(December 14, 2016 at 11:31 am)Faith No More Wrote: Anarchists are stupid.

There's not really much more that needs to be said about that.

You're pretty much hit dead center the stereotype Stefan Molyneux talks about. 

He often talks about people with no argument who just say things like "That's stupid."

---

(December 14, 2016 at 9:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 4:19 am)paulpablo Wrote: I think people who believe in capitalism and anarchy believe in the privatisation of road building.
Not that I'm an anarchist myself. I'm all for good old fashioned government built roads.

You're missing my point. No matter what they believe, the fact is, they avail themselves of the very institution they assert they wish to abolish.

If that's your point then I agree.  They have no choice but to do that especially in todays society.  Their theory (the anarchist capitalists)  is that everything is better when privatized because it violates neither of those two principles.

No assertive violent aggression.  And keep your promises.

You spoke about roads and the fire service and those could both be privatized.  Not that I necessarily think that's a good idea.  

But saying that an anarchists arguments are obsolete because they live taking advantages of the services government provides doesn't mean much.  There were probably people who benefited from slavery in some way who were against that.

At the moment there's no real way to travel or live without government involvement because the government controls road building and the fire service.

---

(December 14, 2016 at 4:46 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think the claim that most rights are a threat of government violence is overstated.  The State provides penalties for the violation of the rights of others and for (as Thump intimated) willful violation of the social contract, but the threat of violence from the state - provided one lives in a liberal democracy - is pretty minimal.  

In the case of not paying taxes that support education, the violence isn't for not ponying up, it is for resisting arrest, two monumentally different violations.  If you don't pay your taxes, you may be fined, have a lien places against your property or income, and so forth.  If you don't pay your taxes, it isn't as if jackbooted thugs come to your home and beat you with clubs until you pay.

Boru

But it is always the goal to take money without consent and violence for the resistance if you resist them taking your money.  The major governments of the world, their police forces have a duty to always escalate violence until they have the monopoly on it.

I've never heard of the social contract to be honest so I don't have much to say about it.

(December 14, 2016 at 11:42 am)paulpablo Wrote: You're pretty much hit dead center the stereotype Stefan Molyneux talks about. 

He often talks about people with no argument who just say things like "That's stupid."

Lol, "stereotype." You're right. He might not be stupid. He might just be delusional. But considering his conclusions are irrational and stupid, I felt like calling him stupid rather than give him the benefit of the doubt.

It's not that I don't have an argument. It's that I didn't feel it was needed to rehash again why anarcho-capitalism is completely ridiculous.

Clearly there is much conceptual overlap in this area. I like to make the following distinctions which may or may not be standard usage:

Liberty is the lack of others' interference with one's actions. Freedom is the ability to act within that sphere of non-interference. Freedom and liberty are different with respect to the nature of the constraints upon them. Liberties are constrained only by other people whereas freedoms can be constrained by other people but also by limiting circumstances. You can have liberties without having freedom, but you cannot have freedoms without liberties.

So for example, if I am in the wilderness and no one is there to stop me, I have liberty to shout-out whatever I like, eat what I want, and travel in whatever direction I choose. However, liberty does not shield me from consequences. So while I have these liberties, circumstances could limit my freedom. If there is a wolf pack nearby I am not free to shout. If all that surrounds me are poison berries I am not free to eat. Or alternatively, if no one is there to stop me and if I am wise I could build myself a nice little cabin and live out my days quite peacefully fishing.

I lose liberty the minute another person interferes. That lose could be violent, like if he threatens to shoot me or it could be voluntary, if we agree to keep to our part of the woods in quiet enjoyment. In some instances the loss of some liberties can result in greater freedom, like if we build a fence around our part of the woods to keep out wolves. Now we enjoy greater freedom of movement within the fenced area at the cost of some liberty to use my time and resources as I like by my own authority. (Notice here that I can gain that freedom as the result of cooperation but I could just has well have gained that freedom after my neighbor made me build the fence by threatening to beat me up or kill me.)

Libertarianism is a legal philosophy based on the idea of self-ownership. In essence you own your life, not only in the present, but also your past in the form of the products of your life and your future in the form of the prospects for your life. To steal is to take the past life of another, to restrain or threaten is to take someone’s present life, and to murder is to take his future life.

This is a sharp break from the primary alternative theory of law of Western democracies, legal positivism, in which the lives of the governed were under the authority of the State, secured either by force or by circumstantial inclusion in a prior social structure, like a tribe.

For example, the American Revolution was not simply a change of government; it was the adoption of a completely different legal theory. Of the main concerns of monarchists was that if the colonies severed their relationship with England then what would be the basis for the Law if not the authority of the Crown? The answer, the Founding Father believed, was that the legitimacy of the State was based neither on the “general will” of a social collective or by command of a policing authority; but rather, on informed consent. After the Revolution, Americans ceased to be “Subjects” and became “Citizens”.

Of course the devil is always in the details and I doubt very much that libertarian ideals, no matter how desirable, can be put into practice except as guiding principles. How does a society deal with people who, for whatever reason, cannot give consent? Must consent always be explicit or is there a role for tacit acceptance. How do rights and obligations transfer from one individual to another? Etc. etc.

Many political positions IMHO generally express where people stand with respect to the degree to which they believe in self-ownership.

(December 14, 2016 at 11:05 am)alpha male Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 10:16 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: It seems he thought the fire department was supported by bake-sales and charitable donations?

Depends where he lives. Around here, yes, the fire departments are volunteer nonprofit organizations that rely on charitable donations, raffles, bingo, etc.

In the small town/countryside where I live, we are indeed served by a VFD supported by donations and events-proceeds. We are also covered by the county fire dept which of course is funded by taxation.

In his case, his home was saved by a professional, public FD; hence my point about his eating his cake and complaining about it, too.

(December 14, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 11:05 am)alpha male Wrote: Depends where he lives. Around here, yes, the fire departments are volunteer nonprofit organizations that rely on charitable donations, raffles, bingo, etc.

In the small town/countryside where I live, we are indeed served by a VFD supported by donations and events-proceeds. We are also covered by the county fire dept which of course is funded by taxation.

In his case, his home was saved by a professional, public FD; hence my point about his eating his cake and complaining about it, too.

You cannot fund government with 0% taxes but neither can you have a free society with 100% taxes. People who complain about confiscatory taxes usually think they are being taxed unfairly not that they shouldn't have to pay taxes at all. Which raises the larger point: what is fair?

On the one hand it seems fair that everyone should contribute the exact same amount. But not everyone has equal ability to pay. On the other hand it would seem fair for people to pay taxes proportional to the benefit they receive from the government. But it doesn't seem fair to apply a principle unequally. While a rich man indirectly benefits by having more of his wealth protected, a poor man on public assistance receives direct benefits without having to pay nearly that amount in taxes.

Saying that everyone should pay their "fair share" is largely uncontroversial...until trying to decide what is fair.

... or how you define "benefit" ... or "rich" ... or person, for that matter; there seems to be some confusion at the highest levels of our jurisprudence on that matter, too, which is germane to this conversation.

(December 15, 2016 at 3:55 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... or how you define "benefit" ... or "rich" ... or person, for that matter; there seems to be some confusion at the highest levels of our jurisprudence on that matter, too, which is germane to this conversation.

This is off topic but are you on a dictionary binge this month thump? Normally I can understand what you're saying but I've just had to look up 2 words you've used in this thread.
I've not heard "avails" or "germane" used in a convo before in my life I think. Maybe I heard the word avails in some classic book I was reading like Frankenstein or Dracula.
I'll see if I can squeeze these words into some convos in the next few days myself.

(December 14, 2016 at 11:31 am)Faith No More Wrote: Anarchists are stupid.

There's not really much more that needs to be said about that.

If you're talking about the followers of the political philosophy they're slightly less stupid than libertarians. At least anarchy realises there needs to be something to mitigate the problems of greed and cheating within the system (but then spoils it all by saying "in our socialist utopia, people will shed these problems automatically"), whereas libertarians look to greed to be the break on cheating.

(December 15, 2016 at 4:21 am)paulpablo Wrote: This is off topic but are you on a dictionary binge this month thump? Normally I can understand what you're saying but I've just had to look up 2 words you've used in this thread.
I've not heard "avails" or "germane" used in a convo before in my life I think.  Maybe I heard the word avails in some classic book I was reading like Frankenstein or Dracula.
I'll see if I can squeeze these words into some convos in the next few days myself.

I don't own a dictionary. I do own books.

---

(December 15, 2016 at 4:37 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(December 14, 2016 at 11:31 am)Faith No More Wrote: Anarchists are stupid.

There's not really much more that needs to be said about that.

If you're talking about the followers of the political philosophy they're slightly less stupid than libertarians. At least anarchy realises there needs to be something to mitigate the problems of greed and cheating within the system (but then spoils it all by saying "in our socialist utopia, people will shed these problems automatically"), whereas libertarians look to greed to be the break on cheating.

If you're going to be calling people "stupid", you'd ought to at least be able to spell a one-syllable, five-letter word like brake.

(December 15, 2016 at 9:54 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 15, 2016 at 4:21 am)paulpablo Wrote: This is off topic but are you on a dictionary binge this month thump? Normally I can understand what you're saying but I've just had to look up 2 words you've used in this thread.
I've not heard "avails" or "germane" used in a convo before in my life I think.  Maybe I heard the word avails in some classic book I was reading like Frankenstein or Dracula.
I'll see if I can squeeze these words into some convos in the next few days myself.

I don't own a dictionary. I do own books.  

---

(December 15, 2016 at 4:37 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: If you're talking about the followers of the political philosophy they're slightly less stupid than libertarians. At least anarchy realises there needs to be something to mitigate the problems of greed and cheating within the system (but then spoils it all by saying "in our socialist utopia, people will shed these problems automatically"), whereas libertarians look to greed to be the break on cheating.

If you're going to be calling people "stupid", you'd ought to at least be able to spell a one-syllable, five-letter word like brake.

A) It's not spelling it's my fat fingers on a touch phone and b) there are two flavours of libertarian, rich greedy bastards, and those without the sense to realise that they'd be servants or slaves.
We've gone through a libertarian paradise a few times before. For the majority it was not a nice place at all. If you want a fair crack at the whip you need a big nosey and interfering government.