When did the diety descend and decide that 70% sanctifies all things? Why not 65%? What if 50% wanted a drastic reduction in military spending?
Wow. You are willing to rot your brain reading that third-rate columnist Goldberg but you won’t read Murphy’s book. Just wow And then you continue to argue on this forum. Goldberg is a moron with no intellectual grasp on fascism or any other intellectual/political movement. He basically took the work of more intelligent scholars, cited, and added sullying crappy analysis.
By Goldberg’s definition everyone’s a fascist then! How moronic!
This is called the “fallacy of the great man.” You can ignore everything else, just realize this one fact: monopoly is always worse than free competition. Do I believe that Ron Paul would be immune to corruption? I actually think he is that very rare type of man, and he may just be immune, but it doesn’t matter because men like him are one in a million. He’s literally the lone guy there, and the whims and passions of the majority are never going to consistently place people like him in power. They will always fall for simpler, more charismatic messages. Again, monopoly is bad.
To see this very easily, imagine that somehow in some fairytale reality a private court system sprang up to compete with the US government courts. Say in this strange reality the government allowed this and it could somehow compete with the government court pricewise even without the benefit of taxes. Now, do you think the government courts would be more or less motivated to provide fair judgments and speedy trials? I think it’s obvious that the competition it would have - versus the zero competition it has now - would force it to be more efficient. It’s just a matter of incentives.
If you think about it for a while and do some reading, I think you’ll see that there is no redeeming quality to monopoly whatsoever.
Recieving a service doesn’t imply that one must pay for it. Also, you are assuming that the military’s behavior has protected the american people. When one understands the principle of blowback in relation to terrorism, the US militiary can be found to have handled the safety of American’s badly. As such, it is not efficent. If it isn’t efficent, why shouldn’t i be allowed to withdraw my support, after all, if I can’t opt out unless I incur massive opprotunity costs, won’t this allow for inefficent systems to survive more effictively? A market based system of defense will have a much easier time dealing with this problem, the problem of competence, since it’s clients can refuse to pay it. The military is not nearly as subject to this as a private company would be. Also, an anarchist society has several strengths (the lack of a “head” to decapitate, makes it hard to plan an effective takeover) ((Note what the Russians had to do to attempt to conquer Afganistan (Not an anarchist society, but hte principles are similar) They had to murder massive portions of the population, which only made people angrier, the Afgan’s still won, against one of the greatest superpowers in history. What if an anarchist society ISN’T fighting a massive superpower with outmoded weapons, and some assistance from another superpower (US) surely it will fare better.
The notion that I have an obligation to pay for services rendered is a moral notion, also no one here says that YOU should have to pay, quite the opposite. We believe that everyone is equally special in not having to pay taxes.
Obligation to pay has nothing to do with morals. You’re obliged to pay because if you don’t there will be serious undesirable consequences.
That being said, how can you prove that we would’ve been safer without the military? Is it possible there would’ve been more attacks against us without the military protecting us? I think so.
What happened to the Jacob that was all about individual choice? You’re against morals because they supposdely limit individual choice, but that’s precisely what you’re doing here. You’re not going to allow me to choose not to pay for your military.
So you’re an amoralist who wants to force everyone to do what he wants (e.g. a fascist)? I think that’s probably the worst of all worlds.
Do you work for the mafia? LOL Actually, whether or not the “obligation” is justified or not has everything to do with “morals” or whatever you wish to call it.
I am all about individual choice. But each choice has a consequence. You have to take responsibility for your choices. I’m not going to be the one who comes and gets you for not paying your taxes. To be honest, I don’t really care if you don’t pay them. But someone will. And they’re going to come with guns. The consequence of not paying your taxes is that you are in conflict with the government. Now, if you think you can fight the government, I think you should try. You’re a fascist for trying to tell me that you’re special so you get special rules that don’t apply to anyone but yourself.
So if the mafia exhorted $50,000 from you at the threat of “serious undesirable consequences”, you’d be obliged to pay? Good reasoning.
Would we have been safer without the US government arming Osama bin Laden in the '80s? I think so. Would we have been safer without the US government giving foreign aid to dictatorial reigimes? I think so (it tends to get the natives angry at Americans). Would we have been safer without the US government helping the State of Israel against the Palestinians? I think so.
The list goes on.
Having pissing fights with pissed off Arabs. That must have helped us real well.
Oh, but I’m sure if they ever actually tried to attack us the federal government would be able to prevent it! O wait…nevermind.
Like providing a service which was not solicited and for which you could not insure payment on behalf of the “beneficiary” but which you went and provided anyway.
Utter garbage. You’re the fascist for thinking unsolicited provision of government services differs from any other such instance, and thus has “special rules” applying to it. Don’t hide from your hypocrisy. It seems you haven’t learnt very much.
You’re under the impression that private courts would not be able to dispense hard justice, but that is not the case. In fact, private police would be far better at apprehending criminals, and private courts would deliver justice far swifter, more fairly, and far more fitting to the crime. After all, they are in competition with other courts to see who can make the punishment most appropriately fit the crime. If that means the death penalty for murder, it will be swift and decisive.
What I think you’ve not net realized is that if enough people want something in a minarchy they will vote for it, but it’s very indirect because they vote for representatives on campaign promises, etc. Whereas if even a small but significant number of people want something in a market anarchy, companies will have a profit motive to provide it, and to compete with each other to provide it better and cheaper. The same with justice.
Criminals now know they can get away with a lot if they are very careful. Under a market anarchy I expect there to be extremely clever and efficient ways developed to catch criminals, just like how private businesses have developed far superior technologies and efficiencies in other areas. You think DNA and fiber analysis are hot, wait 'til you the sort of forensic kung fu private companies will come up with.
