|
On August 30 2010 18:46 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +I said you can only blame yourself. You can't blame "history", or dead people, for who you are, because they're either not rational agents, nor alive, so it's pointless to try. Semantics anyways. Apparently you're more advanced into the BLAME GAME than I am. Fuck yeah, blame your genes! those fucking ...spiral... things...
Again, mankind was raised in the mud. We're not at the point where everyone can have plenty of food, but it doesn't mean that coercion can or even does help at all. Thats not a valid argument. Of course you can blame history, the genes and so on. Because then you can make a society that eliminates the "historical" factors leading to poverty and helps alleviate the genetical.
How do you make a society by blaming dead, irrational, and abstract entities? You mean educate people instead? Whatever then, semantics. I already crowned you the blame king.
|
On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
|
On August 30 2010 18:10 Phrujbaz wrote:
If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
Any protection agency could simply improve its status by agreeing with all other protection agencies on the market and charge an unreasonable prize for its service or simply take whatever its members want. Your use of the terms "profit" and "money" are only meaningful in a stable socio-economic system. Anarchic systems are intrinsically instable, that is why money would not even be necesary.
|
On August 30 2010 18:54 Hasudk wrote:
I would never claim that the current governments or even the capitalist system that we currently live under if able to abolish poverty, even if they wanted to. You need a radically different society in order to abolish poverty, and if its built on capitalism it isn't radically different, its just more of the same. You need a society controlled by the masses instead of the elite, and anarcho-capitalism WOULD be controlled by the elite.
I really disagree in the whole quality of life vs wealth idea. Im not saying that money makes you happy, but thats not the point either. You can make a system were everyone is happy, but if half of the people is happily starving to death its still not a good society. Wealth should be distributed evenly because we all NEED food, clothes and so on.
You can't abolish poverty... To abolish poverty would mean to get an infinite amount of goods. Or at least enough goods that man is satisfied. But we don't know if there's a limit to human satisfaction, and it is reasonable to expect there isn't one. Man can have whole planets, galaxies, universes, and want more.
Quality of life isn't contrasted with wealth... and wealth isn't necessarily money either. Wealth is accumulation of the type of capital you want. It's subjective, but also generally used to mean capital of the type that is commonly desirable. Quality of life is exactly dependent on how much wealth you have, with these definitions.
You say "you need a society x", and that's an ok way to say it. But just to formalize your argument, you mean to say "I desire a society x", and perhaps "I think most would agree with me that society x is desirable". Well. In both of these declarations you express your desire that society would ordain itself as x. And in the second, more stretched version, you expect that people agree with you. But my question is, how is the best way to find out if you're right? Because after all, most people may not want x. They may want y, or z. How do you go about bringing x?
AAnd the answer of course is, you can only know if you were right in the second sentence if you voluntarily let people assemble into x. If you force them, any number of people into x, it is admitting defeat, and breaks the purpose or theory of an ideal society. You're just forcing them, when they have done nothing to you but disagreeing. Well, unless they did do something to you, in which case I support you smacking their face.
But anyway. The elite. Yeah, those evil guys. What did they do to you again? They created capital? Made connections? Sold a ton of stuff, yeah, so? Is that evil? Those evil rich men, sure, they're deeply in bed with government, and for that I don't like them either. But I feel you're discriminating them just because they're rich. What is wrong with being rich, if he has not coerced once in his lifetime? (obviously false lol)
There's nothing bad about being rich. He has't slapped you in the face, he hasn't denied you with anything that you were entitled for. And until you're able to justify that sentiment, I will keep calling that jealousy, superstition, unwarranted discrimination.
|
On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
|
On August 30 2010 19:09 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 18:10 Phrujbaz wrote:
If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
Any protection agency could simply improve its status by agreeing with all other protection agencies on the market and charge an unreasonable prize for its service or simply take whatever its members want. Your use of the terms "profit" and "money" are only meaningful in a stable socio-economic system. Anarchic systems are intrinsically instable, that is why money would not even be necesary.
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
|
It works. Read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David D. Friedman.
|
You cannot obtain wealth (except through inheritance, gifts or the lottary) in a capitalist society without oppressing a workforce. That and because they maintain the status quo (which I totally agree with you, is unacceptable, if only for slightly other reasons) is why I dont like the capitalist elite.
And yes of course you can abolish poverty, if everyone has approximately the same living standard and if that living standard is high enough that they are relieved of hunger and basic sickness, and leave room for some amount of economic freedom (like going to the zoo, or whatever) then you have abolished poverty.
Also ideal is not the same as perfect. The ideal society is the best possible society, but its probably not perfect.
|
So many commies and statists. Have a cup of peace, I'm going to sleep.
|
On August 30 2010 19:12 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =) He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic? The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend.
=)
|
On August 30 2010 19:20 Hasudk wrote:
You cannot obtain wealth (except through inheritance, gifts or the lottary) in a capitalist society without oppressing a workforce. That and because they maintain the status quo (which I totally agree with you, is unacceptable, if only for slightly other reasons) is why I dont like the capitalist elite.
And yes of course you can abolish poverty, if everyone has approximately the same living standard and if that living standard is high enough that they are relieved of hunger and basic sickness, and leave room for some amount of economic freedom (like going to the zoo, or whatever) then you have abolished poverty.
Also ideal is not the same as perfect. The ideal society is the best possible society, but its probably not perfect.
Oh really, you can't obtain wealth, huh? Because the wealth that exists is all that there ever will be? Because mankind can't possibly produce more wealth in the future than what's been produced in the past?
AND you say you can end scarcity? No, if everyone would have the same standards of living, people would just want to have it even higher. People consistently living 100 years? Fuck it, give me 200. Give me immortality. Give me planets, give me stars, give all and give me asap. Give me your wife, give me your grass, which is greener than my own.
Perfect is a meaningless practical term if it can't be achieved. Might as well not mention it. Like, getting rid of human desires. Peace.
|
On August 30 2010 16:46 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 15:30 figq wrote:On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer. I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good? I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail. BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE BANG So taxes are the main problem for you? Okay, do you think anarcho-capitalism is the only other system which doesn't need taxes?
|
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote:
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
|
On August 30 2010 19:21 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:12 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =) He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic? The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me. Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
|
On August 30 2010 19:25 figq wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 16:46 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 15:30 figq wrote:On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer. I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good? I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail. BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE BANG So taxes are the main problem for you? Okay, do you think anarcho-capitalism is the only other system which doesn't need taxes?
Any type of anarchism doesn't. But anarcho-capitalism is the only one that clearly respects my claim to the things I earn, and the one which I find most compatible with the NAP, non-aggression principle.
It's both a matter of morals and pragmatism, even though I don't have all that much capital myself.
|
On August 30 2010 18:18 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote:
I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership. If the majority of the people are dumb, then the majority of leaders are dumb Or the majority of people will choose dumb leaders And be dumbly enslaved dumbly dumb dumb dumb
that's very true and how our world runs.
it's the best possible system though.
because smart people abuse dumb people and get power and leadership.
|
On August 30 2010 19:29 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:21 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 19:12 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =) He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic? The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me. Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =) "Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own. You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths?
The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote:
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living! You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
You're arguing only coercion can give you x.
I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion.
I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
|
On August 30 2010 19:34 SkytoM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 18:18 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote:
I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership. If the majority of the people are dumb, then the majority of leaders are dumb Or the majority of people will choose dumb leaders And be dumbly enslaved dumbly dumb dumb dumb that's very true and how our world runs. it's the best possible system though. because smart people abuse dumb people and get power and leadership.
And you think that's good for you? Okay.
So it's justifiable for smart people to take over dumb people's property then.
If I can prove to you that I'm smarter than you, at your criteria and your testing specifications, can I steal $100 from you?
Oh wait, I shouldn't even be asking, I should do it like the state and just take it. Yup. Can you give me your credit card number please? with security code, expiration date?
|
On August 30 2010 19:34 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:29 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:21 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 19:12 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =) He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic? The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me. Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =) "Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own. You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed. Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths? The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead.
Thanks for ignoring the context and appealing to emotion. Your contributions to the thread are better than the average.
Really, I advocate zero coercion, NAP, the most pacifist ways to deal with any dispute. Then because I don't subscribe to forcing other people to give people food I'm a sociopath. Really? Have you read anything at all?
The positivists who subscribe to such policy hardly care about the poor. They're the sociopaths themselves who see no problem in stealing for ANY cause. Don't call me a sociopath because I'm consistent. Stealing is hardly charity when it comes at the cost of making everyone more hungry, in sum, and it hardly takes any challenge when you're not the one paying for it. You care about the poor? GO DONATE, DONT MAKE OTHERS DO IT FOR YOU. THAT IS STEALING. STEALING BAD. BAD STEALING.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
