcho-capitalist societies?

Not that I am aware of. 

18. How might an anarcho-capitalist society be achieved?

Take the communist manifesto and reverse everything is a good start. And then make taxation voluntary and allow private police and courts.

19. What are some major anarcho-capitalist writings?

Anything by Murray Rothbard is a good start.

20. Where can I find anarcho-capitalist web sites?

Lewrockwell.com

----------


## Conza88

Haha... I know the answers... there in the link; click the blue FAQ text. 

Just thought I'd share... and if you knew that, then thanks for sharing yourself

----------


## Josh_LA

anarcho-capitalism is just anarchism for spoiled kids unwilling to share.

people who think there should be no government or force EVER (*unless it is to protect their property and life).

----------


## sailor

> anarcho-capitalism is just anarchism for spoiled kids unwilling to share.


As opposed to spoilt kids willing to share?

----------


## Josh_LA

> As opposed to spoilt kids willing to share?


no, as opposed to people who only recognize property for what a person's fought for.

My view of anarchism (or rather, my ideal world) is that a person has no rights, and nobody has to respect any life, liberty or happiness of another, you're only entitlement of rights and comfort is what you can defend (so yes, might is right and survival of fittest).

----------


## The_Orlonater

I don't think I'm welcome here, I believe in "Socialist roads, schools, and public transportation."

----------


## nate895

> I don't think I'm welcome here, I believe in "Socialist roads, schools, and public transportation."


I believe in government maintained roads as well. The other two you mentioned I believe can be privatized over the course of time. The reason I believe in government maintained roads is that private roads everywhere would require you to pay to leave the comfort of your property. That might be respecting the property rights of the person who owns the roads, but I maintain I have more freedom if I do not need to pay to leave my own property.

----------


## UnReconstructed

The best website for anything ANCAP: http://mises.org/

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

I'm in the middle of http://mises.org/story/1970

The Nature of man and his government.

Are there any ancap organizations? All of the anarchist organizations I see are socialist.

----------


## mediahasyou

I consider myself mostly a voluntaryist.  

People should set up their own "voluntary" governments.  A true social contract.

----------


## UnReconstructed

I don't know of any ancap organizations other than mises and I would consider the FSP somewhat ancap.  I know that a lot of those folks are playing politico but there are a lot of anarcho-capitalists there.

If you find something or anything that favors ancap let me know.

http://www.blackcrayon.com/

http://freetalklive.com/

http://freekeene.com/

----------


## Josh_LA

> I believe in government maintained roads as well. The other two you mentioned I believe can be privatized over the course of time. The reason I believe in government maintained roads is that private roads everywhere would require you to pay to leave the comfort of your property. That might be respecting the property rights of the person who owns the roads, but I maintain I have more freedom if I do not need to pay to leave my own property.


Yeah, only idiots like Ian think all land should be privately own, so you can't step outside your house without paying toll.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I consider myself mostly a voluntaryist.  
> 
> People should set up their own "voluntary" governments.  A true social contract.


Agreed. http://ivorypower.com/blog/?p=5869

----------


## noxagol

> Yeah, only idiots like Ian think all land should be privately own, so you can't step outside your house without paying toll.


Then I guess I'm an idiot, along with Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and a slew of other very smart people as well.

----------


## sailor

> I don't think I'm welcome here, I believe in "Socialist roads, *schools*, and public transportation."


I can only assume you haven`t gonne to one?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Then I guess I'm an idiot, along with Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and a slew of other very smart people as well.


So you believe people can only be allowed to roam within their own home, and an inch outside of it warrants toll and fee?

Let's start building some prison cells!

----------


## Josh_LA

> I can only assume you haven`t gonne to one?


No, I've been to them.

They're better than nothing.

----------


## The_Orlonater

I believe in socialized public transportation on a community level, strongly.

Schools, I think we should encourage more private schools too. I wouldn't make public schools abolished.

Not all public schools are bad. I think parents and teachers should control the schools, not beaurocrats.

----------


## sailor

> Schools, I think we should encourage more private schools too. I wouldn't make public schools abolished.
> 
> Not all public schools are bad. I think parents and teachers should control the schools, not beaurocrats.


Public schools are great places to meet interesting new people and make friends for life. But so are public prisons.

----------


## nate895

> I believe in socialized public transportation on a community level, strongly.
> 
> Schools, I think we should encourage more private schools too. I wouldn't make public schools abolished.
> 
> Not all public schools are bad. I think parents and teachers should control the schools, not beaurocrats.


I agree to some extent. The only problem is that it forces people who put their children through private school, and those with no children, to pay for schools that they will not use. If someone cannot afford school, if we had a stable currency and little taxation, there should be enough private charitable money to finance the child's education.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> I agree to some extent. The only problem is that it forces people who put their children through private school, and those with no children, to pay for schools that they will not use. If someone cannot afford school, if we had a stable currency and little taxation, there should be enough private charitable money to finance the child's education.


Well, I do agree that people who don't have kids or send kids to public schools shouldn't pay into it.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Public schools are great places to meet interesting new people and make friends for life. But so are public prisons.


Most kids are the same everywhere.

----------


## nate895

> Most kids are the same everywhere.


There aren't the same between California and Washington, believe me.

----------


## noxagol

> So you believe people can only be allowed to roam within their own home, and an inch outside of it warrants toll and fee?
> 
> Let's start building some prison cells!


You already pay a toll to walk off your property, and you can't even negotiate it. You can't even choose to not pay it, because if you do, men with guns come and take you away and sell your stuff to get their money.

You also assume that everyone is going to charge you to enter their property. I very well see a road owned by walmart free to travel on, or a road paid for by advertisements along side it, free to travel on. You don't truly explore the possibilities and cling to your government like a child clings to his mother, too afraid to live on your own merit.

----------


## nate895

> You already pay a toll to walk off your property, and you can't even negotiate it. You can't even choose to not pay it, because if you do, men with guns come and take you away and sell your stuff to get their money.


It would still be less cost if we had an efficient government since the government wouldn't be out to make a profit, whereas private interests are. You are paying maintenance and construction with the government, whereas you are paying that plus the owner's profit with it private.

----------


## noxagol

> It would still be less cost if we had an efficient government since the government wouldn't be out to make a profit, whereas private interests are. You are paying maintenance and construction with the government, whereas you are paying that plus the owner's profit with it private.


Bwhahaha, you think the government wouldn't extort you? Have you been asleep your whole life? The government has zero incentive to do anything right and all the incentive to do everything wrong because it can convince you it needs more of your money to do it right. You are over paying maintance that occurs to often, you are paying 1 guy to work and 7 to watch him, you are paying for $#@!ty construction that will have to be redone and it is done everyday for 3 weeks making going anywhere on the road hell. A private company would have every incentive to do it right the first time, make sure tey do a damn good job of it, make sure it is done as fast as possible, and make sure they don't have to do it again for as long as possible, because of profit. The government has no idea how much it should cost because it's not paying for it. It cannot engage in economic calculation.  It is highly politicized and the roads are placed for political purposes and not to fit the needs of those who would use it.

If people are good, then government is not needed. If people are evil, then government cannot come to exist for it would be filled with evil people.

----------


## sailor

> Most kids are the same everywhere.


All the more reason to stay out of public schools! They are mind-numbing, torturous wastes of time. Just like prison-time!

Not saying private schools are any better, but at least they don`t make a fuss when you cutt classes!

----------


## nate895

> Bwhahaha, you think the government wouldn't extort you? Have you been asleep your whole life? The government has zero incentive to do anything right and all the incentive to do everything wrong because it can convince you it needs more of your money to do it right. You are over paying maintance that occurs to often, you are paying 1 guy to work and 7 to watch him, you are paying for $#@!ty construction that will have to be redone and it is done everyday for 3 weeks making going anywhere on the road hell. A private company would have every incentive to do it right the first time, make sure tey do a damn good job of it, make sure it is done as fast as possible, and make sure they don't have to do it again for as long as possible, because of profit. The government has no idea how much it should cost because it's not paying for it. It cannot engage in economic calculation.  It is highly politicized and the roads are placed for political purposes and not to fit the needs of those who would use it.
> 
> If people are good, then government is not needed. If people are evil, then government cannot come to exist for it would be filled with evil people.



That's why you should have responsible officials in the government.

Edit: Private corporations already maintain and construct our roads. The reason why they don't do it right the first time is that the government will just pay for them to do it again, which could be easily resolved by making a provision in the contract to fix it the first time, or having to do it free the next time. Private individuals/corporations are open to the same sort of mistakes.

----------


## sailor

> That's why you should have responsible officials in the government.


And when did we ever have them?

----------


## The_Orlonater

> There aren't the same between California and Washington, believe me.


There's always exceptions, but dude.

I go to school with these kids. I'm the youngest member on these forums.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> And when did we ever have them?


Ron Paul.

----------


## noxagol

> That's why you should have responsible officials in the government.
> 
> Edit: Private corporations already maintain and construct our roads. The reason why they don't do it right the first time is that the government will just pay for them to do it again, which could be easily resolved by making a provision in the contract to fix it the first time. Private individuals/corporations are open to the same sort of mistakes.


Yeah, but they pay for it. The government doesn't pay for it, so they don't care. 

I'd rather not have my fate decided by some guy that a majority puts into power. I don't want my eggs in that basket.

----------


## nate895

> There's always exceptions, but dude.
> 
> I go to school with these kids. I'm the youngest member on these forums.


How old?

I'm 16.

----------


## nate895

> I'd rather not have my fate decided by some guy that a majority puts into power. I don't want my eggs in that basket.


I don't want my fate decided by one guy with a lot of money to buy the roads.

----------


## noxagol

> I don't want my fate decided by one guy with a lot of money to buy the roads.


Again, not possible. Even then, if he didn't satisfy the customers, new ones would be built.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You already pay a toll to walk off your property, and you can't even negotiate it. You can't even choose to not pay it, because if you do, men with guns come and take you away and sell your stuff to get their money.
> 
> You also assume that everyone is going to charge you to enter their property. I very well see a road owned by walmart free to travel on, or a road paid for by advertisements along side it, free to travel on. You don't truly explore the possibilities and cling to your government like a child clings to his mother, too afraid to live on your own merit.


So why don't you own the property and let me tread on it freely? Obviously you're not stupid enough to invest in something without a return. WalMart does it because it brings them business.

Yes, I already pay a toll, so are you, you want to worsen the situation, not better it.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Again, not possible. Even then, if he didn't satisfy the customers, new ones would be built.


new ones would not be built, you'd need eminent domain to reclaim property already bought.

----------


## sailor

> How old?
> 
> I'm 16.


And you`re starting a national party?!?

Damn it, sometimes I really don`t know what to think about this movement!!

----------


## nate895

> Again, not possible. Even then, if he didn't satisfy the customers, new ones would be built.


Because three roads connecting two places, when you only need one, is much preferred, with all that asphalt where homes/gardens/farms could be. I know I'm young, but outside of traffic jams to and from work, which can only be solved by creating more roads, which government can do, there is little to complain about the road system. I get more POed at fellow drivers than I do at the road. Remember as well, that there is one thing the state does well, and that is conduct war, and roads are instrumental in military operations.

----------


## nate895

> And you`re starting a national party?!?
> 
> Damn it, sometimes I really don`t know what to think about this movement!!


No one else was, so I did it. I wasn't planning on doing much with the party besides organizing it at the beginning and participating when I come of age.

Edit: I couldn't stand to see the division that is within this movement, and the ridiculousness of hoping we will 1) take over the GOP, 2) win with the LP, or 3) win with the CP, was making me think this movement was stupid, or at least extremely politically ignorant. I have been interested in and followed politics from the time I can remember, so I know a lot more than the previously apathetic 40-year-olds about politics at least.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Because three roads connecting two places, when you only need one, is much preferred, with all that asphalt where homes/gardens/farms could be. I know I'm young, but outside of traffic jams to and from work, which can only be solved by creating more roads, which government can do, there is little to complain about the road system. I get more POed at fellow drivers than I do at the road. Remember as well, that there is one thing the state does well, and that is conduct war, and roads are instrumental in military operations.


Not exactly, traffic can be solved if it were legal to have unlicensed buses (or to charge people to carpool with you without being taxed).

There are good things that can be done privately to solve problems, but letting all lands and all roads be privatized is not one of them in my view.

----------


## sailor

> I don't want my fate decided by one guy with a lot of money to buy the roads.


The rich have much more power and influence where there is a state. And where the state is the most expansive.

Because they use their wealth to influence the immensley powerful government and the state apparatus, which in turn scratches their back.

It would be much harder for them to wield the same sort of influence without having their power amplified by the state.


Tell me, what is cheaper for a rich guy, starting a lobby to influence the politicians or starting a genuine grass roots movement?

----------


## nate895

> Not exactly, traffic can be solved if it were legal to have unlicensed buses (or to charge people to carpool with you without being taxed).
> 
> There are good things that can be done privately to solve problems, but letting all lands and all roads be privatized is not one of them in my view.


True, I just didn't think of that.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The rich have much more power and influence where there is a state. And where the state is the most expansive.
> 
> Because they use their wealth to influence the immensley powerful government and the state apparatus, which in turn scratches their back.
> 
> It would be much harder for them to wield the same sort of influence without having their power amplified by the state.
> 
> 
> Tell me, what is cheaper for a rich guy, starting a lobby to influence the politicians or starting a genuine grass roots movement?


the rich will always have power over the poor as long as the law is on their side to protect their property. It's in communist or African nations where armed people prevent them from existing that's anywhere near otherwise.

----------


## AutoDas

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron to socialists and it is redundant if you're a libertarian.

----------


## sailor

> the rich will always have power over the poor as long as the law is on their side to protect their property. It's in communist or African nations where armed people prevent them from existing that's anywhere near otherwise.


The rich will have the power over the poor for precisley as long as there is no universal respect of the natural rights of a man, which includes the right of property and the principle of non-aggression.

Just like in a vandalist society a rich man could hire goons and thugs to do his dirty work for him, today a rich man can hire the state (as the body with the monopoly on violence) to do his dirty work for him. 

Except it was always easier to defend against an unsophisticated gang of thugs rather than against the all-powerful state.

----------


## noxagol

> the rich will always have power over the poor as long as the law is on their side to protect their property. It's in communist or African nations where armed people prevent them from existing that's anywhere near otherwise.


You don't think people have a right to their property? The rich only have power over the poor so long as the rich have something the poor want. The poor have power over the rich because obviously, the poor have something the rich want. Governments do far more to help the rich because the rich helps the government than they will ever do for the poor. 

In an anarcho-capatilistic society, the rich will be the ones who please the most people and improve the lives of the most people because that is the only way they  will get anything from anyone.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> How old?
> 
> I'm 16.


Almost 15, unfortunately.

----------


## nate895

You know, I find this entire conversation to be too intellectual at this point anyway. In order to implement anarcho-capitalism, you'd have to get the population to agree. They will never agree, even if they agreed on everything else, there are always the foreign powers who would have to be dealt with. We'd be a sitting duck for any one of them to pick off. It could be implemented, I think, if the entire world did it, and since that is impossible in my lifetime, I won't care about it.

----------


## noxagol

> You know, I find this entire conversation to be too intellectual at this point anyway. In order to implement anarcho-capitalism, you'd have to get the population to agree. They will never agree, even if they agreed on everything else, there are always the foreign powers who would have to be dealt with. We'd be a sitting duck for any one of them to pick off. It could be implemented, I think, if the entire world did it, and since that is impossible in my lifetime, I won't care about it.


No, we would be everyones friend and impossible to conquer. We would be engaging in large amounts of trade with everyone, no regulations, restrictions, or taxes to worry about. 

They would have no pre established centralized control center to force to surrender and then use to control the populace. They would have to do it one person at a time, and each person would be well armed most likely, and most would likely fight back. Just look at how much trouble a few thousand rag tag arabs are doing to the supposedly most powerful military on the face of the planet. Now, imagine a few hundred million.

And if it were to happen anywhere, its success would quickly be known and everyone else would work to adopt it, no doubt being faught tooth and nail by their governments.

----------


## nate895

> No, we would be everyones friend and impossible to conquer. We would be engaging in large amounts of trade with everyone, no regulations, restrictions, or taxes to worry about. 
> 
> They would have no pre established centralized control center to force to surrender and then use to control the populace. They would have to do it one person at a time, and each person would be well armed most likely, and most would likely fight back. Just look at how much trouble a few thousand rag tag arabs are doing to the supposedly most powerful military on the face of the planet. Now, imagine a few hundred million.
> 
> And if it were to happen anywhere, its success would quickly be known and everyone else would work to adopt it, no doubt being faught tooth and nail by their governments.


I have heard that argument before, but if someone invaded today, they would have to go through the same hurtles as you would in anarchy. The only difference is that in anarchy, there is no organized professional Army or militia to defend the territory. Resistance would be disorganized for a long enough period of time that any state military would be able to establish control of the coasts, and the people in the cities would be under their control. While it would take decades, it is possible that they could achieve control of the entire country. Of course, it is possible that the anarchists would win, but their country would be totally destroyed and raped of anything of value. It would take centuries to rebuild.

----------


## noxagol

> I have heard that argument before, but if someone invaded today, they would have to go through the same hurtles as you would in anarchy. The only difference is that in anarchy, there is no organized professional Army or militia to defend the territory. Resistance would be disorganized for a long enough period of time that any state military would be able to establish control of the coasts, and the people in the cities would be under their control. While it would take decades, it is possible that they could achieve control of the entire country. Of course, it is possible that the anarchists would win, but their country would be totally destroyed and raped of anything of value. It would take centuries to rebuild.


And that scenario is any different if there is an organized government goon squad? It could still happen. However, there would be no incentive to attack your biggest trading partners.

----------


## nate895

> And that scenario is any different if there is an organized government goon squad? It could still happen. However, there would be no incentive to attack your biggest trading partners.


They would probably attack immediately because the danger of an anarchist society is much greater than any profit they'd get from it in trade. If we maintained government and had a military to defend out frontiers, instead of intervening in other countries' affairs, we'd be able to repel or slow down any possible strike to the point that minimal damage to our overall infrastructure would be accomplished by a foreign invader.

The one the state does extremely efficiently is war. If they don't do it efficiently, it is because of a lack of good generals, nothing to do with governments unless they refuse to fund it.

----------


## Conza88

> You know, I find this entire conversation to be too intellectual at this point anyway. In order to implement anarcho-capitalism, you'd have to get the population to agree. They will never agree, even if they agreed on everything else, there are always the foreign powers who would have to be dealt with. We'd be a sitting duck for any one of them to pick off. It could be implemented, I think, if the entire world did it, and *since that is impossible in my lifetime, I won't care about it.*


Tell me. Whose is ever going to invade and try occupy the United States?

Forget the military... tell me, who is going to be able to take over the Bronx, or 5 Boroughs? Which nation on earth would want to, and be able to? 

Everyone with their 2nd amendment, defending their own property... organizing collectively to correctly defend it, via militia etc. No state.

@ Bold. That's the $#@!test attitude I've seen in a while. And it reminds me exactly of *Suze Orman*.

And to all the road socialists.

*“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”* ~ Herbert Spencer

Enjoy your ignorance.

----------


## nate895

> Tell me. Whose is ever going to invade and try occupy the United States?
> 
> Forget the military... tell me, who is going to be able to take over the Bronx, or 5 Boroughs? Which nation on earth would want to, and be able to? 
> 
> Everyone with their 2nd amendment, defending their own property... organizing collectively to correctly defend it, via militia etc. No state.
> 
> @ Bold. That's the $#@!test attitude I've seen in a while. And it reminds me exactly of *Suze Orman*.


They'd take the risk if it meant keeping their population under control. If they invaded both coasts at once, they'd have neutralized most of the resistance before most of the country knew what was going on.

----------


## nate895

> And to all the road socialists.
> 
> *There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.* ~ Herbert Spencer
> 
> Enjoy your ignorance.


I have read The Machinery of Freedom, it's not like I am unfamiliar with the ideas of anarcho-capitalism.

----------


## sailor

> I have heard that argument before, but if someone invaded today, they would have to go through the same hurtles as you would in anarchy. The only difference is that in anarchy, there is no organized professional Army or militia to defend the territory.


Oh, there would be no?

Like there would be no organised, professional police force?

Of course there would be. Only they would be privatly funded. There is no difference between production of security and the production of any other good. 


The only real difference would be that an anarcho-capitalist society would be immensley productive and would develop economicaly at a lightning pace.

Slow ineffiecent statist economies could not compete with it. Which would mean it would posses a huge advantage in research, technology and money. 

Which would mean it could easily out-fight any state with its small economy and primitive weaponary. They might as well be flinging stones for all the good it would do them.

----------


## Standing Like A Rock

> Oh, there would be no?
> 
> Like there would be no organised, professional police force?
> 
> Of course there would be. Only they would be privatly funded. There is no difference between production of security and the production of any other good. 
> 
> 
> The only real difference would be that an anarcho-capitalist society would be immensley productive and would develop economicaly at a lightning pace.
> 
> ...


good point

----------


## sailor

> The one the state does extremely efficiently is war. If they don't do it efficiently, it is because of a lack of good generals, nothing to do with governments unless they refuse to fund it.


That is perhaps the most foolish thing I have heard in a long time.

State armies are wast, rigid and wasteful, buerocracies famous for their many blunders and outright idiocy.

The examples are so many a man doesn`t know where to start.

----------


## nate895

> That is perhaps the most foolish thing I have heard in a long time.
> 
> State armies are wast, rigid and wasteful, buerocracies famous for their many blunders and outright idiocy.
> 
> The examples are so many a man doesn`t know where to start.


Most of the blunders are from lack of good generals, which is problem both statist and anarchist armies would have.

----------


## Conza88

> I have read The Machinery of Freedom, it's not like I am unfamiliar with the ideas of anarcho-capitalism.


Haha, you read one book. Great work.  How about you go read another?




> In For A New Liberty Rothbard applies abstract libertarian principles to solve current welfare-state problems.* How would a stateless society provide for goods such as education, money, streets, police, courts, national defense, social security, environmental protection, etc.? Here are the answers.*


*Read - For A New Liberty*

*Listen - For A New Liberty* 

Get learning.  And that's not just directed at you. Josh probably needs to, more than anyone.

----------


## sailor

> Most of the blunders are from lack of good generals, which is problem both statist and anarchist armies would have.


Nonsense. There is never a lack of people with fresh ideas and great strategic minds.

It is only that in statist, buerocratised armies such people very rarely get promoted to the higest ranks.

----------


## nate895

> Haha, you read one book. Great work.  How about you go read another?
> 
> 
> 
> *Read - For A New Liberty*
> 
> *Listen - For A New Liberty* 
> 
> Get learning.  And that's not just directed at you. Josh probably needs to, more than anyone.


Like I have the time of day to read continuously about an ideology that has as much chance of coming to fruition as does Nazism. I have better things to do with my time.

----------


## nate895

> Nonsense. There is never a lack of people with fresh ideas and great strategic minds.
> 
> It is only that in statist, buerocratised armies such people very rarely get promoted to the higest ranks.


You think there is a Hannibal in every Army? If there is one in a generation, count yourself lucky. Heck, if you have one Stonewall Jackson or Patton, count yourself in the lucky category.

----------


## strapko

Hmm...I like what I read, but cannot yet make the switch from min-anarchism. One point I want to bring up in the reading: The Celtic Irish like they said were very advanced, how come England was able to conquer them? This system seems to have a weak national defense and cannot survive under imperialist countries.

----------


## nate895

> Hmm...I like what I read, but cannot yet make the switch from min-anarchism. One point I want to bring up in the reading: The Celtic Irish like they said were very advanced, how come England was able to conquer them? This system seems to have a weak national defense and cannot survive under imperialist countries.


We Irish kick ass, too. Though, I don't believe the system the Celts had was truly anarcho-capitalism, or even anarchy. It was more like extremely localized government which had the effect of anarchism on the grand stage.

----------


## strapko

> We Irish kick ass, too. Though, I don't believe the system the Celts had was truly anarcho-capitalism, or even anarchy. It was more like extremely localized government which had the effect of anarchism on the grand stage.


So would this system create a strong national defense? With top of the line weapons? I.e. Sharks with laser beams on their heads.

----------


## nate895

> So would this system create a strong national defense? With top of the line weapons? I.e. Sharks with laser beams on their heads.


Personally, I doubt it, but the others would argue that it does.

----------


## strapko

Conza where are you! Need my question answered.

----------


## Conza88

> Like I have the time of day to read continuously about an ideology that has as much chance of coming to fruition as does Nazism. I have better things to do with my time.


That's $#@!en hilarious, considering the time you are wasting; arguing AGAINST IT.

Bahahah... 

Got an mp3 player? Go itunes? Click the $#@!en link, you can listen to the logic & reasoning... while you're sitting at your god damn computer, wasting your time - through blind ignorance, arguing against something you willfully ignore. Then come back with some kind of coherent response to Rothbard's arguments.




> Conza where are you! Need my question answered.


Doing an assignment on _"Should government stay out of business?"_ 

Which one? 




> Hmm...I like what I read, but cannot yet make the switch from min-anarchism. One point I want to bring up in the reading: The Celtic Irish like they said were very advanced, how come England was able to conquer them? This system seems to have a weak national defense and cannot survive under imperialist countries.


_"We Irish kick ass, too. Though, I don't believe the system the Celts had was truly anarcho-capitalism, or even anarchy. It was more like extremely localized government which had the effect of anarchism on the grand stage."_

Yeah, that's about right. Oddly enough. lol. 




> So would this system create a strong national defense? With top of the line weapons? I.e. Sharks with laser beams on their heads.


 If I was to take this seriously.. _"National Defense?"_ There's no state.  There wouldn't be a need for top of the line weapons, since no-one in their right mind would invade a people hell bent on liberty, with the capitalist structure strongly behind them. Occupation is DOOMED, before it's even begun. Maaaaaaaan, I'd laugh at the state that tried to fck with an anarcho-capitalists society. Hhahahh. As far as sharks with laser beams, and the subtle insinuation that this is crazy... which it isn't. It's pragmatic.. What ever floats your boat mate. Non aggression + property rights.

Do you wish to control these sharks with laser beams?

----------


## strapko

Answer my 2 questions! Conza lol.

----------


## Conza88

> Answer my 2 questions! Conza lol.


I am you tightass. Patience is a virtue. Geezus christ. 

*Edit:*_

See the edited above. (post)_

----------


## strapko

Hmm I guess... Unless there is a government which wants to "reclaim their land" and in effect steal property and force law.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You know, I find this entire conversation to be too intellectual at this point anyway. In order to implement anarcho-capitalism, you'd have to get the population to agree. They will never agree,


AGREED.

*THAT IS THE POINT, if you can get the whole population to agree, EVERYTHING GOES, COMMUNISM, FASCISM, LYNCHING, RAPE.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron to socialists and it is redundant if you're a libertarian.


thank you.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The rich will have the power over the poor for precisley as long as there is no universal respect of the natural rights of a man, which includes the right of property and the principle of non-aggression.
> 
> Just like in a vandalist society a rich man could hire goons and thugs to do his dirty work for him, today a rich man can hire the state (as the body with the monopoly on violence) to do his dirty work for him. 
> 
> Except it was always easier to defend against an unsophisticated gang of thugs rather than against the all-powerful state.


Why should there be any respect for human rights?

Where do rights come from? Who is to say rights are to be respected and without force, who is to enforce laws, rules or norms?

An intelligent libertarian should know!

No state is all powerful either, they're only as powerful as the people are willing to give it, they are in fact unsophisticated thugs.

----------


## anaconda

> Yeah, only idiots like Ian think all land should be privately own, so you can't step outside your house without paying toll


I am fairly certain that paying a toll would be far far cheaper than paying 40% of your money in taxes. There is a strong incentive for owners to offer goods and services efficiently, cheaply, and in a way that best represents the choices that the consumer wants to make.

----------


## Conza88

> AGREED.
> 
> *THAT IS THE POINT, if you can get the whole population to agree, EVERYTHING GOES, COMMUNISM, FASCISM, LYNCHING, RAPE.*


If they agree, it becomes voluntary. Thus rape, is not possible. Because it is against your will, coercion. 

If you agree to lynching, then you're voluntarily committing suicide. The last resort of a free man.

"There is no kind of freedom and liberty other than the kind which the market economy brings about. In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide." ~ Human Action, p. 280; p. 283

The POINT being, if you don't agree - then the whole population does not agree, thus your point fails. 




> thank you.


Please explain to me, how it is redundant.

----------


## anaconda

> Like I have the time of day to read continuously about an ideology that has as much chance of coming to fruition as does Nazism. I have better things to do with my time.


Time is indeed precious.

If the economy keeps going down the tubes we all may be faced very soon with a brief window of time to decide if we get anarcho-capitalism or Naziism...

----------


## Josh_LA

> I am fairly certain that paying a toll would be far far cheaper than paying 40% of your money in taxes. There is a strong incentive for owners to offer goods and services efficiently, cheaply, and in a way that best represents the choices that the consumer wants to make.


I'm not asking you whether it's practical or likely, I'm asking you if this is theoretically possible according to your view, would you allow it?

Yes, there's good incentive for owners to satisfy customers, and there's also good incentive for owners to rip you off if they know you have no choice (in which case you can argue its not ripping off unless you have a choice). I'm not here to argue with you which is better,* I'm just asking, WILL YOU ALLOW people to charge tolls or ask people to stay at home simply because stepping outside their door is trespassing?*

----------


## Josh_LA

> If they agree, it becomes voluntary. Thus rape, is not possible. Because it is against your will, coercion. 
> 
> If you agree to lynching, then you're voluntarily committing suicide. The last resort of a free man.
> 
> "There is no kind of freedom and liberty other than the kind which the market economy brings about. In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide." ~ Human Action, p. 280; p. 283
> 
> The POINT being, if you don't agree - then the whole population does not agree, thus your point fails. 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but not if you don't count women and slaves as people. And that's exactly what we did. 

White men got the right to decide, so all white men decided that women have no rights and slaves get to be lynched as long as we provide the rope.

There's no reason we should treat slaves or women as people, why should we when there's nothing to challenge or enforce this crazy idea?

Anarcho-capitalism is redundant to a libertarian because that's pretty much what a libertarian is in today's definition, a person who believes in zero government other than to protect property.

----------


## Josh_LA

> If they agree, it becomes voluntary. Thus rape, is not possible. Because it is against your will, coercion. 
> 
> If you agree to lynching, then you're voluntarily committing suicide. The last resort of a free man.


But still, if all people agree, NOTHING IS WRONG. Thus, as history has proven, there has never been a point in time where everybody agrees on everything. 

The best (if that) is when most people ruled over the less, or those with force ruled over the less physically able. *This is all societies EVER have been : MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, no matter how you put it.*

----------


## Conza88

> I'm just asking, WILL YOU ALLOW people to charge tolls or ask people to stay at home simply because stepping outside their door is trespassing?[/B]


How would you get to the point where there is a monopoly on everything?  How do they first get into the situation you describe? Monopoly is relatively impossible in the free market.  In the disbanding process, you wouldn't sell all the roads to one individual company / corporation. There isn't just one route to take. Anyway, Rothbard addresses this and Walter Block too, you wouldn't know about that though. 




> Yes, but not if you don't count women and slaves as people. And that's exactly what we did. 
> 
> White men got the right to decide, so all white men decided that women have no rights and slaves get to be lynched as long as we provide the rope.
> 
> There's no reason we should treat slaves or women as people, why should we when there's nothing to challenge or enforce this crazy idea?
> 
> Anarcho-capitalism is redundant to a libertarian because that's pretty much what a libertarian is in today's definition, a person who believes in zero government other than to protect property.


So we get some further clarification, since your last point was proven wrong. 

Doesn't matter what they did. It's natural law / natural rights - the system that strays from this, fails. As has been shown throughout history. Women are counted as people; they didn't agree to it. The only reason it 'goes' was because of force.  

Your redundancy comment, is redundant. Libertarians believe goverment should protect property - YESSSSS, we've LOVE since established that.. NOTHING new being said here. Yet, anarcho-capitalists contend you don't need the state to do that.

Your analysis fails. 




> But still, if all people agree, NOTHING IS WRONG. Thus, as history has proven, there has never been a point in time where everybody agrees on everything. 
> 
> The best (if that) is when most people ruled over the less, or those with force ruled over the less physically able. *This is all societies EVER have been : MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, no matter how you put it.*


If people agree it's voluntaryism. If you allow a state of affairs were the only actions people do are voluntary, i.e anarcho capitalism... then people's actions, HUMAN ACTION, is agreed on. 

Your point still fails "But still, if all people agree, NOTHING IS WRONG." lol... 

All people in what regard? ALL the people at one point in a certain country / of a certain belief, reconned the world was flat aye... or the sun revolved around the earth. 

_"The best (if that) is when most people ruled over the less, or those with force ruled over the less physically able."_

Value direct democracy much?  The best is when no-one rules over ANYONE but himself. Beat that!

----------


## Josh_LA

> Doesn't matter what they did. It's natural law / natural rights - the system that strays from this, fails. As has been shown throughout history. Women are counted as people; they didn't agree to it. The only reason it 'goes' was because of force.


What's natural law/natural rights? According to you? Who enforces natural laws? Nature? Say that when I have a gun to your head. But you agreed, it's all due to force, or respect for rights if those in power felt like it, whichever is more convenient.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Your point still fails "But still, if all people agree, NOTHING IS WRONG." lol... 
> 
> All people in what regard? ALL the people at one point in a certain country / of a certain belief, reconned the world was flat aye... or the sun revolved around the earth. 
> !


All people in the regard that the rules apply to.

For example : if all white men in Elohim City decided that blacks get to be lynched, they obviously don't count blacks as people nor do they care to ask their opinion. So in this case, ALL PEOPLE AGREED. 

Blacks are not considered people, so this rule doesn't apply to blacks, just like ownerships of dogs rule doesn't give the dog any say over his master.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Value direct democracy much?  The best is when no-one rules over ANYONE but himself. Beat that!


Oh, not arguing with you at all. 

Say that to me when I have a gun to your head, yes, tell me what books I need to read then! (*this is not a threat,* this is merely pointing out the absurdity and unsustainability of libertarian/anarchist utopia, of course the best is when nobody is ruled by another, but what's to keep that from becoming dog eat dog chaos?)

*No, I don't value direct democracy much at all, I value anarchism and chaos, how about it?*

----------


## Josh_LA

> How would you get to the point where there is a monopoly on everything?  How do they first get into the situation you describe? Monopoly is relatively impossible in the free market.  In the disbanding process, you wouldn't sell all the roads to one individual company / corporation. There isn't just one route to take. Anyway, Rothbard addresses this and Walter Block too, you wouldn't know about that though.


How would you get to the point?

Maybe you should appreciate the fact it's happening rather than ask how it happened, but the short answer is because people were too ignorant and powerless to think or want otherwise.

Just consider how the information communication industry is essentially monopolized (not all to one party, but a group of parties with very similar ideology). Look at how TV, newspapers, radio and internet have been more or less monopolized. And our two party system. Sure, you can tell me "in a free market it won't happen" , but how do we get there if the system that isn't free perpetuates itself? Or better question is, how did we get HERE if we were once the freest country founded by the brightest men?

SUre, you won't want to sell all roads to one party. But you're underestimating the fact that companies can hide behind others and still buy up what they what as long as it's legal. Think about how DeBeers monopolized diamonds (I am not saying it's wrong, I am not saying diamonds is a human right, I am just saying this is how things are!). 

I'm not against monopoly nor am I saying I don't like free market. But instead of arguing ideals, I think it's more productive to ask : 

*1. How did we get here when we were once free?
2. If our market isn't free already, how can we get there?*

----------


## Conza88

> What's natural law/natural rights? According to you? Who enforces natural laws? Nature? Say that when I have a gun to your head. But you agreed, it's all due to force, or respect for rights if those in power felt like it, whichever is more convenient.


*The Ethics of Liberty*

1. Natural Law and Reason 

2. Natural Law as 'Science' 

3. Natural Law versus Positive Law 

4. Natural Law and Natural Rights 

7. Interpersonal Relations: Voluntary Exchange 

11. Land Monopoly, Past and Present 

12. Self-Defense 

15. "Human Rights" as Property Rights 

21. The "Rights" of Animals 

All relevant to the alleviation of your ignorance. 




> All people in the regard that the rules apply to.
> 
> For example : if all white men in Elohim City decided that blacks get to be lynched, they obviously don't count blacks as people nor do they care to ask their opinion. So in this case, ALL PEOPLE AGREED. 
> 
> Blacks are not considered people, so this rule doesn't apply to blacks, just like ownerships of dogs rule doesn't give the dog any say over his master.


ALL PEOPLE DID NOT AGREE. IT DOESN'T FCKEN MATTER if I consider you not to be a person, it doesn't change $#@!, it doesn't make it RIGHT... IT REMAINS WRONG REGARDLESS.

The collective cannot take the inherent rights of the individual. Period. If they were to embark on the process of killing him, and go through with it... they have VIOLATED THAT RIGHT. It doesn't matter if they all agree, than they should take someones rights. It fails. They're all murderers then. If the said victim, GIVES UP THEIR RIGHT; voluntarily - i.e CONSENTS to said action; then his rights have no been violated; he has welcomed it. I.e commit suicide, etc etc.




> Oh, not arguing with you at all. 
> Say that to me when I have a gun to your head, yes, tell me what books I need to read then! (*this is not a threat,* this is merely pointing out the absurdity and unsustainability of libertarian/anarchist utopia, of course the best is when nobody is ruled by another, but what's to keep that from becoming dog eat dog chaos?)
> 
> *No, I don't value direct democracy much at all, I value anarchism and chaos, how about it?*


You've got a gun to my head? What the hell are you on about? That's a threat - and you cannot impose something that you cannot lawfully do. Non aggression axiom. You would be punished for that. _Fail._ Books?  go read Ethics by Aristotle.. you're lost in a sea of confusion. 

Did you even read the website faq? LOL. Utopia? 

*4. Isn't anarcho-capitalism utopian?*
No. Anarcho-capitalists tend to be pragmatic, and argue that, no matter how good or bad man is, he is better off in liberty. If men are good, then they need no rulers. If men are bad, then governments of men, composed of men, will also be bad - and probably worse, due to the State's amplification of coercive power. Most anarcho-capitalists think that some men are okay and some aren't; and there will always be some crime. We are not expecting any major change in human nature in that regard. Since utopianism by definition requires a change in human nature, anarcho-capitalism is not utopian. 



_"but what's to keep that from becoming dog eat dog chaos?"_

God damnit, $#@!en educate yourself.

*12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts* 

*9. Property and Criminality* 




> How would you get to the point?
> 
> Maybe you should appreciate the fact it's happening rather than ask how it happened, but the short answer is because people were too ignorant and powerless to think or want otherwise.


Ummm, mate. I appreciate the point as to how it came about. It's why I hate the state, you TOOL. We were talking roads, you and your little inability to get over the _"zomg i'm not allowed to move anywhere' dilemma."_ Now you thus jump to communications.




> Just consider how the information communication industry is essentially monopolized (not all to one party, but a group of parties with very similar ideology). Look at how TV, newspapers, radio and internet have been more or less monopolized. And our two party system. Sure, you can tell me "in a free market it won't happen" , but how do we get there if the system that isn't free perpetuates itself? Or better question is, how did we get HERE if we were once the freest country founded by the brightest men?


*Free Market Capitalism and The Media, Why has the media gotten so bad?* 

Only read the worthy answers. Which is pretty much only mine, ala Rothbards.

See #12, See #13.

All the answers to your questions are there.




> SUre, you won't want to sell all roads to one party. But you're underestimating the fact that companies can hide behind others and still buy up what they what as long as it's legal. Think about how DeBeers monopolized diamonds (I am not saying it's wrong, I am not saying diamonds is a human right, I am just saying this is how things are!). 
> 
> I'm not against monopoly nor am I saying I don't like free market. But instead of arguing ideals, I think it's more productive to ask : 
> 
> *1. How did we get here when we were once free?
> 2. If our market isn't free already, how can we get there?*


Subjective value. Do you have any understanding of it, at all? Why do people still buy diamonds at that price?  Are they forced too?  Is it the only stone around?  What's stopping others from entering the market?  What's forcing people to sell to DeBeers? 

*1. The state was allowed to continue to exist.
2. Black markets. Encourage Agorism.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> ........


Aha.

Somebody losing patience and getting defensive?

So what if I don't educate myself (or better yet, the fact is most people in this country are uneducated and damn proud of it), you still can't argue with a gun. So essentially, you can say what's right and wrong according to this law, this website, this book all you want, but you can't argue with a gun. 

*So basically it comes down to : MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, state or community or me or space aliens.* 

We both hate the state, but hating is won't do crap either.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Is it the only stone around?  What's stopping others from entering the market?  What's forcing people to sell to DeBeers? 
> 
> [/B]


Ok, maybe it's my turn to give answers.

Do a little research, or watch blood diamond. 

From my understanding, there is no "people selling to DeBeers" DeBeers bought up the mines and have owned the sources for a long time. So nobody CHOSE to sell to DeBeers, furthermore, diamonds are mostly mined in 3rd world countries where miners are controlled by violence, people who mined diamonds will give it to their leader, then to DeBeer, or risk losing their life. 

What's stopping competition? The fact they already own every known mine known to man. 

Like I said, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with monopoly or diamonds are worth anything to me, I'm just saying it is how it is.

----------


## anaconda

> I'm not asking you whether it's practical or likely, I'm asking you if this is theoretically possible according to your view, would you allow it?
> 
> Yes, there's good incentive for owners to satisfy customers, and there's also good incentive for owners to rip you off if they know you have no choice (in which case you can argue its not ripping off unless you have a choice). I'm not here to argue with you which is better, I'm just asking, WILL YOU ALLOW people to charge tolls or ask people to stay at home simply because stepping outside their door is trespassing?
> Reply With Quote


From:Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006

"The common law provides various means whereby an owner
of landlocked property might assert a right to an easement
over the land of another for the purpose of highway access."

In other words, I don't think you can keep someone from crossing your property in common law if they have to cross it to travel from point A to point B.

Plus I doubt if you would purchase a home that you did not have an easement agreement with the property owners adjacent to you & visa versa. 

I'm sure there are many privatized solutions to the "trespassing" dilemma.

You raise a good point, but I think it would be do-able without "public property."

----------


## Conza88

> Aha.
> 
> Somebody losing patience and getting defensive?


I hate ignorance. Especially willful ignorance. You're beginning to fit nicely into this category. I'm not getting defensive, I've getting offensive. 




> So what if I don't educate myself (or better yet, the fact is most people in this country are uneducated and damn proud of it), you still can't argue with a gun. So essentially, you can say what's right and wrong according to this law, this website, this book all you want, but you can't argue with a gun.


So you then continue to be part of the problem. Good on ya, you're an awesome person and an enlighten individual. Please, go get in line and get yourself chipped. 

*I CAN argue with a gun.* Nothing stops me / others - but the will to live. In terms of other state coercion it's subjective value with my choice of actions. 




> *So basically it comes down to : MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, state or community or me or space aliens.* 
> 
> We both hate the state, but hating is won't do crap either.


You say you hate the state, but pretty much everything you've said is in defence of it. LOL. Nice relationship you've got there.  

*Geezus, you tool. MIGHT does NOT make RIGHT. The state does not GIVE you rights, so it cannot TAKE THEM AWAY.*

_Have you read the fcken Declaration of Independance?_ 





> Ok, maybe it's my turn to give answers.
> 
> Do a little research, or watch blood diamond. 
> 
> From my understanding, there is no "people selling to DeBeers" DeBeers bought up the mines and have owned the sources for a long time. So nobody CHOSE to sell to DeBeers, furthermore, diamonds are mostly mined in 3rd world countries where miners are controlled by violence, people who mined diamonds will give it to their leader, then to DeBeer, or risk losing their life. 
> 
> What's stopping competition? The fact they already own every known mine known to man. 
> 
> Like I said, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with monopoly or diamonds are worth anything to me, I'm just saying it is how it is.


You call that answers? Lol.

I've seen blood diamond. Good movie. Doesn't change anything. 

DOUBLE think / speak below...




> _"From my understanding, there is no "people selling to DeBeers" DeBeers bought up the mines and have owned the sources for a long time."_


 lmao.... You can't buy anything, if no-ones selling... LOL. 

yes I know, 3rd world. They lack property rights.. which is why they are the 3rd world. lol 

*What's even MORE hilarious.. is the MARKET HAS ANSWERED.* Which is what this whole conversation boils down to. Hahahaha... 

Who gives a f--k about diamonds? If there is a monopoly and prices go sky high... then people will use their subjective value and not purchase them. They'll use opals, goal etc... you nit wit.

HERE's the markets solution.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-art...l-diamonds.htm

*http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html*

http://www.loveanddiamonds.com/learn...-diamonds.html

_Artificial diamonds are real diamonds, created in laboratories, with the same chemical, physical and optical properties. They have extreme hardness, broad transparency, high thermal conductivity and high electrical resistivity. For the moment only colored artificial diamonds are present on the market. The color is given by nitrogen impurities, like in natural ones._

Go on, do some research. 

You just lost the argument basically. lol.

----------


## anaconda

> My view of anarchism (or rather, my ideal world) is that a person has no rights, and nobody has to respect any life, liberty or happiness of another, you're only entitlement of rights and comfort is what you can defend (so yes, might is right and survival of fittest).
> Reply With Quote


I think you would have a very inefficient society that spent an inordinant amount of energy and resources being vigilant and wary of attack from others, constricting resources away from other pursuits, including economic growth. Which at some point I believe you might want. For example, you might make peace with a family across the river in exchange for economic specialization and resultant trade. They collect berries and firewood and you catch fish and dry them into jerky. You're both better off. You might also band together with other warrior types, but then you would have to develop some tribal rules and earn trust or be banished or worse. And so it goes.

Thus the minimalist proclamation regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it's sort of a statement about what we can expect to do without worrying about another person interfering with us or a government interfering with us.

----------


## sailor

> Why should there be any respect for human rights?
> 
> Where do rights come from? Who is to say rights are to be respected and without force, who is to enforce laws, rules or norms?


Josh, honestly what are you doing on a Ron Paul forum?

I`m sure there are plenty of nihilistic nietzschean black metal forums out there where your would feel right at home.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I hate ignorance. Especially willful ignorance. You're beginning to fit nicely into this category. I'm not getting defensive, I've getting offensive. 
> 
> 
> 
> So you then continue to be part of the problem. Good on ya, you're an awesome person and an enlighten individual. Please, go get in line and get yourself chipped.


So the fact I don't agree with you on everything means I should get chipped, cool.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh, honestly what are you doing on a Ron Paul forum?
> 
> I`m sure there are plenty of nihilistic nietzschean black metal forums out there where your would feel right at home.



Oh I see, so Ron Paul forums DOES have some people unwelcome. Sorry.

----------


## Josh_LA

> I think you would have a very inefficient society that spent an inordinant amount of energy and resources being vigilant and wary of attack from others, constricting resources away from other pursuits, including economic growth. Which at some point I believe you might want. For example, you might make peace with a family across the river in exchange for economic specialization and resultant trade. They collect berries and firewood and you catch fish and dry them into jerky. You're both better off. You might also band together with other warrior types, but then you would have to develop some tribal rules and earn trust or be banished or worse. And so it goes.
> 
> Thus the minimalist proclamation regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think it's sort of a statement about what we can expect to do without worrying about another person interfering with us or a government interfering with us.


Yeah, you think, keep thinking, it'll get your far!

----------


## Josh_LA

> You call that answers? Lol.
> 
> I've seen blood diamond. Good movie. Doesn't change anything. 
> 
> DOUBLE think / speak below...
> 
> 
> 
>  lmao.... You can't buy anything, if no-ones selling... LOL. 
> ...


You've completely misunderstood the context.

Yes, in 3rd world countries, they lack property rights, and why should anybody give it to them when we live fine without letting them have rights?

*My point was nobody CHOSE to sell diamonds to deBeers, they already owned the mines and essentially owned the people working on it!* The market probably wasn't as free from the beginning and that made it easier (or was too free, whatever, the fact is they DO HAVE a monopoly on it).

I never said I give a F- about diamonds, you keep ignoring my point that I don't  care about diamonds nor do I think there's anything wrong. You refuse to respond to the fact that deBeers DOES have a monopoly and there's nothing you can legally or peacefully do about it (not that you should care, but it's a fact).

----------


## Josh_LA

> From:Pennsylvania Legislators Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006
> 
> "The common law provides various means whereby an owner
> of landlocked property might assert a right to an easement
> over the land of another for the purpose of highway access."
> 
> In other words, I don't think you can keep someone from crossing your property in common law if they have to cross it to travel from point A to point B.
> 
> Plus I doubt if you would purchase a home that you did not have an easement agreement with the property owners adjacent to you & visa versa. 
> ...



Again, you don't think.

Why should we recognize common law, or State law or local ordinance if simply "we don't think", will you give me an argument when I have a gun to your head?

----------


## Josh_LA

> You say you hate the state, but pretty much everything you've said is in defence of it. LOL. Nice relationship you've got there.  
> 
> *Geezus, you tool. MIGHT does NOT make RIGHT. The state does not GIVE you rights, so it cannot TAKE THEM AWAY.*
> 
> _Have you read the fcken Declaration of Independance?_



I hate it but I deal with it. Or become part of it. 

You can say might doesn't make right, good luck with that. 

Yeah I've read the DoI, it's just a goddamn piece of paper, so what? 

*If you don't have to recognize laws that you disagree with, why should I recognize your natural law rights or DoI if I don't agree with it?*

----------


## AutoDas

> You've completely misunderstood the context.
> 
> Yes, in 3rd world countries, they lack property rights, and why should anybody give it to them when we live fine without letting them have rights?
> 
> *My point was nobody CHOSE to sell diamonds to deBeers, they already owned the mines and essentially owned the people working on it!* The market probably wasn't as free from the beginning and that made it easier (or was too free, whatever, the fact is they DO HAVE a monopoly on it).
> 
> I never said I give a F- about diamonds, you keep ignoring my point that I don't  care about diamonds nor do I think there's anything wrong. You refuse to respond to the fact that deBeers DOES have a monopoly and there's nothing you can legally or peacefully do about it (not that you should care, but it's a fact).


De Beers does not have a monopoly and if they do it is only because a government granted it, which is easily corruptible in third world countries. The fact that sysnthetic diamonds are being made is enough to disprove your assertion that De Beers has a monopoly because they both are attracting the same consumer just as gold and platinum sellers are doing the same.

----------


## Josh_LA

> De Beers does not have a monopoly and if they do it is only because a government granted it, which is easily corruptible in third world countries. The fact that sysnthetic diamonds are being made is enough to disprove your assertion that De Beers has a monopoly because they both are attracting the same consumer just as gold and platinum sellers are doing the same.



*Nobody was arguing how they got there* (_ok, actually I did, I was saying monopoly can still happen as long as private property is legal, whether we are a free market or a corporate fascist, as long as we are not communist, it can happen_). and I will certainly agree with you they got there probably with some help of some government, not solely on free market. But you can't free up a market that's already been closed.

Yes, synthetic diamonds are being made, and yes they are an option, *but DON'T MISS THE POINT,* I am not arguing that anybody should buy diamonds, it's a waste of money in my opinion too.

*THE POINT IS THEY DO* have a monopoly on the naturally mined diamonds market. Nothing wrong with that, even/especially if they got there legally and legitamately.

----------


## AutoDas

You completely missed the point of my post. A monopoly is impossible in a free market.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You completely missed the point of my post. A monopoly is impossible in a free market.


Ok. Maybe I did. 

That doesn't change the fact that existing monopolies are easier to perpetuate, and the only way out of it is to introduce competition, or discontinue to recognize their property.

But I still disagree, as long as private property is recognized and legally protected, monopoly will be possible. Just a matter of when and how much (ok, you're going to tell me "mono" means "100%").

Those with more wealth can more easier buy out competition or bend laws to favor them. This is more than allowed in free market because free market means people are free to be sellouts and paying people to do bad things is acceptable since legally all that matters is money is protected. 

*DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'm NOT saying monopoly is bad or wrong, I'm just saying it's possible.*  Monopoly can be good too, for example, once DeBeers owns all the diamonds in the world, they must decide how to sell them, because nobody else will, this may lead to lower prices because they know they need to sell while they can.

----------


## noxagol

> Ok. Maybe I did. 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that existing monopolies are easier to perpetuate, and the only way out of it is to introduce competition, or discontinue to recognize their property.
> 
> But I still disagree, as long as private property is recognized and legally protected, monopoly will be possible. Just a matter of when and how much (ok, you're going to tell me "mono" means "100%").
> 
> Those with more wealth can more easier buy out competition or bend laws to favor them. This is more than allowed in free market because free market means people are free to be sellouts and paying people to do bad things is acceptable since legally all that matters is money is protected. 
> 
> *DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'm NOT saying monopoly is bad or wrong, I'm just saying it's possible.*  Monopoly can be good too, for example, once DeBeers owns all the diamonds in the world, they must decide how to sell them, because nobody else will, this may lead to lower prices because they know they need to sell while they can.


You included one key part in this: "...Those with more wealth can more easier ... bend laws to favor them."

In a stateless society, there are no laws to bend to favor to them. The existence of the state and laws to bend is precisely what allows them to get a monopoly. You act like running a business is easy. Getting any sizable amount of market share in the world market under a complete free-market system is incredibly hard. 

You should really go and read every book by Murray Rothbard. He spells it out pretty good why an anarcho-capitalistic society is far better than anything governments are going to provide.

----------


## Conza88

> So the fact I don't agree with you on everything means I should get chipped, cool.


Well you're ignorant on most other things, just thought you'd be the same on getting chipped. 




> You've completely misunderstood the context.
> 
> Yes, in 3rd world countries, they lack property rights, and why should anybody give it to them when we live fine without letting them have rights?


No, you have. And it's amazingly clear. You can't GIVE rights, you fcken god damn tool. Natural law / rights, doesn't mean $#@! to you - does it? That means you fail, and you of course - loving ignorance, wouldn't have listened to those clips. 




> *My point was nobody CHOSE to sell diamonds to deBeers, they already owned the mines and essentially owned the people working on it!* The market probably wasn't as free from the beginning and that made it easier (or was too free, whatever, the fact is they DO HAVE a monopoly on it).


You can't just OWN the mines, you $#@!en retard. The world wasn't created and then there was a god damn debeers mine there before mankind. The countries government chose to sell to these people, ALLOW them in, DO nothing about it etc. YOU DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY ON IT. I showed you why, you just reject reality. You fcken fail, yet again. 




> I never said I give a F- about diamonds, you keep ignoring my point that I don't  care about diamonds nor do I think there's anything wrong. You refuse to respond to the fact that deBeers DOES have a monopoly and there's nothing you can legally or peacefully do about it (not that you should care, but it's a fact).


LOL. I haven't ignored your point. I've $#@!en blown it to $#@!, you just can't / don't want understand it. I god damn proved to your retarded ass. Fact? *GTFO.* The ability to create diamonds, that are exactly like diamonds from mines - shatters your retarded "facts" and monopoly, if there was one - which there wasn't. You lose.




> I hate it but I deal with it. Or become part of it. 
> 
> You can say might doesn't make right, good luck with that. 
> 
> Yeah I've read the DoI, it's just a goddamn piece of paper, so what? 
> 
> *If you don't have to recognize laws that you disagree with, why should I recognize your natural law rights or DoI if I don't agree with it?*


Give me your definition of "right"....

Also - do you agree with the declaration of independence? And to answer your further idiotic question; can you disagree with the theory of relativity? Or the theory of gravity? SURE, it doesn't change $#@! though.  Same with natural rights / natural law.




> I was saying monopoly can still happen as long as private property is legal, whether we are a free market or a corporate fascist, as long as we are not communist, it can happen[/I]). and I will certainly agree with you they got there probably with some help of some government, not solely on free market. But you can't free up a market that's already been closed.
> 
> Yes, synthetic diamonds are being made, and yes they are an option, *but DON'T MISS THE POINT,* I am not arguing that anybody should buy diamonds, it's a waste of money in my opinion too.
> 
> *THE POINT IS THEY DO* have a monopoly on the naturally mined diamonds market. Nothing wrong with that, even/especially if they got there legally and legitamately.


This relates to the point... 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...31&postcount=4

Synthetic diamonds compete DIRECTLY with that market, they are REAL diamonds btw. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SUBJECTIVE VALUE? OR PRAXEOLOGY? geezus $#@!en christ. 




> You completely missed the point of my post. A monopoly is impossible in a free market.


He's missed the point of practically ever post. 




> You should really go and read every book by Murray Rothbard. He spells it out pretty good why an anarcho-capitalistic society is far better than anything governments are going to provide.


Apparently, he prefers his ignorance.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You included one key part in this: "...Those with more wealth can more easier ... bend laws to favor them."
> 
> In a stateless society, there are no laws to bend to favor to them. The existence of the state and laws to bend is precisely what allows them to get a monopoly. You act like running a business is easy. Getting any sizable amount of market share in the world market under a complete free-market system is incredibly hard. 
> 
> You should really go and read every book by Murray Rothbard. He spells it out pretty good why an anarcho-capitalistic society is far better than anything governments are going to provide.



Yes, and in an anarchy, nothing protects their property, even better.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Well you're ignorant on most other things, just thought you'd be the same on getting chipped. 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have. And it's amazingly clear. You can't GIVE rights, you fcken god damn tool. Natural law / rights, doesn't mean $#@! to you - does it? That means you fail, and you of course - loving ignorance, wouldn't have listened to those clips. 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't just OWN the mines, you $#@!en retard. The world wasn't created and then there was a god damn debeers mine there before mankind. The countries government chose to sell to these people, ALLOW them in, DO nothing about it etc. YOU DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY ON IT. I showed you why, you just reject reality. You fcken fail, yet again. 
> ...


No I don't prefer ignorance, I just prefer playing devil's advocate, it's very enjoyable seeing people like you resorting to cussing as if you had no better way to defend obvious facts.

Yes I know everything about subjective value, I don't buy diamonds and I think they're stupid, but I never said there's anything wrong with DeBeers monopoly either, you're just denying it as if it has to be a bad thing and admitting it would hurt your feelings.

No, I don't agree with the DoI, it's just a piece of paper. I can disagree with gravity but I can't violate it. But I can disagree with morals and violate it if I want to. The only natural law I can think of unviolatable is "might makes right" or "survival of the fittest".

As for DeBeers mines, they either bought them because they had money (legally) or they convinced 3rd world tyrants to forcefully own them for them, so it really makes no difference, *MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.* Either because laws protect DeBeer's property, or there are no laws and guns got things done. 

And yes, I'll say it now : I believe in NO LAWS (natural or government or otherwise). The only reason I abide by laws is for fear of being hurt or harassed. So, just like Christians follow the Bible for fear of God, just like children follow parents for fear of spank, I follow the law by fear of community and government power. Otherwise I have no problem killing, robbing or vandalizing. 

In essence, me abiding the law doesn't mean I agree with it. It's no different than a robber holding me at gun point and I am forced to comply. 

You can say I "fail" all you want. See if I care.

----------


## Voln Gharst

"A government that respects its own anarchaic population is blessed, indeed"
       *note* replace 'Leiscerbette' with 'America' (or whatever country is involved)

        We, thee undersigned, want all Leaders who were voted to this Country in our name to be elected every third generation. This will give enough time for World events, Global disputes, and other problems that should arise on Earth to reach a calmer plane.  For whatever vendetta be ever jumped from our leader to another will have it missed away by running a new Elect when the third generation is thirty-five or older.  May our Presidents close all hatred from past family affairs and be placed safely before the past. 

*Every Citizen is required to vote in every Election from the time they are eighteen     (18) years old. It is a Capitol crime to not submit to these Laws. 
	All citizens whom vote all three (3) branches [Judicial, Legislative, & Executive Elections] will have to pay taxes to the Leiscerbettian Government. Without question, they MUST provide taxes to the Leiscerbettian Governement.
	All citizens whom only vote 'Judicial Elections' will have an option to pay taxes to the Leiscerbettian Government. Some ‘Judicial Only’ Voters have vowed to poverty or tribal cultures while the food they eat on every day is grown by them and/or provided by the Leiscerbettian Humane Society. At no charge, the ‘Judicial Only’ voters receive food from the Leiscerbettian Humane Society if and when needed.
	Voters whom wish to take part in Democracy will be asked to vote either a choice from either Judicial alone or Executive, Legislative and Judicial combined.
	If all (3) three branches are your wish, then that voter can vote all three (3) Branches of Government and will be issued to serve on jury duties. For our courts to lay failure of this right to be granted of its Law, which is by God (a most Noble Article); then Liberty would so soon have it fall from our grip. They whom vote all (3) three Branches MUST serve on a Jury when called or prosecution and/or imprisonment will follow.
	If it were just 'Judicial Elections', then those voters can vote only Judicial and will be issued to serve on a Jury also, but are NOT required by Law to do so. 
	Our hopes in Government is to wipe corruption from our midst.  This can only make fair with the full duties that they decide to forfeit. Where to explore the start would be at places whom all could inspire to begin with. And have they not be cast with a neutral cloud over their free existence
	The following makes up a twelve (12) member Jury:
	Local Judges (ones voted in by 'Judicial, Legislative, & Executive Voters' & 'Judicial' [through volunteer only] voters) MUST -and also area registered 'Judicial, Legislative, & Executive Voters'- will all oversee the case while upon a Jury panel will they be sat.*

----------


## mediahasyou

> I believe in government maintained roads as well. The other two you mentioned I believe can be privatized over the course of time. The reason I believe in government maintained roads is that private roads everywhere would require you to pay to leave the comfort of your property. That might be respecting the property rights of the person who owns the roads, but I maintain I have more freedom if I do not need to pay to leave my own property.


ahh. but you do pay through taxes

----------


## mediahasyou

> That's why you should have responsible officials in the government.


Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Let me tell you a story, friend.  A revolution like ours took place in France a couple centuries back.  Their leader, Robespierre, was deemed the "incorruptible".  However, soon the power corrupted him and he became dictator of France.  He massacred thousands.

Good people have good intentions but those good intentions are not good for everyone.  The solution is a voluntary government.  Become a voluntaryist.com

----------


## mediahasyou

> Anarcho-capitalism is redundant to a libertarian because that's pretty much what a libertarian is in today's definition, a person who believes in zero government other than to protect property.


False.  There is a voluntary difference.

Political libertarians want to use stealing to protect property.  (Stealing to prevent stealing)

Anarcho-capitalism wants a voluntary government.  
People will choose to protect their own property rights whether it is through corporations or social contracts.

----------


## mediahasyou

ps  Anarchism does not need consent of all the people.  Anarchism is a success when the coercive government simply allows me to opt out.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Therefore we should give people no rights, because better for a dictator to F- up than the whole populus.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> ps  Anarchism does not need consent of all the people.  Anarchism is a success when the coercive government simply allows me to opt out.


soft anarchism imo 

hey Conza,

do any ancaps advocate VIOLENCE against the state as a way to get to a stateless society? Or is it the Ghandi route?

----------


## UnReconstructed

ghandi route.

I only read this thread again because I saw that Joe posted.  To many government slaves have posted for me to read it.  It's like staring at a pile of $#@!.

----------


## noxagol

I would support violence to reach ANCAP if government fired the first shot. The real trouble there is defining the first shot for everyone heh.

----------


## mediahasyou

> do any ancaps advocate VIOLENCE against the state as a way to get to a stateless society? Or is it the Ghandi route?


A voluntaryist perspective:

Neither bullets nor ballots:
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/001b.php

----------


## UnReconstructed

> I would support violence to reach ANCAP if government fired the first shot. The real trouble there is defining the first shot for everyone heh.


Do you mean in self defense?  I don't know anyone that would not support self defense.

We can't go around acting like government though and just start attacking people... even if they are snakes.

I sometimes want to aggress against my oppressors but that's the former soldier in me.  Violence begets violence.




> “There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.” ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

----------


## Josh_LA

> A voluntaryist perspective:
> 
> Neither bullets nor ballots:
> http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/001b.php


nice and ideal, but nothing to stop participants from changing their minds and using bullets.

----------


## Conza88

I'll address everything eventually. Finishing writing up an assignment / studying for legal / law. Then heading to new zealand for a week in a few days... all subscribed, so I'll get back to it all eventually.

----------


## Voln Gharst

> A voluntaryist perspective:
> 
> Neither bullets nor ballots:
> http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/001b.php


"A voluntaryist perspective:"

"Neither bullets nor ballots:" -two quotes by MEDIAHASYOU



I think we are way too screwed up as humans to get that far into the race. I do believe that government should not use deadly force against its citiznes. But there's too many TV ZOMBIES who don't want to volunteer in fear that they might miss 'CSI' or 'Cowboys & Indians' on primetime. If you believe in prophesy as do I, then I think humans have two (2) more chances to get it right: all signs point to destruction. Not because of your idea, but humans have been conditioned to become 'involuntarily' lazy.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> ghandi route.
> 
> I only read this thread again because I saw that Joe posted.  To many government slaves have posted for me to read it.  It's like staring at a pile of $#@!.


hmm. well thanks.

I think the only way ancap can really become reality is by following the teachings of Stefan Molyneux. http://www.freedomainradio.com

modern day philosopher?

----------


## Conza88

> nice and ideal, but nothing to stop participants from changing their minds and using bullets.


Someone should put a gun to your head, pull the trigger... and save us the pain of your retarded philosophy. Why don't you join the government, become a cop.. you want to be on MIGHT is RIGHT, right...? 

Bah! Did you get round to defining that yet anyway? 

_*sigh*_ 
back to studying..

----------


## Voln Gharst

> Josh, honestly what are you doing on a Ron Paul forum?



If he's not breaking any rules of ethics to this forum, then he should keep going at it. Do you support fairness?

----------


## Voln Gharst

[QUOTE=sailor;1684968] Just like in a vandalist society a rich man could hire goons and thugs to do his dirty work for him, today a rich man can hire the state (as the body with the monopoly on violence) to do his dirty work for him.[QUOTE]

So, we DO need a government with either 1: Tons of Bullets (or) 2: A Money-Less system. Hmmmmm. I smell a fish.

----------


## Voln Gharst

> _*sigh*_ 
> back to studying..


Few (and I say 'few' so I don't disturb the librarians out there) notable scholars taught themselves. So, what's wrong with someone thinking outside the box? Why throw around terminology to dislodge our fellow peers?  
I sense no humor (but tons of aimless revenge) in some people's posts here.
How can one person sit behind a book and say 'That's what I think would work, but...". But where's the sequel? 


--------------------------------------------------

Not all rebels wear black

----------


## Voln Gharst

> 6. What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?
> 
> It grants the most freedom to everyone. It treats everyone as equals. It creates incentives to work hard and do good and punishes laziness and doing evil.



What is lazy? 
Beggars are national fools, I guess. So, youthanasia should dictate the destiny of those bums when under an Anarcho-Capitalistic Sys., too. If one worked 5 years at Steak & Shake (tm) to afford a car to live in, then Joe Millionaise works just 3 1/2 weeks @ COMP TECH (tm) to afford a car, downpayment on a new house and a housewife. Sounds like Modern Capitalism to me.


BTW- If I bought a car to live in, can I purchase a patch of road to live on?

----------


## Josh_LA

> What is lazy? 
> Beggars are national fools, I guess. So, youthanasia should dictate the destiny of those bums when under an Anarcho-Capitalistic Sys., too. If one worked 5 years at Steak & Shake (tm) to afford a car to live in, then Joe Millionaise works just 3 1/2 weeks @ COMP TECH (tm) to afford a car, downpayment on a new house and a housewife. Sounds like Modern Capitalism to me.
> 
> 
> BTW- If I bought a car to live in, can I purchase a patch of road to live on?


Yes you certainly can do whatever you want. "Punishment" is subjective, some people don't consider prison or fines punishment if it doesn't hurt them, that's probably why some commit the same crimes over and over.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Someone should put a gun to your head, pull the trigger... and save us the pain of your retarded philosophy. Why don't you join the government, become a cop.. you want to be on MIGHT is RIGHT, right...? 
> 
> Bah! Did you get round to defining that yet anyway? 
> 
> _*sigh*_ 
> back to studying..


Ok, so I got you!

1. You don't believe in freedom of ideas, at least not ones you find so absurd. Or, you believe in freedom of speech, but not all should be taken seriously (and I agree)
2. You can't defend why might doesn't make right, other than the fact you don't like it or you think it's not nice
3. I don't want to become the government, because I disagree with them, but until I have the might, I consider them right.

what's the last question?

----------


## Josh_LA

> If he's not breaking any rules of ethics to this forum, then he should keep going at it. Do you support fairness?


Yes, I believe they do, they just kindly ask that if we're not being productive, we're both wasting our time so why not shut up. Nothing wrong with that.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Originally Posted by sailor
> 
> 
>  Just like in a vandalist society a rich man could hire goons and thugs to do his dirty work for him, today a rich man can hire the state (as the body with the monopoly on violence) to do his dirty work for him.
> 
> 
> So, we DO need a government with either 1: Tons of Bullets (or) 2: A Money-Less system. Hmmmmm. I smell a fish.


*Agreed, so no matter what system, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT* (the only reason we don't see that is due to superfluous compassion and benevolence.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Few (and I say 'few' so I don't disturb the librarians out there) notable scholars taught themselves. So, what's wrong with someone thinking outside the box? Why throw around terminology to dislodge our fellow peers?  
> I sense no humor (but tons of aimless revenge) in some people's posts here.
> How can one person sit behind a book and say 'That's what I think would work, but...". But where's the sequel? 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> Not all rebels wear black


Agreed, it's cheap to argue "Ideally this would work" "if everybody agreed" "because that's the Constitution" "the law says so"

*Rarely do you hear "OR ELSE WHAT"*

----------


## Conza88

> Ok, so I got you!
> 
> 1. You don't believe in freedom of ideas, at least not ones you find so absurd. Or, you believe in freedom of speech, but not all should be taken seriously (and I agree)
> 2. You can't defend why might doesn't make right, other than the fact you don't like it or you think it's not nice
> 3. I don't want to become the government, because I disagree with them, but until I have the might, I consider them right.
> 
> what's the last question?


You got me? *GTFO.* You obviously haven't been paying attention. I haven't spent the time to address the sheer retardedness of what you proclaim, because I have real life matters that are FAR more important. Having said that I WILL address your crap when I can.

You didn't get me. I was simply referring to what should take place... if I was to follow your philosophy.

It's like a Malthusian saying we need to lower the human population; well the fact that he remains standing - when he has the ability to lower it by one... means he's a hypocrite; and not following his principles of the thing he's outlined.

I guess you have to problem with George Bush. Might is right? right?

----------


## Voln Gharst

> Ok, so I got you!
> 
> 1. You don't believe in freedom of ideas,



I think he does, only if they were his own.


-----------------------------------------------------


As long as forced belief is still in existence, so will forced societies be as well.

----------


## Voln Gharst

What's wrong with dressing down so that only our love buds are covered with fig leaves or elephant ears and we grow grass and sip peyote teas? 

A volunteer government? (Still don't understand but I put it here) 
A volunteer money sys. (ie earn it as needed)?
Manditory Voting with 2 choices: Vote all 3 branches, you HAVE to work. 
Vote only Judicial Elections and you can roam where you feel welcome and can not say that there is 'No Justice In this World' because YOU voted for the people Judging your crimes, LOSER?


I couldn't find Free Market in my dictionary.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You didn't get me. I was simply referring to what should take place... if I was to follow your philosophy.
> 
> It's like a Malthusian saying we need to lower the human population; well the fact that he remains standing - when he has the ability to lower it by one... means he's a hypocrite; and not following his principles of the thing he's outlined.
> 
> I guess you have to problem with George Bush. Might is right? right?


1. Yes, I got you to agree if you followed my philosophy what would take place, and I'm totally with you.
2. So you're saying, that the fact a Malthusiast hasn't done what he believes makes him a hypocrite? I agree to an extent.
3. I have lots of problems with Bush, particularly his dishonesty. But like I just said, having a difference in opinion is cheap. Until I can have the might to deal with it, what else could I do? My problem with Bush is the same as my problem with somebody robbing me, *what difference is there when I'm not the one with might?*

*So how do I live what I preach?* I speak out when I can, but I don't argue about what's the ideal philosophy, because I know all philosophies need might to obtain and sustain. So unless we have it, it's nearly useless to know what's the best ideal. 

SO you and I may disagree on what's the best system, but any of our systems need might. Disagree?

But then you'll ask, *WHY DON'T I GO OUT AND KILL PEOPLE IF I CAN?* The same reason anybody hasn't, not always because we think it's wrong or illegal, but we're nice, we're excessively and superfluously nice. Nothing else is stopping us but our will to do evil (often because we see no benefit to it).

----------


## Josh_LA

> Also - do you agree with the declaration of independence? And to answer your further idiotic question; can you disagree with the theory of relativity? Or the theory of gravity? SURE, it doesn't change $#@! though.  Same with natural rights / natural law.


A better answer is :

Does it matter whether I agree with the DoI?

Remember, the DoI was not brought out and fulfilled by agreement or nature, it was by FORCE. (in fact, many argue if it was ever fulfilled at all)

If might didn't make right, why were we not able to convince tyrants to give away some of their powers? Obviously you cannot trust humans to be smart enough to care about other human beings, *you need to FORCE THEM.*

How many wars would we have saved in the past 3 centuries alone if might didn't make right? Couldn't we have talked things over?

*So what if the DoI said "all men are created equal",* you think by "men" they meant children, slaves, women, Jews and "merciless Indian savages"? *If I agreed with the DoI , I'd be all for equality among MEN, and suppression to all others.*  (I'm not saying that's what it meant, I'm saying it seems compatible to my interpretation)

----------


## Voln Gharst

> [B]So how do I live what I preach


Don't stand too close or lean against the podium or your corruption will be obvious.


Besides, what you said about criminals in an earlier post ...We must realize that Government should not enforce morality. Societies enforce morality much, much more efficiently and fiscally than Governments. Let's ignore how disgusting the human condition is for now and focus on some simple rules for us to live in harmony.


I have a game:

Each poster gives 1-3 really good, unique ideas for this government. Place them in the asterik (*) section. Some might conflict with each other. So, after everyone has written down their ideas, we will debate it. OK? Do you like this idea?



* Citizens have a choice to vote either for all (3) three branches of candidates or vote only Judicial Candidates. Voting is manditory

*Voters whom vote for only Judicial Candidates will have an option to serve on Jury Duty, but the voter whom votes for all (3) three branches of candidates will HAVE to serve. No more excuses from celebrities, Politicians, and Doctors this time around.

*Registration can be changed every year.

* People voting in all three (3) will have to work and pay taxes.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

----------


## Voln Gharst

> Agreed. http://ivorypower.com/blog/?p=5869







> Agreed. http://ivorypower.com/blog/?p=5869



Or "rights come from God and Governments follow the law"

And leave its citizens aside to act as a vehicle for job security (prisons, tax, wars, random imprisonment, etc) which is propaganda for those in charge where both God and Government benefit by subjecting the commoner through social and spiritual loss.

After those (2) two virtues are gone, all that is left is 'Free Will'. We wander and wander and are taxed and taxed again and we roam and we roam further and then we feel nothing to the world. Free Will depends on those two (2) realites.

Have you beaten obscenities at the mirror in your bathroom as I have? If so, that is what monetary Governments do to its people.

Vow of Poverty is a Natural Right in my world. But Poverty is for the meek and/or weak. Hmmmm. Is electricity and water and gasoline and property a necessity where you live? 

*(see asterik)*"...God loves me for who I am, unfortunately the Government does not see me in that way..." 

Where are my natural rights? Or was that(*) my only Natural Right? Are you confused as me?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Or "rights come from God and Governments follow the law"
> 
> And leave its citizens aside to act as a vehicle for job security (prisons, tax, wars, random imprisonment, etc) which is propaganda for those in charge where both God and Government benefit by subjecting the commoner through social and spiritual loss.
> 
> After those (2) two virtues are gone, all that is left is 'Free Will'. We wander and wander and are taxed and taxed again and we roam and we roam further and then we feel nothing to the world. Free Will depends on those two (2) realites.
> 
> Have you beaten obscenities at the mirror in your bathroom as I have? If so, that is what monetary Governments do to its people.
> 
> Vow of Poverty is a Natural Right in my world. But Poverty is for the meek and/or weak. Hmmmm. Is electricity and water and gasoline and property a necessity where you live? 
> ...


No, nothing is a necessity to be taken for granted. Nobody owes another person the right to live, you have to fight for it. So yes, that means babies born unable to do so can die and I don't care, leave it to those who are willing to fight for them.

Yes, unfortunately the government doesn't see it that way, so what are you going to do about it? Ask God for help, he loves you, so he'll be there!

"Rights come from God" is just an easy way to avoid debating "according to who and why", plus, it never answers "OR ELSE WHAT". The fact is, anybody can say God gave him the right to own slaves and rape women, but unless God comes out to enforce it, what difference does it make? 

If our rights did come from God and indeed governments had to listen to God (or face consequences), you have to explain why it took MILLENNIA, not centuries to found the United States under this idea.

----------


## Voln Gharst

> No, nothing is a necessity to be taken for granted. Nobody owes another person the right to live, you have to fight for it. So yes, that means babies born unable to do so can die and I don't care, leave it to those who are willing to fight for them.
> 
> Yes, unfortunately the government doesn't see it that way, so what are you going to do about it? Ask God for help, he loves you, so he'll be there!
> 
> "Rights come from God" is just an easy way to avoid debating "according to who and why", plus, it never answers "OR ELSE WHAT". The fact is, anybody can say God gave him the right to own slaves and rape women, but unless God comes out to enforce it, what difference does it make? 
> 
> If our rights did come from God and indeed governments had to listen to God (or face consequences), you have to explain why it took MILLENNIA, not centuries to found the United States under this idea.


Yeah, I'm sure governance has always had this idea of 'America' and 'Bill of Rights' stirring in their battle ears since time began. But for it to stand for this long, does say something about its size. 

Why don't other nations follow suit, just proves why it is not perfect, also. The Bill of Rights is not just for our health, but at least keeps us 'regular'. I hope the Anarcho-Capitalists help humanity by installing them into their future agenda. 

Police?

Don't tell me we don't need them even if we have thee one 'right' or 90,000 rights to bear arms under an Anarch-Capitalist society. If I'm in disagreement with someone, I point my finger in their face. I do not point a gun in their face because it's my right to walk away. In moderate situations, of course. Others believe that 'Violence is their only excuse'. As lions do in the midst of his/her right to violate. 
*
 But let's STILL keep morality out of this argument, for now, yes?* 

Police?

Don't tell me you need police because someone stole or tresspassed your property, yet you've roamed on theirs hundreds of times without paying a toll while fleeing from visual and mental delusions, either. Everyone either wants Money or Social Power in return to either buy bread or bullets, you think?  

These arguments here make me return to those stories that rally for 'sole' independence (ie. King of the Mountain). I don't see anything that really could start a revolution. 

Humans do not question love and still go on creating an answer why it is a right to share of yet they avoid showing their hidden curiostiy for how it could benefit them personally when the rights of others goes into a decline.

If rights are good for those willing to fight for them, then the fighting will never end. NOTE: SEE 'WAR' FOR REFERENCE. People use might to label their argument on another person's weakness as well. "I tag you, now you're it. I never have labels on me, so I can police myself..." BLAH BLAH. Is this familiar in your town? 

It is in mine, yet I have to deal with it because I am not a lion yet, therefore I can not strive for power in one day because I need to wean myself off of coveting their physical and spiritual luxuries to get there. If I achieve that, then I become corrupt. If I had money, no one would care to  follow' me into self-destruction since becoming a flip-flopper on issues is seen as a foul of virtue while serving our social reputation or working in Congress. 

All of this makes no sense. 

What is the right to live? 
Is that a question that only democracy can answer/solve?
What is the right to morality? Should Government protect our phsical property and police our behavioral mistakes as well? That is BIG, BIG Government. A lot of income and worker bees. 

I have a right to forgive you, but that right should not matter to me as much as it does for you as my neighbor, I dunno. No one pays attention to anyone else's rights, yes. I know I don't.  

If I am a puppet for the Government to manipulate, then it's my right to pull them down to my level of the pyramid... Is that right pulled from an infected boil on my right arm? No. I merely intrerview the danger so that I might learn how to be safer from it. This is only fair. 

But how does a Lion on the highest hill play 'fair' and 'democratic' with sheep that want to be just like him/her?  Exactly, he/she buys another mirror to double their admiration of their reputed morality just so they can magnify their own rights with thee utmost confidence of taking or ignoring someone else's.



---------------------------------------------------------

If humans abandon Free Will, they become instantly paranoid.

----------


## Voln Gharst

The following program does not describe the views of my opinion:

"Rights describe God"
"Rights are created by man"
"Rights give us nothing in return but are valued in society"
"Rights gives us Justice when we are wronged"
"No Rights destroy the weak and and give praise to a Barbarian Population"
"Rights are how we behave in nature"
"Rights are why we protect human nature"
"Right to Lose and the Right to Win are unanomys in Competition"
"Right of God is less than Right of No God"
"Right to Govern is why we're here livivng life"
"Right to Sin is greater than Right to submit"
"Right to Receive is lesser than the Right to Give"
"1 Right is better than 10"
"No Rights are cheaper than policing those Rights"
"No one wants Rights (according to Brian)"
"Right to Capital is why the Right to Starve is so abundant in cities"
"I have the right to shoot at tresspassers"

END OF PROGRAM 





I have the right to be assulted. So, I spend my entire life wanting to pick fights and I got my neck broke in two places and a collapsed lung. But I knew I always wanted 'something more' - 'something was just missing' because my definition of assulted is not like everyone else's. 

You might say, "OK, you want to be assulted ...I'll go ahead and kill you." But that, too, does not give my right to be assaulted any justice because my right to be assaulted simply means 'I will survive it'. 

I believe I have the right to be assaulted but I do not support the right to be killed.

A healthy conscience protects its peers; whereas, a shaky conscience may put their peers in danger. Yet if my anger led to displaying no conscience, you're saftey will STILL not suffer. I may show no emotion or apathy to people, but I do obtain self-control. 

We can not look too much into the human nature because morality has nothing to do with government. We can cut expenses on a large scale if morality was policed by society. 

How does a society police morality?

Just watch, my friends. They'll do just fine. 

There is a giant bubble in society called behavioral dogma, stigma, and guilt by association. Those three (3) ingredients will set anyone straight if later understood and then recognized by their crimes. 

If we conclude, we have 'Rights' & 'Forgiveness': I have a 'Right to expresss something Right' and a 'Right to Forgiving the Wrong'. This kindly paints a pretty watercolor for what I'm trying to bring to this outfit. But these colors I paint with are translucent and mean nothing to anyone here because 'Rights are created by God and Man' (I think). And I suppose he's the only one to sketch it out in complex symbols and visual miracles as well. God is said to never get angry, but with how he pulls our strings make any believer or non-believer to decide otherwise. 

But humans do. And humans do not need proof for our disgusting behavior towards each other. In no way, friends. No doubting it. 

Morality must not be policed by Government. Ere the utopian existenece will be lost to the next generation. I feel we are chasing a little further passed this beast called humanity. But if moraltiy were why I went outside to express my right to police the world, then why not get paid for it? There's so many judges in this world as it is. Let's just pay the ones already judging us outside and inside our homes?









------------------------------------------------------

Barbarians never die, yet their civilizations never last

----------


## Voln Gharst

> So you believe people can only be allowed to roam within their own home, and an inch outside of it warrants toll and fee?
> 
> Let's start building some prison cells!


Traveling across someone's property if that traveler pays its property owner a fee, sounds fair to me and even more fair to the property owner with two dogs and a gun in his/her hands. Arming ourselves for protection is a process any wise human would want. 

The right to bare arms: we're talking about God-Defined Rights or Man's Created Right? Aren't we talking of both or simply one? Doesn't make a difference, now. We just know that violating property rights of others is bad for social mutany and causes civil unrest.  

Yes. Pay a toll to cross my land. I feel I should have a right to seize their belongings as long as they're on it, too. If I like adding pins to their clothes and giving out 'I survived Ned's & Jan's Property' hats, then it's my right, you clown. No negotiating my 'Rights to Toll' my neighbors. I like it. I'll make a business of it. "I'm not going to go through life, not contributing to society. I work for a living, damn it! (*cocks gun*) 

No person has the right to kill an enemy without evidence, yet more people in society seem to have the right to kill their enemies based on suspicion, too (even if their Right to Kill them out of suspicion was based on delusional thinking which were caused by three (3) days of binge drinking of a 17 year old child of that property owner). That underaged- drinker did not break the law by shooting an enemy on his property, but did justify why lesser crimes sometimes need acted on. SEE 'GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION'. The killer is seen as a hero in this case, although a 'drunk' killer, but the enemy is gone and will not cross him ever again in his life. He merely reviewed the tresspasser's behavior and then he reacted accordingly (to his Right to kill). The land reacts to no one on it nor has been proven to have any sense to review what is above it, also. 

So, I have collected your toll and I did not suspect you, for you were on your way to strain water into your canteen about a mile north from my property. OK. I'm satisfied with the cash that were warranted in my account. I'm smiling.

Being united, we agree to these rules. But when the tresspasser is going broke and can not even afford to cross our land (via toll fee) to fill his water jug by the stream, then that contract becomes destroyed (by Chance, God, and Law).

Nothing in those (3) three reasons are related to his behavior towards you as a neighbor. The poor are then not competent to even walk anywhere. 

Five bums on our property with no fee/toll given will require five coffins for their deaths, also. Maybe their actions were innocent, but no human does not suspect everyone. But when the death numbers grow and grow and are steeper in number, how much more or less will that toll mean to you and your neighbors? 

These gigantic deaths caused by not paying fees will reduce the population after about one decade or two and kill homelessness in just 5 short years. What good is a human living if he/she can not pay to be better than the land and dust he/she were formed at creation or birth? "I am born poor, thus I can not afford to take my first step on land/property"  


I would not carry on with that kind of reputation around society and its neighboring perimeter. Thus, I carry a burden to them, myself and that Law of TressPass (ie toll fee). I leave nowhere to mimic thee exact reverse of what that Law was meant to do or prevent.

"Money is King and so is the Lion whom has no use for it..."




----------------------------------------------------

Laws are the Stone; Men are the Chisel; God watches mankind sharpen chisels.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Morality must not be policed by Government.


Where did you EVER see my disagree about this? 

Morality shouldn't even exist in my view. Might should make right.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Traveling across someone's property if that traveler pays its property owner a fee, sounds fair to me and even more fair to the property owner with two dogs and a gun in his/her hands. Arming ourselves for protection is a process any wise human would want.


Agreed, so never live a day when I can buy up the road in front of your house, or I promise I'll shoot you the minute you step one inch out, plus I'll rip out all the electricity and phone lines, as well as water to your house.

Oh yes, you'll move out the minute you hear I'm buying it? Just don't let me know where you live, I'll find somebody that'll buy it for me and I'll volunteer to defend their property.

SUre, shooting trespassers doesn't do me any good, but I like it and I can, so why not?

----------


## Voln Gharst

Yeah, Josh. At this point you have a gun and tons of cash and the ability to buy whatever land you wish. Rip out my lines and electricity. I love your drive to be stronger than all. At that point, I did not even have time to compile evidence or know you well enough to even forgive or want to even live there anymore for if you only bought the road outside my house and did those things. I didn't need those commodities at that point because I just installed solar panels and a wind turbine on my roof only last week. I think this whole event happened just two years after the 'Might Makes Right' Law were ratified. Am I right?

One inch? Come on, that's not fair, now. Be careful with that gun, Josh "...You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"

Water? Have you not been listening? I drink from the stream about 'a mile north of my property'.

Might not only Makes Right; Might can also make the Wrong much smarter the next time. Boy, ain't nothin' like having human inspiration be eternal and never ending. I love learning. Sometimes, I hate hearing myself think, but through learning ...I lose no more information than the concentration of my natural assistance to limit that knowlege. 

I also approve a human's right to respect my health as well as keeping a promise for my death. I may live in fear or hillarity to that claim, but I'll be ignorant enough to go along with it. Hell, we all do.  

Now, I want to move, but I can not afford to. The triple justice that is created by Anarco-Capitalist society will have been covered with human blood and my dog was turned into road kill by your hip looking Caterpiller Bulldozer you bought (to park on that road) just to hide my view of the river just a few years back in another disagreement that was solved by having a few beers and hitting on a water bong.   

For a property owner to have a right to kill tresspassers without evidence would be defined as Martial Law. A law that has no rules or beaurocracy, yet is left up to Free Will of Humanity. Humans should adapt to that very quickly. Is this the law of self-defence in an Anarchao-Captialist society? It might as well be. 

With today's laws, if any property owner shoots a tresspasser in the head, based on the fact he/she realized he/she were being robbed ...turns out the guy/'robber' was a known diabetic (with no criminal record and 'good with kids') and went into a sugar coma which left him delirous. 
*Not a good example, but I think you get what I'm saying*

So, anymore, few people don't fight back for fear they might be charged with offences against the one that is violating them. *sigh*

In a Capitalist Only society (or whatever America is at this point), the beaurocrats focus on a balance of equality and justice, whereas the only way to play that 'Scales of Justice' is to add more capital to it. All of this 'Justice' sits on top of coin and treasure. If I had all the money in the world, I would still jitter at the fact that it does not help me survive and I'll go through life buying people, reputations, guns, etc. Well, the poor should have guns, too (especially children of age). 

In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, we look for not only a double balance or even a triple balance, but an equal balance. Don't plant your hand and money down on one side of the scale while thee other dish is pushed down with a foreign hand that holds no money just to back up your physical might and financial force. Being equal is infinate to the human condition.   

****Joe Patriot whistles a tune on his front porch and comes across a no-good tresspasser***

He shouts,

"...Give me the right to kill, damn it! I'm Joe Patriot and I carry the 'DOI' in my canteen and I'll drink my country's air before I drink from your property! I volunteer when I'm done raising my kids. Hell, have thee outcasts with no families serve the government. I put my children first, damn you!! What do they have to offer ot'er than their damn poetry and mish-mash philosophy for peace..."


***End of Program***

But I don't want that right to kill if I were to abuse that right. Therefore, as children with a good aim, DO begin on a fast start towards showing no want to base their homicidal reaction on evidence. Contrarily, I am also speaking of someone tearing down our doors to steal our cash and all they were, were merely our imagination creeping into a living nightmare to label ourselves as being innocent while flashing a pistol at our neighbors. I dunno.

Money corrupts Congress just as much as Moeny corrupts Commoners. 


-----------------------------------------------------


"You'll shoot yer eye out, kid!..." -A Christmas Story

----------


## Voln Gharst

Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?

No. Or, I don't know.

I say whoever is collecting the dues from whomever is ordered to pay them is corrupt and exploitive. Although, it's a collector's right to collect fees that were provided to the purchaser. And if my controling the 
economy to maintain and preserve peace, then I'll stay on the payroll, for certain. I would be seen as a God. That is not exploitive in anyway to myself for I am responsible for billions of dollars and green backs. I would not want the right to collect if there were no money or clams to admire. My goals as a collector are not to question whether my debtor will pay because I have a law that backs my right to put him/her in La La Land where all bad people go to get screwed. My house is burning for I am always thinking about my next payment to the one I owe. I have no reason to say that government control over economy is good for anyone but the politicians whom run it or ...(ruin it to utter collapse). 

I have not much experience with money or even obtaining the right to control it into my posession just for the sake of maintaining social peace and sanctifying the property of others. But if rubbing my index and 
pointer finger together grants me the wish of expressing my power to buy -Hey, I'm now in it to become a legend. I am contributing to the government through taxes. I'll stomp on Free Will hippies. My every 
public appearance will give publicity to the network of people whom inspire to be a collector as I am, were, and forever will be. Joe Patriot starts to whistle my commerical jingles with a merry smile while his 
endorsement of my business gives him a $150 gas card and a NPA (National Property Association) ball cap for him, his two dogs and 5 kids. He can only to afford to raise one more, but Sally Sue is expectin' 
triplets. Oh, good grief! No luck for Joe Patriot. He's a regular Charlie Brown. In times of crisis, he remains dominant. He's true to his word. He's Joe Patriot, damn you!! (*cocks gun*)

His dream was to become so rich that his mission were to buy a 401 (K) for everyone of his 2,001 neighbors one day and end poverty in that small town.  But soon, his wealth were going to end himself. Yet for security purposes, he could not do that mission by law alone. Another ideal in Joe Patriot were to solve the property crisis by using robots to protect it for him and he would make EVEN MORE $$$$! Yes. Joe was the first to have think it: every home will acquire one Terminator (tm) cyborg to guard what's theirs and is owned by them owners as well. Maybe Joe could swallow his pride and become those outcast poets he always did hate at. Naaaaaa! That's sissie talk...

He ain't volunterin' 'til he raises his kids and raises 'em right!

Joe Patriot takes a likin' to the three (3) rules of Joe Patriot:

1: Tax the Powerful
2: Tax breaks for those purchasing Power
3: Convict those with no interest in either

Joe ain't gonna volunteer just yet. He's buildin' a nest egg from property dues of tresspassers and enemies alike. Hell, at night he announces his 'Best Yard of the Week' award by lighting off fireworks. 

Everyone in the neighborhood come by and set their chairs out for an All-American Party for the Patriot ($1 for tresspassing, I'm sure is a steal!). He's the best son-of-a-gun in town! No limits to what Joe Patriot can do, no. He used to vote in every election before Anarcho-Capitalism came to his 'country-tis-of-thee'. But with the way humans behave in his neighborhood makes him and his family brood want to petition a few weasels out of his area. He ain't gonna kill them punks and weed-wackers that oft throw prankish turmoil directly his way. But 2,000 signatures hasn't him the time to keep at it because he's got children to put first. He believes children need to be kids and not politicians. 'That's just the way I's brought up...," he proudly says.  Everytime he voted, his candidate never won. 

But he held on to that dream, folks. He did, really. And struggled all the days of their term in office. Ashamed to himself and his family was this Joe Patriot. But with the way voting works, there ain't no alternative. Rarely did he ever think suicide were a resolve to these kinda issues ...but on occaison, he did. But Joe has lost that dream. He cain't afford to raise three (3) more youngin's. He'd call Aunt Posie, but she died only a few months ago. Hmmm...


I know that money destroys everything it touches. It even causes the land to erupt with disobedience when property owners think they have the right to build a thirty-story house on just a 1/2 acre, regardless if 
it were posing a danger to their fellow neighbors, also [ I hear another program needing to be made 'XYZ Safety Inspectors'].

--------------------------------

'Remember, we're not only safety insepectors ...we're here to rip you off!!' -XYZ Safety Inspectors, Inc.

----------


## Voln Gharst

Do anarcho-capitalists favor chaos?

I think no one favors chaos. The ones whom wish chaos in this world are the ones whom sponsor a 'Universal Cognative Reasoning' where everyone thinks the same to heal inner chaos in individuals creating that chaos in their enemies. We all have a beast inside us. Life conditions us to either act on that beast or control it. Under their plan, they kill the weak, colored skin, faithful, faithless, mentally ill, mutes, right-brained artists, left-brained debaters, passive, poor, indifferent, amputees, single men, pregnant women, witches, the lawless, the generation before them, the generation after them, slow runners, morning people, hippies, democrats, republicans, sunnnies, shi-ites, beggars, sympathizers, slow learners, hunters of prey, flambouyance, the first amendment, psychics, 'Trekies', Wookies, UFO hunters, and whatever is not a 'natural' way of thinking since the time He (leader of all people) were born. If you don't fit in to this, then you're ousted. Once you're in, though, the rules keep getting more and more while the leader becomes less and less human.     

(I honestly do not think I can simply answer whether why a group of people would 'favor chaos'. It seems impossible and yet idiotic in the same bite. I'll try.)

Chaos does not seem as destruction as much as the destruction in our life that might wish that chaos upon our enemies/world. Signs of chaos can be right in front of our face when we're lying in a field of lemon grass in the middle of the night under a new moon and silver stars going constant in the twilight.   

Chaos was a label. Created by war generals to add vagueness to something that needed not be a taboo anymore. This happens everywhere in government. 

EX: 'Barbarians' meant nothing to the roman population until those in charge turned this invisible existence into something that its citizens should greatly fear. I still tremble but have never seen one captured.

EX: 'Schizophrenia' People with this disease were seen as gifted if they used it for the good of the community, but until the superstar himself, Sigmund Freud, came along ...it stigmatized an entire 'way of 
thinking' in those folks whom have it. 

EX: 'Globalization' is probably not a new term for you older folks out there (hey, old folks!) but is for me. The back of the dollar says something like, 'Our Conspiracy' and 'New Age of the World' Please don't quote me. But doesn't globalization seem way, way more innocent. People would crap their breeches if they used 'New World Order' in every one of their UN speeches.

And especially any slang in society that is used to belittle our enemies based on racial profiling so that we may acquire a sense of social power while out in public. Power can support us for only a few moments and humans develop a tolerance to it ...just as in alcohol (we drink a shot and get drunk and then after a while we need an entire 5th to get off on). It's corruption. Power leads to corruption. Money just adds more potency to that corruption. Add a mentos (tm) to a 2 liter of diet coke and you'll see how adding a small dose of power to an entire pool of controled evironments. It explodes. Why has no president ever admitted to having a mental illness while in power? Because of the words 'Bi-Polar' and 'Schizophrenia' created by Sigmond Freud to develop a sense of power over his patients by simply labeling them. He got 
many awards, yes. He's STILL celebrating his power in thee afterlife, I'll bet.  

What I'm saying is, some words created 'chaos' in the people watching it in action and also in those creating it. It's a label. If saddness and depression were not ever created in the human language, then happiness would be more prevalant in society. But 'Scholars' and 'corrupt NWO Arrangment Officers' came to the plate and labeled it so they could create 'Ignorance between the Commons' which in turn makes a population be destroyed from thee inside out. No need for war because the citizens will turn on each other. This way the NWO win and the NWO win again!

Another EX: I am an american and I go to Iraq and witnessed a group of 72 thugs killing each other with their bare hands. No one sees this but me since I was one mile into the open desert. I go into town and want to get thee attention of a local ...but I only speak english. Think of what this does for a minute. Seeing a crime take place is already running mad in my gesturial movements. The local knows something awful has just happened. He likes Americans, by the way. But if I said 'There's people creating chaos' in their language', then in an instant we humans go to it. What if stayed quiet? I would feel the blame while 72 people would have died. If I played sharades long enough, I'd give up and either run away or join the conflict. But for me to mention 'chaos', then everyone jumps at it.

It's just 'Fight or Flight' syndrome. We all get sick when we hear the word 'Terrorist' or my favorite 'Evil-Doer' or 'Axis of Evil'. Those really make the person saying it for the first time, feel in charge, in power, in total control of his populace. It's all power. It's a play of words. It is. We favor chaos on all of our enemies, regardless if we've seen or witnessed TRUE chaos. But we do not favor it in ourselves as humans unless we become more powerful because we can tell women or our spouse that we survived inner chaos. I certainly do not know if Satan wants chaos. I personally think He has a lazy boy at his house, too. Maybe he likes to read Nietzche and dabble with astrology in some cases. 

I would favor chaos if I knew I were going to be in control of it. BUSH: that's an example of inner chaos -exploding out into the masses he rules. He can show hillarity in talking about how he wants to bomb IRAN to pieces. Maybe so much, he had to have Gordon Brown give the declaration himself (ref: youtube). The fact is, he's never been there (middle east) because his daddy put a label on IRAN. He called that label, "Iranians". And it became a taboo euphamism that made him and his family and children cringe to extract power from his own population to prove his label could not be penatrated.  


I'll reamin indifferent.


PS- I know Ab Lincoln was labeled as depressed, but maybe the neo-cons wanted to label him because he freed the negros. ; )

----------


## Voln Gharst

[QUOTE] =Josh_LA;1697090]Morality shouldn't even exist in my view.  [QUOTE]

Huh, we're on to something. Mother Nature has no morals: it's true. We shouldn't debate right and wrong because in doing so, we've placed 2 rules to live by. I feel life is a hassle as it is. But I think myself as doing good. Who started these 2 (two) rules? F**K Adam & Eve for the moment. 

Sorry about thee extra post, guys, but I'm pissed!

I recently had a property dispute just today. It's not pleasing to be guilty before I am even considered an 'alleged' criminal. I was so repulsed because my story for why I was there did not go heard. Give me the right. Give it to me. For I am begging for it, now...

Back to what you're saying: Morality should not exist. But when it comes to sharing ideas about life and art, we are prone to becoming victims of 'Ethical' tresspass. Ethics are not property or land or anything of pyshical denisty. So how can Morality and Ethics even exist? Interesting guys.

Some art is considered dry and boring to some; while to others, that same art offends us ethically. Shoot the artist that offends us? I'd like to shoot the artist whom was the first to scribble 'Right & Wrong' on their ego and created an empire only sold to the P****S whom believe too much in human propaganda and follow the one whom is seen as moraly or ethically or even 'intellectually' superior. So, if morality must not exist, neither should ideas, expression, or ethical art.


I got to tell you, guns on earth do not help this peace on earth crap. But its technology is just like the theory of relativity: E=MC2 turned out to be a blue print for thee atomic bomb. One person knew how to build one, now thousands and growing. We're doomed. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"...Some people live to create life while others simply live and enjoy it and are seen as a waste..."

-------------------------------------------

"...I was told I never made eye contact with people, but when I was told that ...I was always looking directly at them..."

----------


## Josh_LA

> Yeah, Josh. At this point you have a gun and tons of cash and the ability to buy whatever land you wish. Rip out my lines and electricity. I love your drive to be stronger than all. At that point, I did not even have time to compile evidence or know you well enough to even forgive or want to even live there anymore for if you only bought the road outside my house and did those things. I didn't need those commodities at that point because I just installed solar panels and a wind turbine on my roof only last week. I think this whole event happened just two years after the 'Might Makes Right' Law were ratified. Am I right?
> 
> One inch? Come on, that's not fair, now. Be careful with that gun, Josh "...You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"
> 
> Water? Have you not been listening? I drink from the stream about 'a mile north of my property'.
> 
> Might not only Makes Right; Might can also make the Wrong much smarter the next time. Boy, ain't nothin' like having human inspiration be eternal and never ending. I love learning. Sometimes, I hate hearing myself think, but through learning ...I lose no more information than the concentration of my natural assistance to limit that knowlege. 
> 
> I also approve a human's right to respect my health as well as keeping a promise for my death. I may live in fear or hillarity to that claim, but I'll be ignorant enough to go along with it. Hell, we all do.  
> ...


If you can be self sufficient like Ed Brown, be my guest. However, maybe one day I just decided I wanna be a criminal and trespass YOU. Then, you won't have anything but might against a trespasser who only intends to do harm, GOOD LUCK.

----------


## Voln Gharst

> In order to implement anarcho-capitalism, you'd have to get the population to agree. They will never agree, even if they agreed on everything else, there are always the foreign powers who would have to be dealt with.


Sure. Agreements always help us in strategic times and circumstances in order to sustain our utopian dream. If Utopian is what you want. But if a lesser reality is our hope, then we will live half as happy since placing a tax on that Utopia is certain, definate, and most probable. 

Agreements are shared between those with similar beliefs while -at the same time- abolishing the possibilty to ever disagree in the future. They stay in agreement for as long as nothing comes along to question that agreement any further. Agreements are solid. But 'Utopian' agreements should be liquid and never exist in the same form as any other agreement, even if a mold (ie solution) is in place to institute a control of flow to uphold that agreement. That mold is either created or natural or other, yet always set in place by the creator(s) of that agreement. 

Which shall we choose? 

1: A *created agreement* must be invented by humanity or intelligent creatures. But never by God. And examines an attempt towards adding a solution(s) to why there was past conflict betwixt twin or multiple parties. And can have a right to push around its population when just only few people have signed that agreement, also. And are intended to either follow ethics and morals or opt not be led by both. Water is the only common denominator for all members of this agreement. It can either flow above or beneath (never directly in contact) . It's mold is usually the members whom drafted their agreement and move only when that water ceases to flow productively, economically, or civilly. 

_NOTE ON CREATED AGREEMENT:_ A podium can challenge thee unattentive to listen, but a golden orator can move an entire civilization to its prime. A *created agreement* is forever and can not take another form (see liquid agreement for antonym/opposite)

2: A *liquid agreement* must be invented by sense (not law) of nature. And is 'free' to move around whatever force (only a natural mold: rock? bone?) that may rob that contract of a solution(s) of their/members' past, present or future conflict. It's only common denominator is that the mold must not be anything associated with the one's creating that agreement. It can go anywhere to fight for a never-ending bond when moved around its environment or artifical placing, once its location is ratified by democratic vote. And is always unanymous with being self-sufficient to being its own, absolute authority. It is a single tree on a planet (maybe Mercury?) that harbors no life nor atmosphere nor God. Its exists. It is a 'Right' (free for the taking, but can not be stolen). And the most lethal when chosen of all agreements combined! 

3: A *shaparoned agreement* is in play only if a constant burden is recognized by all members whom shake hands on that promise/agreement. Its intention is to act in accordance with no pricipal to what ethics or morals are nor is it acting as a guide, unless its leader is always present. It has to be close, really close. It only approaches solution(s) from an artificial ethic and sythetic morality, yet is natural in nature because a living conscience decided for it. Its mold is a sponge. This type of agreement acts as a sponge when dipped in water: The water moves freely around, across, and atop itself but also takes in a solution(s) that can only be regerjertated or removed or extracted by its leader. Its agreement can either be restored from damage and stored for later use or can be defiled into the ground to never be seen again.     


An easy way to look at agreements is to not focus on the person creating that agreement. Agreements are best ruled in favor when drafted on some sort of media, parchment, or stone. Implementing a foreign way of life upon a foreign populace can not work any better than soing the same with its natives. We can only watch an agreement plummet to its demise when it becomes incorperated into being a business. A dirty business. Money is a business, just as agreements are business between rich and poor. No purchase necessary but experience is preferred, I say. I don't agree with something explained in too much detail, either. That's just me. I'm short and fast. I can not pay attention to 30 minutes of dialogue along with 30 minutes of that person staring at me when they're acting on that dialogue. It's just boring. It's television. It's fake. The three (3) ways to roll an agreement directly forward in a safe and secure path towards being a living law or golden rule or way of human design for everyone to follow is to get better answers from grass roots, democratic compatibilty, or utopian law. 



Listening to one person recite their agreement from memory does not impress my decision to shake in accordance with such promise/contract. But if it is simple and does not hurt me or others, I may agree to it since their flawless memory is sometimes a hoot to watch. Only then will I get tickled to pieces.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Sure. Agreements always help us in strategic times and circumstances in order to sustain our utopian dream. If Utopian is what you want. But if a lesser reality is our hope, then we will live half as happy since placing a tax on that Utopia is certain, definate, and most probable. 
> 
> Agreements are shared between those with similar beliefs while -at the same time- abolishing the possibilty to ever disagree in the future. They stay in agreement for as long as nothing comes along to question that agreement any further. Agreements are solid. But 'Utopian' agreements should be liquid and never exist in the same form as any other agreement, even if a mold (ie solution) is in place to institute a control of flow to uphold that agreement. That mold is either created or natural or other, yet always set in place by the creator(s) of that agreement. 
> 
> Which shall we choose? 
> 
> 1: A *created agreement* must be invented by humanity or intelligent creatures. But never by God. And examines an attempt towards adding a solution(s) to why there was past conflict betwixt twin or multiple parties. And can have a right to push around its population when just only few people have signed that agreement, also. And are intended to either follow ethics and morals or opt not be led by both. Water is the only common denominator for all members of this agreement. It can either flow above, beneath or other (nothing else). 
> 
> _NOTE ON CREATED AGREEMENT:_ A podium can challenge thee unattentive to listen, but a golden orator can move an entire civilization to its prime. A *created agreement* is forever and can not take another form (see liquid agreement for antonym/opposite)
> ...


how is all these kinds of "agreements" different  than bureaucracy?

Why not just settle it with a gun?

----------


## Voln Gharst

> how is all these kinds of "agreements" different  than bureaucracy?
> Why not just settle it with a gun?


I hate long essays, too. I hate to read. But I really hate pistols in my face when I'm trying to settle as friends. In order to survive, we have to be really pissed at using so much of our ego that -in times of decision- our judgement goes directly for weapons? Is this male envy?

----------


## Josh_LA

> I hate long essays, too. I hate to read. But I really hate pistols in my face when I'm trying to settle as friends. In order to survive, we have to be really pissed at using so much of our ego that -in times of decision- our judgement goes directly for weapons? Is this male envy?


Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peace and I love people in this circle that are smart enough to think. But you have to understand, there are lots of people unable or unwilling to think this way, we can't act like they don't exist.

----------


## Voln Gharst

> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peace and I love people in this circle that are smart enough to think. But you have to understand, there are lots of people unable or unwilling to think this way, we can't act like they don't exist.


Then I'll be glad that paying a toll for your property will not get so bothersome, for you will have spared life to me and my circle as well. 


[Quote=Josh_LA;] What not just settle things with guns[QUOTE] -not exact quote.


The same reason we don't go into restraunts throwing food. I know how important it is to break the mutany, but I'm not all for food in my face. But I suppose I'm in this society at the moment and I can bare it. But my gun will let them know if it begins to bother me. Why do I think this restraunt smells like a spoiled fart being finally gassed after staying too long in a ulcerated bowel for about a fortnight or two and then set off by a drunken viking at sunset? It's just me, I'm certain.

Yet why do some humans never imagine aliens with guns in their galaxy. Is it because we're so ashamed at the fact humanity is so divided that we have to use weapons to prove our book or music or petition will sell better than the one whom helped GIVE us those ideas? No guns in heaven (unless you hunt, I reckon). I've never imagined a gnome having a mac-10 or uzi machine gun packed against his chest -ready to kill things that 'didn't exist'. Because the gnome is a realist and the aliens are just, just, I dunno. Maybe, it's because 'imagination' is only for children and the illuminati mind controlists use televsion to permantely scar and forever damage that imagination because a common to have an imagination would be a mighty rascal for BIG BROTHER to tame. And the same reason why outcast geniuses are medicated in high school because the questions they ask their teacher make that teacher uncomfortable. They question authority and authority don't like tested.  

This is one of the toughest questions asked so far in this thread. And also the hardest to safely steer ourselves into its channel or matrix. Sure, we need to protect ourselves and like animals, we humans fight our fellow humans to their deaths also. Maybe I'm not all that worried to be in a world of no rules. Maybe I need to break myself into a society where shooting violaters on the spot were common. Maybe I'm making too big of a deal about it. 

I'm just sympathizing to those whom would be killed in such a Anarcho-Capitalist society, which means another possible artist, idealist, realist, or philosopher is no longer with us. People are not constant with inner progress: the first half of our lives can be either good (for ourselves or others) while the last part of our life can be the same as that, also. In a 'Barbarian' (sorry, it's the closest I can describe) society; art, poetry, music, but no so much philiosophy ...will not flourish. Those things are what give life a better reason. It gives multiple reasons to quiet our use of guns.  So far, we need guns in this world. If they were eradicatied (impossible at this point), then making bow/arrows from branches of trees will happen in an instant. Weapons are a terrible force and yet a giving force for thee essential one choosing its trigger.

I wouldn't be satisfied with the ratification of 'MIGHT MAKES RIGHT' unless its members gave a 4 year initiation phase to allow the population to WAKE THE F**K UP! This would prevent population disaster. I think 4 years would do it. I know Anarcho-Capitalists are serious people and are not just hippis wanting legalized canabis as well. But this Anarcho-Capitalist is all new to me. I believe it should be 'Earn money when needed' and democratic in the same breath. But that's me. 

At a point, I will get nowhere by staying a slave to this Capitalist hell. It's not democratic at all. There's almost ten (10) or more candidates for the 2008 presidency. Why does the 'staged' media focus on only two (2): the stupidest mother F*****S in congress! How can the earth not be the hell that Christians speak of? How? If anybody has ever had the balls to live it ...THEY KNOW! It's hell! We are most probably placed here because we did something wrong in a past life or we're some sick experiement from aliens or we're just another deminsion in the universe that just gets worse through time. Millionaires don't feel this. Politicans and mind control illuminati think everything is fine. Hoity-Toity!

----------


## Voln Gharst

I should just focus on created agreements for a sec.

1: They must be invented by humanity. True, and they are usually a pact in reality. In that pact or agreement can be corruption as all regimes end up being, even if the pact were democractic with their buerocracy or paper work. They (humans) will go the distance to cover up the distortion and pits in their agreement. Rarely, they discuss their doubt about that agreement. If one or more did, then confidence in their contract will tear to its knees. I ask once to think about Hitler and his 'created' agreement as I keep you here. This type of agreement does NOT carry a sign saying, 'I agreed and I'm very proud'. No. None at all. God never creates this agreement because his agreement are set in stone. This is why there's a pretty mosaic of war, genocide, and sin in this world. He promised it, it's staying for good. Thee 12 Apostles could be considered a pact. For it were man to create that agreement with a living lord and not the lord himself. Although there were past conflict to which why the lord was chosen to be their mold, this is STILL not liquid. If  the power of the Christ was equal to everyone, only then must we label it as a liquidated agreement. But it's not. Not everyone believes in his power if he has any at all or even existed. So we can rule out thee only possible historical evidence of man deciding on a liquid agreement. It was not. No. The Apostles used Christ and the Bible and it's Laws or Rights to push around an entire population to grant capital to Rome. Rome wanted a story that could turn its census into slaves. That's exactly what it did. A success. A wicked conspiracy, for certain. But NOT liquid. The Church is led by moraltiy and ethics on an individual level and, of course, those behaviors and ill behaviors have bankrupt or finally blown the whistle on its corrupt agreement. It was by man. It was not God because God makes agreements with no one. Nothing natural (other than human body) was resurrected but the corruption that created that pact or agreement betwixt men. Water is chosen to act as a mediator for three (3) reasons: It looks liquid, It is God-Like, and it is not created by man. All of the variables one or two or multiple parties could use to pull the wool over its population. Before they sign this created agreement, all members must realize the damaging facts of this falsehood being agreed upon. Hitler: a powerhouse! A wolf in sheep's clothing, we all know. But his members seem to exist everywhere, yet are forced underground because the man (Hitler) did not foresee the God-Like result that his members would like. He is man. He is Dead. It still scares us. I am. The members never once came in contact with that water until it was blocked by disbelief of faith or cataclysm that was involved in it. The members of the pact did force their population to alter their view which showed them a human behind a waterfall. Their trick was to mimic a man being followed by water (a God created energy) and that energy was the illusion of their pact. Another angle was for them to be placed behind the waterfall and they did not see the human (member of the pact), yet they heard a voice projecting beyond that waterfall. It was an amazing trick. It was an agreement of wise men but showed how fooled they really were. If the their census were placed in their natural state, it was only then that they could see this trick or magic show. The signers of that agreement used their 'inner beast' to tame their people and prop them in an unatural postion while in their sleep just so their agreement will appear or look sound. That it may look liquid to them all. And in hopes it would be liquid as is everything in God. If that member walked directly in the flow of that waterfall, the water becomes tainted with the lies of that pact or agreement and its contents are seen pouring everywhere on the land they thought would flourish in peace. Water and Liquidiy are at one with truth and does not ever trust human material, although is merciful enough (as is God) to give man life. Even though water and god know of the corruption of man and all of his strategic stagings. This is the reason why the member of that agreement did not want to touch the water, for if they did, the water would figure out their craft plan and make its corruption noticed through the land and in the road and in the village and in the sky. The key to this agreement and illusion is -instead of water being the host, the members act as the host while making ignorant populations thee entire goal for them to fool thee authenticity of that agreement/pact. To leave or abondon the pact, means the water will instantly turn weaker in volume since the members or men of that contract are feeding its source.  If the water turns weaker when one member bails out, the census begins to question the spectrum of that contract. A weaker waterfall means the member is seen when behind that waterfall when only 1 week ago, the populace was amazed to hear a voice speaking from that water. And if they try to hide their corrpution by changing their agreement in front of the waterfall, then the background is figured to be merely props to mock the fooled. And when all members bail and the water ceases to pour, all that is left are a box of ways to fool a population. The population become terrified to the truth that they were tricked.

----------


## Conza88

> No I don't prefer ignorance, I just prefer playing devil's advocate, it's very enjoyable seeing people like you resorting to cussing as if you had no better way to defend obvious facts.


No... see I don't just resort to cussing. I highlight your retardedness, then throw in some cussing. It's not just ad hominems mate, I address your foolishness.

*PRIME EXAMPLE:* the whole little de beers monopoly fiasco you failed with. 

Well done on defending those "facts" champ.  lmao. 




> Yes I know everything about subjective value, I don't buy diamonds and I think they're stupid, but I never said there's anything wrong with DeBeers monopoly either, you're just denying it as if it has to be a bad thing and admitting it would hurt your feelings.


Totally retarded here. Erecting your strawman consistently.. I know you don't give a $#@! about diamonds, as you've tried to point out endlessly as some kind of justification... the point is; I know this; and it doesn't CHANGE $#@!, nor has it ever had any bearing or relevance to the argument at hand. You fken fail.




> No, I don't agree with the DoI, it's just a piece of paper. I can disagree with gravity but I can't violate it. But I can disagree with morals and violate it if I want to. The only natural law I can think of unviolatable is "might makes right" or "survival of the fittest".


Inalienable rights. Natural Law. Can you violate nature Josh?  Are you God? It damn well seems you want to be aye. 




> And yes, I'll say it now : I believe in NO LAWS (natural or government or otherwise). The only reason I abide by laws is for fear of being hurt or harassed. So, just like Christians follow the Bible for fear of God, just like children follow parents for fear of spank, *I follow the law by fear of community and government power. Otherwise I have no problem killing, robbing or vandalizing.*


LOL... thanks, that made my day. And is well worthy of my sig. Highlights the kind of person you are rather nicely.  When you die, I'll recommend it go on your tomb stone.




> In essence, me abiding the law doesn't mean I agree with it. It's no different than a robber holding me at gun point and I am forced to comply. 
> 
> You can say I "fail" all you want. See if I care.


Umm, obviously. Fair enough; I don't think it really needs to be said anymore anyway... it's just so damn obvious & crystal clear.

----------


## Conza88

> soft anarchism imo 
> hey Conza,
> 
> do any ancaps advocate VIOLENCE against the state as a way to get to a stateless society? Or is it the Ghandi route?


Rothbard was for working peacefully within it. Ron Paul is the same. Leverve or whatever was for not justifying it...

Agorism is by circumventing it... etc.

----------


## Conza88

> what's the last question?


The last question is the MOST IMPORTANT ONE... and the thing you've so far failed to do.

Define "right". In your use of context, in general, whatever the hell you want to do, just define your retarded usage of it.




> 1. Yes, I got you to agree if you followed my philosophy what would take place, and I'm totally with you.
> 2. So you're saying, that the fact a Malthusiast hasn't done what he believes makes him a hypocrite? I agree to an extent.
> 3. I have lots of problems with Bush, particularly his dishonesty. But like I just said, having a difference in opinion is cheap. Until I can have the might to deal with it, what else could I do? My problem with Bush is the same as my problem with somebody robbing me, *what difference is there when I'm not the one with might?*


*1.* LOL.
*1.1* You didn't get me to do anything. I was pointing our the sheer retardedness of your ideology. 
*2.* That's *EXACTLY* what I am saying. And that is EXACTLY what I am calling you.
"You agree to an extent?" LOL! To what extend do you NOT agree?  _*This should be good._
*3.* The difference is whether you are in the RIGHT or in the WRONG. If you are on the side of GOOD or bad. If you have JUSTICE and natural law on your side, or if you're the exact opposite. If you stand for TRUTH you are RIGHT, and if you don't you are WRONG. 

You could also try and OBTAIN the MIGHT and thus become RIGHT - rofl  
Define it for heavens sake. 




> *So how do I live what I preach?* I speak out when I can, but I don't argue about what's the ideal philosophy, because I know all philosophies need might to obtain and sustain. So unless we have it, it's nearly useless to know what's the best ideal.


You don't argue whats the ideal philosophy? HAHAHAH... what the $#@! have you just been doing?  And please tell me; anarcho-capitalism - how does it use might to achieve it's ideals, to see it's philosophy put in place? 




> SO you and I may disagree on what's the best system, but any of our systems need might. Disagree?


Define "might". That'd also be damn helpful in this childish saga of yours. It depends on why that 'might' is being deployed, if it JUST and as a result in defence of natural law; property rights, and not breaking the non aggression axiom etc... via due process, where the guilty is to be punished and it's all sound etc sure. Anarcho-capitalism has law courts, police services etc... 




> But then you'll ask, *WHY DON'T I GO OUT AND KILL PEOPLE IF I CAN?* The same reason anybody hasn't, not always because we think it's wrong or illegal, but we're nice, we're excessively and superfluously nice. Nothing else is stopping us but our will to do evil (often because we see no benefit to it).


An absolute 100% contradiction to what you said earlier. See sig.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The last question is the MOST IMPORTANT ONE... and the thing you've so far failed to do.
> 
> Define "right". In your use of context, in general, whatever the hell you want to do, just define your retarded usage of it.
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* LOL.
> *1.1* You didn't get me to do anything. I was pointing our the sheer retardedness of your ideology. 
> *2.* That's *EXACTLY* what I am saying. And that is EXACTLY what I am calling you.
> ...


You're free to believe what you want as to what's retarded, see if I care.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Inalienable rights. Natural Law. Can you violate nature Josh?  Are you God? It damn well seems you want to be aye.


Inalienable rights are imaginary, it's just an easy way to avoid explaining what and why you have rights.

So what if I violated your inalienable right to your life and property? Does God punish me?

No I cannot violate nature, but I can violate these phony "natural law" rights you're talking about. I am not God, and I certainly don't believe God exists. Sorry you have no better way of explaining your rights than to leave it to God, no different than a child who thinks tooth fairy leaves him money because he doesn't know where it came from.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The last question is the MOST IMPORTANT ONE... and the thing you've so far failed to do.
> 
> Define "right". In your use of context, in general, whatever the hell you want to do, just define your retarded usage of it.


*Right : the license, ability and permission to do things.*

You may believe you have rights, but I disagree. *I believe you only have rights because people don't force you otherwise.* 

I don't believe you have the right to life or property, *you only think you do because people are too nice to rob and murder you.* If they do, there's nothing you can do about it other than to respond with might and force, God or the law will not protect you (and if they do, it's again from force). 

I believe rights, order are only as good and as existent as people are willing to agree on. And even if they do agree, they can't argue with force. Even the best moral standards and laws made to make everybody happy cannot stop a person from holding a gun to your head and doing otherwise.
*
Yes, I am simply saying, that laws you agree with, rules societies hold are really nothing more than a robber holding a gun to your head and saying "So what if I'm wrong? You want to live or what?"*

You can go ahead and say I'm retarded, just like you can tell a robber he's retarded when his gun is at your head, see if he'll listen.

----------


## Josh_LA

> An absolute 100% contradiction to what you said earlier. See sig.


Not quite.

I can be both, I can have two different reasons to do the same thing.

You can be moral because you feel like it, or you can be moral because you're forced to. But when you're forced long enough, you can convince yourself it feels good.

Just like how Americans have learned it's wrong to lynch blacks and call them the N-word. For some it takes force, for some it only takes convincing. Just because some people are nice and obey rules, does not mean all humans can be trusted to obey them.

*This is at the heart of what makes politics complicated : can you treat all human beings equally and hold them to the same responsibilities? My answer is no.* 

Like you, I would not like (and I won't allow, but you might) retards to have the right to speak or live. I believe it is responsible to have retards, and those who think dramatically differently to be removed, isolated or eliminated from our living space.

*Seriously. If somebody who talks like me existed near you in real life, would you actually find it funny and just think a retard is harmless?* Or would you think it's the right thing to kill him to protect yourself since you have some reason (however unreasonable) to believe he may be a threat to you if he has no morals?

----------


## Voln Gharst

> I don't believe you have the right to life or property, .




Wrong. In the beginning, three people in the world owned three things: Uncle Mud owned the land, Mr. Tide owned the sea, and Ms. Sapphire owned the sky. They have spent their entire budget on purchasing those individual interests. But they do have the right to suspect any or all people crossing their property, at all times. 

Mud don't have the Right to drink because of Mr. Tide 
Mr. Tide don't have the Right to walk upright cause of Mud. 
Ms. Sapphire don't have the Right to blow winds across the land and sea in order for her to give rise to humidity and random currents: this is called the cycle of weather (ie Utopian Occurence). Why? Ms. Sapphire wanted Utopia while thee others wanted it not.  

Humans can not get passed the CYCLE OF VIOLENCE, for Christ's Sake!

(If you believe that everyone is utopian at heart -raise your hand! ......*I see only one hand in a room of 15,000*)


If we lived in harmony, we would know that our utopian right or utopian ethic were to protect what belongs to humanity and not our enemies that take the form of human. If some people had enemies whom owned something that was in danger, then those ill people would delight in doing nothing so that their enemies' "something" or "property" would fall in on itself and go destroyed. Non-Compliance now counts as a mild form of Might Makes Right (Do nothing, abandon Free Will). In this case Might did not Make Right -Might Made Stubborness and Grudge to ring across the contenent.

More study needs to be done on Anarcho-Capitalist society. IMO, it is labeled wrong. Wrong labels create contradicting descriptions to what is labeled or called or named by. Only the greatest minds (or us, LOL) can solve this issue. Face it, we're most likely slaves in the next 500 years or more. There is no answer. Although, my tongue does not show sores from doubting thee exact opposite either. The answer lies in the human conscience. A breakthrough in human awareness. Not by sissie-assed scientists, but from societies across the world. No one seems to volunteer as moderator between right and wrong. But every one here in this thread can agree that Capitalism has to go. Only a catastrophe of God or humanity can dislodge the powers-that-be so that a third world scenario would mark the globe and a Utopian Order (not NWO) can emerge.  I don't know what else it would take, other than a UFO to land on the White House lawn and aliens give us better Rules and Rights to follow and respect. I'm afraid I'm providing nothing to this argument. I really don't.

----------


## Conza88

> You're free to believe what you want as to what's retarded, see if I care.


You fit into the category very nicely. Congrats. 




> Inalienable rights are imaginary, it's just an easy way to avoid explaining what and why you have rights.
> 
> So what if I violated your inalienable right to your life and property? Does God punish me?


So you've violated the right... Any society built on anything but natural law is deemed to fail. Take a look at the U.S - followed the Constitution; great... since moving away; empire etc... it's all about to collapse, like Rome.

The point you can't seem to get your head around is... the RIGHTS remain; even if being violated... the fact that force or coercion and being used against you doesn't make it RIGHT ( the CORRECT ) thing to do... you hold the contention that it is. You're one immoral mother fker. See sig.




> No I cannot violate nature, but I can violate these phony "natural law" rights you're talking about. I am not God, and I certainly don't believe God exists. *S*orry you have no better way of explaining your rights than to leave it to God, no different than a child who thinks tooth fairy leaves him money because he doesn't know where it came from.


$#@! you're thick. I'm an atheist / agnostic you tard. Again, you total misconstrued the POINT. Go ahead and re-read what you failed to understand. @ Bold - you fail again... STRAWMAN. I don't prescribe to the "our creator" but that doesn't have any bearing on Natural Law at all..

Tell me; does NATURE EXIST? Does the Law of gravity?  Hmmm how did that come about?  




> *Right : the license, ability and permission to do things.*
> 
> You may believe you have rights, but I disagree. *I believe you only have rights because people don't force you otherwise.*


* You can force anyone to do anything. Does it make it RIGHT (i.e CORRECT) or moral to do so? I say *NO...* you say YES. You is teh scrumzor of human filth.




> I don't believe you have the right to life or property, *you only think you do because people are too nice to rob and murder you.* If they do, there's nothing you can do about it other than to respond with might and force, God or the law will not protect you (and if they do, it's again from force).


Abolition of private property; the chief aim of Communism. You also belief in force / coercion as right etc... Great work; tell me how your positions differ from a Communists?  That being, you agree with two of it's MAIN fundamental aspects.




> I believe rights, order are only as good and as existent as people are willing to agree on. And even if they do agree, they can't argue with force. Even the best moral standards and laws made to make everybody happy cannot stop a person from holding a gun to your head and doing otherwise.
> *Yes, I am simply saying, that laws you agree with, rules societies hold are really nothing more than a robber holding a gun to your head and saying "So what if I'm wrong? You want to live or what?"*
> 
> You can go ahead and say I'm retarded, just like you can tell a robber he's retarded when his gun is at your head, see if he'll listen.


See '*'.

----------


## Conza88

> Not quite.
> 
> I can be both, I can have two different reasons to do the same thing.
> 
> You can be moral because you feel like it, or* you can be moral because you're forced to.* But when you're forced long enough, you can convince yourself it feels good.


*Hahahahha!!!! * 

*"Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable."* _– Anonymous_

"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." _– Thomas Jefferson, 1824_ 

*"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."* _– Plato (427-347 B.C.)_

You're thus a bad person. 

*"Force always attracts men of low morality."* _– Albert Einstein_

"It rankles me when somebody tries to force somebody to do something." _– John Wayne_

*"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."* _– Mikhail Bakunin_

*"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense." – Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas*




> Just like how Americans have learned it's wrong to lynch blacks and call them the N-word. For some it takes force, for some it only takes convincing. Just because some people are nice and obey rules, does not mean all humans can be trusted to obey them.
> 
> This is at the heart of what makes politics complicated : can you treat all human beings equally and hold them to the same responsibilities? My answer is no. 
> *
> Like you, I would not like retards to have the right to speak or live. I believe it is responsible to have retards, and those who think dramatically differently to be removed, isolated or eliminated from our living space.*


But how can you contend lynching black people is wrong? They have no rights apparently... MIGHT IS RIGHT? Correct? !!! _*face palm*_

 You are a god damn monster.

So the gassing of "retards" in Concentration Camps is justified by your reasoning / philosophy / ideology / INSANITY...  a simple "YES" will suffice to continue the demonstration of the calamity of the system you want and propose.




> *Seriously. If somebody who talks like me existed near you in real life, would you actually find it funny and just think a retard is harmless?* Or would you think it's the right thing to kill him to protect yourself since you have some reason (however unreasonable) to believe he may be a threat to you if he has no morals?


I'd find it tragic, that someone could hate humanity as much as that person. To answer your question; would I break the non aggression axiom? No. Would I strongly consider, punching you and everything you stand for, in the face? Sure.... if you swing first; & I thus have a RIGHT TO DEFEND MY PROPERTY. 

"The pattern is as old as human life. The new rulers use more and more force, more police, more soldiers, trying to enforce more efficient control, trying to make the planned economy work by piling regulations on regulations, decree on decree. The people are hungry and hungrier. And how does a man on this earth get butter? Doesn't the government give butter? But government does not produce food from the earth; Government is guns. It is one common distinction of all civilized peoples, that they give their guns to the Government. Men in Government monopolize the necessary use of force; they are not using their energies productively; they are not milking cows. To get butter, they must use guns; they have nothing else to use." – Rose Wilder Lane 

You want to regress back to tyranny. You don't want civilization... You don't want liberty or freedom from oppression. You really are $#@!en scum.

Furthermore; you hold FORCE or MIGHT in it's highest esteem.. that given; why don't you respect it, or worship it? It's more powerful; got more FORCE than you... if FORCE is to be reconned with; why don't you just bow down before it? Why strive to change anything? What compels you to alter it? Why do you want the ability to destroy, force others as you've so said yourself?

----------


## Conza88

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."*– Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas*

----------


## Josh_LA

> "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."* Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas*


did you have to shout?

Ron Paul is not God, nor do I agree with him on everything. 

But more importantly, he too can't argue with a gun.

This still doesn't answer the question *"SO WHAT IF I violate someone else's rights".* Wouldn't we still need force in self defense?

I don't believe in a free society either, respecting society is for socialists!

----------


## Josh_LA

> You fit into the category very nicely. Congrats. 
> 
> 
> 
> So you've violated the right... Any society built on anything but natural law is deemed to fail. Take a look at the U.S - followed the Constitution; great... since moving away; empire etc... it's all about to collapse, like Rome.
> 
> The point you can't seem to get your head around is... the RIGHTS remain; even if being violated... the fact that force or coercion and being used against you doesn't make it RIGHT ( the CORRECT ) thing to do... you hold the contention that it is. You're one immoral mother fker. See sig.


So what if it doesn't make it right? Go yell that out when you're already shot dead.

----------


## Josh_LA

> $#@! you're thick. I'm an atheist / agnostic you tard. Again, you total misconstrued the POINT. Go ahead and re-read what you failed to understand. @ Bold - you fail again... STRAWMAN. I don't prescribe to the "our creator" but that doesn't have any bearing on Natural Law at all..
> 
> Tell me; does NATURE EXIST? Does the Law of gravity?  Hmmm how did that come about?


Nature exists, so does gravity.

Where it came from I don't know, I just know it is.

But killing people doesn't violate any natural laws, it utilizes natural laws.

It may violate what you conceive to be order, rights, but those are artificial and socially constructed laws that don't exist in nature (thus can be violated). You still haven't shown me why it can't (as in unable) be violated,* you can only say it's bad, which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. But I can't argue with a gun when somebody's forcing me to submit to laws or rules I don't agree with.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> Abolition of private property; the chief aim of Communism. You also belief in force / coercion as right etc... Great work; tell me how your positions differ from a Communists?  That being, you agree with two of it's MAIN fundamental aspects.


Don't act like you don't agree one bit with communists. You, like communists are atheists (same here).

What do I differ from communists? I don't believe in society, I don't believe in respecting others, I don't believe in equality. I have no intention of achieving justice through force. I believe force can do anything.

*I believe force makes things right, doesn't matter if you're a Fascist or communist or capitalist, all systems are achieved and held together by force*. (even peaceful communes are, in the sense they can be broken by force and are held together only by the consent and compassion of the whole sphere).

Communists believe private property should be abolished for the greater good of others. *I believe private property should be abolished because I feel like it and if you can take it away from a robber over and over, so be it.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> * You can force anyone to do anything. Does it make it RIGHT (i.e CORRECT) or moral to do so? I say *NO...* you say YES. You is teh scrumzor of human filth.


I can say no it doesn't make it correct, but does it matter when I'm held at gun point? What good is being right when your life is in danger? 

What else am I avoiding to answer you?

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Hahahahha!!!! * 
> 
> *"Where morality is present, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable."* _ Anonymous_
> 
> "In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance." _ Thomas Jefferson, 1824_ 
> 
> *"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."* _ Plato (427-347 B.C.)_
> 
> You're thus a bad person. 
> ...


Quoting great thinkers is fun, but they only had the privelege to think and speak because they had peace. And we are lucky we do.

----------


## Josh_LA

> But how can you contend lynching black people is wrong? They have no rights apparently... MIGHT IS RIGHT? Correct? !!! _*face palm*_
> 
>  You are a god damn monster.
> 
> So the gassing of "retards" in Concentration Camps is justified by your reasoning / philosophy / ideology / INSANITY...  a simple "YES" will suffice to continue the demonstration of the calamity of the system you want and propose.


Exactly, why should we recognize blacks as people if we haven't for hundreds of years? So what if DoI said "all men are created equal"? Nothing is forcing us to treat blacks like humans, so it's only because we are nice that we do.* Slavery was abolished by FORCE, even though the intention may have been GOOD.* 

*So you must agree, that even good things need FORCE to be done. MIGHT makes right.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> I'd find it tragic, that someone could hate humanity as much as that person. To answer your question; would I break the non aggression axiom? No. Would I strongly consider, punching you and everything you stand for, in the face? Sure.... if you swing first; & I thus have a RIGHT TO DEFEND MY PROPERTY. 
> 
> "The pattern is as old as human life. The new rulers use more and more force, more police, more soldiers, trying to enforce more efficient control, trying to make the planned economy work by piling regulations on regulations, decree on decree. The people are hungry and hungrier. And how does a man on this earth get butter? Doesn't the government give butter? But government does not produce food from the earth; Government is guns. It is one common distinction of all civilized peoples, that they give their guns to the Government. Men in Government monopolize the necessary use of force; they are not using their energies productively; they are not milking cows. To get butter, they must use guns; they have nothing else to use."  Rose Wilder Lane 
> 
> You want to regress back to tyranny. You don't want civilization... You don't want liberty or freedom from oppression. You really are $#@!en scum.
> 
> Furthermore; you hold FORCE or MIGHT in it's highest esteem.. that given; why don't you respect it, or worship it? It's more powerful; got more FORCE than you... if FORCE is to be reconned with; why don't you just bow down before it? Why strive to change anything? What compels you to alter it? Why do you want the ability to destroy, force others as you've so said yourself?


Ok, so here we agree.

I too find it tragic that so many humans (mostly in power) have so little respect for humans, but what can I do? And your punch in this $#@!'s face is defense of your property and life, justified or not, YOU CAN AND SHOULD DO IT IF YOU FEEL RIGHT ABOUT IT.

So why bother arguing what's right and wrong when violence can solve problems? You think our founding fathers could've gotten 13 colonies free by being gentlemen and talking?

*I think I answered your last question.* The reasons I don't run around killing people are two : one because I'm nice, two I'm forced by society to obey laws. 

_
Why strive to change anything? What compels you to alter it? Why do you want the ability to destroy, force others as you've so said yourself?_
I answered this before, I believe. I only strive to change what I have the force to do. What compels me is my own selfish reasons. Why do I want the ability to destroy and force others? Because it's what is good for myself.

----------


## Josh_LA

> So the gassing of "retards" in Concentration Camps is justified by your reasoning / philosophy / ideology / INSANITY... a simple "YES" will suffice to continue the demonstration of the calamity of the system you want and propose.


Yes, as a social Darwinist and anarchist, I believe gassing and killing those who are unable to defend themselves is OK. Not nice, not good, but OK. It is nobody's fault that they cannot fight back, it's a very socialist idea to defend people who can't help themselves. I believe libertarians, anarchists and those who believe in "personal responsibility" should allow people to die if they can't do any better.

----------


## Conza88

> did you have to shout?
> Ron Paul is not God, nor do I agree with him on everything. 
> But more importantly, he too can't argue with a gun.
> This still doesn't answer the question *"SO WHAT IF I violate someone else's rights".* Wouldn't we still need force in self defense?
> *I don't believe in a free society* either, respecting society is for socialists!


I didn't realise text translated into audio sounds... I didn't ''shout" anything, you clown. And if you're going off netiquette; it's all caps that is associated with it. So you're *wrong* again. Nothing new there though... 

_"Ron Paul is not God"..._ LOL, by declaring he is not God, you are confirming a belief that there IS ONE. Kind of $#@!en idiotic for an atheist, no? 

He did answer your questions. You're too good damn foolish / blind / ignorant / IQ < 60 to see it.




> Nature exists, so does gravity.
> Where it came from I don't know, I just know it is.
> But killing people doesn't violate any natural laws, it utilizes natural laws.
> It may violate what you conceive to be order, rights, but those are artificial and socially constructed laws that don't exist in nature (thus can be violated). You still haven't shown me why it can't (as in unable) be violated,[B] you can only say it's bad, which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. But I can't argue with a gun when somebody's forcing me to submit to laws or rules I don't agree with.
> 
> So what if it doesn't make it right? Go yell that out when you're already shot dead.
> 
> Don't act like you don't agree one bit with communists. You, like communists are atheists (same here).
> 
> ...


You are a hypocrite, you have no principles - and if you do; be it something about force - you don't stand by them. You're a sell out to your flawed ideology. That all being said; you fail at life. You advocate death and violence at every turn.

Can I ask; what is your goal in life? Why do you wish to remain here on this planet? What is it your seek? What's your purpose?

*The order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue.* _~ Thomas Jefferson_

----------


## Josh_LA

> Can I ask; what is your goal in life? Why do you wish to remain here on this planet? What is it your seek? What's your purpose?
> \


My goal is to be happy in every way I can, this includes pissing off people like you who easily lose patience.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You are a hypocrite, you have no principles - and if you do; be it something about force - you don't stand by them. You're a sell out to your flawed ideology. That all being said; you fail at life. You advocate death and violence at every turn.


Hypocrite with no principles, a retard and a monster? Ok.

----------


## Josh_LA

> You are a hypocrite, you have no principles - and if you do; be it something about force - you don't stand by them. You're a sell out to your flawed ideology. That all being said; you fail at life. You advocate death and violence at every turn.
> 
> Can I ask; what is your goal in life? Why do you wish to remain here on this planet? What is it your seek? What's your purpose?


So how about you respond to some of the things I asked in the past few replies for a change?

Have I dodged one question you bought up?

Perhaps you can tell me how you're more consistent than I am.

----------


## Conza88

> So how about you respond to some of the things I asked in the past few replies for a change?
> Have I dodged one question you bought up?
> Perhaps you can tell me how you're more consistent than I am.


"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."
*– Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas* 





> My goal is to be happy in every way I can, this includes pissing off people like you who easily lose patience.


I gathered that would be your conclusion; which is why I pre-supposed this:

*“The order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue.”* _~ Thomas Jefferson_
Now explain to me, how anything you advocate or stand for is - virtuous. Haha... 

Btw, I actually enjoy venting on people like you. Especially making them proclaim inane conclusions... supported by a grandeur of ignorance. If anything, I pity you.

----------


## Josh_LA

> "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."
> * Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas* 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gathered that would be your conclusion; which is why I pre-supposed this:
> 
> *The order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue.* _~ Thomas Jefferson_
> ...


Again, first of all neither Jefferson nor Paul are right about everything.

Quoting them only shows you agree with what they say, it says nothing as to how your beliefs and your actions are consistent, or more consistent and less hypocritical than me. 

How do I advocate or stand for being virtuous? Never wanted to be, certainly you can't read my mind so you wouldn't know what makes me happy. You just as much cannot read the mind of others, so to some we are not to judge that they may be happy murdering and raping people.

I pity you as well, being unable to calmly defend your position and constantly feel the need to cuss, name call or magnify your font to show your content isn't good enough.

You can call me ignorant , hypocrite and retarded all you want, as you can see, it doesn't bother me (why should it? you have no force on me!). I'm happy being what I am and saying what I say.

----------


## Josh_LA

*Conza, maybe this will help :*

I believe might makes right, but that doesn't mean I have to show might every second of my life. Just like you believe in free speech, but you don't go around calling every black person the N word just because you have the right to.

However, we both understand we have the option available if we feel like it, it's our own self that's stopping us from exercising our "rights".

You may believe that initiation of vulgarity is simply verbal violence, unnecessary and harmful. But it's no less allowed, and it happens. 

So, when I think of it. How does what I advocate become virtuous? I believe, virtuous in Aristotle's terms is HABITUAL, which means if we keep doing it, we develop good norms. If we develop habitual respect for life, we are a virtuous society of life. If we advocate liberty in our second nature, we are a virtuous society of freedom. If we advocate violence as a means of solving disputes, we are a virtuous society that understands not to mess around because consequences will be ready for people who chose not to follow norms. 

Virtue, like morality, like law, is subjective. Is it not?

IN Jefferson's context, if people respect others, he will be respected too. I agree, and I believe the lowest common denominator that humans have is respect for might.

----------


## Conza88

> Again, first of all neither Jefferson nor Paul are right about everything.
> 
> Quoting them only shows you agree with what they say, it says nothing as to how your beliefs and your actions are consistent, or more consistent and less hypocritical than me. 
> 
> How do I advocate or stand for being virtuous? *Never wanted to be,* certainly you can't read my mind so you wouldn't know what makes me happy. You just as much cannot read the mind of others, so to some we are not to judge that they may be happy murdering and raping people.


Ron Paul & Thomas Jefferson = *more right than you'll ever be on anything.*

I'm quoting their logic & reasoning.. something you lack. So you don't want to be virtuous, fine. I'm guessing you've never read Hamlet? Aye?  Why is it that Dictators are never happy Josh? Don't they have ALL THE MIGHT, they can possibly get? Why is it that they generally become paranoid, and corrupted? Do you know the difference between PLEASURE & HAPPINESS? Cus I don't think you do. Have you actually read Aristotle's Ethics? You twisted his work to meet your own conclusion below. Beyond all else though; if you do 




> I believe might makes right, but that doesn't mean I have to show might every second of my life. Just like you believe in free speech, but you don't go around calling every black person the N word just because you have the right to.
> 
> However, we both understand we have the option available if we feel like it, it's our own self that's stopping us from exercising our "rights".
> 
> You may believe that initiation of vulgarity is simply verbal violence, unnecessary and harmful. But it's no less allowed, and it happens. 
> 
> So, when I think of it. How does what I advocate become virtuous? I believe, virtuous in Aristotle's terms is HABITUAL, which means if we keep doing it, we develop good norms. If we develop habitual respect for life, we are a virtuous society of life. If we advocate liberty in our second nature, we are a virtuous society of freedom. If we advocate violence as a means of solving disputes, we are a virtuous society that understands not to mess around because consequences will be ready for people who chose not to follow norms. 
> 
> Virtue, like morality, like law, is subjective. Is it not?
> ...


I don't respect might at all. Sorry, your premise fails.




> I follow the law by fear of community and government power. Otherwise I have no problem killing, robbing or vandalizing.


*“Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear.”* ~ Albert Camus

*“Wicked men obey out of fear; good men, out of love.”* ~ Aristotle

*“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”* ~ Albert Einstein

=====================================

*“The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear.”* _~ Heinrich Himmler AKA Josh_LA._


*“Happiness is an expression of the soul in considered actions.”* ~ Aristotle

_i.e Piece of $#@! actions; piece of $#@! soul._ 


*"Happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some can attain, while others have little or none of it"* ~ Aristotle

_Umm.. pretty much exactly what Jefferson said RIGHT?! But you said he was wrong. I guess Aristotle is wrong aswell? RIGHT?!_ 

*“It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered.”* ~ Aristotle

_OOPS, I forgot - you don't believe in a Free Society..._ 

*“Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice.”* ~ Aristotle 

You want man to be terrible. You want tyranny. You fail.


*“All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.”* ~ Aristotle

But you consider virtue subjective.. and thus justice subjective, eh? 


*“Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids”* ~  Aristotle


_Crystal clear the state of your character._ 


*“Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way. You become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions.”* ~ Aristotle

_You become evil, and unjust, morally decrepit - by performing, evil, unjust, immoral actions. _ 


*“The Good of man is the active exercise of his soul's faculties in conformity with excellence or virtue, or if there be several human excellences or virtues, in conformity with the best and most perfect among them”* ~ Aristotle

_You're at the other end of the spectrum. Correct?_

*“Virtue is more clearly shown in the performance of fine actions than in the non-performance of base ones.”* ~ Aristotle


*“The generality of men are naturally swayed more by fear than by reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness.”* ~ Aristotle

_You're exactly like the rest of society. Part of the problem.. Ron Paul supporters = far superior._

*"No one will dare maintain that it is better to do injustice than to bear it.”* ~ Aristotle

^ But, you do - DON'T you Josh? 

Ok... so I've got Aristotle, Ron Paul & Thomas Jefferson on my side of the argument; and you just sit there looking smug. Hahaha.. rather humorous imo. You know what you remind me of? Chris Rock - Black people vs Niggaz _In particular: (3.00-3.25)_

_“The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes.” ~ Aristotle_

^ Back on topic... Anarcho-Capitalism... more middle class than any other system.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Ron Paul & Thomas Jefferson = *more right than you'll ever be on anything.*
> 
> I'm quoting their logic & reasoning.. something you lack. So you don't want to be virtuous, fine. I'm guessing you've never read Hamlet? Aye?  Why is it that Dictators are never happy Josh? Don't they have ALL THE MIGHT, they can possibly get? Why is it that they generally become paranoid, and corrupted? Do you know the difference between PLEASURE & HAPPINESS? Cus I don't think you do. Have you actually read Aristotle's Ethics? You twisted his work to meet your own conclusion below. Beyond all else though; if you do 
> 
> I don't respect might at all. Sorry, your premise fails.


Ok.

I don't know whether dictators are happy or not, not my concern.
Whether they have all the might they can want, is not my concern either.
What they generally become is their business, and their responsibility.
Pleasure and happiness? I can't say I know the difference, why should there be?
I have read some of Aristotle's ethics, but you get to say that I twisted his work, fine.

*You don't respect might? Fine,* say that when you have a gun to your head. I'll make sure I visit the grave of a brave man who argued with a gun.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *Happiness is an expression of the soul in considered actions.* ~ Aristotle
> 
> _i.e Piece of $#@! actions; piece of $#@! soul._ 
> 
> 
> *"Happiness is the highest good, being a realization and perfect practice of virtue, which some can attain, while others have little or none of it"* ~ Aristotle
> 
> _Umm.. pretty much exactly what Jefferson said RIGHT?! But you said he was wrong. I guess Aristotle is wrong aswell? RIGHT?!_ 
> 
> ...


I didn't say Jefferson is wrong, but that's still irrelevant.

Why do you care what reasoning I have when I've already reduced and deduced my beliefs down to a simple word. You either admit you will not argue with a gun, or say that you will (and I'll have to see it). Why does it matter whether you had more education and knowledge and how much you agree with it using your superior brain?

If you don't respect might, I'll be happy to see how much might you challenge day to day. I'll be happy to honor you as a man who argued with a gun, those are heroes in history, people who believed in values over violence.

----------


## Josh_LA

> The most perfect political community is one in which the middle class is in control, and outnumbers both of the other classes. ~ Aristotle
> 
> ^ Back on topic... Anarcho-Capitalism... more middle class than any other system.


Wrong.

First of all, class is a Marxist term, dividing people based on wealth as if it's something that matters. An us and them mentality that introduces hatred among people who can happily work together.

Secondly, having a class in control (by control I assume it means directly letting them make decisions, rather than being just participants) is no different than democratic socialism.

Thirdly, are you saying that it's a good thing to have more of the middle, mediocracy?

Fourthly, there's no protective system that protects the "others" from being eliminated (even if it means murder). 

Fifthly, again, no system is held together without either agreement or violence and force. *You have STILL NOT SHOWN WHY THIS IS WRONG. You can tell me power is never good enough for some, pleasure isn't happiness, but you can't tell me why might doesn't make right other than what other people say, you have still to show me how you can argue with a gun (other than with another one).*

----------


## Voln Gharst

"You can call me ignorant , hypocrite and retarded all you want, as you can see, it doesn't bother me (why should it? you have no force on me!). I'm happy being what I am and saying what I say" - Josh_ LA

Thee above is completely thee opposite of what you said days ago *see below*, for in thee above, you describing your 'natural right' on earth. By 'force', did you mean 'Might' by any chance? Whereas, another day, you say thee exact opposite...

"If you don't have to recognize laws that you disagree with, why should I recognize your natural law rights or DoI if I don't agree with it?" - Josh_LA


PS- Where is your argument? Who are you arguing? If this MIGHT MAKES RIGHT is some breakthrough in governance, then I suggest a SERIOUS edit. No offence. Step away from the keyboard, PLEASE!

----------


## Conza88

> Ok.
> 
> I don't know whether dictators are happy or not, not my concern.
> Whether they have all the might they can want, is not my concern either.
> What they generally become is their business, and their responsibility.
> Pleasure and happiness? I can't say I know the difference, why should there be?
> I have read some of Aristotle's ethics, but you get to say that I twisted his work, fine.
> 
> *You don't respect might? Fine,* say that when you have a gun to your head. I'll make sure I visit the grave of a brave man who argued with a gun.


You SHOULD know whether dictators are happy or not, it is your concern. It directly relates to your position; you want to be happy - and you think you can achieve that by having all the force or MIGHT you want, so you can do what you want - as described by yourself, as not doing it only OUT of fear of the government.. so if there was no government, i.e you as Dictator; you could do anything you wanted... ALL THE MIGHT IN THE WORLD.

That fact that you don't consider it worthy of your consideration - is so $#@!en retarded, it is outstanding. You're on your way to the ignore list imo. Just for the fundamental fact, you wish to remain, through your actions in ignorance. You don't WANT  to know; that the Dictators aren't happy - and they NEVER will be. Because Jefferson is RIGHT, ARISTOTLE IS RIGHT, RON PAUL IS RIGHT...

And you & your flawed position are *WRONG.*

Btw, thank you for admitting you are ignorant of the differences between pleasure  & happiness, and for verifying my CORRECT assertion that you hadn't actually read Aristotles work; Ethics.* I SUGGEST YOU DO.* He pwns you're ideology to the CORE. And I really think; it'd wake you up.  Don't at your own peril.

That's right, I don't respect it. 




> I didn't say Jefferson is wrong, but that's still irrelevant.


Ummm....




> Again, first of all neither Jefferson nor Paul are right about everything.


Can you tell me... what the opposite of _"right" (correct)_ is?  Am I *WRONG* in assuming, if you say someone is not right (correct) about something, that they are in fact wrong? Hahah... 




> Why do you care what reasoning I have when I've already reduced and deduced my beliefs down to a simple word. You either admit you will not argue with a gun, or say that you will (and I'll have to see it). Why does it matter whether you had more education and knowledge and how much you agree with it using your superior brain?
> 
> If you don't respect might, I'll be happy to see how much might you challenge day to day. I'll be happy to honor you as a man who argued with a gun, those are heroes in history, people who believed in values over violence.


Why does knowledge and education matter? _*face palm* _  Congratulations, probably the dumbest question I've ever been asked. Not exactly out of character for someone who doesn't want a free society though, is it? You don't want human progress. You don't want civilization. Nothing is stopping you from going to Africa, and living your dream mate. Go join a tribe; TAKE GUNS to a village in the amazon... BECOME EVERYTHING YOU WANT, rape women at the barrel of a gun, you're "RIGHT" cus you've got the MIGHT?  Slaughter as many people as you wish. There will be no-one to stop you... think of it, your DREAM COME TRUE!!! You'd be SO happy! You could do what you want! Nothing is not virtuous because it's subjective, yeaaah thats RIGHT!!11122!!1 You get happiness of cutting the throats of young children! It's not WRONG, it's RIGHT cus of teh MIGHT!!111

In regards to your willingness to honor me; I'll say this:

*"The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society."* – Mark Skousen


*"The state is a force incarnate. Worse, it is the silly parading of force. It never seeks to prevail by persuasion. Whenever it thrusts its finger into anything it does so in the most unfriendly way. Its essence is command and compulsion."* – Michael Bakunin 


*"In a republican nation whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance."* – Thomas Jefferson, 1824

^ That's why knowledge & education matter, you dolt.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Can you tell me... what the opposite of _"right" (correct)_ is?  Am I *WRONG* in assuming, if you say someone is not right (correct) about something, that they are in fact wrong? Hahah...


Well, this is  the dichotomy that Creationists and fundamentalists want you to think in.

The fact is, for every RIGHT answer, there can be SEVERAL WRONG ONES. 

So if I don't agree with what one person says, does not mean I think completely opposite to what he says or that I think he's completely wrong.

----------


## Josh_LA

> *"The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society."*  Mark Skousen
> 
> :



*I totally agree.*

If we can convince people to be slaves, why should we use force? 
If we can convince blacks to be happy being chained and lynched, why should we need to lock the chains?

That's what I've been saying the whole time, *WHAT IF* we can't convince people to be moral? Wouldn't we still resort to violence at a worst case?

----------


## Josh_LA

> "You can call me ignorant , hypocrite and retarded all you want, as you can see, it doesn't bother me (why should it? you have no force on me!). I'm happy being what I am and saying what I say" - Josh_ LA
> 
> Thee above is completely thee opposite of what you said days ago *see below*, for in thee above, you describing your 'natural right' on earth. By 'force', did you mean 'Might' by any chance? Whereas, another day, you say thee exact opposite...
> 
> "If you don't have to recognize laws that you disagree with, why should I recognize your natural law rights or DoI if I don't agree with it?" - Josh_LA
> 
> 
> PS- Where is your argument? Who are you arguing? If this MIGHT MAKES RIGHT is some breakthrough in governance, then I suggest a SERIOUS edit. No offence. Step away from the keyboard, PLEASE!


Not at all. I don't believe in natural rights, I believe in force. Yes, by might I mean violence and lack of civility in some cases. I am still happy being me, as long as I can be.

----------


## Josh_LA

> That fact that you don't consider it worthy of your consideration - is so $#@!en retarded, it is outstanding. You're on your way to the ignore list imo. Just for the fundamental fact, you wish to remain, through your actions in ignorance. You don't WANT  to know; that the Dictators aren't happy - and they NEVER will be. Because Jefferson is RIGHT, ARISTOTLE IS RIGHT, RON PAUL IS RIGHT...
> 
> And you & your flawed position are *WRONG.*
> 
> Btw, thank you for admitting you are ignorant of the differences between pleasure  & happiness, and for verifying my CORRECT assertion that you hadn't actually read Aristotles work; Ethics.* I SUGGEST YOU DO.* He pwns you're ideology to the CORE. And I really think; it'd wake you up.  Don't at your own peril.
> 
> That's right, I don't respect it. 
> :


You don't need to ignore list me, because we've come to an agreement (or understanding). You've admitted you can't argue with either ignorance or violence. Which means for both of us, we either have to convince the masses of sheeple to become moral, civil and respectful to our Constitution, or we need to fight them by any means necessary.

Remember, that our founding fathers, as smart as they were, could NOT convince the King or many English civilians they were right. They had to kill people to get their message across. History is written by the victors, it's only because the won the war were they able to freely speak their voice. It's only because they, those in power agreed with each other that their message was allowed to survive (and why in communist countries it's the exact opposite).

*One  thing that's always true in history, and nature is that might makes right. No matter who's wrong on other standards.* Communist revolution or industrial revolution, fight for independence or diamonds, ethnic cleansing or religious differences, nothing matters until one side wins. *You can say one thing about every war, the winner won (tautology).*

----------


## Josh_LA

> Because Jefferson is RIGHT, ARISTOTLE IS RIGHT, RON PAUL IS RIGHT...


Yes, and quoting these 3 great men has nothing to say about why slavery is wrong. Ron Paul lives in modern time, otherwise he'd have opposed the civil war (even if it wasn't about slavery). Aristotle and Jefferson had no problem whipping blacks no matter what they believed about equality, civility and freedom.

You certainly haven't told me why blacks should be treated like people if we've gotten away with it for so long (and changed it via violence), even after we have beautiful words in our DoI about it.

----------


## Conza88

> Wrong.
> 
> First of all, class is a Marxist term, dividing people based on wealth as if it's something that matters. An us and them mentality that introduces hatred among people who can happily work together.
> 
> Secondly, having a class in control (by control I assume it means directly letting them make decisions, rather than being just participants) is no different than democratic socialism.
> 
> Thirdly, are you saying that it's a good thing to have more of the middle, mediocracy?
> 
> Fourthly, there's no protective system that protects the "others" from being eliminated (even if it means murder). 
> ...


First of all, class is NOT a marxist term. There are classes in a Capitalist system, you tool. Except anyone is FREE to move between, SOCIAL MOBILITY. Marx attacked Mercantilism; which has a CASTE system - there is NO mobility. 

The sheer retardedness of socialists & marxists or their god damn ignorant complaints is that; they can go take a loan out from the bank - and become a producer; an owner of production - a bourgeois. Lmfao... 

Secondly, _"The middle class, in colloquial usage, consists of those people who have a degree of economic independence, but not a great deal of social influence or power. The term often encompasses businessmen and professionals, some farmers and skilled workers."_ I was appraising in an anarcho-capitalist system, there wouldn't be any welfare, societies leaches and parasites would diminish. They'd be incentives to work; no easy hand outs. Private charities of course for the disabled, misfortune... Insurance companies aswell though etc. The middle class would be greater than all others, even though it's rather collectivist - there would be MORE INDIVIDUALS owning, and working the means of production, than ever before. 

Thirdly, no I'm not. I'm referring to it in a anarcho-CAPITALIST context. Means of control, of production. MORE capitalism, laissre faire - i.e better political community.  TOTAL Human action; FREE MARKET: tell me, what's mediocre about that?  I didn't think you liked civilization though, or a free society? 

Fourthly, the wilful ignorance remains. We've already addressed this you douchebag. Why do I need to repeat myself?
_For A New Liberty - Murray Rothbard._
*12: The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts* 
Fifthly, _*facepalm*_... god $#@!en damnit you're an idiot. Must have been dropped on your head several times as a child? Were you're failure to understand or comprehend, Mr. Libertine; comes from I believe - you're inability to distinguish between basic contexts. I haven't been arguing that _"no system is held together without either agreement or violence and force."_   The statement is correct, you $#@!en fool. What I've been ARGUING: is that your use of force / violence is WRONG; i.e IMMORAL, EVIL etc. It is not RIGHT (correct) thing to do. 

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. *Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."*
* Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas* 

So please go ahead and refute what THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID. You have STILL NOT SHOWN WHY THEY ARE WRONG. Please refute Ron Paul; Aristotle; Jefferson & all the others quoted. Thank you.

----------


## Conza88

> "You can call me ignorant , hypocrite and retarded all you want, as you can see, it doesn't bother me (why should it? you have no force on me!). I'm happy being what I am and saying what I say" - Josh_ LA
> 
> Thee above is completely thee opposite of what you said days ago *see below*, for in thee above, you describing your 'natural right' on earth. By 'force', did you mean 'Might' by any chance? Whereas, another day, you say thee exact opposite...
> 
> "If you don't have to recognize laws that you disagree with, why should I recognize your natural law rights or DoI if I don't agree with it?" - Josh_LA
> 
> PS- Where is your argument? Who are you arguing? If this MIGHT MAKES RIGHT is some breakthrough in governance, then I suggest a SERIOUS edit. No offence. Step away from the keyboard, PLEASE!


Hahaha.... look he has no valid argument or position. He makes it up as he goes along. He's a deeply flawed individual, who twists what he previously said in the past - so that in the present, he is able in his own mind - to believe he holds some kind of coherent position on things. He fails miserably. I think it's worth my consideration, to stop propping up his lunacy with responses. A troll of ignorance. I really don't know why I bothered with him for so long. He's admitted to trying to piss me off anyway; and the best way to do that - is be wilfully ignorant, which he's admitted countless times here.

*IGNORE LISTED.* Until there is a valid reason I should continue arguing with someone who makes up his stance; twists what he has said in the past - in an attempt to re-write his position; so that AFTER it's been refuted; SHOWN to be completely retarded / bogus; he simply declares; he never said that, or meant it. When it's so damn obvious, he did.

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”_ ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn_



“Do not conquer the world with force, for force only causes resistance. Thorns spring up when an army passes. Years of misery follow a great victory. Do only what needs to be done without using violence.” _~ Tao Te Ching_

----------


## Josh_LA

> I haven't been arguing that _"no system is held together without either agreement or violence and force."_   The statement is correct, you $#@!en fool. What I've been ARGUING: is that your use of force / violence is WRONG; i.e IMMORAL, EVIL etc. It is not RIGHT (correct) thing to do.


Ok, then we're done. We agree.

No need for us to argue what's evil, wrong immoral then, but if it makes you feel better, tell yourself that I'm wrong.

----------


## Josh_LA

> First of all, class is NOT a marxist term. There are classes in a Capitalist system, you tool. Except anyone is FREE to move between, SOCIAL MOBILITY. Marx attacked Mercantilism; which has a CASTE system - there is NO mobility. 
> 
> The sheer retardedness of socialists & marxists or their god damn ignorant complaints is that; they can go take a loan out from the bank - and become a producer; an owner of production - a bourgeois. Lmfao... 
> 
> 
> So please go ahead and refute what THESE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID. You have STILL NOT SHOWN WHY THEY ARE WRONG. Please refute Ron Paul; Aristotle; Jefferson & all the others quoted. Thank you.


So basically, exploit or be exploited. Kill or be killed, in either capitalist or communist system.

I don't need to refute what these great men said, I agree with them mostly. But even agreeing with good ideas is not good enough when I have a gun to my head. You're making me repeat myself!

----------


## Josh_LA

> Thirdly, no I'm not. I'm referring to it in a anarcho-CAPITALIST context. Means of control, of production. MORE capitalism, laissre faire - i.e better political community.  TOTAL Human action; FREE MARKET: tell me, what's mediocre about that?  I didn't think you liked civilization though, or a free society?


If that's what you mean, there shouldn't be any labels (or better yet, labels have no meaning) , it's just people. Doctors or laborers, teachers or consumers, they're just people, people who trade, people with greed, people who eat. 

This does not necessarily mean total human action, even the best motivations cannot move some (and it's not a bad thing). Not all societies benefit from capitalism, but all societies benefit from consensus, respect and order. DOn't get me wrong, I'm not against capitalism, nor am I for order.

Also, freedom is useless if people are not smart and educated enough to utilize it. Africans are free to sail on a boat , come to America, learn English, pretend to be African Americans that suffered from slavery and assimilate. What's stopping them? Our rejection, their oppression, their ignorance of existing opportunities.

----------


## Conza88

View image file name.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> So you believe people can only be allowed to roam within their own home, and an inch outside of it warrants toll and fee?
> 
> Let's start building some prison cells!


Ok... You can't just "claim" the whole world as your own and not let anyone venture outside of a few square feet, as the rest of the population would not allow that, seeing as how that infringes on THEIR rights.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> I believe in socialized public transportation on a community level, strongly.
> 
> Schools, I think we should encourage more private schools too. I wouldn't make public schools abolished.
> 
> Not all public schools are bad. I think parents and teachers should control the schools, not beaurocrats.


If that happened it would no longer be a public school.  As long as there is government they won't allow themselves to lose control of your children.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> Well, I do agree that people who don't have kids or send kids to public schools shouldn't pay into it.


If that were the case public schools would die out and no longer be used, since nobody would pay to put their children in a public school.

----------


## LibertiORDeth

> It would still be less cost if we had an efficient government since the government wouldn't be out to make a profit, whereas private interests are. You are paying maintenance and construction with the government, whereas you are paying that plus the owner's profit with it private.


Very very inneficient maintenance and construction, I might add.  Without the ability to profit there is no reason to do things efficiently or cut costs.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Ok... You can't just "claim" the whole world as your own and not let anyone venture outside of a few square feet, as the rest of the population would not allow that, seeing as how that infringes on THEIR rights.


exactly, therefore, might makes right.

----------


## Conza88

Josh; go watch Scarface.

Your reality in action. Enjoy.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Ok, then we're done. We agree.
> 
> No need for us to argue what's evil, wrong immoral then, but if it makes you feel better, tell yourself that I'm wrong.


Hey, I wouldn't talk if I were you, aren't you voting for a homphobe?

----------


## Conza88

LOL @ _"we agree"_.

The retardedness continues. You've been forever using the wrong context; you were* wrong.*

That we can agree on.

Tell me, are criminals happy people Josh? We'll assume they haven't been caught or punished by the state; someone with more "right" 

Their current situation resembles what you want, and wish / long for...

Do you think criminals are enlightened people josh? Do you think they are happy? A yes; or no answer is what I'm looking for. Are you brave / stupid enough to give it?

----------


## Josh_LA

> LOL @ _"we agree"_.
> 
> The retardedness continues. You've been forever using the wrong context; you were* wrong.*
> 
> That we can agree on.
> 
> Tell me, are criminals happy people Josh? We'll assume they haven't been caught or punished by the state; someone with more "right" 
> 
> Their current situation resembles what you want, and wish / long for...
> ...


Whether criminals are happy is neither in my knowledge nor in my concern. I am concerned about my own happiness (because I'm a selfish $#@!). But I would hope anybody who does something is due to their will and makes them happy.

There are smart criminals and stupid ones, there are happy ones and unhappy ones. Not all criminals are happy just like not all law abiding citizens are happy.  *Who are we to say a person can't be suicidal or masochistically happy about something you'd die than to do?*

A person isn't happy or unhappy directly because he abides the law.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Hey, I wouldn't talk if I were you, aren't you voting for a homphobe?


If you're talking about Chuck Baldwin, he's not on CA ballot, so I'm probably voting Barr. But not only am I willing to vote for a homophobe, I'm willing to vote for a murderer, child molester or rapist, as long as a candidate is honest and 3rd party, I will vote for him. Unless somebody in the 2 parties has policies and history I agree with 90%.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh; go watch Scarface.
> 
> Your reality in action. Enjoy.


There are better movies than that, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Boondock Saints.

----------


## Josh_LA

> View image file name.


ignore, then reply, whatever makes you happy dude.

----------


## Conza88

> Whether criminals are happy is neither in my knowledge nor in my concern. I am concerned about my own happiness (because I'm a selfish $#@!). But I would hope anybody who does something is due to their will and makes them happy.
> 
> There are smart criminals and stupid ones, there are happy ones and unhappy ones. Not all criminals are happy just like not all law abiding citizens are happy.  Who are we to say a person can't be suicidal or masochistically happy about something you'd die than to do?
> 
> A person isn't happy or unhappy directly because he abides the law.


Just as I expected mate. A non-answer. A simple question; with a simple answer. You ARE pathetic. What a $#@!en joke you are. The fact that you're too stupid to see that the answer to the question I asked; is DIRECTLY related to your ENTIRE philosophy. IT IS A DESCRIPTION; OF THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS YOU WISH TO PERMIT.

We're talking about if someone abides by virtue or not, I'm not talking criminal if they break what is "the law - i.e bull$#@! socialist policies" you retard. I'm talking natural law, or what would be considered virtuous.

If you indiscriminately kill or take someone elses life, for no reason at all. You think that criminal is a happy person overall? You say MIGHT is RIGHT and that they would be, they have no restrictions; yet you fail to follow through to it's logical conclusion. You want happiness in life, but your little pipe dream goes directly against obtaining it.

Again; you fail miserably. Your contention is they would be happy; BUT YOU'VE ADMITTED - you don't understand the difference between pleasure & happiness. Something you really do need to enlighten yourself upon. Again...

*“The order of nature is that individual happiness shall be inseparable from the practice of virtue.”* _~ Thomas Jefferson_

Now go look up what you've quoted Aristotle as saying virtue is, and what you said you agreed with. Thing is; you haven't actually read the book, and I HAVE. You don't know what you're talking about. And it's all rather sad... your entire basis of virtue and what you contend as the goal of life; the attention of happiness, your conception of it is flawed and thus YOU are too.




> There are better movies than that, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Boondock Saints.


You remind me of a Keynesian economist. All you do is look at the effects of one area on the economy, and not the WHOLE. Which is exactly what needs to be done. The MORAL of the story mate, completely different than Scarface. Get a grip.  No wonder you didn't like Scarface, ahahaha!!  Your actions/philosophy displayed in it's TRUE light. And the truth hurts aye. 




> ignore, then reply, whatever makes you happy dude.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Just as I expected mate. A non-answer. A simple question; with a simple answer. You ARE pathetic. What a $#@!en joke you are. The fact that you're too stupid to see that the answer to the question I asked; is DIRECTLY related to your ENTIRE philosophy. IT IS A DESCRIPTION; OF THE RESULT OF THE ACTIONS YOU WISH TO PERMIT.


So you believe that ALL CRIMINALS ARE UNHAPPY and ALL LAW ABIDERS ARE HAPPY?

If you do, how is that you're a deeper thinker? How about considering other factors as to whether a person is happy or unhappy?

----------


## Josh_LA

> You remind me of a Keynesian economist. All you do is look at the effects of one area on the economy, and not the WHOLE. Which is exactly what needs to be done. The MORAL of the story mate, completely different than Scarface. Get a grip.  No wonder you didn't like Scarface, ahahaha!!  Your actions/philosophy displayed in it's TRUE light. And the truth hurts aye.


Yes, I'm a selfish $#@! that only looks at one part of the picture. Looking at the whole and caring for others is *SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST.*

----------


## Josh_LA

> If you indiscriminately kill or take someone elses life, for no reason at all. You think that criminal is a happy person overall? You say MIGHT is RIGHT and that they would be, they have no restrictions; yet you fail to follow through to it's logical conclusion. You want happiness in life, but your little pipe dream goes directly against obtaining it.


No, it's retarded to do anything for no reason, you should only do what makes sense to you, what makes you happy, and what you're willing to take responsibility for.

Not all criminals kill for pleasure, some kill for other motives, and many have thought through what they're willing to pay if they are caught or fail. Since I've thought through, and know that I'm not willing to be punished for murdering certain people, I've decided murdering some people is wrong. Sure, I might disagree with WHY its wrong, but I'm forced to obey the rules.

----------


## Josh_LA

> happiness, your conception of it is flawed and thus YOU are too.


Yes, I am flawed, and damn proud of it. Are you perfect?

----------


## Conza88

> So you believe that ALL CRIMINALS ARE UNHAPPY and ALL LAW ABIDERS ARE HAPPY?
> 
> If you do, how is that you're a deeper thinker? How about considering other factors as to whether a person is happy or unhappy?


Now how is it you would define "LAW Abiders". Are you talking about what the Law SHOULD be, or what it is. Have you read The Law by Frederic Bastiat?  I've already said it; Natural Law mate. Yet you wish to relinquish back into whatever the government says, must be deemed as lawful & "just" 

A system that is built devoid of natural law will inevitably fail. The nature of history is crystal clear. Those that follow it are MORE likely to be happy than those who do not. Those that BREAK it; and continue on the same path - will INEVITABLY FAIL in their pursuit of happiness aswell. 




> Yes, I'm a selfish $#@! that only looks at one part of the picture. Looking at the whole and caring for others is *SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST.*



*"The economist must never be a specialist. In dealing with any problem he must always fix his glance upon the whole system."* _~ Austrian Economics: An Anthology, p. 157_

"The market steers the capitalistic economy. It directs each individuals activities into those channels in which he best serves the wants of his fellow-men. The market alone puts the *whole* social system of private ownership of the means of production and free enterprise in order and provides it with sense and meaning."_ ~ Planning for Freedom, p. 72
_

"A work of art is an attempt to experience the universe as a *whole.* One cannot analyze or dissect it into parts and comment on it without destroying its intrinsic character." _~ Epistemological Problems of Economics, p. 136_

Sorry, where you trying to say something?  All from Ludwig Von Mises. Can you tell me what his opinion on Socialism was?  He has in fact written the greatest critique of it ever written. 




> No, it's retarded to do anything for no reason, you should only do what makes sense to you, what makes you happy, and what you're willing to take responsibility for.
> 
> Not all criminals kill for pleasure, some kill for other motives, and many have thought through what they're willing to pay if they are caught or fail. Since I've thought through, and know that I'm not willing to be punished for murdering certain people, I've decided murdering some people is wrong. Sure, I might disagree with WHY its wrong, but I'm forced to obey the rules.


It's wrong? LOL what made you come to that conclusion?  Please enlighten me.




> Yes, I am flawed, and damn proud of it. Are you perfect?


Am I closer to perfection than you are? By leagues mate, leagues.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Now how is it you would define "LAW Abiders". Are you talking about what the Law SHOULD be, or what it is. Have you read The Law by Frederic Bastiat?  I've already said it; Natural Law mate. Yet you wish to relinquish back into whatever the government says, must be deemed as lawful & "just"


Ok, so basically, this is not a question, it's tautology. By your definition a criminal is a person make violates his own principles of happiness and thus is unhappy, sound accurate? If that is so, than no, criminals are not happy. But by that definition, Hitler, slaveowners, Marx, and Stalin are not criminals. They abide by the law of nature, survival of fittest and might makes right. I certainly DON'T consider everything the government says lawful and just.

----------


## The_Orlonater

[QUOTE=Conza88;1738285]We're talking about if someone abides by virtue or not, I'm not talking criminal if they break what is "the law - i.e bull$#@! socialist policies" you retard. I'm talking natural law, or what would be considered virtuous.

If you indiscriminately kill or take someone elses life, for no reason at all. You think that criminal is a happy person overall? You say MIGHT is RIGHT and that they would be, they have no restrictions; yet you fail to follow through to it's logical conclusion. You want happiness in life, but your little pipe dream goes directly against obtaining it.[QUOTE]

Not really taking a side here, but.

Murders are diverse, they kill for many different reasons. You really shouldn't blame it  only unhappiness. Murders can have mental problems due to various reasons, could be an organized murder, for about a gang scenario, and so on.

Anyway, what are you guys arguing here?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Anyway, what are you guys arguing here?


He's arguing that I have to agree with him or I'm a retard. That it's not OK for people to believe might makes right and there's no way a person can defend it. He puts everything into black and white, and can't even answer to me why slavery against blacks is wrong when neither Jefferson nor Aristotle spoke out against it.

----------


## Conza88

> Ok, so basically, this is not a question, it's tautology. By your definition a criminal is a person make violates his own principles of happiness and thus is unhappy, sound accurate? If that is so, than no, criminals are not happy. But by that definition, Hitler, slaveowners, Marx, and Stalin are not criminals. They abide by the law of nature, survival of fittest and might makes right. I certainly DON'T consider everything the government says lawful and just.


A criminal is someone who violates property rights + the non aggression axiom, when he uses violence that is not legitimate. Just as Ron Paul has said.  In the defense of your own person & property.  By that definition criminals are not happy because they continue with the vices, and not virtue. Happiness is linked to the habit of virtue. By that definition Hitler, Slave owners, and Stalin were criminals. Their direct actions destroyed the life, liberty & property / pursuit of happiness for countless people. You say "the law of nature" Hahah... yeah = NATURAL LAW.  You still don't even know what it means. 

Ignorance is bliss some what, i.e for slave owners who didn't think what they were doing was bad / immoral... owning another human being against their will though; lol... good luck justifying that.  The fact is they are breaking the non-aggression axiom & property rights...  

Ummmm orlanter I wasn't blaming it on unhappiness... I was saying the person who is committing such an act is obviously an unhappy person, and if not - will be after the killing if they have any kind of conscience. A happy joyous killer [remembering the differentiation between pleasure] I am yet to see. Obviously there are differing motives.




> He's arguing that I have to agree with him or I'm a retard. That it's not OK for people to believe might makes right and there's no way a person can defend it. He puts everything into black and white, and can't even answer to me why slavery against blacks is wrong when neither Jefferson nor Aristotle spoke out against it.


 I'm arguing Might does not make things right (i.e CORRECT / Morally permissible)... Josh is arguing he would kill anyone he wants to if it wasn't for the government and fear of reprisal. Josh is arguing for anarchy with no property rights, he is arguing for the continued violation of the non-aggression axiom... he is arguing for a dystopia on earth. He does not want a free society. He doesn't want civilization...

He says Ron Paul is wrong. 

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."* Congressman Ron Paul, (R) Texas* 

Josh... HAS RON PAUL SPOKEN OUT ABOUT IT? Slavery that is? Yeah he has mate.... Go re-watch meet the press. You're an idiot, you bet.  You want tyranny.. I want liberty. You fail.

----------


## Josh_LA

> A criminal is someone who violates property rights + the non aggression axiom, when he uses violence that is not legitimate. Just as Ron Paul has said.  )


Ok, but it's not that I don't believe in property rights, I just don't think it's an inherent natural right or natural law. I believe it can and should be achieved by might, as it's always been. Even working and earning is MIGHT (inheritting and giving gifts is not).

----------


## Josh_LA

> rights, he is arguing for the continued violation of the non-aggression axiom... he is arguing for a dystopia on earth. He does not want a free society. He doesn't want civilization...
> 
> He says Ron Paul is wrong.


*YOU ARE THE STRAWMANNER now.*

I'm not arguing for a dystopia, I'm arguing for a utopia, where people can be nice to each other and violence is never necessary (but its always an option). I want a society free and respectful, where people recognize property without needing to enforce it with force (but will use it if necessary). I do want civilization, and I don't think Ron Paul is wrong, even though I won't be surprised if him and I disagree on some things.

----------


## Josh_LA

> Josh... HAS RON PAUL SPOKEN OUT ABOUT IT? Slavery that is? Yeah he has mate.... Go re-watch meet the press. You're an idiot, you bet.  You want tyranny.. I want liberty. You fail.


Did he say he'd be for ending slavery by means of violence? If so, how is that respectful to property rights? How can we respect a person's right to own a house and a farm, but not a slave he worked hard to earn and needs to feed to maintain?

----------


## Josh_LA

> Ignorance is bliss some what, i.e for slave owners who didn't think what they were doing was bad / immoral... owning another human being against their will though; lol... good luck justifying that.  The fact is they are breaking the non-aggression axiom & property rights...


How exactly would you explain slaves have rights to life and liberty (naturally), when it wasn't recognized for so long? *If it was natural or factual, only fools would deny it, such as gravity, might makes right, jumping in water makes you wet.* 

Owning and whipping slaves can only be wrong if we care for slaves and see them as humans, but there's nothing in nature that says we have to. There's nothing in nature that says if you kill slaves and treat them like animals the agony will come back to you. 

*Property rights? Interesting, slaves are property! You who does not recognize the right to own slaves is against property rights.*

----------


## Conza88

> Ok, but it's not that I don't believe in property rights, I just don't think it's an inherent natural right or natural law. I believe it can and should be achieved by might, as it's always been. Even working and earning is MIGHT (inheritting and giving gifts is not).


http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf - Self ownership. You own yourself, and your property. That is inherent. You own yourself. You have a right to do what you want with your body, your property. Fail, per usual.  Working - the use of your labour; it is YOUR PROPERTY. Thus the income tax is immoral etc. You fail again.




> *YOU ARE THE STRAWMANNER now.*
> 
> I'm not arguing for a dystopia, I'm arguing for a utopia, where people can be nice to each other and violence is never necessary (but its always an option). *I want a society free* and respectful, where people recognize property without needing to enforce it with force (but will use it if necessary). I do want civilization, and *I don't think Ron Paul is wrong*, even though I won't be surprised if him and I disagree on some things.


You THINK you're arguing for utopia... I said, and shown it will be a DYSTOPIA. Ohh look at all those nice little clauses you tried to insert there, all BUT clauses mate. R Anyone who reads this thread will see it all in crystal clear high definition what you want. I'll let them decide. 

Strawman? What the f--- did you just say?  lmao...




> Neither Jefferson nor [Ron] Paul are right about everything.





> Ron Paul is not God, nor do I agree with him on everything. 
> 
> I don't believe in a free society either, respecting society is for socialists!


Everything you've said you now stand for; is practically a complete 180 on everything you've argued for in this thread. If anything, you're trying to now hide it. That much is evident. Hey at least you've progressed some what. 




> I follow the law by fear of community and government power. Otherwise I have no problem killing, robbing or vandalizing.


Still stand by this gem? 




> Did he say he'd be for ending slavery by means of violence? If so, how is that respectful to property rights? How can we respect a person's right to own a house and a farm, but not a slave he worked hard to earn and needs to feed to maintain?


He DIDN'T actually... which is the beauty of Ron Paul. 

_From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
On Meet the Press this morning, Paul called the American Civil War a mistake, criticized Ronald Reagan as a "failure," and refused to rule out a third party run.

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."_ - http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...23/532376.aspx

*Ron Paul and the Economics of Slavery by Bob Murphy* - Read it & learn Josh... that's all I can hope for. But you won't... you never do. Your answer is embedded in there asshat. 





> How exactly would you explain slaves have rights to life and liberty (naturally), when it wasn't recognized for so long? *If it was natural or factual, only fools would deny it, such as gravity, might makes right, jumping in water makes you wet.* 
> 
> Owning and whipping slaves can only be wrong if we care for slaves and see them as humans, but there's nothing in nature that says we have to. There's nothing in nature that says if you kill slaves and treat them like animals the agony will come back to you. 
> 
> *Property rights? Interesting, slaves are property! You who does not recognize the right to own slaves is against property rights.*


Self ownership you fcken moron. You don't have a right to anyone elses body, their property - unless they voluntary. Coercion of such, is breaking natural law. Also libertarian principles; non aggression axiom + property rights...

You are so completely devoid of knowledge, and so completely abundant with ignorance... that is pains me to continue this discussion. You HAVEN'T LEARNT ONE fcken thing. You persist against truth at all costs. 

*sigh*

----------


## JoshLowry

locked at request of thread started.

make a new thread!

----------

