Walt Disney World: A Case Study in Anarchy

I see you didn't realize how my last post blew away your hypothesis that anything with "free market" attached to it is good, unless you think rape colonies, torture chambers for children, and schools for ninja-style theft are good things...

In my ideal society, the free market would have nothing to do with the civil punishment of gays. The (limited) government would take care of that through civil litigation.

You can't even attempt to play word games correctly. If you re-read the post you quoted, all that I said was free market anything is the most efficient. I made no claims as to the vastness of what you could plug in, nor the ethics attached to your choices. The statement I made is still true. Yes, free market rape colonies would most certainly be MORE EFFICIENT than government run rape colonies. That is a fact.

Care to belabor the point any longer?
 
I see you didn't realize how my last post blew away your hypothesis that anything with "free market" attached to it is good, unless you think rape colonies, torture chambers for children, and schools for ninja-style theft are good things...

In my ideal society, the free market would have nothing to do with the civil punishment of gays. The (limited) government would take care of that through civil litigation.

As usual, you've got it completely wrong. His hypothesis wasn't that "anything with 'free market' attached to it is good." His point, as I saw it, was simply that the free market is always the best way to accomplish whatever really needs to be accomplished.

Epic fail.
 
If Efficiency is the Standard...

You can't even attempt to play word games correctly. If you re-read the post you quoted, all that I said was free market anything is the most efficient. I made no claims as to the vastness of what you could plug in, nor the ethics attached to your choices. The statement I made is still true. Yes, free market rape colonies would most certainly be MORE EFFICIENT than government run rape colonies. That is a fact.

Care to belabor the point any longer?

Yes, and your assumption is that efficiency is a good end. Otherwise, why compare the efficiency of a free market to that of the civil government?

Of course, there are some things the free market is not more efficient at than a civil government. The punishment of evildoers through justice would be one example of that. A free market, through so-called "private courts," would only make standards of justice arbitrary and dependent on the private court to which a suit or case is heard. It would be like a mafia of sorts. Competition (as in a free market) is not an instrument to be used for measuring the "efficiency" of civil justice.
 
You Take One Card Away...

Did you have something substantive to say or are you just here to disrupt?

Yes, another baseless claim on your behalf, CCT. I'm the one who's contradictory, but you can't even give one example of that. So, it is you who has nothing substantive to say.

I have nothing to disrupt in this thread. Anarchy is itself a disruptive and contradictory system, so I just enjoy blowing away its straw houses.
 
Yes, another baseless claim on your behalf, CCT. I'm the one who's contradictory, but you can't even give one example of that. So, it is you who has nothing substantive to say.


Except for the fact that I HAVE made SEVERAL substantive posts to this thread whereas you have not.

Yet another epic fail.


I have nothing to disrupt in this thread. Anarchy is itself a disruptive and contradictory system, so I just enjoy blowing away its straw houses.


What was that about "baseless claims"? Nevermind, you'll just drag another red herring across the trail anyway.
 
o
In the scenario that you present, I would say the best way to handle it would be to protect the houses that chip in and leave the other houses alone to protect themselves.

What!? Allow people to use their own money to subscribe to the services they want? You crazy Utopian anarchist!! Can you give an example of a neighborhood that has done this! No!! Obviously, we must do what we've always been doing, and send men with guns over to steal their stuff to pay for the services the majority wants!!

It's easy to come up with hypotheticals that are a microcosm of a country that is 300 million strong. I have never once advocated for what our government has turned into since our break from Britain. I am disgusted with what has happened and I've worked hard to try and change it. But because I support the original intent of our founders, somehow that now makes me a bloodthirsty tyrant.

The number of people doesn't matter. I'm glad you oppose what this country has become, and I appreciate your efforts for reform -- which absolutely are making a positive impact. You support, however, the principle of agressive violence, and your excuse for it is the same excuse socialists and neocons use for what they want -- "society" has "decided" and so basic rules for morality no longer apply.

In practice, you are far better than the socialists and neocons, but the basic moral philosophy you espouse is not appreciably different.
 
Last edited:
Do you assume that I am happy with the 16th amendment? I've called for it's repeal in this very thread.

There's taxation other than the 16th amendment. It's right in article 1 section 8. The question still applies to other forms of taxation.
 
What in the hell are you talking about? I've never said I have the right to send thugs to your house. Knock off the strawman analogies and tell me specifically what you're trying to say.

What form of taxation do you support? Sales tax? Tariffs? So, if I buy a bicycle, but I don't send your organization a cut, that's when the thugs visit me with guns, right?
 
I understand that anarchists are against all forms of government

Well, "government" isn't necessarily the problem, depending on your definition of government. An organization which stops those who hurt others, or harm people's property, for example, would be legitimate. The problem is aggressive violence.

and taxation. That is definitely an ideal to strive for but the unfortunate reality is that mankind is nowhere near capable of managing in this way.

Do you think mankind is really incapable of managing without stealing from one another?

What evidence do you have that this system of taxation actually accomplishes anything good? Has not the history of governments, including ours, been filled with abuse, tyranny, and murder? Have not the governments invariably become the greatest abuser of rights, rather than their protector?

Why do you believe those who control government will be more moral than average people?

Do you really think that the most moral society possible is fundamentally based on immoral behavior?
 
Yes, and your assumption is that efficiency is a good end. Otherwise, why compare the efficiency of a free market to that of the civil government?

Of course, there are some things the free market is not more efficient at than a civil government. The punishment of evildoers through justice would be one example of that.
A free market, through so-called "private courts," would only make standards of justice arbitrary and dependent on the private court to which a suit or case is heard. It would be like a mafia of sorts. Competition (as in a free market) is not an instrument to be used for measuring the "efficiency" of civil justice.

That must be why the US regime has to hire mercenaries and continually up the pay/benefits (while debasing the currency) of its regular thugs to fight its wars of conquest. It's sooooo efficient! :rolleyes: Keep dreaming, Theo. You make me laugh. :D
 
Tremendoustie, nothing you've written changes anything I've said. You, like most anarchists, are trying to paint me with a broad brush and accuse me of wanting to steal your property, blada blada blah!

You do support forced taxation, do you not? Precisely what form of taxation do you support?

You, like most others, can't point to one single country that has successfully achieved your brand of freedom in a longlasting manner.

Name one country prior to 1000 that did not include the systematic use of slave labor. There were very, very few even as late as 1700. In fact, people defending slavery made that very point in the U.S. Here's one:

“The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society.”
– pro-slavery apologist William Harper, in 1852

Moral awakenings, by definition, are new. Shouldn't the place where we start really respecting human rights and liberty be the USA -- even if on a small scale in a limited area? Are we going to be the caboose or the engine?

That is because, as I have said all along, all systems, even anarcho-capitalism, minarchy, voluntarianism, etc. rely on the scruples of the people.

This is very true, and a good point.

You are head-butting human nature with your philosophy and all that is going to do is give you a headache. Why? Because humanity hasn't even come close to being able to handle what you propose. You want the baby to run before it can even crawl.

Your recognition of the problems is accurate.

That's why I support gradualism. I fully believe in working to restore the constitution. But, I ultimately recognize that even the constitution violates basic moral rules.

I want to teach the baby to crawl. But the goal of teaching the baby to crawl is that it might one day walk. That is what I want you to recognize. The goal is walking. That's WHY we teach the baby to crawl.

Look around you! We're heading toward global governance and you're browbeating people who aren't on board with your philosophy. I think you anarchists need to get your priorities straight.

You're an ally, no question about it, and liberty is better off because of people like you. I absolutely hope this country returns to the constitution, and a great many more people come around to your position on it. I am sorry if I browbeat. It's hard to tell the truth in a diplomatic way, especially on this issue, and especially since I'm so passionate about it.
 
Last edited:
Free market rape colonies are the most efficient.

Free market torture chambers for children are the most efficient.

Free market schools for ninja-style theft are the most efficient.

My point is just because something is a product of the free market doesn't make it right, either.

Very true. But if something employs aggressive violence, as all these things do, that does make it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and your assumption is that efficiency is a good end. Otherwise, why compare the efficiency of a free market to that of the civil government?

Of course, there are some things the free market is not more efficient at than a civil government. The punishment of evildoers through justice would be one example of that. A free market, through so-called "private courts," would only make standards of justice arbitrary and dependent on the private court to which a suit or case is heard. It would be like a mafia of sorts. Competition (as in a free market) is not an instrument to be used for measuring the "efficiency" of civil justice.

The reason justice exists at all in any court is because the people demand it, correct? That is, the reason theft is illegal is because the overwhelming majority of people want it to be illegal. Does it not follow that these same people would choose protection agencies which defend against theft, and that those protection agencies would choose arbiters who recognize theft as a crime, to resolve disputes between them? The market is simply a more effective way for people to make their will known, than voting. The market happens instantly, with nearly infinite choice, while elections happen every few years, you can't replace the bureaucrats, and options are limited.

If people can force the government courts to dispense justice, they can easily force arbiters dependent on the patronage of individuals and popular protection agencies to do so.
 
Wow. The minarchists are getting logically slaughtered. I had a great night reading through this thread. +1 to the anarchists. +1 indeed.
 
Back
Top