Government is Irrational.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

'If you don't like government, just move'

Way to spit on the graves of everyone that have been victims of government.

Would you say that to a jew in 1940s Germany? 'If you don't like the government just move.'

How about the aggressor move into the forest not to bother anyone and leave the peaceful and productive alone.

Achtung! You best flee from the country you live in before the Kommandant comes a knocking.

What if, following the collapse of the realist/state system you hate so much, everyone decides to go on a killing spree and people die en masse?

[Something completely different]

'If you don't like government, just move'

Way to spit on the graves of everyone that have been victims of government.

Would you say that to a jew in 1940s Germany? 'If you don't like the government just move.'

How about the aggressor move into the forest not to bother anyone and leave the peaceful and productive alone.

What an amazing pile of disgusting horseshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And does the name Krupp tell you anything??? That`s right! Those who made the biggest profit out of slave labor in ww2 where private corporations!

Doesn`t matter anyway, your argument is the flaudest bullshit you posted until now!

Blaming the holocaust on the concept of goverment in general is historic revisionism and an insult towards the victims.

Also are firearms manufacturers responsible for the murders commited with their weapons?

Is the car industry responsible for car accidents?

Is the cow responsible for lactose alergies??????

Really dude, at first I had fun laughting at you, now I think you are crazed and repulsive vermin!

And d you think that an anarchic Britain, Ussr or USa could have brought up the resources to defeat nazi Germany????
The entire concept of 1960s and 1970s westeuropean socialism was born out of an optimism due to the efficiancy with which centralised big goverment worked in times of war.

Now fuck off you turd and stop changing history and thereby spitting on the graves of those who died during it`s crimes!

[Koolay]

I think the first thing that would need to be established is whether or not X recognizes the authority of the court. Or maybe whether or not Y can compel X to show up and face his accusers.

And if the court does have authority to compel people to show up, authority to render verdicts, and authority to see that these verdicts are adhered to.... guess what?
You've just started a government!

No, the 'government' is a violent monopoly that initiates force against people to acquire resources. Justice arbitration is just one product they offer (and badly at that) to distract us from them cutting our wallet in half.

Arbitration will be decided upon by the free market, people are bound to their insurance companies and the DRO court.

You are against taxation? So, who will pay for the roads, hospitals, infrastructure, etc? Who writes the rules without government? Who will enforce it? Better yet, who will enforce without any kind of revenue? Are you certain that every human will cooperate in a positive manner?

Who communicates with foreign countries? Who establishes trade and supply and demand? How will your lack of government determine goods and services needed for society? How will lack of government establish national defense, should other countries want to attack? Just because you think your society can coexist, does not mean other societies will embrace your philosophy.

Your statements, although highly idealistic in nature, omit one important aspect visible in our society. How will you motivate people to work or coexist? Furthermore, without any infrastructure, you doom your society to failure. Unless bridges get built by divine influence.

You curse individuals as slaves for wanting to coexist in society, yet you fail to provide a viable alternative.

If I answered all of this, I would be completely arrogant and way over my head (the government).

The point is, in free market anarchy, is that none of us claim to know what the people want, the people will decide what the people want through voluntarily supporting goods and services. If you think of any function the state provides, there will be millions that will do that for a buck. The free market is the collective genius of 7 billion people, it's power is held back by violent people throughout history, and today most prominently those under the banner of statism. For every question you ask, there would be an expert in that field trying to please those demands because his livelihood depends on it- Rather than a bunch of out of touch old men playing god- THAT is the power of the free market. The people know best.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The people know best.

No they don't.

The other day I was talking to a guy who thought antibiotics could help cure the flu.

[catfish]

I guess "dibs" don't mean jack shit around here...

[simplexity]

No, the 'government' is a violent monopoly that initiates force against people.

Just by saying this over and over again is not going to make it come true.

Neither will redefining a word.

The base idea behind government is not the problem, which is leadership of a group of people with some authority, to be able to protect the people. This leadership requires resources to do this, does it not. How are the people just going to somehow pool resources to accomplish something without some form of leadership?

People are the problem when they get too much power, and they are the initiators of violence, not the government in general. That is why you separate the powers by having some sort of control. That is why there is not a centralized power in countries like the US, or the UK. The judicial system stops the executive branch(cops) from going too far, and so on.

[Koolay]

No, the 'government' is a violent monopoly that initiates force against people.

People are the problem when they get too much power, and they are the initiators of violence, not the government in general. That is why you separate the powers by having some sort of control. That is why there is not a centralized power in countries like the US, or the UK. The judicial system stops the executive branch(cops) from going too far, and so on.

You are degrading humans to machines, we are not machines and we have free will and we can stop the initiation of violence at any time.

You are the one proposing government, so the burden of proof is on you, and you have provided no reason or evidence, so take your own advice.

What is 'too far' - is throwing someone in a cage for owning a plant not too far? What about putting the unborn into debt slavery to appease the dependent classes? Or putting gay people into cages for marrying? Where does this madness end? the government just keeps getting bigger and bigger, and more and more rights are taken away from peaceful and productive people. Government is immoral and illogical, and like any irrational belief, people will evolve past this violent era of human history like we are with religion, slavery and monarchy. Statism is coming to an end, as we are seeing less and less support and trust for government and more and more desperation from the ruling classes.

By saying government is peaceful, you are only fooling yourself and imprisoning your own mind to those who will exploit you. Have some pride in yourself.

[LostLocke]

And now for something completely different....





I guess this was fun while it lasted.

[sarcasticgeographer]

The difference between you and I is our view on government. You view it as corrupt and unnecessary. I believe that humans need government and is essential for life, liberty, and happiness.

I can see how John Rawls and Robert Nozick influenced your thinking.

Again, how can you guarantee that individuals would be motivated to produce goods and services?

[Koolay]

The difference between you and I is our view on government. You view it as corrupt and unnecessary. I believe that humans need government and is essential for life, liberty, and happiness.

I can see how John Rawls and Robert Nozick influenced your thinking.

Again, how can you guarantee that individuals would be motivated to produce goods and services?

No. The difference between me and you is that I believe the initiation of force is always wrong, that is where I draw the line. You go way over this line and believe the initiation of force on non violent people is justified. This isn't a preference like you like McDonalds and I like KFC, Red Vs. Blue. We have a difference in moral principles.

Money solves motivation, capitalism has legendary motivation, virtually any service or product you can think of, and there is a person willing to give you that for the right price. The opposite of capitalism, is stealing, coersion and war.