jnkyrdoff6

That's kind of a nasty highlight video

I respect that, but in that case I would love to know what your personal reason for living is. What have you decided is the reason you are here? Indeed. I live because I'm not dead yet.

From an anarchist's standpoint, I don't think that's too much of a problem. Preemptive strikes wouldn't be allowed, but if you look back on a ton of today's problems, you can trace them back to the US meddling in something it had no business being in. I'll probably face a lot of criticism for this, but I really think, in a way we created 9/11. I'm not saying that because I think it was a hoax perpetrated by our government or anything. I'm just saying we trained the terrorist forces to help fight of the USSR, we gave them weapons, and we refused to remove our troops from Saudi Arabian borders. If we wouldn't have done anything when we felt threatened by the USSR's increasing size, I don't think 9/11 would've ever happened. In other words, our preemptive attitude created the problem. The Soviet Union would've collapsed by itself. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but I think that's the way SOCAL sees it too. I could be wrong though.

Keep reading, because you've missed a lot, like the discussion of laws, roads, police, military, trade treaties, etc. I haven't missed them. Your words: You ask "Why is lack of government not possible" like it's a valid question. It's not. Every society in the history of man has had some form of heirarchy, some form of government. It's what humans do - they order their world. It's like asking, "Why is lack of home not possible?" Every human instinctively creates a home, whether that be a tent, a cave, a house, a stretch of sidewalk, or a palace. It's a basic human action. Failing to understand that makes me wonder if you're serious about this conversation at all. Posted March 31 His proof lies in recorded history. There has never been a sustained culture that didn't have a form of government, or in the absence of government, chaos. In fact, he has infinitely more proof that his theory is correct than you have for yours, yet you continue to hector anyone who gainsays you. The problem with your hippopotamus applesauce anarchy is that it has never existed anywhere, just like unicorns. It hasn't existed anywhere because it's simply not a feasible form of society. Posted April 1st I believe this is where you first started calling it a hippopotamus applesauce anarchy, a phrase you keep repeating as if to continue beating a horse. As I said, I haven't missed your other arguments. It's just that there are some that in which I think you misinterpret SOCAL, and others where I agree with either you or SOCAL, and didn't feel like chiming in. Nevertheless, it's clear to me, as long as you continue repeating that phrase, that you're trying to hammer a point home. All I'm saying is that I think arguing that point is extremely illogical.

Actually I am trying to understand your view, however it makes about as much sense as a deaf person interpreting the sounds of a person who speaks in tongues. (I know you can comprehend that). You fail to realize that no such "food producer" monopoly can ever occur, at least without the aid of government. Since there will always be choices and those searching for profit, no monopoly is possible in a free market, let alone a coercive one. You're not trying to understand anything. You're backpedaling furiously because you have no way of showing that your hippopotamus applesauce utopia is even remotely viable, so your whole argument has devolved into dickering over the reality of something as unreal as an analogy. From what I've read though, this whole time you're argument has revolved around you saying it can't happen because it never has. I'm not saying a world totally devoid of government is possible, but I'm just not sure that is the best form of arguing. A few hundred years ago it was considered unnatural to be without a king. The great republican experiment was sure to fail. I suppose in some ways it has. Just as the Roman republic failed, by eventually ceding power. All I'm trying to say though is that, were I to argue that something is not possible, I would not start by saying that it is because it has never happened.

It. Is. An. Analogy. It is not meant to be a strict definition of a real marketplace. Got it? A terrible one...

No, he meant that bread was the only choice, hence his use of the word monopoly to describe it. Monopoly implies no other entry or choice. Unfortunately, other choices do exist and therefore his logic and his conclusion are both wrong No, Enhance is 100% correct. Your failure to understand that helps explain why you can't grasp the futility of your hippopotamus applesauce utopia. So, if other choices are available how is it a monopoly? Or do you not grasp the concept of a monopoly either? Would it make you happy if instead of "baker" and "bread" I used "food producer" and "food?" When you have to quibble over such ridiculous points in a basic analogy, it becomes clear that you're not even trying to understand anyone else's point of view, you're just talking to talk. I think the point SOCAL was trying to make, though, is that these situations simply can't exist in a free market. Only the government protects monopolies like the cable company. One food producer? I can't believe for a second that, in a world without protection from competitors to that food producer, competitors wouldn't spring up and undercut prices. Even if, for example, prices are as low as is manageably possible, and the food producer is discriminating against one farmer, can that farmer not trade with others to get that food?

Where's my eye roll emoticon? I will say this in Husker_x's defense; there is no reason for anyone to get pissed off because he is stating his opinions or trying to have an open forum about religion. Although, I don't believe talking about religion will ever solve anything, he's well within his rights to attempt it, and I see no reason anyone should become offended for any reason. I've also never seen any reason why trying to undermine Christianity should make Christians feel uncomfortable. The only reason I can think of that anyone should feel uncomfortable is because there was some of that there to begin with. I used to feel uncomfortable when someone questioned something I believed in. I think all that stopped when I was like 12. I don't believe faith is immoral, but why can't Husker_x have an open forum to discuss it without people jumping all over him without actually discussing what he posted? For Knap and SOCAl, I've only had the Jehovah's witnesses come up to my door once, too. I listened to everything they had to say, and took their pamphlets. I didn't feel uncomfortable or any other emotion.

I'd like to add to this that this is why I believe it is pointless to dispute religion. I know that religion has, at times, produced bad results, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, or whatever. I've never seen those guys. It doesn't matter though. Do you really think that erasing the idea of religion would change the atrocities associated with religion? Maybe I should rephrase that. It will, obviously, change them. Do you really think, erasing the idea of religion will erase the atrocities associated with religion? It won't. People will always find a scapegoat. People will always find a way to push that kind of ugliness upon other people. If it's not religion, cultural unity or something else will do just fine.

FAITH (jnkyrdoff6 definition) - A blind belief in something that cannot be empirically proven or dispelled in any way

Tommie is looking good. He has lost some weight. I've have a picture with him when he was like 50 lbs heavier.

There's a difference between non-intervention and doing the job you are being paid, through voluntary employment nonetheless, to do. As an umpire you are essentially paid to mediate the game, interpret the rules and make the calls. Both teams coaches voluntarily agreed to play the game under those circumstances and you would be well within your rights, as an umpire and a person, to tell them to lock it up as soon as the first complaints surfaced. The breastfeeding? That's another topic altogether. No, I know. It's just that I've watched and played for other umpires who tried to be really strict, and there's a fine line you have to walk. I umpire a lot of games. These are just the two confrontations I'd had this summer. The game seems to go a lot smoother if you only make the minimal amount of calls. It fits into my personality to umpire that way too. It's just that sometimes I need to make better decisions. You said the breastfeeding is another topic. What would you do? I know other girls with babies that do similar things, so I'm just wondering.

I know what you mean by the "I Don't Care" attitude. I'm so laissez faire, in everything I do, it's ridiculous. I remember once this summer when I was umping a softball game there was some name calling going on. I just let it go, and pretended I didn't hear it. Eventually though it erupted into a fight that I had to break up. I let the game get out of hand in that way. I think generally it's a good attitude to have, but sometimes you have to intervene, as much as it pains me to say it. I'm trying my best to intervene as little as possible though. A couple of weeks ago, while on spring break, some of my friends noticed one of my friends wives drinking while she was breast feeding. I'd known this had been going on. In fact, I also know she smoked grass while she was pregnant, and probably still does. They were going to say something to her, but I prevented it, telling them that it was none of our business. The husband was there. In my opinion it's between them, and is something I shouldn't concern myself with. That doesn't mean I think it's right, but who am I to tell them otherwise? Another example of how this attitude has gotten me in trouble comes from umping too. I was umping a baseball game this summer for a 9-10 year old tournament. It was Syracuse vs. someone else. In Syracuse they play with weird rules until legion ball. I've heard them called p@ssy rules. Anyhow, the Syracuse coaches were mad because we were playing by standard rules, and they took it out on me. They complained about every ball and strike I called that went against them. It was a long game for me. I never said anything because they never came out and formally complained to me, but I mean, they were telling their fans they wanted to fight me and everything. I just let it go. Towards the end of the game the head coach finally came up and got in my face, and I just exploded on him. I told him he "had to be f*ck*ng kidding me!" I mean, it was bubbling up inside me. He was astonished. After I said that he questioned what kind of an example I was setting for the kids, and I said in essence, "yeah, you're really setting an example. You're teaching them that when things don't go their way in life, they should just complain about it. Don't try harder or anything. His team was clearly better, talent-wise; they should've won. Then I told him that if he wanted to fight he could name the time and place. Of course, he was all talk in that way. I definitely regret the way this went. When I reflect on it, I should've made a stand from the get-go. It's another instance of my non-interventionist principles clashing with what needs to be done at the time. I have other stories of me and someone from Syracuse exchanging words. It seems like whenever I meet someone from Syracuse we butt heads. I don't know if it's them or me. I think half on them are just raised to be a$$holes. It could be me; that's a different subject, though.

Oh cool. I had no idea. I'd heard it before on Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century, a cartoon series, when I was a kid. It's nice to be able to connect things like that. When I read my first Sherlock Holmes book, The Hound of the Baskervilles I was sure I'd find that quote in there, but I never did. The cartoon series must've taken it from that Occam dude.

I appreciate that. I had my apprehensions about posting this topic in the first place because I was sure it was going to get bogged down in a general philosophy discussion. It's not that I don't think that kind of thing is necessary. It's just that I had hoped it would stay in the "How would you describe your political views" thread. I noticed it's named SOCAL's razor. I'm unfamiliar with that expression, I guess. I had to look over it like 10 times to make sure that's what it said. What does that mean? My mind is racing with possibilities.

I know what you mean by the "I Don't Care" attitude. I'm so laissez faire, in everything I do, it's ridiculous. I remember once this summer when I was umping a softball game there was some name calling going on. I just let it go, and pretended I didn't hear it. Eventually though it erupted into a fight that I had to break up. I let the game get out of hand in that way. I think generally it's a good attitude to have, but sometimes you have to intervene, as much as it pains me to say it. I'm trying my best to intervene as little as possible though. A couple of weeks ago, while on spring break, some of my friends noticed one of my friends wives drinking while she was breast feeding. I'd known this had been going on. In fact, I also know she smoked grass while she was pregnant, and probably still does. They were going to say something to her, but I prevented it, telling them that it was none of our business. The husband was there. In my opinion it's between them, and is something I shouldn't concern myself with. That doesn't mean I think it's right, but who am I to tell them otherwise?

-snippet- I can definitely see how some of the things SOCAL says can seem insulting, but you shouldn't take them that way. You have to try to look at things from his perspective. I remember last semester when one of my professors told me a program I had written looked like “I was stomping all over my d*ck, and then asking where's my d*ck at?” I just laughed, but one of my friends who was there at the time thought I'd be insulted, I guess. When you look at it from his perspective though, it's really difficult to read someone's else's code. He was just picking something small out and expressing his frustration over it. I know you probably don't know where I'm coming from here because you probably don't have much or any experience writing source code, but what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that you've just got to have thicker skin than that. I don't know if I have an upper hand there because I grew up with a dad who never complimented me and only insulted me or what, but it's the truth. I mean, when I was more immature than I am now, I really hated my dad, but I feel like I've grown some since, and I've tried to understand his point of view. We have a good relationship now. I guess at some point you and I just have had different experiences, but when I read that kind of thing from SOCAL, I just laugh. I suppose another thing I'm trying to get across is that there's too much misunderstanding in this world. I don't want to come off sounding like a bleeding heart, but life is just too short to walk around carrying a grudge the whole time. You should always try to understand where the other side is coming from not only because of some grander idea of less conflict in the world, but because it'll make you a much happier person. If you walk around with an axe to grind your whole life you end up cutting your own head off, or better yet, if you carry a grudge your whole life, you eventually collapse under its weight.

--Snippet-- While that may be true, I guess I just think that, for anyone who doesn't agree with everything they see or hear on tv, there has to be some defining moment that changed their beliefs somewhat. I mean, I think most people do believe everything they see and hear on tv. I know that beliefs are altered with time, but I still think they can be traced back to something. I guess that's what I'm asking. What was that defining moment?

Definitely quote-worthy.

SoCal got me thinking about this because I'm really wondering how he came to believe what he does politically. This is open to everyone though. For me personally, one of my teachers was a libertarian, and, just like anyone else, couldn't teach the class without imparting some of his bias. Also, I would consider my dad a libertarian, even though he says he's a conservative. So I probably was more willing to accept my teacher's ideas because they had already been somewhat pressed upon me. Don't be shy. You don't have to specify what you believe politically or anything like that. I'm just wondering where you think your ideas came from. You're welcome to chime in too Knap, Husker_x, Carlfense, Sarge... I don't want to leave anyone out.

This is the second time in like a month I've seen the word "cantankerous" on this board. I feel like I'm reading The Catcher in the Rye.

A company that wishes to stay in business would spend whatever it took to keep their customers happy. Why would any business, especially one that relies on voluntary customer satisfaction, which a coercive monopoly does not because it gets its money by force, risk everything so that someone else would come along with more efficient weapons and training and take all their customers? The beauty of the free market is that it is self-regulating, meaning that the profits and loss signals ensure that there will always be just the right amount of supply that the demand requires. Losses are signals to show the demand has been exceed by supply or that you are losing customers, and could be a signal for competition to dwindle. Profits mean that demand is up, you are doing good business and is an invite for competition to enter the market and increase the supply. Because individuals do make decisions based on their own self interest there will always be those who invest and take risks for the benefits and those who agree to pay for goods and services. Only the individual knows what their own best interest is, no one else does, and it is due to this fact precisely why a regulated market, one in which the profit and loss signal are distorted or that is funded by force, can never bring stability, can never be properly gauged and can never bring about prosperity. The company would spend whatever it took to keep its customers happy, but consider this. There hasn't been a war in 50 years, or maybe 100 years. What society would adequately fund the military agency when there is no prospect of war on the horizon? The only reason a society would continue to fund the military agency is because there is, theoretically, always the prospect of war. I just can't see many societies being this paranoid. I think they'd, for the most part, gradually decrease military spending until war broke out, increasing spending on things that seem more pertinent at the time. While the military agency that is funded would, undoubtedly, be be as efficient as possible, I still don't think that'd be enough to bridge the gap the decreased spending would cause. This has always been the snag that's caught my eye when presented with a complete lack of a government. I just think this is the one case where a free-market is flawed. It's because its very nature is counter-productive to having a good standing military. I understand that this logic somewhat implies a government knows better than the market in regards to producing a standing army, but it's not meant to. Because the government is so inefficient, it unintentionally produces a better standing army. With a government that is only in charge of the military, and has no other privileges, the government would be able to properly gauge profit and loss. If it can't control the reserve, it can't sustain a failing business model. If the only tax that funds it is a sales tax, the money isn't stolen from the peoples' hands. It is voluntarily given to it. ---edited--- This is the only link I found at your site to backup your argument. The insurance argument is somewhat convincing. http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

You're confused. I'm not saying one man can overthrow a nation of 300 million. One man, or a small group, can loot you, and do so without fear of recrimination in the absence of a police force. One nation, even a small one, with a small force, can overthrow another nation, even if it's larger, if that other nation is comprised of disparate entities or has not mutually provided for a common defense. You ask for examples.... how many do you want? History is chock full of them. I'll start with two and you tell me if you need more. But for every example I give you, you have to show me an example where disparate, un-unified people have defended themselves against a unified enemy. That's fair, and I'm going to hold you to this. 1) The Gauls, circa 60-50 BC. Julius Caesar, with 15 legions (that's 75,000 fighting men, plus another 10,000 called up in reserve) subjugated and destroyed the Gallic Nations. The Gauls were largely living in a society which you describe, but over 2 million of them were defeated by Caesar. 2) Native Americans (North America), circa 1500-1900 AD. Population of 50 million to 100 million in approximately 1500 AD, subjugated by various governments but ultimately subjugated by the US. One old, one new. And that's just off the top of my head. This is basic, basic stuff. Now show me two examples of a defense against a foreign nation where the defenders weren't unified by a common government. We can keep going until I bury you in examples you can't match, or you can concede the point that a common military is a necessity of a nation. How does this prove that a voluntarily funded military could not fight in this day and age? Has the invention of the gun, bombs and other technology not changed the face of warfare from a time in which weapons were simple and brute strength and a thirst for violence were paramount, to today where science and knowledge rule the roost? I've never asserted that an army couldn't exist, only that it must be voluntary. In fact, there are plenty of examples of how a free society can protect itself. Feel free to check out The Production of Security, The Myth of National Defense, Defense Services On A Free Market and a host of other resources on the subject I've read the private law section now, and it didn't really help. I'd already agreed that private law agencies would work. The military is still my hangup. Do you really think a voluntarily funded military would continuously spend money on weapons, weapons research, training, etc. when there is no threat or reason to do so? Why would it? Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere else in a free-market? Only our government would do that.