So a little bit of slavery is good?
What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist - Stephan Kinsella.
You clearly need to learn logic. My approach is working thanks. Just not on you; but that's ok - you're the soundboard, you've been 'chosen' because of your intellectual dishonesty and close mindedness.
Ad hominems' you minarchists are full of them. If you want to have a discussion about strategy, I said in the OP - we can have that discussion......... BUT once again, you've got nothing but bs strawmen. You don't ASK what my position is, YOU ASSUME. And assumptions are the mother of all...
No, are you calling Ron Paul a slave as well? Good for you. It's nice to hear that folks in Australia are throwing down their chains and are on the cusps of peacefully removing "the state". Oh, I am the sound board now huh? You chose me did you? Intellectual dishonesty? Close mindedness? Is that what people are who disagree with you?
No I told you why I entered this thread. I am just about finished accomplishing what I set out to do. There is a stark contrast between your approach and that of the man you decided to hitch your wagon to and promote your ideals and your extreme views. You don't like to be slapped with the label extremist, so I won't call you that, but I will use that word to describe what you are promoting.
If you don't think your ideas are extremist, then you'll have to find a way to describe "the state" in a way that either makes "it" not existent in the present tense (since "the state" is the opposite of voluntarism or anarchy). Otherwise, there are no examples of freedom ever occurring, admit that freedom is an unattainable goal in the sense of totality while the path to freedom is more desirable than the path away from it.
If we cannot have true freedom as long as "the state" exists, then we will have to accept that true freedom will always involve creating an anti-state to defend it. This implies violence in to perpetuity. I don't know too many people who would choose to risk theirs lives for that extra 10% of freedom that you are promising. I do know people who WILL sacrifice their lives to put themselves on the path and to defend that path.
THe only way I can see having 100% freedom as in without a state, would be for a group of people to establish and anti-state for the sole purpose of busting up any monopoly on violence that may try to take root, and of course be successful at it. How this would not in and of itself become "the state" is something that I am still struggling to wrap my mind around. How ever, listening to you tell it, it doesn't matter anyways, because we'd first have to destroy the current "state" before we can have any sort of freedom in which to protect.
Epic failure. Methodological individualism 101. Different individuals bro, do you not understand that?
So you disagree with the definition of the state that I was commenting on? You agree that there is something missing too? Interesting. Am I seeing signs of a Conza that has learned how to find common ground rather than claiming he can fly?
Don't worry newbitech, I know that even though it's been roughly 4-5 years - you still haven't read anything substantial on the subject.
Out of curiosity, what books and writings do you think the people who won their independence from the British Empire used to benefit their victory? Weren't you claiming that Ireland was an example of this voluntarism? I wonder what books and resource they had at their disposal to figure this stuff out. You have no idea what I have and haven't read. I don't want this to come across as sounding like I am attacking you, but do you have any common sense at all, or does your opinion only come from what others have told you it should be? Does it really take years and years of study to figure out what your natural birth rights should be? I think some people have an easier time of breaking their indoctrination than others.
Know what it took for me to "wake up" bro? Took me realizing that I was having more fun watching the wars on TV than playing my video games. I realized there was something sick and wrong with my thinking. This happened way before I met Ron Paul. It took me another 3-4 years AFTER I "woke up" to discover Ron Paul. I wasn't lead here by scholars or philosophers. I was lead here by common friggin sense.
So yeah, I have read up to what my appetite for reading can stomach. You want to keep digging, go ahead, but bro, the "X" is over here.
... was that meant to be an argument? For what exactly? Try write a sentence that has at least some resemblance of coherency.
