-
You and I are both human beings. My shortcomings are your shortcomings. Fear is the best control for human behavior. Your fear of God or of being immoral is the only thing holding you back. If one day you lost that, you’d be more out of control than I could ever be because you don’t think with your reason you think with your emotions. It’s people like you who think that what I’m saying makes me more or less human. What I’m saying is there is no such thing as more or less human. We are all basically the same thing. You are mistaken when you say I can’t control myself. I can. But I think in terms of self interest. You think your self interest is served by serving some weird set of morals you cooked up with your anarchist buddies. If and when your faith fails, you will be lost, Felker. And then you will remember what I said about being human.
-
How many cases do the network of district courts in your state hear per day?
No they aren’t. Leviticus is full of morals that didn’t get turned into laws. Why? Because the root of law isn’t morality, it’s the desire to create an orderly system that punishes actions that are not beneficial to the maintenance of society. There are some overlapping principles, yes. But it was also once considered moral to stone a person thought to be a heretic. So…morals are totally subjective. I mean…Palestinians probably think it’s moral to kill Jews. Are they right?
Lol, no ofcourse not. But your system will be worse than the one we’ve got. I’m 100 percent sure of it.
You go in and murder everyone you have to and take every piece of property. Then you let the guerrilas regroup and start over, then you take their land over again. By the way, are you guys planning on living in a jungle or a desert or a frozen tundra or what?
It isn’t worth the risk to me. And I don’t really have to prove anything. The anarchists have everything to prove, I just have to listen and evaluate the philosophy and decide whether I like it or not. This is like a philosophical vacation to some strange tribe of people who believe in things that make no sense to anyone but them. I’m actually having a great time, it’s why I keep coming back.
Far easier said than done.
Not only do you have to destroy a lot of potential slaves, you have to keep the population providing you with soldiers and war materials from realizing that their sons are being sacrificed for your (note: Not YOU, just the hypothetical leader in this case) greed and violence. You end up having little to take.
You seem to want absolute security (Why you feel that this is possible after reading what you have is beyond me 48 Laws of Power should have taught you something with regards to being able to be 100% safe) and you believe that a state can provide this better than anarchy. I, and others, have provided reasoning as to why this isn’t the case. If society X is statist, it is less likely to survive than society X if it is anarchic. That this isn’t absolutely safe or secure isn’t an arguement against anarchy, it is an arguement against ANY form of governance.
Have you ever read “Predictably Irrational” by Dan Ariely? That one book, for me, destroyed my faith in the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Humans are flawed. There are some services a free market cannot deliver. I am convinced one of those is law. Markets are, in my mind, efficient about 80-90 percent of the time. It’s because there are certain…psychological weaknesses of humans that are transferred into any human system. I really truly believe that those weaknesses will prevent a free market from being able to supply law, order and security to a society of people that’s larger than…maybe 1000 people. If you’re going to have a group of millions of people, you need to have a centralization of force.
I am not concerned with absolutes here. I’m concerned with percentages. Government may not be absolutely safe, but it is certainly more safe than an anarchist region. I know this because no one lives in anarchist regions. If they were such a big deal, everyone would be doing them.
Also, I don’t want you to think I think limited government is a perfect idea. It’s just the best possible idea. Humans are not perfect, the systems used to control them won’t be perfect either. Your anarchy is still a car with pedals eight feet from the steering wheel; unmanageable.
Yes, but they need to leave the country.
LOL. I’ve never heard that one before. You must be the smartest guy on the forum coming up with all these ad-hom, albeit funny retorts right?
you say the stupidest things , you dont even provide pathetic evidence but rather no evidence at all
“Fear is the best control for human behavior.”
" If you’re going to have a group of millions of people, you need to have a centralization of force."
this might be par for the course for morons, but this forum is for more rigorous debate.
I don’t need fear to restrain me when I have courage and love.
lol
morals are “totally subjective”, but then you go on in this post and say “…the root of law… (is) desire…”
You are so off on what you know.
You make assertions without proof. Many anarchists here have already detailed reasons why an anarchist society would probably be better than a statist one in terms of defense. They have also provided links to literature that is supposed to butress their case.
That there aren’t any reigions of the world not under the influence of a state doesn’t prove the failures of anarchy, just as the prevelence of bad decisions doesn’t mean that bad decisions are good ones. We never get out of anarchy, there is always a portion of human action that is involved in voluntary exchanges, anarchic in other words, anarchists simply want to extend the sphere of anarchic activity, to make it encompass the legal and defensive relms. As we have shown before, having a single pre-determined arbiter in a dispute sounds good, but it is a basis for inefficent service, and is made even worse by a monopoly on enforcement, where the means to resist this arbiter is decreased.
Since you opened up free range on you only understand percentages: You’re a 100% moron.
Are you concerned now?
I’m not a libertarian. I’m a conservative. I know that market works most of the time. But I do not believe the Efficient Market Hypothesis is consistent with human beings. It imagines a homo economicus; a perfectly logical rational creature capable of deliberately planning and plotting out each action with complete optimizing self interest. This does not seem to be what humans are. We have flaws. Read Predictably Irrational. Some of those flaws are very apparent in markets. We have a fascination with “free.” Offering something for free is such a powerful motivator that people will buy things they don’t even need just to get the free thing it comes with. That’s not rational at all. Anyways, I’m not qualified to give a lecture on behavioral economics, suffice it to say, it refutes EMH pretty thoroughly. I still think EMH is mostly applicable though.
Although, in the case of private law, I think it will be the human ability to realize that consequences are neither stringent nor forthcoming and entirely negatable in your society that will reduce your system into chaos. Unless there’s not many people. How many people are supposed to be able to live in an anarchist region before it starts having problems with control?
You sound like a communist.
Good post.
Where is your proof? Some book? I’ve got a book too. You refuse to read it.
Look at humans yourself! How are they controlled?
I love.
I have courage.
And according to you - I’m a communist.
You are a wack job.
So to be you I must therefore: hate and be very afraid (which you have actually said - wait - no wonder).