• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 09:02
CEST 15:02
KST 22:02
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202531Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder6EWC 2025 - Replay Pack4Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced38BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
Serral wins EWC 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings EWC 2025 - Replay Pack #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL Brood War web app to calculate unit interactions [BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL] Non-Korean Championship - Final weekend [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine UK Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Link Between Fitness and…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 676 users

Somalia - Success of Anarchy - Page 22

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 20 21 22 23 24 33 Next All
BestZergOnEast
Profile Joined November 2006
Canada358 Posts
July 05 2011 20:49 GMT
#421
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
July 05 2011 21:27 GMT
#422
On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government.


I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc.


I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not.

Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve?


Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight.

Elaborate, please. How would things become better?

All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states?

It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac?

I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality.

Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis?

Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn?

I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want?

Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in.


Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.

First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.

Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.

So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.

Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.

What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.

I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.

So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.

So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
Haemonculus
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States6980 Posts
July 05 2011 21:38 GMT
#423
On July 06 2011 06:27 Treemonkeys wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:
On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government.


I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc.


I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not.

Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve?


Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight.

Elaborate, please. How would things become better?

All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states?

It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac?

I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality.

Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis?

Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn?

I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want?

Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in.


Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions.

First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it.

Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would.

So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same.

Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing.

What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering.

I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way.

So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one.

So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist.

Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something.

But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense.
I admire your commitment to being *very* oily
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
July 05 2011 21:42 GMT
#424
Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that?
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
Omnipresent
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States871 Posts
July 05 2011 22:34 GMT
#425
Here is the latest article from the BBC about the effects of Somalia's drought. If this is the "success of anarchy," I'll stick with a functioning government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14037963
The levels of malnutrition among children fleeing Somalia's drought could lead to a "human tragedy of unimaginable proportions", the UN refugee head Antonio Guterres has said.
+ Show Spoiler +
"What is the most tragic for us to witness, is that there are children who do arrive in such a weakened state that despite our emergency care and therapeutic feeding, they're dying within 24 hours," UNHCR spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told a press briefing in Geneva.

"We estimate that one quarter of Somalia's 7.5 million people are now either internally displaced or are living outside the country as refugees," she said.

...

"The relentless violence that's compounded by a terrible drought has forced more than 135,000 Somalis to flee Somalia so far this year," she said.

"In June alone, 54,000 people fled across the two borders, and that is three times the number [of people who fled] in May. So this is a huge spike."


Haemonculus
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States6980 Posts
July 05 2011 22:42 GMT
#426
On July 06 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote:
Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that?

Could you care to elaborate on that? No pressure of course.

I had horrible asthma as a child. I was rushed to the emergency room numerous times before my first birthday. Had I been born 70-80 years earlier, I likely would have died an infant. I'm perfectly healthy today, but without modern medicine it's very unlikely I'd even be alive.

I know nothing of your condition, but would being born in a non-modern world have helped you live a better life?
I admire your commitment to being *very* oily
BestZergOnEast
Profile Joined November 2006
Canada358 Posts
July 06 2011 00:07 GMT
#427


As far as roads are concerned - well, I don't think we need to get rid of roads just because we get rid of governmnt. If there is a demand for transportation (which obviously there is and will be) there will be a supply for it. ECON 101. It's really no different than any other industry. How are we going to get food to 300 million people? We don't have to solve that problem. The market does. Same with water and sewage. Customers would pay companies to provide these services - and due to market competition it would be much cheaper.
As far as being safe - first of all, there's nothing the government does right now that will prevent you from getting assaulted. Maybe they will catch the guy after the fact, but even that is pretty unlikely. If you even bother to report the crime. But yes, I think carrying a gun is a good idea. And there is no need to complely abandon the idea of security simply because we abolish the state - their could be private companies you can hire for protection / redress.
Yes, we would have a currency - a gold standard, most likely, although that would depend on the market. The current fiat money supply is inherently inflationary; this need not be the case. Indeed, it wouldn't if we abolish central banking. Central banks cause business cycles - depressions, recessions, if we had sound mone this wouldn't happen. There would be no depressions, except in extreme circumstances (being invaded, for example).
Banks would be free to operate, certainly, but they would be treated like any other business. That is they would not have the government priviledge that is fractional reserve banking. The process of investment would be separated from the process of saving or warehousing of money.

The free market does keep the cost of health care down - something which government seems incapable of doing. Actually, doctors themselves aren't the problem - it's all the extra waste, bureaucries and market incentives... everything has to cost the maximum. Back before the government take over of health care everything cost the minimum, it was no big deal, you would go and pay what you could; the doctors would take care of you. That's the way it should be. There's no one to be afraid of. People are, for the most part, good, caring and sincere. We have just been taught our whole lives to fear each other... to put ourselves in adversarily situations where we need not.
I think in an anarcho-capitalist society I would probably start business. A society without government would be incredibly prosperous. If you look at examples throughout history, you will find the less government involvement in an economy the more prosperous the country. The middle evil times were terrible... like was short, bruttish and nasty, but we're not talking about going back in time. We are talking about how there is a criminal organization named the state and how the world would be a better place if we recognized that violence and coercion are immoral and that there is no problem so massive it cannot be conquered by the voluntary actions of a free society.
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
July 06 2011 01:20 GMT
#428
I've heard a lot of absurd theories, but by far one of the most absurd is this notion of "left anarchism." I can't even make sense of what they are proposing, or how they will answer the most basic functions of any economy: how to allocate scarce resources, how to produce, what to produce, etc.

Aside from this, the idea that you can somehow centralize all property and ownership and somehow create a society that is MORE free... it boggles the mind. Someone else is in control of everything you have and you are considered free? Another person can decide what and when and how you eat and you are free?

Who is going to determine who is in "need" of what? What exactly is going to compel people to work if not their own self interest? How can you have freedom of speech when printing presses are unowned or externally allocated?

It is simple, common sense that if you want to increase freedom for the individual, you want to decentralize power, not centralize it. That is the whole purpose of having legislatures and competing branches of government and checks and balances... when you limit the power that each entity has, you effectively limit their control of the people.

The same exact logic applies to the market or economy of a nation. Do you want all resources being controlled and allocated by a single entity, or do you want literally thousands of corporations all competing with each other for you voluntarily exchanged money? The true power of corporations is not in any market power, but in their ability to bribe the government officials who have been granted a monopoly on the force that can be used in the marketplace.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Shai
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Canada806 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-06 01:26:43
July 06 2011 01:26 GMT
#429
On July 06 2011 09:07 BestZergOnEast wrote:


As far as roads are concerned - well, I don't think we need to get rid of roads just because we get rid of governmnt. If there is a demand for transportation (which obviously there is and will be) there will be a supply for it. ECON 101. It's really no different than any other industry. How are we going to get food to 300 million people? We don't have to solve that problem. The market does. Same with water and sewage. Customers would pay companies to provide these services - and due to market competition it would be much cheaper.
As far as being safe - first of all, there's nothing the government does right now that will prevent you from getting assaulted. Maybe they will catch the guy after the fact, but even that is pretty unlikely. If you even bother to report the crime. But yes, I think carrying a gun is a good idea. And there is no need to complely abandon the idea of security simply because we abolish the state - their could be private companies you can hire for protection / redress.
Yes, we would have a currency - a gold standard, most likely, although that would depend on the market. The current fiat money supply is inherently inflationary; this need not be the case. Indeed, it wouldn't if we abolish central banking. Central banks cause business cycles - depressions, recessions, if we had sound mone this wouldn't happen. There would be no depressions, except in extreme circumstances (being invaded, for example).
Banks would be free to operate, certainly, but they would be treated like any other business. That is they would not have the government priviledge that is fractional reserve banking. The process of investment would be separated from the process of saving or warehousing of money.

The free market does keep the cost of health care down - something which government seems incapable of doing. Actually, doctors themselves aren't the problem - it's all the extra waste, bureaucries and market incentives... everything has to cost the maximum. Back before the government take over of health care everything cost the minimum, it was no big deal, you would go and pay what you could; the doctors would take care of you. That's the way it should be. There's no one to be afraid of. People are, for the most part, good, caring and sincere. We have just been taught our whole lives to fear each other... to put ourselves in adversarily situations where we need not.
I think in an anarcho-capitalist society I would probably start business. A society without government would be incredibly prosperous. If you look at examples throughout history, you will find the less government involvement in an economy the more prosperous the country. The middle evil times were terrible... like was short, bruttish and nasty, but we're not talking about going back in time. We are talking about how there is a criminal organization named the state and how the world would be a better place if we recognized that violence and coercion are immoral and that there is no problem so massive it cannot be conquered by the voluntary actions of a free society.


Company A builds a road from City 1 to City 2. They charge 10,000 dollars to access this road once.

Company B says "Hey, why the heck don't we build a road and charge $5,000 dollars?" so they build a road between City 1 and City 2.

Assuming there are only TWO companies we now have TWO different road systems, taking up double the space it should. It's safe to assume some routes would have up to three different suppliers.

Another thing. Store A tries to sell a pineapple for $5 to Customer 1. Customer 1 decides a bullet in the face is cheaper.
Eagerly awaiting Techies.
Kaneh
Profile Joined April 2009
Canada737 Posts
July 06 2011 01:32 GMT
#430
it all sounds good to not have a government of some sort, and then you realize that there are always going to be people who just don't care and will screw you over in any way possible. without authority who's going to protect you and your belongings?

either you pay someone to do it,
they extort you,
or they just kill you and take it.

i like the first option, where as many bad points as all this government and authority has, it's the least of all the evils. I believe the quote was: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
July 06 2011 01:40 GMT
#431
On July 06 2011 10:26 Shai wrote:
Another thing. Store A tries to sell a pineapple for $5 to Customer 1. Customer 1 decides a bullet in the face is cheaper.

Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...

And second, there is nothing stopping a person from making that decision in ANY society. Government doesn't prevent someone from committing theft or murder.

Here's how it works. Customer 1 decides he wants that fucking pineapple and his $5, so he shoots the owner in the head. Customers 2-10 stand there helplessly with their mouths open, and pray they aren't next, because they are completely dependent on the government for their imagined safety and order. Eventually someone gets on a telephone and calls up the local police, and the police eventually arrive, and they fill out a report and maybe try to track the guy down. The story ends there.

Those customers 2-10, they ARE the society that needs to be protected, and they are incapable of protecting themselves. We have a very small group in some different location who are tasked with protecting the vast majority who haven't been granted the right or duty to protect each other. Kind of defies common sense.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Alpino
Profile Joined June 2011
Brazil4390 Posts
July 06 2011 01:43 GMT
#432
Anarchy!! Happy panda me inc.
20/11/2015 - never forget EE's Ember
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
July 06 2011 05:59 GMT
#433
On July 06 2011 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 06 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote:
Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that?

Could you care to elaborate on that? No pressure of course.

I had horrible asthma as a child. I was rushed to the emergency room numerous times before my first birthday. Had I been born 70-80 years earlier, I likely would have died an infant. I'm perfectly healthy today, but without modern medicine it's very unlikely I'd even be alive.

I know nothing of your condition, but would being born in a non-modern world have helped you live a better life?


But as bad as the consequence may or may not be, what about the consequences of massive government? Never mind the millions or billions that have been killed in government run wars, lets just say they were all worth our nice standard of living. What about the future and survivability of the human species and planet as a whole? Is government really taking us in a good direction? Now that they have amassed enough weapons to kill nearly the entire planet? Now as they continue to search for more ways of bigger and bigger destruction?

Have you ever looked into how many nuclear explosions the US government has set of for the sole purpose of "testing". That shit doesn't just float into the atmosphere and disappear. They have set off over 1000 of them, for no good reason at all, just the US alone. Add in all the other countries and I think it easily goes over 3000. All of this with only about 60 years of nuclear technology. What will the earth be like 100 years from now? 1000? They are basically psychopathic kids with an obsession for burning ants with a magnifying glass only instead of a magnifying glass they have nukes. It's not like we are immune to going extinct, and it's not like we as individuals have any control over the direction we live towards either.

Long term I don't think there is anything about our standard of living that is sustainable. Yeah maybe technology will be discovered to take recycling to a whole new level and things like that, but in my lifetime it definitely seems like problems are growing much faster than solutions are. We have entire billion dollar industries designed around motivating people to buy new shit and then throw it away for an upgrade a few years later.
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
July 06 2011 06:00 GMT
#434
On July 06 2011 10:26 Shai wrote:
Company A builds a road from City 1 to City 2. They charge 10,000 dollars to access this road once.

Company B says "Hey, why the heck don't we build a road and charge $5,000 dollars?" so they build a road between City 1 and City 2.

Assuming there are only TWO companies we now have TWO different road systems, taking up double the space it should. It's safe to assume some routes would have up to three different suppliers.

Another thing. Store A tries to sell a pineapple for $5 to Customer 1. Customer 1 decides a bullet in the face is cheaper.



Because inefficient roads and armed robbery don't exist under government?
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
July 06 2011 06:01 GMT
#435
On July 06 2011 10:32 Kaneh wrote:
it all sounds good to not have a government of some sort, and then you realize that there are always going to be people who just don't care and will screw you over in any way possible. without authority who's going to protect you and your belongings?

either you pay someone to do it,
they extort you,
or they just kill you and take it.

i like the first option, where as many bad points as all this government and authority has, it's the least of all the evils. I believe the quote was: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."


Authority is simply the guy screwing you over. They protect us like a farmer protecting his animals from wolves. Doesn't mean we won't get slaughtered when the time comes.
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
July 06 2011 06:24 GMT
#436
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.


Actually about a thousand people a year are killed by the police and 50-100 police by citizens. We're talking intent for both sides not car crashes or anything... "many" sounds a bit hyperbolic.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
July 06 2011 06:33 GMT
#437
On July 06 2011 15:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.


Actually about a thousand people a year are killed by the police and 50-100 police by citizens. We're talking intent for both sides not car crashes or anything... "many" sounds a bit hyperbolic.


lol, where do these statistics come from?
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
Nightfall.589
Profile Joined August 2010
Canada766 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-07-06 08:14:19
July 06 2011 08:00 GMT
#438
On July 03 2011 10:35 Harrow wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 03 2011 10:32 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 10:05 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 09:23 Focuspants wrote:
On July 03 2011 09:17 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 09:01 Focuspants wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote:
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.

it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.

but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.


Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.

It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.

I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now.
On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.


So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?


Why do we have to keep old nations borders?


So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?


No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.

Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.

On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote:
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.

it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.

but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.


Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.

It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.

I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now.
On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.


How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?

If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.


Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.

How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.


So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.

Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".

On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.


I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.

I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.


I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.


For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that



I guess we evolved past the cave part.


People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned.

Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...


And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system.

Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy.

What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again?

Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever?

You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others.
Proof by Legislation: An entire body of (sort-of) elected officials is more correct than all of the known laws of physics, math and science as a whole. -Scott McIntyre
sidesprang
Profile Joined January 2009
Norway1033 Posts
July 06 2011 08:13 GMT
#439
On July 06 2011 15:33 Treemonkeys wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 06 2011 15:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Actually the American government and it's agents kill many innocent American citizens, most notably in encounters with the police.


Actually about a thousand people a year are killed by the police and 50-100 police by citizens. We're talking intent for both sides not car crashes or anything... "many" sounds a bit hyperbolic.


lol, where do these statistics come from?



83% of all statistics are made up on the spot, did you not know ?
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
Chalker
Profile Joined June 2011
14 Posts
July 06 2011 09:06 GMT
#440
On July 06 2011 17:00 Nightfall.589 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 03 2011 10:35 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 10:32 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 10:05 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 09:23 Focuspants wrote:
On July 03 2011 09:17 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 09:01 Focuspants wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote:
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.

it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.

but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.


Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.

It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.

I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now.
On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.


So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it?


Why do we have to keep old nations borders?


So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to?


No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief.

Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state.

On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:
On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote:
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.

it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.

but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change.


Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.

It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.

I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now.
On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead.


How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule?

If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality.


Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens.

How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes.


So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now.

Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this".

On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly.


I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun.

I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say.


I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now.


For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that



I guess we evolved past the cave part.


People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned.

Show nested quote +
Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens...


And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system.

Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy.

What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again?

Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever?

You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others.


You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.

So for instance, what's preventing the store owner from getting shot over $5 in an anarchic society? I can think of a number of things. Perhaps the store owner is armed, heavily, and isn't afraid to advertise it? Or perhaps he or she has hired Guys With Guns, who may very well make mistakes. Do Guys With Guns make very few mistakes? Very many mistakes? Is it time to hire Chicks With Guns? If there's a market for protection services then that competition will, like usual, drive prices down and quality up.

What an anarchist society undoubtedly would be, is far safer, happier and freer than anything we have now.

PS: Wish I had the time to go back to the Libertarian Americans thread, there's great unfinished stuff in there...
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
Prev 1 20 21 22 23 24 33 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
The PondCast
10:00
Episode 56
CranKy Ducklings71
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 483
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 52665
BeSt 4059
Bisu 2408
Flash 2038
Jaedong 1877
ggaemo 925
Barracks 920
EffOrt 590
Mini 561
Soulkey 425
[ Show more ]
firebathero 295
Last 208
hero 183
Killer 175
Larva 147
Snow 117
ToSsGirL 106
Mind 70
TY 67
Soma 53
Movie 49
JYJ45
Free 42
Hyun 39
Sharp 37
[sc1f]eonzerg 37
sSak 33
Yoon 28
Noble 26
sorry 26
soO 20
Icarus 17
Sacsri 16
Bale 14
Hm[arnc] 10
Terrorterran 6
IntoTheRainbow 5
ivOry 4
GuemChi 0
Dota 2
qojqva1621
XcaliburYe223
KheZu193
Counter-Strike
ScreaM1998
byalli277
oskar197
markeloff95
kRYSTAL_40
edward21
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox431
Other Games
singsing2188
B2W.Neo1050
hiko771
crisheroes417
DeMusliM396
XaKoH 325
Fuzer 231
Lowko175
QueenE27
rGuardiaN24
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 39
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta154
• StrangeGG 75
• intothetv
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2136
• WagamamaTV401
League of Legends
• Jankos808
• Nemesis372
Upcoming Events
Online Event
2h 59m
Wayne vs ArT
Strange vs Nicoract
Shameless vs GgMaChine
YoungYakov vs MilkiCow
OSC
4h 59m
Cham vs Bunny
ByuN vs TriGGeR
SHIN vs Krystianer
ShoWTimE vs Spirit
WardiTV European League
1d 2h
Korean StarCraft League
1d 13h
CranKy Ducklings
1d 20h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 22h
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
WardiTV European League
2 days
Online Event
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs TBD
[ Show More ]
WardiTV European League
3 days
Wardi Open
3 days
OSC
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
Roobet Cup 2025
Yuqilin POB S2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.