***YOU ARE LIVESTOCK!*** History lesson on human farming

the guy straight up says that God does not exist, and those who think otherwise are morons."

what has god to do with politics?

So your ideal world is one where people commit acts of violence against others who have done them no harm, and to concentrate the wealth and power into the hands of a few.. and that this somehow ends well?

"So your ideal world is one where people commit acts of violence against others who have done them no harm, and to concentrate the wealth and power into the hands of a few.. and that this somehow ends well?"

why do afghanistan and iraq spring to mind here?

nothing changes- the tories and slavers are alive and well.

and everone knows what happened to spartacus and his 50,000 mates.

hey china man- any different where you live?

No, don't go there to see the benefits of statism, go there to see how anarchy works in the absence of a state. To see how people "organize" themselves without a state. Warlords, creation of smaller autonomous states trying to offer oases of order and stability, militias, pirates, religious fundamentalists.

"go there to see how anarchy works in the absence of a state. To see how people "organize" themselves without a state. Warlords, creation of smaller autonomous states trying to offer oases of order and stability, militias, pirates, religious fundamentalists"


where does this remind me of?
not cambodia

Again, societies that have been driven into the ground by the state for many decades are not examples of non-statism.

If I tortured you for years, and then did not torture you for a few days, would you say your psychology and body were good examples of non-torture?

Of course not. That claim would be absurd, but that seems to be the very type of claim you are making.

Secondly, I've already posted examples of non-statist socities. Would you mind scrolling up? Does it need to be repeated? What exactly is the issue?

Lastly, and most importantly, do you support violence against individuals who have never harmed you?

I notice you continue to not address this question.
:)

No but a world without government organized society would be even more corrupt, violent and unjust. How would anarchism bring about a panacea of social equality? The wealth divide would be even greater under an anarchist society. No government(s) would hold a monopoly on the usage of violence, so individuals and groups would always be plotting their next power grab.
I agree the current system will end badly, watching it unfold now is like watching a car crash in slow motion. Capitalism is highly destructive, but also highly addictive. Humans have a way of messing up all good things on this earth. Somebody sees a profit motive and destroys society's commonwealth and then moves on to greener pastures. Its the same way under communism, and anarchism. Capitalism just accelerates the process and creates "prosperity" along the way.

Who is claiming society must be un'organized'? Certainly not me.

And to get this straight: a society which does not have institutionalized violence against the innocent is a more corrupt society than one which does?

A society which does not have institutionalized slavery is less enslaving than one that does?

You seem to be offering institutionalized violence against innocent people as the solution for violence against innocent people...

Lastly, and most importantly, do you support violence against individuals who have never harmed you?

And if so, how can you claim to be any better than any of the groups or individuals you'd criticize for being corrupt?

what is so wrong with a return to the rule of law?
as in a republic?

with real money?

That helped lead to what exists today. It institutionalized theft and violence. What is being seen today is a logical result of said system.

"At what point does armed robbery become magically transformed into something just, right and proper (taxation)? How many people does it take for the EXACT SAME ACT to be transformed from a moral outrage into a righteous act? And, exactly how does this magical transformation occur?

Also, from where exactly did the DELEGATED power to tax come from? What is its legitimate source? WHO EXACTLY had such a power to give to government in the first place?

I've yet to see ANY minarchist/constitutionalist provide a reasonable answer to any of those questions."

I disagree. Chaos is a more fair playing ground. The unjustness that plagues our society is done with a suit and tie and answers to nothing.

Without sovereignty of the individual we are lost. That is everything this trash we call a system tries to take away.

Anarchy is "cultural relativism". When it ends there would be something better on the other side. We arise from our own ashes. Everything returns in it's changed form.

To be clear: I am not an 'anarchist', at least not in the way people most frequently use that word.

I support the right of people to live in a society of strict rules and regulations, as long as people can participate in that society voluntarily, and leave voluntarily.

I am opposed to societies of institutionalized theft and violence against persons which have committed no harm upon another.

I am opposed to 'chaos'.

Being opposed to tyranny is not the same thing as being supportive of chaos.

Otherwise, you are supportive of 'chaos' if you don't have the government choose your marriage/relationship partner for you. This simple example shows how ridiculous such thinking is.

Define institutionalized violence. I was referring to a monopoly on the 'legitimate' usage of force. In civilized countries only the military and police are permitted to use force. If this the institutionalized violence you are referring to?

Lastly, I do not support violence against individuals that haven't harmed me. I do not believe in the doctrine of preemption. I support the catholic concept of "just war".

"A government is a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain a monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force."

This is generally what I mean.



2. What is good for one must be good for all.

Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it.

If policemen and soldiers need guns to protect themselves from dangerous criminals, why not ordinary citizens? Does that mean that possessing guns is sometimes good and sometimes bad? What is the difference? Remember – there is no such thing as "a policeman" or "a soldier" – those are mere concepts. Only people exist, and if gun ownership is a good idea for a soldier, but a bad idea for a private citizen, what happens to the soldier when he goes on leave? Does his nature change somehow, so that now he no longer has the right to own a gun? What about when a policeman changes out of his uniform? Does he change in some fundamental manner, and so loses the right to be armed? Is it only his uniform that has the right to carry a gun? What if someone else puts on that uniform? Of course, these questions cannot be answered, and so the whole argument for gun control becomes logically foolish. People will then turn to the argument from effect – i.e. general gun ownership leads to increased violence – which can also be easily countered. If gun ownership leads to increased violence, then surely the cops and soldiers will become increasingly violent if they alone have guns.

[link to www.lewrockwell.com]



"A government is a group of individuals within a geographical area who retain a monopolistic moral and legal right to initiate force."



Then you are opposed to taxation, no?



preemption
2. The right of a government to seize or appropriate something (as property)

So you are against taxation? Interesting.

Is it not true that government tries to promote opportunity to the individual? Sure, the deck is stacked, but atleast there is a public policy to promote a level playing field.

This "chaos" you talk about would only exist for a brief moment before the old power structures begin reforming themselves after the fall. The people with the best hardware and most men would prevail. Who would these people answer to?

The loss of sovereignty as an individual is unfortunate. What specifically is your beef? Drug laws? Welfare? Taxes?

A Handout for Statists

In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to those who argue that government is voluntary, if I don't like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc.

I thought this might also be of use to you, because life is short.

Me: Tell me, do you think that violence is wrong?

Statist: Yes, violence is wrong ' except in self-defense.

Me: Agreed, except in self-defense. So tell me, how do you think that problems should be solved, if we should not use violence?

Statist: Well, I think that people should become more active in government, and that governments should do ABC, X, Y and Z.

Me: But how do you reconcile your objection to violence with your support of government programs, since government programs are paid for through taxation, which is coercive?

Statist: Huh? What are you talking about? Taxation is not coercive.

Me: Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail ' where if you try to escape, you are shot.

Statist: But this is a democracy, where we choose our own governments.

Me: Being offered a choice between two violent alternatives is not the same as being free to choose. If a store owner gets to choose which Mafia gang he pays 'protection' money to, can it be really argued that he is making a 'free' choice? If a woman can choose between two potential husbands ' but will be forced to marry one of them ' can she said to be really 'choosing' marriage? People can only freely choose governments, if they have the choice not to choose governments.

Statist: Well there is a 'social contract,' that binds people to their governments.

Me: There is no such thing as a 'social contract.' Unless they have been granted power of attorney, people cannot justly sign contracts on behalf of others. If one man has the power to unilaterally impose his will on another and call it a 'contract,' then logically a man can steal from a woman and call it 'charity.'

Statist: But I accept the social contract ' and so do you if you drive on the roads.

Me: First of all, your choice to honour a contract does not give you the right to force me to honour it. You can choose to buy a house, but you cannot justly force me to pay for it. If you forge my signature, I am not bound to honour the contract ' and I have never agreed to a 'social contract' of any kind. Secondly, it is true that I use government services, but that is irrelevant to the central moral question of coercion. If a slave accepts a meal from his master, is he condoning slavery?

Statist: I suppose not. But still, you implicitly accept the social contract by continuing to live in a country, as Socrates argued.

Me: Can I justly create a 'social contract' that allows me to rob anyone who lives in my neighborhood ' and say that if people continue to live in 'my' neighborhood, they are expressly consenting to my new social contract?

Statist: Well, no, but we are talking about governments, not individuals . . . .

Me: Is the government not composed of individuals? Is 'the government' not just a label for a group of individuals who claim the moral right to initiate force against others ' a right they define as evil for those they use violence against? If you take away all the individuals who compose 'the government,' do you still have a government?

Statist: I suppose not. But that is beside the point ' you say that taxation is coercive, but I have paid taxes my entire life, and I have never had a gun pointed at my head.

Me: Sure, and a prisoner is not shot if he does not try to escape. If a slave conforms to his master's wishes because of the threat of violence, the situation is utterly immoral. Does the Mafia have to actually burn your shop down for the threat to be violent?

Statist: No ' however, I do not accept the premise that the government uses force to extract taxation from citizens.

Me: All right - is there anything that the government does that you disagree with? Do you agree, for instance, with the invasion of Iraq ? [Keep asking until you find some program the statist finds abhorrent.]

Statist: Now, I think that the invasion of Iraq was morally wrong.

Me: Why?

Statist: Because Iraq had done nothing to threaten the US .

Me: Right, so it is an initiation of force, not self-defense. Now ' you do realize that the war in Iraq is only possible because you pay your taxes.

Statist: To some degree, of course.

Me: If the war in Iraq is morally wrong, but it is only possible because you pay your taxes ' and your taxes are not extracted from you through force ' then you are voluntarily funding and enabling that which you call evil. Can you explain that to me?

Statist: I pay my taxes because I'm a citizen of this country. If I disagree with the war, then I should run for office and try to stop it.

Me: All right, if you were against child abuse, would you voluntarily fund a group dedicated to abusing children?

Statist: Of course not!

Me: And if you did claim to be against child abuse, and you voluntarily funded a group dedicated to abusing children, and I said that you should stop doing that, and you replied that you would not ' but that if someone did oppose this abusive group, they should try to infiltrate this group, take control of it, and somehow stop it from abusing children, would that make any sense at all?

Statist: I guess not.

Me: If you were against the war in Iraq , but volunteered for it ' and agreed to fight without a salary, and spent your own money to cover all your expenses, do you understand that your position would be utterly incomprehensible? You would claim to be against something ' and then expend enormous amounts of time, effort, money and resources supporting it?

Statist: Yes, that would make little sense.

Me: Thus do you see that your position that the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but that you are voluntarily funding it through your taxes, makes no sense at all? If the war in Iraq is a moral evil, but is only enabled through your voluntary funding, then continuing to fund it is to openly admit that it is not a moral evil. If you are forced to fund the war in Iraq , you can maintain that it is a moral evil, because it is the initiation of the use of force. However, the taxation that is also the initiation of the use of force against you must also be a moral evil, because you are forced to fund the initiation of force against others. Thus either taxation is coercion, or you are the worst form of moral hypocrite, by voluntarily supporting that which you call evil. Does that make sense?

Statist: I can certainly see that position.

Me: Can you find any logical flaws in my position?

Statist: No, but I still think that you are wrong.

Me: Well, I'm certainly glad that you are reading this article, rather than debating me directly, because as I said at the beginning, life is far too short to waste time arguing with fools.

[link to www.strike-the-root.com]

then I am happy to be debt free and self employed!
yay

You believe that if I commit acts of theft and violence/coercion against you, I am promoting opportunity for you?

Or you only support acts of theft and violence against the guy living down the street if it somehow benefits you?

Did you ever consider that the people in power - 'government' - are the ones who contributed to so much of the poverty in the first place?

In what way is the following creating opportunity?

"The figure Walker cites includes future payments that government entitlement programs would have to pay, including $32 trillion owed by Medicare."
[link to www.cnn.com]

"Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon."
[link to www.dallasfed.org]

U.S. unfunded liabilities: over 108 Trillion dollars
[link to usdebtclock.org]

Maybe if you mean the opportunity to be absolutely enslaved and impoverished...

Ive seen the world ruled by men who think they know Gods will..nations without any secular governance..no law..no agenda FOR good...they are desolate deserts with desperate peoples dying for ideology just as surely as those in totaltarian states are...only theirs is without Hope.

I often despise governement..but Ive seen the nations without them and while they are not altruistic or idealistic eutopias..and have many flaws..they are better imo than the anarchic despair and desolation of unbridled tribalism.

Let me address the taxation issue. I learned this recently at a museum in NYC. Did you know that until 1913 the main source of revenue for the federal government was customs duties? That is a voluntary tax and it helped fund more than half the federal government budget for almost 200 years. Until the dreaded income tax was instated. I don't support the current system of taxation.


Yes. Alot of them have little knowledge of economics and simply do what their predecessors do (spend and borrow). They don't really know that they are impoverishing and enslaving.

Then there are nefarious characters like hank paulson and ben bernake. No doubt they couldn't care less about their country, they impoverished and enslaved to their own end.

Where is this world 'ruled' by 'no law'?

You seem to be throwing out a lot of vague and unsupported statements.



Is a society based upon institutionalized theft and violence a society with an agenda for good?



You seem to be describing what government produces.



Such as? There are examples of nations without them in this thread, and they were not made up of the horrors you've described.



Who is calling for unbridled tribalism?

That is false. Taxation is not voluntary.

If you made a living selling fish, and I told you if you want to keep selling fish, you have to give me half your fish each week or you'd be kidnapped or have the money/fish taken from you in some way, that is not a voluntary arrangement.

This is, once again, a violent/coercive arrangement.

"If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists."
~Lysander Spooner, excerpt from a letter to Grover Cleveland, 1886

"We are living in a sick society filled with people who would not directly steal from their neighbor but who are willing to demand that the government do it for them."
~William L. Comer

"The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits."
~Anonymous

Senator Harry Reid: "Taxation Is Voluntary"

[link to www.youtube.com]

I'm Allowed to Rob You!

[link to www.youtube.com]

It's so much depressing. One reason more of not wanting to reincarnate here. The beauty of the planet is just a shallow pill to make you want this existence again and again and believe it's for your own growth.