Are you for open borders?

[Met Income]

You don't know that anyone would ever voluntarily contract for indentured servitude? Have you ever read any history outside of the government approved school texts?

Tell that to Old Ben Franklin and the millions of others who voluntarily entered into indentured servitude. Sheesh!

You're missing the point. People are free to become indentured servants, if they CHOOSE to be. I do not choose to be one and yet I am.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

You're missing the point. People are free to become indentured servants, if they CHOOSE to be. I do not choose to be one and yet I am.

Then move somewhere where you will not be. No one is forcing you to live under the State.

 

[Met Income]

Then move somewhere where you will not be. No one is forcing you to live under the State.

So I can move to another farm where I'm a slave? Also, if I leave I need a passport. Who issues those?

Why can't I be free right here and now? I didn't agree to this unilateral social contract, therefore, I should not have to abide by the terms.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

So I can move to another farm where I'm a slave? Also, if I leave I need a passport. Who issues those?

Why can't I be free right here and now? I didn't agree to this unilateral social contract, therefore, I should not have to abide by the terms.

You've made an implicit choice, preferring the comforts of civilization to the state of nature, which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

 

[South Park Fan]

You've made an implicit choice, preferring the comforts of civilization to the state of nature, which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

This wrongfully assumes that the state is responsible for civilization and the source of our rights, which is pure nonsense. To the contrary, it was only because of the prior advance toward civilization that it was even possible for thugs to form states.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

This wrongfully assumes that the state is responsible for civilization and the source of our rights, which is pure nonsense. To the contrary, it was only because of the prior advance toward civilization that it was even possible for thugs to form states.

Strawman. Tell me where I said the State is responsible for civilization and the source of our rights.

 

[Agorism]

Who cares if people are working illegally. I don't think the Federal Government should regulate who you hire or hiring in general.

But I think Ron Paul was right to oppose the Reagan and Bush amnesties.

 

[South Park Fan]

Strawman. Tell me where I said the State is responsible for civilization and the source of our rights.

How else can you justify the state by saying that people make an "implicit choice" in its favor by living in civilization? If I go to the 7/11 and I happen to get mugged when I'm at the store, did I make an "implicit choice" to get mugged because I chose to go to the 7/11? Of course not.

 

[Agorism]

The Federal Government should not exist. So long as we get rid of it, then we don't have to worry about it regulating employment or national I.D. cards.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

How else can you justify the state by saying that people make an "implicit choice" in its favor by living in civilization?

I said the following: "You've made an implicit choice, preferring the comforts of civilization to the state of nature"

I associated civilization with comfort, provided by rule of law, technological innovation, and economic order. I didn't say that the State creates civilization. But you most certainly find civilization and States together, and not apart.

Civilizations invariably create governments to propagate order. The State is justified by the order it provides to civilization. Otherwise, civilizations would rise and crumble after a few decades. Rather than live purely free but in constant danger of being killed, raped, or robbed, we cede some of our liberties to the State.

Or, you may choose not to cede your complete sovereignty to the State. In which case, you can strike out on some godforsaken island in the pacific by yourself. I don't really care. If that gives you satisfaction...so be it.

If I go to the 7/11 and I happen to get mugged when I'm at the store, did I make an "implicit choice" to get mugged because I chose to go to the 7/11? Of course not.

You took the risk by going to the 7/11. The risk would be much more severe if you had to go out on the savannah and kill a zebra, slaughter it and cook it over the campfire. So, you made a calculation - cede some liberties so I might buy a hot dog for $1.50, or have full liberty and live in a state of nature, killing animals myself.

There are no $1.50 hot dogs in the state of nature.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I said the following: "You've made an implicit choice, preferring the comforts of civilization to the state of nature"

I associated civilization with comfort, provided by rule of law, technological innovation, and economic order. I didn't say that the State creates civilization. But you most certainly find civilization and States together, and not apart.

Civilizations invariably create governments to propagate order. The State is justified by the order it provides to civilization. Otherwise, civilizations would rise and crumble after a few decades. Rather than live purely free but in constant danger of being killed, raped, or robbed, we cede some of our liberties to the State.

Or, you may choose not to cede your complete sovereignty to the State. In which case, you can strike out on some godforsaken island in the pacific by yourself. I don't really care. If that gives you satisfaction...so be it.



You took the risk by going to the 7/11. The risk would be much more severe if you had to go out on the savannah and kill a zebra, slaughter it and cook it over the campfire. So, you made a calculation - cede some liberties so I might buy a hot dog for $1.50, or have full liberty and live in a state of nature, killing animals myself.

There are no $1.50 hot dogs in the state of nature.

How do you explain Celtic Ireland? What about Medieval Iceland? What about the Old West?

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

How do you explain Celtic Ireland? What about Medieval Iceland? What about the Old West?

Are you holding those out as great civilizations?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Are you holding those out as great civilizations?

You said:

But you most certainly find civilization and States together, and not apart.

Yes, I hold out Celtic Ireland as a great civilization. They lasted for 1,000 years, fought off the British for 200 years, and were the premier western civilization rivaling that of Britain. Of course, they weren't an Empire, so if your idea of a great civilization is a war mongering behemoth, then no they weren't.

Peruse at your benefit. It is a great book.

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Yes, I hold out Celtic Ireland as a great civilization. They lasted for 1,000 years, fought off the British for 200 years, and were the premier western civilization rivaling that of Britain. Of course, they weren't an Empire, so if your idea of a great civilization is a war mongering behemoth, then no they weren't.

Who is to say that they didn't have rule of law?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Who is to say that they didn't have rule of law?

Of course they had rule of law. It was called the Tuath, and it was wholly voluntary.

Do you believe that Anarcho-Capitalists shun law? On the contrary, we recognize that the most just law, and the most liberty minded law, is one built on voluntary associations. Besides, the Xeer is another good example of a great set of libertarian private property rights based law. They even use restitution for their violations as did the Celts. I don't think you quite understand Anarcho-Capitalism.

Please watch this:

YouTube - A Private Law Society (by Hans Hoppe)

 

[South Park Fan]

I said the following: "You've made an implicit choice, preferring the comforts of civilization to the state of nature"

I associated civilization with comfort, provided by rule of law, technological innovation, and economic order. I didn't say that the State creates civilization. But you most certainly find civilization and States together, and not apart.

Then how do you explain Medieval Ireland, Medieval Iceland, the American Old West, and Colonial Pennsylvania, all of which lacked states for a significant amount of time.

Civilizations invariably create governments to propagate order. The State is justified by the order it provides to civilization. Otherwise, civilizations would rise and crumble after a few decades. Rather than live purely free but in constant danger of being killed, raped, or robbed, we cede some of our liberties to the State.

So that the State can kill us, rape us, and rob us?

Or, you may choose not to cede your complete sovereignty to the State. In which case, you can strike out on some godforsaken island in the pacific by yourself. I don't really care. If that gives you satisfaction...so be it.

You missed the point. If you want to have the state's "security", then that's your choice, but you have no right to force that choice onto me, whether I choose to live in "civilization" or "some island". The very fact that I own my property means that I can make my decisions on my property without having to move to some "godforsaken island". The very idea that the state can force me to move if I don't want to be under its jurisdiction is communistic in nature. If I don't like to drink Coca-Cola, should I be forced to move away so that I can drink Pepsi? No, I should have the right to buy Pepsi without surrendering my property to Coca-Cola.

You took the risk by going to the 7/11. The risk would be much more severe if you had to go out on the savannah and kill a zebra, slaughter it and cook it over the campfire. So, you made a calculation - cede some liberties so I might buy a hot dog for $1.50, or have full liberty and live in a state of nature, killing animals myself.

There are no $1.50 hot dogs in the state of nature.

So you are essentially justifying that mugger's actions because I went to the 7/11. Next you will be saying that the mugger is necessary for the 7/11 to exist.

 

[Agorism]

Iceland and Ireland

Medieval Ireland and Medieval Iceland were the greatest civilizations.

The differences is changes in productivity (technology.) Even a crappy and poorly designed economy of today can outperform any well designed one from 50 years ago.

Medieval Ireland had 1000 years of peace. No infighting because no one had a centralized standing army. They had small skirmishes but nothing major, but even inner city los Angeles has those.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Of course they had rule of law. It was called the Tuath, and it was wholly voluntary.

Rule of law is inherently involuntary. Otherwise, there would be no need for it. Every man would simply do the right thing every time.

Because men are not angels, we are required to enforce laws on them to inhibit their evil nature. They will not voluntarily abide by rule of law - they must be coerced.

Do you believe that Anarcho-Capitalists shun law? On the contrary, we recognize that the most just law, and the most liberty minded law, is one built on voluntary associations. Besides, the Xeer is another good example of a great set of libertarian private property rights based law. They even use restitution for their violations as did the Celts. I don't think you quite understand Anarcho-Capitalism.

Please watch this:

YouTube - A Private Law Society (by Hans Hoppe)

Restitution? How do you force someone to provide restitution? What if he just says "no"?

You're calling it anarchism, but there is no escaping the necessity of the rule of law, enforced by the State. Whether you call the State tribal warlords or suit-wearing politicians.

I wouldn't mind living in a voluntary society if I voluntarily choose to pay my parking ticket. I could simply say, "Nope, I'm not paying." And there's no penalty. Any form of penalty is coercion.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Rule of law is inherently involuntary. Otherwise, there would be no need for it. Every man would simply do the right thing every time.

Because men are not angels, we are required to enforce laws on them to inhibit their evil nature. They will not voluntarily abide by rule of law - they must be coerced.



Restitution? How do you force someone to provide restitution? What if he just says "no"?

You're calling it anarchism, but there is no escaping the necessity of the rule of law, enforced by the State. Whether you call the State tribal warlords or suit-wearing politicians.

I wouldn't mind living in a voluntary society if I voluntarily choose to pay my parking ticket. I could simply say, "Nope, I'm not paying." And there's no penalty. Any form of penalty is coercion.

Watch the video please. You still don't understand. I think once you watch the video you may understand what Voluntaryism is all about.

 

[Joseph de Maistre]

Lest you all forget, those systems (however anarchic they were) were conquered by States.

So even if anarchist systems worked in practice, they would still be conquered by States.

Now, you could require that everyone in the world exist in anarchy. But, because some men will inevitably form tribes, and expand on those tribes with technology, then all of the anarchist societies would be doomed from the start.