Max, it’s clear that when anyone annihilates your arguments, you immediately do a song-and-dance about how that person hasn’t contributed to the thread, yaddayadda crocodile tears. It’s old, and there will be consequences to any use of it in the future. Accept that you’re wrong about certain things. Or not. It really doesn’t matter, as reality does not bend to your whims.
It is exactly the opposite. The effective defense of your property rights is what ensures that everyone else respects those rights. Anything else is just hoping someone else will defend what you are unwilling too.
This is the nature of humanity, you are constantly in position to defend your freedom.
Then you have relinquished control over your own person.
I agree with LS. Our little disputes add nothing to the debate. So I will no longer respond to anything you have to say and hopefully you can do the same.
The “petty your wrong and I’m right because I say so”, sprinkled with flowery ad hominem’s from you bawa makes for a very non-productive and un-enjoyable discussion. I think you should take LS’s advise when discussing on the forum. Rather then focusing all your energy in blatant attack to your opponent why not use your differences of opinion to teach the mob and inform those of us who may not be at your level of understanding.
I have to be honest. 95% of the posts I see from you are nothing more then a claim that you have devastated your opponents argument. The problem is there are more posts of you actually claiming to have done so then actually doing so. Add in your extremely condescending tone and it becomes difficult to follow sometimes as I never see your supposed “devastating point”. Instead I just see tons of posts of nothing but personal and petty attacks against your opponent.
Why not try in a lighter tone so slower peeps like me can understand what your supposed devastating points are? I’m not saying I agree with max liberty, I’m saying that your general way of addressing people is offensive and auto-puts me on the defensive. I get a feeling that is your tactic and it makes you appear that you know less about what your talking about so must compensate with bullying to pass your point.
If you go around stealing people’s stuff, and when they come to get it back you successfully defend your property claims, this doesn’t create property rights - it violates them. You are conflating ownership via force with ownership via property rights.
Property rights should also not be conflated with compelling others to serve the defense of your property.
They should only serve as information to identify the proper owner (one exclusively capable of controlling or delegating control) of some form of property.
If property rights were not valued by the masses at large, in an anarcho-capitalist society, this means there would be little value for courts and their ruling’s enforcement in such matters. If all that was important was possession, this sounds more like constant warfare…nothing similar to civilization and lawful order.
My point wasn’t that others must defend my freedom for me or that freedom spontaneously occurs, only that violent defense of property is only a part of maximizing freedom. If no one is willing to respect property rights, yet all property claims are successfully defended by the last possessor, how can this be considered maximum freedom?
Maximum freedom would require absolutely no coercion, not simply effective methods of thwarting it, although (as I said earlier) disconnecting coercion from profitable consequences would effectively reduce willingness to resort to such behavior.
Sigh…I feel like I’m battling windmills here…
Where did I mention ownership via force?
Do you have the rights or not? Why does it matter what the majority thinks?
“…this sounds more like constant warfare…” Welcome to the human race.
You can only have freedom when you effectively thwart coercion.
Oh, this isn’t about us. This is about YOU and your propensity to lapse into pouting every time someone destroys your arguments. Clean up your act, Max.
is precisely what Max does. And a lot of people have seen it. That you are unaccustomed to point-blank statements is, frankly, your problem. You might want to work on that, given that this is the internet.
That fact that you are savage doesn’t mean everybody is.
ouch!!
Thank you for making the point. There are criminals now and always have been. It is unavoidable, so to think anarchy is the absence of criminals is a waste of time. Since determining whether a criminal is sufficiently strong to be arbitrarily categorized as a state is completely up to the individual then anarchy exists right now. This is it…look around…learn to thrive in it.
Who here says anarchy will be the absence of criminals, O Ye Who Creates Strawmen?
anarchy is a description of an environment in which politics is absent. do you maintain that there is no such thing as the state and state politics? i understand that you don’t seek to extend your freedom, to free yourself, as you delusionally believe you are as free as you could be. its rather an absurd position for a libertarian to hold. your happy with the status quo vis-a-vis your freedom?
Cooperation is politics. This thread seeks to discover a better understanding of what anarchy is and is not.
This is a strawman. Max’s point is, this is already anarchy, and if it is not the anarchy you want, then you have to make it the anarchy you want, by taking control of your own power.
We already have anarchy between countries. What’s needed, is to push it to the individual level. We’re not so far away, and the state is not some omnipresent monolith.
To claim we don’t consent to the state isn’t accurate. We all consent. We only claim liberty (such as the liberty to have these discussions) when we don’t feel threatened by force. And it is impossible to overcome the bully, until you stop being afraid. That is unless people really believe the bully is going to give up a tactic that has worked since the dawn of time.
The revolution is within us, not within the state.
no, politics is not cooperation, it is warfare. "There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. " the political and economic means.
there is not already anarchy. as there is a state. not only is it not the anarchy i want. it is not anarchy. to think otherwise is to have a superficial understanding of what anarchy means. anarchy is not the metaphysical freedom people have and the fact that its logically possible for them to various things. its a description of a particular set of coercive arrangements or rather the absence of them. as they are not absent this is not anarchy. they are present. do you argue that these coercive arrangements are not present? i would be shocked to hear this from you LS…
i dont consent. sorry to burst your bubble.
yeap. that’s why i’ve said numerous times that one aspect of what anarchy is, is free-thinking. I do that on my own accord.
Criminals are coercive arrangements. The State is a more sophisticated street gang/criminals that has been able to gather more consent geographically than a few neighborhoods. Anarchy is the push of liberty. It is unavoidable and ever-present as long as a human lives. This in no way detracts the definitions and meanings of government, the call of libertarians, etc… that I’ve seen.
the state is a particular subset of the criminal class.
anarchy is not the absence of all cirminality, but of a particular subset of criminality with particular characteristics.
i’m surprised i need to explain this on LVMI forums
agreed
agreed, never said otherwise - that’s why I actually say anarchy is here - but - very weak. This argument of mine, to explain ahead of time to cut it off at the pass, is the same argument I used that free-will/liberty exists even in a slave. Do you remember us having that same discussion? It doesn’t make a slave not a slave. The degree of freedom is obviously low when it comes to a slave on a plantation, but the reason that even such a slave has free-will only makes it more the maddening to a master that wants more power of another person. Such a master might try to capture, it is imaginative, and control the thoughts of people. The lose of liberty, the exercise thereof more precisely, can happen in extreme cases. This in no way means the whole effort of attaining complete liberty is not to happen - it IS happening and for very good reasons that detract nothing from our current understanding and definition.
no worries. My effort is to rid all criminals and the state has more force than I to stop them, but that doesn’t mean I don’t call them out on their injustices. I think of it this way. If I had the technical capabilities and enough people sided with me I could do a criminal investigation on all the politicians and their supporters. I would allow them to decide freely and willingly to change their worldview and choose liberty, but if I could and they refused, then justice will be served.
What point ? I’m explicitly denying your claim that constant warfare is part of human nature or part of the human race. I didn’t deny the existence of ordinary criminals. I suggested that you as an ex-soldier wrongly sees war as a given.
I don’t care about anarchy - I’m a libertarian.