I will go ahead & gracefully bow out of this battle of verbal fisticuffs. I have enjoyed it, but I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point, because it seems as if some of my points were overlooked & I've had to repeat myself on numerous occasions & really nothing stimulating has made it past page 5 or 6. Thus leaving me with a conclusion as to my stance on the matter.

I believe in the free-market, volunteerism, natural selection & the private sector. Government is a cancer, taxation is theft & the liberal mindset is abhorrent & utterly capricious. I find such fallacies as "fair share" & "entitlements" should be lumped into the same category as Mother Goose.

If you are actually curious to further your knowledge on anarcho-capitalism, I'd suggest going here: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

It's been fun, I will see you all, around the board!

(October 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: Then it is up to the "strong" to fight back. I don't see how you could not deduce this one for yourself. As for the gentleman above you, the reason "doomsday" scenarios are painted that way is because the liberal media/Hollywood are the one's portraying them in such a manner. I could easily point you to films like "1984" & "V for Vendetta" to offer up my argument(s) as well, but see them only as works of fiction/art.

Your idea that only government can keep us in line is a typical statist mentality that has been indoctrinated into your brain from a very early age. Without obedience to the state, we're all doomed!

Who is arguing this? Surely not me. Governance (by any means) has a very poor track record of keeping us "in line". It does, however, have a better track record of keeping us "in line" than no governance. Just for one moment accept that you are incapable of preventing me from going apeshit on your ass without the protections offered by the state. Entertain the notion, and understand the compromise that is made. If these things are not important to you that is your call, you are free to relieve yourself of these protections at any time (a freedom which I would not grant to your in you as the tariff master btw- I wouldn't even let you leave the area I controlled), you haven't yet though have you? What about this haven't I deduced for myself? I concluded that I am "stronger" than you...but I also have the honesty to admit that my being "stronger" than you does not imply that I won't enact tyranny upon you (and by extension that others would not enact tyranny upon me..or that I would be able to prevent it). You just keep ignoring my criticism when I am stressing to you that anarchy will not grant you any freedom whatsoever unless people inexplicably start playing nice with each other. Which I will not..... I know, I know...people will band together and pay some military force to defend them from me...trouble is this, if everyone is depending on private enterprise for all of this shit, then so long as I have the bigger pockets I'm the one controlling the very service you hope will deliver you from me. All of this, Mr. Hale, ignores the fact that "states" -are- strong........so if only the strong could or should survive this future of yours...I can confidently conclude that states will persist and you will not.

Quote:A leftist girl at the local pub asked me who I was going to vote for. When I responded with: I don't vote, I'm an anarchist. She quickly replied with something to the effect of: Oh, no! I don't want to get raped.

I don't vote either. I refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. I would be as mystified as you, I wasn't aware that the state was very good at preventing rape, I thought it was mainly interested in punishing rape (though I suppose the case could be made that it prevents some possible future rape through incarceration).

Quote:The aforementioned mentality seems to be lacking in common sense, so I decided to drink my beverage & forgo any type of rational argument, because I could see she was unarmed.

Or, perhaps more accurately, you didn't have the heart to tell her that if she wasn't "strong enough" she was just going to have to get raped.

Quote:Again, anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with NO ORDER, or NO RULES. These services would still be provided, though by the private sector, not the federal government/tax dollars.

How is this order achieved? Who decides upon what this order consists of?

How would the private sector defend against drug cartels?? They are already businesses, albeit illegal ones. They are already armed and ready to go defend their share of the market. I'd rather keep the imperfect police system and try to fix it (the police system), than to have to hire some mercenaries to defend my virtue and ensure my children's safety. I have no desire to live in a war zone. And what you are proposing, if agreed upon by rational, calm people, could work, it'd be quirky, but it is possible. But throw in the mix all the crazy, irrational people in this world and you get chaos.
You still haven't answered a basic question: How would laws or rules be determined? If there's no government, no Constitution, then there is no law.

Fine, give up. But I'd like to see what you do once the infrastructure starts wearing down...

---

(October 23, 2012 at 1:32 pm)festive1 Wrote: How would the private sector defend against drug cartels?? They are already businesses, albeit illegal ones. They are already armed and ready to go defend their share of the market. I'd rather keep the imperfect police system and try to fix it (the police system), than to have to hire some mercenaries to defend my virtue and ensure my children's safety. I have no desire to live in a war zone. And what you are proposing, if agreed upon by rational, calm people, could work, it'd be quirky, but it is possible. But throw in the mix all the crazy, irrational people in this world and you get chaos.
You still haven't answered a basic question: How would laws or rules be determined? If there's no government, no Constitution, then there is no law.

Not to mention that mercenaries aren't very reliable at times. Not to mention other illegal businesses like slavery, etc.

Anarcho-capitalistic societies have a strong tendency for tremendous and sudden power shifts between the major players, the weak squeezed till no blood comes, and the visibly mighty laid low by daggers and 'counsel' of those truly in charge.

It supports shadow government... and this is rarely a benevolent force, given the focus of the society on the possibilities for the individual. Unfortunately, there is no other government to challenge this power. It's a fantastic society of backstabbers and thieves, system abusers and power war.

But it certainly is no 'utopia' You're on the wrong side of anarchism for that

---

(October 23, 2012 at 10:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: Remember, only the "strong" will/should survive Festive.

Luck helps.

---

(October 23, 2012 at 12:22 pm)jonb Wrote: The strong survive?
That's why there are none of these-
<dinos>
and the world is full of these-


I'm with the weak, we usually win.

Strength was not what killed the dinosaurs. Size (starvation) and climate change were... however much physical might they possessed... they were pathetically weak in the face of a poor environment.

Why do you think humans are the major power players today? Survive any environment

Ants are amazingly powerful as a species.

---

(October 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What if the "weak" systematically prey on those who thought they were "strong"?

Congratulations! Either you have a massacre of the weak, or the 'strong' status is about to change hands.

Amazingly... eventually government arises! In particular, distrusting tribal societies, looking out for each other... and fucking over everyone else. Then comes the RISE OF NATIONS!

---

(October 23, 2012 at 1:26 pm)jonb Wrote: Well Mr hale, do it.
Or are you just going to carry on talking about what you want?

Agreed, for this type of society to begin... it must first overthrow its previous government. Civil war is generally a fantastic time for anarchy, and the war profits the capitalists (individualists) in particular.

---

(October 23, 2012 at 1:33 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Not to mention that mercenaries aren't very reliable at times. Not to mention other illegal businesses like slavery, etc.

There would be no law, and therefore no illegal business. Were you even paying attention when it was stated that this was anarchy?

(October 21, 2012 at 5:01 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: Exactly! The "collective good" is of no interest to me.

Someone is cruising for a little vigilante bruising.

(October 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Why do you think humans are the major power players today? Survive any environment

Ants are amazingly powerful as a species.

Quote:“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

(October 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(October 23, 2012 at 1:33 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Not to mention that mercenaries aren't very reliable at times. Not to mention other illegal businesses like slavery, etc.

There would be no law, and therefore no illegal business. Were you even paying attention when it was stated that this was anarchy?

I was, and that was my entire point. It wouldn't be illegal with no government, so drug cartels and slavers would be largely unstoppable.

Slaves would have a hard time paying someone to defend them, that's for sure.

(October 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I was, and that was my entire point. It wouldn't be illegal with no government, so drug cartels and slavers would be largely unstoppable.

You do realize that the reason cartels are currently so successful... is precisely because they are illegal?

Prohibition vs beer these days, for instance.

Not that it really matters, since fucking people over is sorta the theme of this 'no system' thing.