perhaps the reason you can’t be convinced is that you have nothing but dogma and feelings to guide you. you cant put forward an economic argument. or a philosophic one. and you can;t counter what I had said.
whats that word beginning with m… ?
You do realize humans are supposed to feel guilt, right? The ones who don’t have a personality disorder.
So what you’re saying is that not everyone thinks murder and rape and theft aren’t in the public interest?
I’m pretty sure an overwhelming majority do, including me. However, I’d be more inclined to murder, rape and steal if I were living in your private law world because it would take forever for you guys to do anything to me.
Taxation, believe it or not, is seen as something of a public duty to a lot of liberals. And I, personally, have no problem paying for the military with my taxes.
But, I don’t think you guys are special, so the rules should apply to you too. If you don’t like it, you can always leave.
Says who?
Really? How many people do you think would opt out from the U.S. government, state government, and local government tomorrow if they were told tomorrow they could without repurcussions?
I have always wanted to discuss the validation, I guess you could say, of natural law ethics through the after-action guilt felt by a criminal. Does a murder, rapist, and to a lesser degree a thief, feel human after committing such actions?
Perhaps I’ve just read more books than you, and I’ve just read different ones than you have and you refuse to even look at my list because you say your list is the only good list. Which is arrogance, but I like arrogance so I understand your position.
Your arguments are…silly…because you have no way to prove them. I’m saying prove them. Not with words but with action. Then I’ll believe you. Show me a functioning anarchist region.
I dunno, how many do you think would do it?
I just want to clarify that taxation is always involuntary, by definition. As such, there is no such thing as voluntary taxation.
lol, what else would they feel like, a giraffe?
Show us a limited small government.
lie.
well you could still pay a subscription to ye old USA defence corp what with you absurdly venorating their history but they will have competition from other domestic suppliers of security. I will likey pick a brand that is more reputable.
should??? a moral claim ???
if you dont like me calling you a moron you can leave. slaver moron!
What about the people who are ok with paying their taxes? Like my entire Jewish family?
100%.
A base animal or perhaps develop a god-like complex.
Jacob, I’m in agreement with you regarding morality. On the other hand, I do think anarchy has the potential to be a social system efficacious to the ends of its constituent members. You seem to believe that an incentive system is necessary for the existence of such a system; that I agree with. Where I disagree is that this incentive system must necessarily be centralized in the form of a nation-state for at least the functions of courts, police, military. I think a fully decentralized system is possible with the right ingredients. Decentralization and competition work best in most areas of the economy, and I think would for national defense, police, courts, etc. I’m not exactly a pure anarchist strictly speaking-- basically I think that in certain times and places, some degree of government/statism might be optimal for the flourishing of said area’s constituent members-- in some ways I’m more of a panarchist.
Regarding your points about the state being natural, I agree to some extent if you define “natural,” as you do. The thing is, that evolutionary adaptions, whether biological or social (think of the human eye or QWERTY keyboard) are not necessarily perfect. We’ve developed eyeglasses to deal with imperfect biological evolution; likewise I think it’s possible to develop radical decentralization as an alternative adaptation to the state. There may, however, be opportunity costs that make this adaptation impractical or impossible. Switching from a state to anarchy or near anarchy necessitates a lot of struggle and it’s not always clear that the benefits outweigh the costs, or is even possible. I do think that anarchy, possibly with a few small local or city-state type governments, is probably the best possible social system.
Regarding the users on this forum: yes many of them tend to think in black and white terms and are indeed fanatics, or better said: cranks. I’ve been called a “sadist,” who “loves to see blood dripping,” and compared to Stalin and Hitler just for my denial of Rothbardian natural law. But on the plus side, this can sometimes be a good source of comic relief. And on the other hand, a lot of the fanatics are fairly intelligent on other subjects that don’t touch their sacred cows, and there’s a decent amount of non cranks as well.
It’s difficult to prove that radical decentralization is always best under all circumstances. I don’t think it’s be proved yet, though I do think the evidence indicates a general trend of it being optimal under most circumstances (including courts, police). Actually, I think the reason many people are so keen on morality is that it seems to take away the necessity of showing a system is beneficial: you can just shout, “I don’t need to prove that it would work 'cuz we already know it’s the most moral!”
henceforth to be known as a Bloom-like complex.
by decree
-
It’s not a lie, I’m not afraid of you guys. I mean…not really afraid.
-
You don’t have that option.
-
Is “should” a moral claim? I just don’t want you guys to be able to get out of something I can’t get out of.
why the hell arent you afraid of private property fanatics? (if by afraid you mean, afraid of violating our property)
well fuck what you like. i dont like you.
I reject your government legislation! [:P]