Anarcho-Capitalism

[caveman99]

bump

Question for you SOCAL, didn't you serve/are serving in the Marines?

 

That is correct, I was in the Marines from 98-02.

So I take it that if given the chance today, you wouldn't swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

Question for you SOCAL, didn't you serve/are serving in the Marines?

 

That is correct, I was in the Marines from 98-02.

So I take it that if given the chance today, you wouldn't swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

 

That would also be correct. Wouldn't that make me a hypocrite if I did?

[huskerjack23]

 

nope...i'm not gonna read that and think it's the gospel of the free market. jesus is more believable than A/C

 

This only proves your true ignorance and lack of ratiuonal thought. Further, it shows there's no point in even discussing or replying to any of your posts. Thanks for contributing though!!

excuse me...i'm not the one shouting the free market to the rooftop when it's pure form can only be proven in theory. it doesn't take the fallibility of man into account.

 

yes there needs to be less government, but a no government society will strive for some form of government.

 

The free market most definitely takes the fallibility of man into consideration. It's a self-regulating mechanism called profit and loss. Ever heard of it? When man interferes with this process we see distorted markets, bubbles, the business cycle, less prosperity, less freedom and the need for even more regulation.

 

What is your proof that a no government society would strive for government? If man knows and understands government is what is causing the problems we face in society, would it not be irrational for him to strive for more of it. Since this is the case, I think you need to rethink your logic.

what if a smart person took advantage of the fallibility of man and cornered the market? how can the market self-regulate when it's not allowed to by man? this is what i mean by "fallibility isn't taken into account"? there will always be someone trying to cheat the system and i don't trust a "natural law" (in quotes because it's in no way universal, even though you say it is) of A/C to regulate it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

what if a smart person took advantage of the fallibility of man and cornered the market? how can the market self-regulate when it's not allowed to by man? this is what i mean by "fallibility isn't taken into account"? there will always be someone trying to cheat the system and i don't trust a "natural law" (in quotes because it's in no way universal, even though you say it is) of A/C to regulate it.

 

You mean by forming a government? There is no possible way to "corner" the market without forcing others to comply. This is a direct violation of others personal rights and the violator would be held accountable. Yes, someone will always attempt to cheat the system, but without violating another's rights this is entirely impossible.

[huskerjack23]

 

what if a smart person took advantage of the fallibility of man and cornered the market? how can the market self-regulate when it's not allowed to by man? this is what i mean by "fallibility isn't taken into account"? there will always be someone trying to cheat the system and i don't trust a "natural law" (in quotes because it's in no way universal, even though you say it is) of A/C to regulate it.

 

You mean by forming a government? There is no possible way to "corner" the market without forcing others to comply. This is a direct violation of others personal rights and the violator would be held accountable. Yes, someone will always attempt to cheat the system, but without violating another's rights this is entirely impossible.

yeah...i know. how would they be held accountable? if they convinced others to comply, they wouldn't feel their rights are being threatened, would they?

[carlfense]

 

Despite your choice of buzzwords ("trust yourself") they are indeed saying trust us. For example, how could I trust myself to defend against a foreign state such as China? I'm sorry . . . I simply cannot put much trust in lonely old me with a rifle against an army of millions. Your article wants us to believe that the free market would provide a solution . . . despite the fact that it can't even hypothesize a way in which the free market would attempt this. That shows a distinct lack of believability and credibility.

 

Also, I wouldn't say that I am an adamant supporter of our government. I'd say more that I see it as the best compromise between individual rights and governmental power that I have yet seen. From what I've seen from the articles that you have posted here, anarcho-capitalism is in no way a viable system. In fact, quite frankly, the sources posted look to be the work of nut-jobs who work very hard to convince others that their ideas sound intelligent. If you read them critically you will notice that all they manage to do is talk in circles. Government is bad because government is bad. The free market is good because the free market is good.

 

What do you mean can't even hypothesize? Many well-researched, well-documented, factually-based, and historically accurate works have been written, printed and distributed proving the free market would absolutely account for the use of force by any individual or group, and that it would do so in a much more efficient and just way than any government could ever aspire. You obviously haven't read Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "The Myth of National Defense", Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" or "To Serve and Protect", Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty", Edward Stringham's "Anarchy and The Law" or "Anarchy, State, and the Public Choice", Wes Bertrand's "Complete Liberty" or the Tanehills "Market For Liberty." If you had, you would not only realize anarchy is a rational reality, but that it is the only possible way for a human being to not live a life of slavery.

 

You ridicule and scold me for not searching out and exploring all the options and opinions available, but it is you who is actually not willing to search out and question the validity and credibility of information. Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those who's take is that of no government. Every single day I live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?

 

You say you don't support our government, except that everything you have said, and more than likely the actions in "your" life, prove that you have absolute support for the government. Do you vote? Do you support taxation? Do you believe in the regulation of the market? Do you sanction a system which allows men to make rules, based on their beliefs and values, that other men are forced to follow? Do you believe or sanction the idea that government knows how to run your life better than you do? If you answer yes to any of these questions, you support government. It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government.

 

Government cannot exist without money to fund its activities. Therefore, to raise money, the government extracts payment from its subjects in the form of taxation through coercion and force. Since you support the government, you must also support theft, coercion and force. If you support theft, coercion and force then it must be ok for everyone else to steal, threaten and kill. If that is not ok, then we have a conflict of interest and therefore a contradiction. You might say it is for the "greater good" (which is a government created myth I have already dispelled in a previous post). But if the "greater good" was theoretically possible, why can't someone else steal for the greater good? You're so eager to disprove or question any arguments for the A/C system, you never bother to answer or question that which you support. Why is that?

 

Carlfense regular text. Socal response is in red.

 

------

Carlfense replies between the lines. (this is getting bulky again)

-------

 

Here's the problem: you cited an article claiming that it supplied better answers to our questions about justice and national security than you could supply yourself. I pointed out that it provided no answers at all, just that it said "trust the free market." I also pointed out a very, very, obvious example of quackery; that the author claimed that raising questions about his argument is evidence that the questioner agrees with him. You can't have it both ways. You claim it provides better answers than you ever could, but it's a flimsily reasoned and worded article founded soley on circular logic and bland arguments without a rational or factual basis.

 

Did you read any of the books I suggested? I highly doubt it if you think any of them state to just “trust the free markets”. As I have already stated the list includes: “well-researched, well-documented, factually-based, and historically accurate works proving the free market would absolutely account for the use of force by any individual or group, and that it would do so in a much more efficient and just way than any government could ever aspire. If you did not read any of the works, how can you assume it is incorrect, irrational, illogical, unfounded, quackery, or circular logic as you say? Read my response to your claim on Post #80. It is both rational and logical. If you do not think so, please prove to me how it is not?

 

----

No I didn't read the books you suggested. However, I have read several of the articles you've suggested, and I've come away decidedly unimpressed. Unfortunately I don't have the time to read entire books about a completely theoretical system fraught with what I see as serious flaws.

----

 

You make further assertions that A/C is the only alternative to slavery. Excuse me? I'm not a slave. I choose to live in the US, and by making that choice I agree to pay taxes. If I didn't want to pay those taxes I would move elsewhere. A voluntary choice is not slavery.

 

Yes, you are a slave. The taxes you pay are not voluntary at all. If you do not pay, you go to jail. You state that if I didn’t want to pay that I could move, but that would not be voluntary for there is a legal obligation if I did not volunteer to move. What you state is not voluntary at all, but actually coercion. Voluntary would be not paying the taxes and staying exactly where I want to stay. Since you have an obviously distorted take on the meaning of voluntary, and reasonably so, here’s the dictionary definition for you:

 

Voluntary: adj., 1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job. 2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: voluntary community work. 3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions. 4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will. 5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals. 6. Law. a. Without legal obligation or consideration: a voluntary conveyance of property. b. Done deliberately; intentional: voluntary manslaughter.

 

Therefore, since taxation can no longer be considered voluntary, that makes you a slave. If you need help with the definition of slavery, from West’s Encyclopedia of American Law:

 

Slavery: n., 1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household. 2. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence. 3. A condition of hard work and subjection.

 

Therefore, since you are forced to give up the fruits of your labor, you are a slave. If you cannot do as you please, you are a slave? If you are bound by servitude to anything or anybody, other than yourself, you are a slave. This is not circular logic or anything resembling quackery, rather it the truth. And the truth you must be open to, if you want to know anything other than slavery.

 

----

Distorted the definition of voluntary? How? If you go to Disneyland and pay a daily admittance fee to enjoy the services provided there are you a slave of the Disney Corporation? Absolutely not. Your presence on Disney grounds is a voluntary assumption of the fees they choose to impose on you. Similarly, if you choose to enjoy the benefits of the United States, you also choose to pay the taxes that pay for these privileges. What is not voluntary about abiding by the laws of a place where you CHOOSE to reside, when no one is forcing you to reside here? I'm not the one twisting the meanings of words. I (of my own free will) choose to reside in the US. Therefore, by choosing to live here, I have made a conscious decision to abide by the rules of this country. (see definition 1. of the definition you so kindly provided: "Done or undertaken of one's own free will.")

 

And, again, no I am not a slave. A slave is the property of another. I am owned by no man. Paying a portion of my income in taxes (I believe the national average is around 20%) in no way makes me a slave. In fact, I'd guess that ACTUAL slaves would be rather offended that you think your "plight" is equal to their own. (Again, read your own definition: 1. "bound in servitude as the property of another." I am in no way bound . . . if taxes were so abhorrent to me I would leave the US . . . that would NOT be possible if I was the property of another.)

-----

 

Again, you try to put words into my mouth. You called me an adamant supporter of our government and I disputed that. I never said I don't support our government. I am not an adamant supporter of our government because I don't agree with everything the government does.

 

It doesn’t matter if you are adamant or not, if you support any of the government, than you support government. There’s no way to only support some of the government programs without supporting all of the government programs. If you were allowed to pick and choose what you support, what would be the need for government at all? Do you not see the logic of this statement and than contradictions in what you are saying about only supporting some of the government?

 

-----

It does matter to me. You said I was an adamant supporter. I am not. I am openly critical of many parts of our government. Let me quote this right back to you: SOCAL: "If you support any of the government, then you support government." You are live in the US correct? You aren't incarcerated and California has a sales tax; therefore you must pay taxes. As a taxpayer you are supporting the functions of government. Therefore by your own statement you must support all of government. Who's contradictory?

-----

 

Where did I ridicule you? I ridiculed some of your sources, but I don't think I ever ridiculed you. Did you write your source material? If not, you probably aren't emotionally involved in defending them.

 

From your post, #64: “Socal, it worries me that you only cite these anarchist sources. It seems that you are falling into the classic trap of only reading those things that you agree with. It'd be similar to a hardcore conservative getting his news exclusively from Limbaugh, or a hardcore liberal only reading his news from the NYT. Branch out a little. This is how people become so blinded and focused that they can't carry on a rational and informed discussion.”

 

Is this not ridicule? My response in post #73 speaks for itself. “It is you who is actually not willing to search out and question the validity and credibility of information. Just because a person listens, watches or reads a conservative, liberal, green, or socialist take about the government doesn't mean they are actually getting any alternatives opinions. They are still only getting the opinion, that government is the only way. The alternative is reading, watching and listening to those whose take is that of no government. Every single day I (as do you) live, breath, hear, read and watch the very system of endless propaganda, theft, coercion and slavery, you claim is superior to the freedom of the market. I would have to be dead not to be exposed to it. To say that I am not in tune with other lines of thinking is not only absurd, but also wrong. Therefore, if logical and rational information is presented to me, proving an alternative system is available, would I not be illogical or irrational not to look into it? Are you scared of the truth, the responsibility or do you really find it necessary to run other people's lives?” If you were attempting to ridicule the sources, maybe if you actually read them, and had rational and logical proof to dispute the claims they bring forth, your response might take on a more meaningful, logical and less ignorant approach.

 

----

No. This is not ridicule. That is a paraphrased quote from my favorite military history professor from around 5 years ago. He advised me to never focus all of my attention on news and theories that I agreed with. I've found his advice invaluable. I thought perhaps it was applicable. Perhaps you feel otherwise. At least I'd hope that you could agree that it is sage advice.

----

 

"It really doesn't matter if you support the current government, a dictatorship, a monarchy, or any other form of government for that matter, because each is still government." -SOCALHUSKER. Really? Where should I go with that? Should we make the obligatory Hitler reference? I think I'll just leave it alone.

 

No, I’d prefer if you did get into it. Are you saying the US government, which has been the cause of millions of deaths, imprisonment, torture, theft, coercion, and all that is heinous since its inception, is any less heinous than the governments of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, or any other ruthless dictator whose governments have also been the cause of millions of deaths, imprisonment, torture, theft and coercion? I didn’t know that murder, theft, torture, or imprisonment was anything but heinous? Or is it that doing so, in the name of liberty and freedom, makes it right? Please tell me you have more sense than to dispute this contradiction!?!

 

----

Oh my. Comparisons of the US to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Do you really mean this? If so, I apologize because I can't take your argument seriously.

 

And wait a second. Did you not mention a "punishment business" that would dole out just punishment in an A/C system? How would they punish if not by imprisonment or similar restrictions of freedom? Or are you saying that these "evil" things are no longer evil if they are executed by a business and not by a government?

 

You say that the free market can provide a form of national defense. How would they do this if not through force? Are you again saying that the use of force is acceptable if utilized by private industry, and pure unadulterated evil if utilized by a government? Hmmmm. More contradictions.

-----

 

Taxation is theft through coercion and force? In what way? You choose to live in the US, therefore you choose to abide by US rules. It's a simple concept.

 

See my post above that discusses slavery, taxation, the definition of voluntary and coercion.

 

You say that I am not defending a system that I support. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I don't enjoy taxes any more than anyone else. However, I do realize and acknowledge that taxes are necessary for certain functions. If I remember right you are a HUGE Ron Paul fan. Even he acknowledges that some taxes are necessary.

 

I’m not sure what you are saying here, or where you got this from. Please explain? If you are referring to the article on the “Problems of the Commons” see my reply on post #80, I explain it so even you can understand it.

 

Obviously you enjoy paying taxes or you wouldn't be debating me and would instead be educating others about the unneccesary and immoral aspects of them. What functions could not be done without them, please tell me? You are all about proving the free market cannot do so, yet you refuse to read sources proving otherwise. So please enlighten me on what the free market cannot do and why it cannot do it? As for Ron Paul, I continue to admire his honesty and integrity and his ability to work within an illogical system, however if you read my letter to him I also discussed why I can no longer support or sanction that which he supports.

 

----

Alright SOCAL. You finally got me. I LOVE paying taxes. April 15 is like a second Christmas to me.

 

I understand that our government requires taxes. I enjoy the benefits of our government (national defense, protections of the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, etc.) and therefore I willingly pay into the system. This in no way means that I enjoy paying them. It means that I realize that I am getting something in return.

 

And I have read several of your "sources." I've provided multiple examples of circular logic and illogical statements present in these very sources. I do wish I had the time to read the books (which are all present on a Wikipedia list of anarchist literature . . . I don't mean that as a hint that you yourself haven't read them) that you've provided and maybe someday I will be able to find that time. I'd be interested to see if those authors can provide a consistent and logical argument where the authors I did read so obviously failed. Unfortunately, my time is limited for the next two years.

 

About a month ago I remember you staunchly supporting the Constitution and the rights therein. (apparently you were even a Marine) Your entire political philosophy has abruptly changed in a very short period of time . . . and this change was apparently the result of a single conference. Does that not seem bizarre to you? It seems odd to me. What will you be championing six months from now?

 

Anyways, I think this argument is nearly over. Neither of us are budging. I think I clearly won. I'd imagine you feel the same way. I don't see this changing.

----

[carlfense]

bump.

[carlfense]

Also, I forgot to add this:

 

Did you really claim in post #76 that people are rational beings because their irrational behavior is a rational choice? You say that you (and your sources) use well reasoned and factually based logic . . . this post suggests otherwise. SOCAL has recently been fond of citing dictionary definitions of words; I feel compelled to do likewise.

 

ra⋅tion⋅al

  /ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA

–adjective

1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible

2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense

3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid

4. endowed with the faculty of reason

5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers

6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning

 

ir⋅ra⋅tion⋅al

  /ɪˈræʃənl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [i-rash-uh-nl] Show IPA

–adjective

1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.

2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.

3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.

4. not endowed with the faculty of reason

 

Let's shorten that a bit:

 

Rational = exercising reason.

Irrational = not exercising reason.

 

These are polar opposites yet you claim that one is evidence of the other? This is one absolutely irreconcilable flaw in A/C, it is based on the premise that human beings are rational actors. Unfortunately we are not.

 

(This "irrational action is a rational choice" is yet another circular argument. Circular arguments and an unshakeable belief in the free market are the only consistencies I've yet seen from A/C enthusiasts.)

 

To keep with SOCAL's theme I will suggest that he read "Irrationality: Why We Don't Think Straight," by N.S. Sutherland. If he doesn't read it (for lack of time or interest) I will accuse him of not knowing the issues.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

To keep with SOCAL's theme I will suggest that he read "Irrationality: Why We Don't Think Straight," by N.S. Sutherland. If he doesn't read it (for lack of time or interest) I will accuse him of not knowing the issues.

 

Do you have a link for this book? I looked and couldn't find one.

[huskerjack23]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Irrationality%3A+Why+...N.S.+Sutherland

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

yeah...i know. how would they be held accountable? if they convinced others to comply, they wouldn't feel their rights are being threatened, would they?

 

Do you really believe that someone who had a peaceful and prosperous existence in which they, them self, made the decisions for their own life would consensually comply to give up money and freedom so that someone else could control and rule every aspect of their life? I doubt it.

 

Maybe in the time before the existence of certain technology this happened. However, in recent times the internet has opened up the world to a wide-spread distribution of ideas and knowledge and because of this, the fallacies and myths long perpetrated by governments, as the truth and the reason for their existence, have since been proven false and illogical.

 

The only way this is possible is through the use of coercion and force, which are both violations of individual rights and the violator would be held accountable. In the book Market For Liberty they discuss the many ideas and ways in which justice and accountability exist without government including: arbitration, self-defense, reparation, and ostracism. I would need a book to get into all of the ideas, but if you really want a well-researched, logical and factual answer you can read the book, or sections of it, and it should answer any questions you might have.

[SOCALHUSKER]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Irrationality%3A+Why+...N.S.+Sutherland

 

That's nice!!

 

Except that I was looking for an internet copy, not a place to buy it. Guess, I'll have to hit up the library.

[huskerjack23]

 

yeah...i know. how would they be held accountable? if they convinced others to comply, they wouldn't feel their rights are being threatened, would they?

 

Do you really believe that someone who had a peaceful and prosperous existence in which they, them self, made the decisions for their own life would consensually comply to give up money and freedom so that someone else could control and rule every aspect of their life? I doubt it.

 

Maybe in the time before the existence of certain technology this happened. However, in recent times the internet has opened up the world to a wide-spread distribution of ideas and knowledge and because of this, the fallacies and myths long perpetrated by governments, as the truth and the reason for their existence, have since been proven false and illogical.

 

The only way this is possible is through the use of coercion and force, which are both violations of individual rights and the violator would be held accountable. In the book Market For Liberty they discuss the many ideas and ways in which justice and accountability exist without government including: arbitration, self-defense, reparation, and ostracism. I would need a book to get into all of the ideas, but if you really want a well-researched, logical and factual answer you can read the book, or sections of it, and it should answer any questions you might have.

that just assumes the scenario of peaceful and prosperous existence. it also assumes that the person offering a better existence isn't talking to a gullible moron or a person that can't be convinced that the offer isn't worth taking. i'm gonna take the probability stance and say that you're wrong.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Start of my Response - I took the liberty of snipping your last response, between the lines, in order to shorten this post. Hope you don’t mind. If anybody needs a reference to verify the context, they can read post # 96, which was getting quite lengthy. My responses to carlfense's rebuttals are in red.

 

----

No I didn't read the books you suggested. However, I have read several of the articles you've suggested, and I've come away decidedly unimpressed. Unfortunately I don't have the time to read entire books about a completely theoretical system fraught with what I see as serious flaws.

----

So what you are essentially doing is basing your entire argument against anarcho-capitalism due to your disagreement with a few articles and nothing more? You claim theses articles are filled with serious flaws i.e. what you deem circular logic and a complete theoretical system, yet you provide zero evidence, other than your opinion, to prove either of your disagreements are valid.

 

What you brought forth as a circular logic argument was clearly refuted and explained in post# 80 as no such thing, and you have yet to respond. Would you like to refute the evidence that shows, what you call circular logic, to actually be rational ideas, linked by factual information, to provide a factually based conclusion? Also, what other evidence have you provided to show that anarcho-capitalism won’t work? I have provided numerous historically based and factual examples to show that the free markets work, yet because of your opinion, you refuse to believe so. Your opinion is not proof.

----

Distorted the definition of voluntary? How? If you go to Disneyland and pay a daily admittance fee to enjoy the services provided there are you a slave of the Disney Corporation? Absolutely not. Your presence on Disney grounds is a voluntary assumption of the fees they choose to impose on you. Similarly, if you choose to enjoy the benefits of the United States, you also choose to pay the taxes that pay for these privileges. What is not voluntary about abiding by the laws of a place where you CHOOSE to reside, when no one is forcing you to reside here? I'm not the one twisting the meanings of words. I (of my own free will) choose to reside in the US. Therefore, by choosing to live here, I have made a conscious decision to abide by the rules of this country. (see definition 1. of the definition you so kindly provided: "Done or undertaken of one's own free will.")

 

And, again, no I am not a slave. A slave is the property of another. I am owned by no man. Paying a portion of my income in taxes (I believe the national average is around 20%) in no way makes me a slave. In fact, I'd guess that ACTUAL slaves would be rather offended that you think your "plight" is equal to their own. (Again, read your own definition: 1. "bound in servitude as the property of another." I am in no way bound . . . if taxes were so abhorrent to me I would leave the US . . . that would NOT be possible if I was the property of another.)

-----

Your definition of slavery is distorted because you have not bothered to examine the true definition, as it relates to your life, but rather the definition a government teacher has no doubt taught you. Also, moving or renouncing your citizenship doesn’t in any way hinder the government from stealing your money. Aren’t you in law school? Ever look at the Internal Revenue Code? It’s filled with countless provisions that make it impossible for anyone to avoid the government’s theft of private property. If moving made it that easy, there would no doubt be countless numbers of people fleeing and renouncing their citizenship. IRC 877 is the expatriation tax provision, if you would like to look it up, then maybe you will see why moving is easier said than done and actually makes you even more of a slave.

 

Your example of Disneyland makes about as much sense as moving. First of all Disneyland is private property and therefore has the right to charge other people for use of their property. If I choose not to pay the entry fee, I don’t go to Disneyland. If I don’t go, they don’t come hunt me down and take their cut anyways or throw me in jail if I refuse. That is what the government does. For even if I didn't consent to any of the governments services they would still force me to pay and hunt me down if I didn't.

 

Contrary to what you may believe the whole United States is not the private property of the government. They may think so, but manifest destiny, eminent domain, and any other government concept substituting “the greater good” for theft is just that, theft. Even if this was the case, "the greater good" has already been proven a fallacy, so this cannot be the case. I have already disputed your claim of consent in a few posts, and so far haven’t heard any rebuttal. If you believe that theft is ok, than we can stop this discussion right now, because I will never think theft is ok. If you think it is wrong, than you must take a look at what the government does and truly question that which you have been taught.

 

-----

It does matter to me. You said I was an adamant supporter. I am not. I am openly critical of many parts of our government. Let me quote this right back to you: SOCAL: "If you support any of the government, then you support government." You are live in the US correct? You aren't incarcerated and California has a sales tax; therefore you must pay taxes. As a taxpayer you are supporting the functions of government. Therefore by your own statement you must support all of government. Who's contradictory?

----

Support is a voluntary choice. Taxes are not voluntary. If I don’t pay the taxes, I will go to jail, which is exactly why the government is coercive. It cannot be said that I support something when I am not given a free choice over whether I support it or not. I was not given the choice to be taxed nor to be ruled over. So how did I consent to be taxed or ruled over? Just as my response to the paragraph above, I have already disproved your dispute of consent, but have yet to hear a response.

 

If I voted, argued for taxes, or argued for government then you could say I support government. I don’t do any of those, so therefore you cannot say that I support government. There is no contradiction in that statement. I have already proven that moving would not even dissipate my tax burden, but even if it did, why should I move? I was born here. That was not a choice I made either.

----

No. This is not ridicule. That is a paraphrased quote from my favorite military history professor from around 5 years ago. He advised me to never focus all of my attention on news and theories that I agreed with. I've found his advice invaluable. I thought perhaps it was applicable. Perhaps you feel otherwise. At least I'd hope that you could agree that it is sage advice.

----

 

Yes, I find this to be great advice. However, since you refuse (or do not have the time) to read the sources and ideas I have posted, how can you tell me that I need to be open to new ideas? Isn’t that a little hypocritical? I am more than willing to read opposing viewpoints and have already have proven that I am daily exposed to the ideas of government. I have been introduced to and therefore sought out more information on a differing opinion. I have found that it is quite rational. Maybe if you read it, and try to understand it, you will see it the same way.

 

----

Oh my. Comparisons of the US to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Do you really mean this? If so, I apologize because I can't take your argument seriously.

 

And wait a second. Did you not mention a "punishment business" that would dole out just punishment in an A/C system? How would they punish if not by imprisonment or similar restrictions of freedom? Or are you saying that these "evil" things are no longer evil if they are executed by a business and not by a government?

 

You say that the free market can provide a form of national defense. How would they do this if not through force? Are you again saying that the use of force is acceptable if utilized by private industry, and pure unadulterated evil if utilized by a government? Hmmmm. More contradictions.

-----

Answer the question, is there a difference between the violence committed by Hitler and that, which has been committed by the US government? If so, what? Avoiding the question by stating you can’t take it seriously, only means you haven’t a clue or are too embarrassed by your answer, which will verify the contradiction in your biased opinion.

 

Punishment is not the same as the initiated violence which government always employs. Plus, there are many ways to punish without imprisonment: reparation and ostracizing being the most common. However if the initiated violent actions of an individual warrant imprisonment or death as fair judgment, I don’t see how you can argue against it. Accountability is the only way to prevent irrational behavior, not legislation, as you prefer. The endless regulation and ridiculous amount of money spent on and enforcing the US justice system is proof.

 

You are correct, the free market could not provide national defense because, as you correctly pointed out, it always requires the use of force to implement it. However, the free market can provide security, because security is voluntary. There is a difference between initiated force and self defense. National defense is actually not defense at all, but initiated force. A quick look at history proves that it rarely, if ever, is used on actual defense but instead to police the world and build empires. This also always requires coercion to fund it. If we didn't have an empire to police, there would be no need for national defense and individual security would be sufficient. You can say that other countries might attack America, but think of the arsenals that many Americans own. An anarchist society would also be without the ridiculous gun laws we have today resulting in even more people owning guns. Team this up with with the increase in personal responsibility that would result from no government. Would you want to be the country to attack American soil? You can read Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense for a complete breakdown of this very same topic.

 

Alright SOCAL. You finally got me. I LOVE paying taxes. April 15 is like a second Christmas to me.

 

I understand that our government requires taxes. I enjoy the benefits of our government (national defense, protections of the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, etc.) and therefore I willingly pay into the system. This in no way means that I enjoy paying them. It means that I realize that I am getting something in return.

 

And I have read several of your "sources." I've provided multiple examples of circular logic and illogical statements present in these very sources. I do wish I had the time to read the books (which are all present on a Wikipedia list of anarchist literature . . . I don't mean that as a hint that you yourself haven't read them) that you've provided and maybe someday I will be able to find that time. I'd be interested to see if those authors can provide a consistent and logical argument where the authors I did read so obviously failed. Unfortunately, my time is limited for the next two years.

 

About a month ago I remember you staunchly supporting the Constitution and the rights therein. (apparently you were even a Marine) Your entire political philosophy has abruptly changed in a very short period of time . . . and this change was apparently the result of a single conference. Does that not seem bizarre to you? It seems odd to me. What will you be championing six months from now?

 

Anyways, I think this argument is nearly over. Neither of us are budging. I think I clearly won. I'd imagine you feel the same way. I don't see this changing.

-----

What if someone does not see the same benefits of government functions that you do? Can they opt out? Of course not. So how is this voluntary? Since I have already proven in post #58 that the “common good” is non-existent, I see no need to prove that what you call “benefits” are anything more than services the government monopolizes in order to extort more money from its subjects. If the free market were employed for each of the functions you named, each would be done at a more reasonable cost, at a more efficient pace and only for those who wish to partake in the services. This would mean no taxes. I know it may be hard for you to conceive this, but it is beginning to look like you, and the rest of the people supporting the government, have been duped.

 

I would be lying to say that I have read each and every one of those books, from cover to cover, because I haven’t. I wasn’t instructing you to read them all either, merely suggesting you read them to further understand my arguments and maybe answer any other questions you might have. I have read a vast majority of them, skimmed through others and I can definitely say that each has changed my life. Even if I didn’t agree with what they said, it still made me question what was being disputed and made me search deeper if I didn’t fully understand or agree with each answer. I’m sure even you would agree this is a great tactic to employ.

 

Yes, I was a Marine, supported the Constitution nearly my entire life, and even supported Ron Paul. Each was because I was unaware of the non-contradictory, alternative system of anarcho-capitalism. This has nothing to do with leaping from cause to cause as you infer. Have I not always been a consistent supporter of free markets and individual rights? The answer is yes, so for you to concur that I am inconsistent in my thinking is entirely off base.

 

Would you not change your support of an idea also, if you saw its existence entailed many fallacies, myths and contradictions? Would it be irrational not to? Nobody is perfect and I for one am far from it. However, when I see that which I am supporting is wrong, I am willing to admit it and make an effort to move in the right direction to educate and right myself. Do you not feel the same way? I don’t think this discussion is anywhere near over because many questions are still left unanswered. I hope you don't think this is the end, and will instead attempt to better yourself and continue this discussion. I intend to do the same.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

that just assumes the scenario of peaceful and prosperous existence. it also assumes that the person offering a better existence isn't talking to a gullible moron or a person that can't be convinced that the offer isn't worth taking. i'm gonna take the probability stance and say that you're wrong.

 

Where are you getting the probability? Your opinion? Historical evidence proves the existence of government leads to less prosperity and less peace, there's no assumption involved.