You guys are right

[Harry_Felker]

I was happy to not be in this but I cannot let this pass…

@Jacob Bloom

See, what scares ME is that if you don’t think something is immoral, YOU’LL do it without asking: “is this really a smart thing for me to be doing?” Your utter dependency on decision making training wheels is probably the most alarming thing I’ve heard on this forum.

Jacob, really, are you this dumb? Why is it that when someone does not need your totatitarian government and army of men that serve with good intent (for the most part) but are forced to become extortionist highwaymen, that they need training wheels?

How is the guy with the stick standing behind you to keep you from murder and rape not training wheels?

Because YOU, I will repeat myself, YOU have an issue with self control, and you do not want to feel less than others, which if you cannot cotrol yourself without your overseer ready to punish you, you obviously are, you live in this make believe world where everyone is less than you…

As I have said, be afraid, for everything you are, be afraid, because fear kills the mind, and if you had a mind you would certainly lose it realizing what you advocate…

@Jacob Bloom

Governments don’t have disputes at the same rate that individuals do.

Go to Israel Jakob…

[Juan]

@wilderness

But of course he can’t say that too loud it might mean he’s not being subjective enough (subjective according to zefreak that is).

Indeed. Not being subjective enough is probably a sin according to stirnerite doctrine.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Jacob Bloom

There is a difference between morally right and wrong and necessary or unnecessary, beneficial or not beneficial. Things like murder and rape and theft aren’t illegal because they’re immoral.

Yes they are.

[twistedbydsign99]

No, it tells me you do not know what morality means. If you will not agree on a definition I will have to bow out of the conversation.

[zefreak]

@Juan

Moral subjectivism has nothing to do with religion, conservatism, or militarism. They may not be mutually exclusive, as moral subjectivism doesn’t necessitate a certain “brand” of morality; it is an epistemological or meta-ethical position.

Whatever you say zefreak. You’re the self appointed epistemological guru here. You can’t be wrong.

If you think I am wrong, how about an substantive response rather than circle-jerking with wilderness?

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

A private court would be more messy than a public one. Because…a market is run by self interest. Pure, unadulterated self interest. Is this the force you want running the justice system?

And of course by this you mean that our current system is run benevolently for our good by objectively minded people who have no self-interest, only our best interests at heart?

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

But the market does a great job! I can point to the great job it’s doing, and has done in the past. That’s how I know it works. I can’t however, point to a private system of law that’s working. Can you?

So, because Mr. Bloom can’t conceive of a system other than the existing system, that means it won’t work. Imagine where we would be if all of the inventors in the last 300 years never dreamed of changing their situation? Imagine where we would be if we still believe in the ``divine rights of kings.‘’

Hundreds of years ago people never dreamed of the kind of transportation we have today and if you were to tell them that cars would run on power provided by the sun, or told them that we fly in airplanes and even rockets to outerspace they would simply not be able to fathom it. How are you any different from these kinds of people? Because you can’t conceive of an idea, or come to terms with it, this is not evidence of it not being able to come to fruition. You must see this, right? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

It is very very very hard for me to imagine an anarchist region fighting off a foreign state built army.

Being such the military fanatic that you are, I’m sure you are aware that one of the most difficult ``armies’’ to fight is a guerrilla army right? How can a State conquer another State that doesn’t exist?

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

Is it possible there would’ve been more attacks against us without the military protecting us? I think so.

You think so? Rather than speculate, prove it.

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

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.

So, if you hire someone to harm someone else, you aren’t responsible? Because some agent of yours is doing all the dirty work, you can claim innocence?

Actually, I believe you really do care if others don’t pay, why else would you keep mentioning your agent of theft every time you run out of things to say? If I had a dollar for every time you said ``I don’t care if you don’t pay them, but someone else might, and they will use force’’ I might actually be able to afford your military.

[Juan]

If you think I am wrong, how about an substantive response rather than circle-jerking with wilderness?

You are too far gone zefreak.

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

I’m not trying to say the military is perfect. I’m saying it’s better than your alternative.

Again, your argument boils down to ``I don’t know how it would work, ergo what I currently advocate (the so-called status quo) must be better.‘’ You have no proof that it is better, you just claim to know that what currently exist works (with admitted flaws), and therefore it must be better. How are your arguments any better than others in this forum? I think it has been sufficiently established that you think its more efficient for one group of people to take from another group by force to support a (insert service here) that they don’t want.

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

but the market only operates the way it does because everyone knows that when they have a dispute, there’s something they can go to that will absolutely deliver a decision and enforce it.

So basically you’re claiming that the State came before the market? Everyone was just sitting around doing their own thing until the State was born and then finally they coudl begin trading?

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

I absolutely do not advocate one world government. How did you manage to jump from wanting limited government here to wanting one world government??

You said it yourself that we need ONE. You wrote it big caps just like that. You said we need a monopoly in force, just ONE. Please explain why that ONE shouldn’t be a limited world government.

[Bradipo]

@nirgrahamUK

add in death from regulation of medicine, death from government roads , death from government gun laws, and maybe the government isnt the best thing for keeping people ‘safe’

Please, no facts… already logic escapes Mr. Bloom and facts will only muddy an already mirky expanse of liquid between the auricles.

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

See, what scares ME is that if you don’t think something is immoral, YOU’LL do it without asking

How is this any different from:

What scares ME is that if you think something is necessary, you’ll do it without asking: ``Is this really a smart thing for me to be doing?‘’

What scares ME is that if you think something is beneficial, you’ll do it without asking: ``Is this really a smart thing for me to be doing?‘’

So basically you’re saying that if one doesn’t think one won’t make smart decisions? Do you want another medal?

[Bradipo]

@Jacob Bloom

If it’s so easy to be a terrorist, why haven’t we seen any more attacks?

If its so hard to be a terrorist, why do we need such an expansive military?

[Bradipo]

@Spideynw

So would you be OK with people opting out of the system if they want to?

Yes, I believe he would be OK with it, but as he is so fond of reminding everyone, there are others that would not be OK with it, and they carry big guns and like to coerce people.

[Amanojack]

@Bradipo

@Spideynw

So would you be OK with people opting out of the system if they want to?

Yes, I believe he would be OK with it, but as he is so fond of reminding everyone, there are others that would not be OK with it, and they carry big guns and like to coerce people.

To interpret him charitably, Jacob - and others here sometimes - is probably just conflating a condition of anarchism with the means to achieve that condition. Sometimes he conflates them, and sometimes he doesn’t, which confuses everyone. When he speaks of “others not being OK with it,” I assume he’s objecting to the idea that anarchy can come about, not whether it will be stable or successful. In other words, he’s being confusing, but he has a point (not a correct point, but a coherent one - at least if it weren’t for the conflation).

[Harry_Felker]

@Bradipo

@Spideynw

So would you be OK with people opting out of the system if they want to?

Yes, I believe he would be OK with it, but as he is so fond of reminding everyone, there are others that would not be OK with it, and they carry big guns and like to coerce people.

Except his explanation of “opt out” is that you are forced to sell your property for defunct monopoly currency and get your ass out of the country he resides in…

Nationalism…

The socialism comes in with his need for monopoly police, courts, law, and military…