RE: Anarchism
October 23, 2012 at 11:42 am
(This post was last modified: October 23, 2012 at 12:08 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(October 22, 2012 at 6:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:The difference between libertarianism and anarchism is that.....
the anarchists are honest.
Argued like a Christian.
(October 22, 2012 at 7:01 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: Nice! I would compare most libertarians to agnostics. They're apologists. Where, I would compare most anarchists to atheists. They're bold.
Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
I must be an apologist, it can't be that I haven't heard convincing answers from anarchists on ensuring national defense or on how everyone's rights will be protected. I have heard at least one anarcho-captitalist admit to me personally that they'd prefer a society where they have to guard their house personally and vigilantly to one where there's a reasonably high expectation of safety if it meant 'getting rid of government'.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. I'd like us to adopt a measure similar to Canada's that requires new spending to come out of spending cuts elsewhere that has them much better off than us right now. I'm not an apologist for government, I'm an advocate of it: I just don't think more is always better and recognize the tendency of bureacracies to focus on their own survival.
(October 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: Natural selection. Plus, this is your opinion that I wouldn't fare well against you. Also, what's to say I'm not more equipped? Again, I believe that only the strong should/would survive in a society like this.
And you think you're arguing FOR anarcho-capitalism? You'd have to have a totalitarian regime in the first place to impose this, because your values are totally off the reservation where most of us live.
(October 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: Do you think the police isn't paid off, bought or corrupt? My father was in law enforcement, I know this to be quite true. With a little digging I'm sure you could find cases where this is true, too.
You certainly seem to skip the middle man when it comes to having police that are paid off, bought off, AND corrupt.
(October 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: You act as if there's no violence against innocent people now & this would only come by way of "no government".
Sure there's violence against innocent people now. But you're not even trying to make out like there will be equal or less violence against them in the system you propose.
(October 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: This is obviously not the case. But, a lot of criminals have learned how to work the system & are more apt to harm those that may not be as inclined to know what their rights are. In a society based on vigilantism, each person would have the right to defend themselves as they see fit. Therefore, making criminals less likely to do harm to just anyone, because at any time, that person could retaliate.
Maybe an armed society is a polite one, but the fastest draw doesn't have to be so polite.
(October 22, 2012 at 10:06 pm)JefferyHale Wrote: If one looks at the old west, it's a lot less violent than media/Hollywood would lead you to believe. The vast majority of towns were free-market enterprises, lex talionis (law of retribution) & there was no government & hired bounty hunters (privatized law enforcement). The common assumption is that there was lawlessness everywhere & people were killing other people left & right. Actually, crime was low due to the very reasons I mentioned earlier about criminals.
Now this is a good point. Of course, they could string you up for things that weren't crimes because no one was protecting anyone's right to freedom of speech and religion.