Without common law or mediators, anyone could get away with anything, according to his or her own system of living. So if someone wanted to go shoot someone, there would be no repercussions except for their own, in Koolay's world. Which means, Koolay is totally okay with someone shooting him in the head someday, because it was the law of the evil government anyone that imposed penalties on murder. Koolay, do you welcome a person who wants to murder you with open arms, or would you rather there be some kind of penalty placed on his actions? By the way, this is an easy question.

(July 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Because the more civilized among us realized we didn't want twats like you to be able to make decisions without mediators between you and us.

This.

I dislike many people, because their motivations are pointless, and their ways of acting on those motivations are illogical. I see the idea of absolute freedom for other people a serious threat to my own sanity.

Imagine, walking down the street, and all you can see is penis graffiti, and big men jumping on people and farting in their faces for fun. That's anarchy.

(July 12, 2013 at 1:41 pm)Koolay Wrote: So you are saying stealing is okay if what is stolen is put to what you perceive to be useful?

Nope. But then, taxes are not stealing.

(July 12, 2013 at 1:41 pm)Koolay Wrote: And slave masters give their slaves food and shelter.

Irrelevant, since we are no longer slaves.

(July 12, 2013 at 10:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Because the more civilized among us realized we didn't want twats like you to be able to make decisions without mediators between you and us.

This.

I dislike many people, because their motivations are pointless, and their ways of acting on those motivations are illogical. I see the idea of absolute freedom for other people a serious threat to my own sanity.

Imagine, walking down the street, and all you can see is penis graffiti, and big men jumping on people and farting in their faces for fun. That's anarchy.

Boyfriend and I have been talking about this for the last couple days. Unrestricted capitalism and government never lead to anything good.

(July 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Boyfriend and I have been talking about this for the last couple days. Unrestricted capitalism and government never lead to anything good.

Agreed. Libertarianism is the ideological opposite of Communism, which would fail for the exact opposite reason. While the former assumes only self interest matters, the latter places too much emphasis on it. In truth, you need a blend of the two to have a functional society. Both philosophies are naive about how humans will behave in the real world.

(July 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote:

(July 12, 2013 at 10:21 pm)bennyboy Wrote: This.

I dislike many people, because their motivations are pointless, and their ways of acting on those motivations are illogical. I see the idea of absolute freedom for other people a serious threat to my own sanity.

Imagine, walking down the street, and all you can see is penis graffiti, and big men jumping on people and farting in their faces for fun. That's anarchy.

Boyfriend and I have been talking about this for the last couple days. Unrestricted capitalism and government never lead to anything good.

I guess it does if you're at the top of the tree. But even then, capitalism can never be truely unrestricted. You can't, say, set up a fishery that just fishes the sea dry becuase then your business model falls flat after the finite resources are depleted.

So, as a company, you can chose to set up your own boundaries and restrict your own resources, but then say a competitor moves in and utilizes its assets to depleted stock to your detriment? Well, guess you're both fucked, but then they'll be less fucked than you. Short term gain > long term sustainability when you've got no one tapping you on your shoulder asking you to consider the consequences for people that your business doesn't cater for. Unrestricted freedoms would just be the epitome of some people considering themselves more equal than others.

(July 12, 2013 at 10:28 am)Koolay Wrote: There are several and very clear parallels between Religion and Statism. This post will explore these. I will use Christianity as the comparison.

They are hierarchical: The hierarchy of both religion and statism is very similiar, you usually have the person ontop of the Church; The pope/Queen then regionally you would have archbishops and such. A democratic government has a president or prime minister, and then regionally you would have mayors and such. These figures have the power to infringe on their subjects rights and command violence upon the people.

They are always violent: Whether they be in the form of crusades or 'liberation wars', state and religion have always been killing people in the hundreds of millions. For lesser 'crimes' you can be thrown in a cage for several years.

They always want to take your money: Both religion and state are always desperate to manipulate you or violently take your money. To be seen as not paying your church/government tax is to be punished by social ostracism, by not complying to the coercion you are seen to be 'hurting your fellow citizen'. The ultimate punishment, is being thrown in a cage for not submitting your resources.

They are desperate for children: Both religion and government are desperate to get their hands on children, children for propaganda is the most valuable commodity in any violent monopoly, if you can propagandise the children, you own the people. Verbally or even physically abusive institutes teach children to obey the authority of the religion or government. For someone to disagree with the state/religion taking their children, they are seen as 'Anti-education' by their fellow livestock.

Abstraction and Avoidance of Principles: Priests and statesmen do not like talking about principles, because socratic principles reveal the state or religion for what it really is: A violent monopoly. Universal principles are terrifying and should never be talked about or acknowledged. If you ask a priest, "How could a God that says killing is wrong flood the entire world voluntarily?" or a statesman "How could a state that says stealing is wrong, put the unborn into tens of thousands of dollars in debt and take 50% of citizens money?". You understand, they hate those questions, and will not answer your question.

You are evil!: Religion claims children need to pay back for the original sin to be a good citizen. State claims children need to pay back for the fiscal debt (upwards of $50,000 per newborn) to be a good citizen.

Go annoy someone else with you shit.

You dont even reply to the posts which rip you a new asshole you cowardly waste of time!

(July 13, 2013 at 1:34 pm)_xenu_ Wrote:

(July 13, 2013 at 1:13 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Boyfriend and I have been talking about this for the last couple days. Unrestricted capitalism and government never lead to anything good.

Agreed. Libertarianism is the ideological opposite of Communism, which would fail for the exact opposite reason. While the former assumes only self interest matters, the latter places too much emphasis on it. In truth, you need a blend of the two to have a functional society. Both philosophies are naive about how humans will behave in the real world.

They should both be considered as heuristic devices and nothing more.

I would hate to drive in Koolaid's country.

Some people will decide to drive on the right, and some people will decide to drive on the left.
It will be this way since there can't be a single person or group above the individual, so no one will have any actual authority to tell people which side of the road they are allowed to drive on.
You "hope" people will agree to drive on one side or the other, but again, without authority above the drivers no one can ever enforce driving on one side.

I can see the road casualties and fatalities now.....

I've come to the conclusion that Koolaid is Chaotic Neutral.