why I am not "anarcho-capitalist"

[wilderness]

@ama gi

1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.

Wouldn’t that be a logical, in other words, not impossible outcome of a no-state society?

@ama gi

2 - I don’t care if you call it “public” or “private”. The idea is that if you commit a crime, you get dragged to the nearest courthouse, instead of haggling over multiple, competing courts.

And why wouldn’t that happen in a no-state society? Again logically, meaning it’s not impossible, that this may be the case.

@ama gi

It doesn’t need to be any specific number; it just needs to be a large number.

“large” is arbritrary and vacuous in meaning. You gave a number but not a quality, meaning, and identity of who this ‘group’ is.

[bloomj31]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Why not, isn’t your support for the state based on that assumption that more people will benefit than will be hurt?

Yes, but I don’t stick to principles when they’re completely inapplicable. I judge each situation individually rather than trying to apply some abstract concept to them. I don’t care if that makes me a hypocrite sometimes. As long as it gets me what I want.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@bloomj31

@Daniel Muffinburg

@bloomj31

Look at this guys: Senate Dems strike deal on health care reform

You know how they got Nelson’s vote? The bought it. Just like they bought Landrieu’s.

"Nelson also won his own version of Sen. Mary Landrieu’s much-derided “Louisiana Purchase.” In Nelson’s case, the federal government will permanently pick up all the cost of new Medicaid enrollees in Nebraska, rather than splitting the tab with the state, as is usually done. Nelson’s Nebraska is the only state singled out for such treatment – a $45 million cost to federal taxpayers that shows the power of a single senator in this debate.

The federal government will also pick up the tab for all new Medicaid enrollees in the other 49 states through 2017."

People will always be for sale. There will always be a government willing to buy people’s votes with promises of free stuff.

You get rid of the current system, someone else will just take over with more promises.

Suppose a gang of people are about to each give a beating, would you not at least try to stop the first person from beating you, even if there are more people lined up to give you a beating?

Sure I would.

Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you?

[bloomj31]

@Giant_Joe

But don’t you support government on the same grounds?

I suppose from a philosophical point of view, yes.

[filc]

@bloomj31

@Daniel Muffinburg

So would you support gang rape if benefited more people than it hurt?

Well, obviously not.

Well thats contrary to what you argued above.

@bloomj31

You can’t remove the means of coercion. Just the current one.

Don’t conflate my meaning.

[bloomj31]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you?

Maybe. Can I win?

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Giant_Joe

But don’t you support government on the same grounds?

@bloomj31

I suppose from a philosophical point of view, yes.

Then you’re inconsistent. Why not resolve the contradiction?

[filc]

@bloomj31

Yes, but I don’t stick to principles when they’re completely inapplicable. I judge each situation individually rather than trying to apply some abstract concept to them. I don’t care if that makes me a hypocrite sometimes. As long as it gets me what I want.

How convenient for you to dismiss integrity.

[wilderness]

@bloomj31

You will be undone, Wilderness, by the people who are not like you.

And you are not helping me, which is all that matters in a discussion on such a topic between you and me. It’s what you argue for and what I argue for, and you are not helping my argument - even though - you say you would “be all” for it (whatever it is) need not be identified. The issue is for peace, liberty, and justice or arguing on the side of initiating physical aggression. I’m getting no help from you.

[bloomj31]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

Then you’re inconsistent. Why not resolve the contradiction?

Because I think I stand to gain more from being inconsistent. If I decide I stand to gain more from being consistent, I’ll be consistent. Right now, I’m thinking there’s more to gain from being neutral. Look at the billions of dollars the government is doling out.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@bloomj31

@Daniel Muffinburg

Why not, isn’t your support for the state based on that assumption that more people will benefit than will be hurt?

Yes, but I don’t stick to principles when they’re completely inapplicable. I judge each situation individually rather than trying to apply some abstract concept to them. I don’t care if that makes me a hypocrite sometimes. As long as it gets me what I want.

Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it’s not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so.

[Giant_Joe]

@bloomj31

@Giant_Joe

But don’t you support government on the same grounds?

I suppose from a philosophical point of view, yes.

Let’s go through this again.

For something like rape, murder, etc..

• If an action benefits people more than it hurts people, it is not ok.

For government:

• If an action benefits people more than it hurts people, it is ok.

So yes, you are being inconsistent. Seeing as you’re being inconsistent and you don’t care, I won’t care to argue with you on anything because you don’t use the philosophical standard of reason.

[bloomj31]

@filc

How convenient for you to dismiss integrity.

Let me tell you something I’ve learned in just 23 years of life. Those with integrity are often ruined by those without it. We live in a disgusting world.

[filc]

@bloomj31

@Daniel Muffinburg

Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you?

Maybe. Can I win?

Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. “We can’t win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves”. You are those men.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@bloomj31

@Daniel Muffinburg

Okay. Suppose a state A is about to rob you, would you not at least try to stop the state A from robbing you, even if there are more states lined up to give to rob you?

Maybe. Can I win?

Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you?

[bloomj31]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it’s not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so.

Conceivable. What are the odds I’ll get caught? I don’t wanna get caught. Jail looks awful.

[bloomj31]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you?

Highly unlikely.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@bloomj31

@filc

How convenient for you to dismiss integrity.

Let me tell you something I’ve learned in just 23 years of life. Those with integrity are often ruined by those without it. We live in a disgusting world.

Yet, you’ve failed to do so.

[bloomj31]

@filc

Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. “We can’t win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves”. You are those men.

Well, abolish the state and then I’ll support you.

[bloomj31]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Yet, you’ve failed to do so.

No, I’ve been ruined more often than not for having integrity.