Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jhary and Sieben's Thread

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
*****
We are doing this through the forums because we cannot format our PM's, and wish the conversation to be public. Jhary has expressed preference for discussion via a thread rather than debate.

Please do not post here. If you reaaally have a burning issue with something one of us says, you can PM me or start another thread. We're basically afraid that statists and anarchists will pile on whoever they disagree with if they feel like one of us isn't make a good case. And sometimes people just get mad.
******

I'll start with a few illuminating questions

1) What is a government?

2) What is anarchy?

3) How do states stay in power?

4) I think the core challenge of organizing society is to align individual incentive with group interest. Do you agree?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:09:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:04:32 PM, Sieben wrote:
*****
We are doing this through the forums because we cannot format our PM's, and wish the conversation to be public. Jhary has expressed preference for discussion via a thread rather than debate.

Please do not post here. If you reaaally have a burning issue with something one of us says, you can PM me or start another thread. We're basically afraid that statists and anarchists will pile on whoever they disagree with if they feel like one of us isn't make a good case. And sometimes people just get mad.
******

I'll start with a few illuminating questions

1) What is a government?
The reflection of the people.

2) What is anarchy?
The defiance of authority.

3) How do states stay in power?
The people.

4) I think the core challenge of organizing society is to align individual incentive with group interest. Do you agree?
To a point.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:11:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:09:08 PM, jharry wrote:
1) What is a government?
The reflection of the people.
Which people?
2) What is anarchy?
The defiance of authority.
Authority as in, leaders? You think anarchy means opposition to even cub scout leaders?
3) How do states stay in power?
The people.
What about the people?
4) I think the core challenge of organizing society is to align individual incentive with group interest. Do you agree?
To a point.
Can you explain more?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:14:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:11:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:09:08 PM, jharry wrote:
1) What is a government?
The reflection of the people.
Which people?
Majority
2) What is anarchy?
The defiance of authority.
Authority as in, leaders? You think anarchy means opposition to even cub scout leaders?
No. Authority in general. Morals. Right and wrong.
3) How do states stay in power?
The people.
What about the people?
Without the people the states is nothing. Empty.
4) I think the core challenge of organizing society is to align individual incentive with group interest. Do you agree?
To a point.
Can you explain more?
It is a challenge because it is impossible to satisfy ALL people in a society. Someone has to lose a right for someone else to gain one, either way.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:20:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:14:07 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:11:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:09:08 PM, jharry wrote:
1) What is a government?
The reflection of the people.
Which people?
Majority
Mcdonalds reflects the preferences of many consumers. Is McDonalds a government?
2) What is anarchy?
The defiance of authority.
Authority as in, leaders? You think anarchy means opposition to even cub scout leaders?
No. Authority in general. Morals. Right and wrong.
I have morals. Robert P Murphy is a Christian and Anarcho Capitalist. If we have morals, and do not support governments, what are we? We say we are anarchists.

3) How do states stay in power?
The people.
What about the people?
Without the people the states is nothing. Empty.
Without what of the people? Example, McDonalds stays in business because of people. What about them? Well the fact that they support McDonalds enough with their purchases for it to stay in business. What is it that supports government?

4) I think the core challenge of organizing society is to align individual incentive with group interest. Do you agree?
To a point.
Can you explain more?
It is a challenge because it is impossible to satisfy ALL people in a society. Someone has to lose a right for someone else to gain one, either way.
If I voluntarily trade my pizza for your hamburger, don't we both benefit subjectively?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:30:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:20:43 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:14:07 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:11:26 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:09:08 PM, jharry wrote:
1) What is a government?
The reflection of the people.
Which people?
Majority
Mcdonalds reflects the preferences of many consumers. Is McDonalds a government?
No. They sell food, governments do much more.
2) What is anarchy?
The defiance of authority.
Authority as in, leaders? You think anarchy means opposition to even cub scout leaders?
No. Authority in general. Morals. Right and wrong.
I have morals. Robert P Murphy is a Christian and Anarcho Capitalist. If we have morals, and do not support governments, what are we? We say we are anarchists.
You can call yourself what ever you want. You may or may not reflect the shear stupidity of anarchy as I see it. But that is what this is thread is about right?

3) How do states stay in power?
The people.
What about the people?
Without the people the states is nothing. Empty.
Without what of the people? Example, McDonalds stays in business because of people. What about them? Well the fact that they support McDonalds enough with their purchases for it to stay in business. What is it that supports government?
Same thing. If all people quit paying taxes then the government would fold. Just like McDonalds.

4) I think the core challenge of organizing society is to align individual incentive with group interest. Do you agree?
To a point.
Can you explain more?
It is a challenge because it is impossible to satisfy ALL people in a society. Someone has to lose a right for someone else to gain one, either way.
If I voluntarily trade my pizza for your hamburger, don't we both benefit subjectively?
If I give you my hamburger and you force me to eat your pizza, would you say that is right? There is nothing voluntary about doing so if it is forced. And that is between two people. Now if the majority people wanted to make that exchange then so be it. I might have to eat the pizza but the most rights were preserved.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:34:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:30:35 PM, jharry wrote:
Mcdonalds reflects the preferences of many consumers. Is McDonalds a government?
No. They sell food, governments do much more.
Oh, so a government is not simply a reflection of the people. What is a government?
I have morals. Robert P Murphy is a Christian and Anarcho Capitalist. If we have morals, and do not support governments, what are we? We say we are anarchists.
You can call yourself what ever you want. You may or may not reflect the shear stupidity of anarchy as I see it. But that is what this is thread is about right?
Okay. So I'm going to define anarchy as the absence of a government. If this is okay, you'll understand what an anarchist is when we finish defining what a government is above.
Same thing. If all people quit paying taxes then the government would fold. Just like McDonalds.
Why do you think people pay taxes?

Why do I pay taxes to an organization I oppose?
If I voluntarily trade my pizza for your hamburger, don't we both benefit subjectively?
If I give you my hamburger and you force me to eat your pizza, would you say that is right? There is nothing voluntary about doing so if it is forced. And that is between two people. Now if the majority people wanted to make that exchange then so be it. I might have to eat the pizza but the most rights were preserved.
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm asking if we can both benefit from voluntary trade. Whether the majority approves shouldn't change anything.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:42:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:34:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:30:35 PM, jharry wrote:
Mcdonalds reflects the preferences of many consumers. Is McDonalds a government?
No. They sell food, governments do much more.
Oh, so a government is not simply a reflection of the people. What is a government?
The reflection of the people. What they want.
I have morals. Robert P Murphy is a Christian and Anarcho Capitalist. If we have morals, and do not support governments, what are we? We say we are anarchists.
You can call yourself what ever you want. You may or may not reflect the shear stupidity of anarchy as I see it. But that is what this is thread is about right?
Okay. So I'm going to define anarchy as the absence of a government. If this is okay, you'll understand what an anarchist is when we finish defining what a government is above.
Ok.
Same thing. If all people quit paying taxes then the government would fold. Just like McDonalds.
Why do you think people pay taxes?
To take care of things they neither want to deal with or possibly can't.

Why do I pay taxes to an organization I oppose?
Because you are in the minority. And the majority has been complacent for to long.
If I voluntarily trade my pizza for your hamburger, don't we both benefit subjectively?
If I give you my hamburger and you force me to eat your pizza, would you say that is right? There is nothing voluntary about doing so if it is forced. And that is between two people. Now if the majority people wanted to make that exchange then so be it. I might have to eat the pizza but the most rights were preserved.
I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm asking if we can both benefit from voluntary trade. Whether the majority approves shouldn't change anything.
Oh sorry, I slipped there for a second. Yes we would both beneficent.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:48:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:42:17 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:34:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:30:35 PM, jharry wrote:
Mcdonalds reflects the preferences of many consumers. Is McDonalds a government?
No. They sell food, governments do much more.
Oh, so a government is not simply a reflection of the people. What is a government?
The reflection of the people. What they want.
But you just admitted that even though McDonalds gives people what they want, it is not a government.

Why do you think people pay taxes?
To take care of things they neither want to deal with or possibly can't.
What stops them from being able to deal with stuff outside the government?
Why do I pay taxes to an organization I oppose?
Because you are in the minority. And the majority has been complacent for to long.
Many people in the minority pay taxes. I pay taxes because they will send me to jail if I don't. They will kill me if I resist being sent to jail :(

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm asking if we can both benefit from voluntary trade. Whether the majority approves shouldn't change anything.
Oh sorry, I slipped there for a second. Yes we would both beneficent.
So, this brings me back to the core organizational problem of society: to align individual incentive with group incentive. If individuals have an incentive to do things that will harm the group, everyone will harm the group and everyone will suffer. If the opposite is true, society flourishes. That's why I put it forward as a criterion to judge political ideologies.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:56:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:48:07 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:42:17 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:34:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:30:35 PM, jharry wrote:
Mcdonalds reflects the preferences of many consumers. Is McDonalds a government?
No. They sell food, governments do much more.
Oh, so a government is not simply a reflection of the people. What is a government?
The reflection of the people. What they want.
But you just admitted that even though McDonalds gives people what they want, it is not a government.
I think this is dealt with in your next question. McDonalds isn't asked to do anything but give us food that we want. Government is asked to do many more things. Maybe we should drop this one and focus on what government does for us.

Why do you think people pay taxes?
To take care of things they neither want to deal with or possibly can't.
What stops them from being able to deal with stuff outside the government?
Maybe the sheer size of the endeavor. Maybe they don't want to do certain things like deal with criminals or teach their children so they basically pay the government to do those things for them. Now I'm talking more about local government, I agree that the federal government has their hands way to deep in our pockets.
Why do I pay taxes to an organization I oppose?
Because you are in the minority. And the majority has been complacent for to long.
Many people in the minority pay taxes. I pay taxes because they will send me to jail if I don't. They will kill me if I resist being sent to jail :(
That is the chitty part of being the minority. But you can always go to a place that doesn't do such things. But there is the problem, you don't. So you are in fact supporting this government even though you oppose it by staying here. Kinda like buying burgers from McDonald even though you think they suck.

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. I'm asking if we can both benefit from voluntary trade. Whether the majority approves shouldn't change anything.
Oh sorry, I slipped there for a second. Yes we would both beneficent.
So, this brings me back to the core organizational problem of society: to align individual incentive with group incentive. If individuals have an incentive to do things that will harm the group, everyone will harm the group and everyone will suffer. If the opposite is true, society flourishes. That's why I put it forward as a criterion to judge political ideologies.

I have no idea about what you just said. Sorry.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 7:04:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:56:13 PM, jharry wrote:
Maybe the sheer size of the endeavor.
Private corporations start massive projects, often ranging in the billions of dollars. Consumers pay for it indirectly through their purchases of products. In short, there is already a way for large endeavors to materialize outside the government.

Maybe they don't want to do certain things like deal with criminals or teach their children so they basically pay the government to do those things for them.
If a community paid a jailer to lock up criminals, there would be no government involved. If I pay a school to babysit or teach my children, again, there is no government involvement.

Is government just redundant then? Can everything that people use government for be done outside the government?

Why do I pay taxes to an organization I oppose?
Because you are in the minority. And the majority has been complacent for to long.
Many people in the minority pay taxes. I pay taxes because they will send me to jail if I don't. They will kill me if I resist being sent to jail :(
That is the chitty part of being the minority.
If an organization threatened to kidnap or kill me if I didn't pay up, most people would consider that immoral. Why is it okay when the government does it?

LBut you can always go to a place that doesn't do such things. But there is the problem, you don't. So you are in fact supporting this government even though you oppose it by staying here.

If someone broke into your house and started stealing your stuff, but then said "if you dont like it, you can leave" would that make it okay? Or do you have a right to be secure in your own house...

Kinda like buying burgers from McDonald even though you think they suck.
The difference is that McDonalds doesn't threaten me if I don't buy their burgers.

So, this brings me back to the core organizational problem of society: to align individual incentive with group incentive. If individuals have an incentive to do things that will harm the group, everyone will harm the group and everyone will suffer. If the opposite is true, society flourishes. That's why I put it forward as a criterion to judge political ideologies.

I have no idea about what you just said. Sorry.

Each individual will do what benefits him, regardless of its impact on others. For example, people might burn coal because they individually like its heat, but suffer from the aggregate pollution.

You want to organize society to avoid problems like this, and in fact promote the opposite. If each individual benefits the group by acting in his own self interest, everyone wins. All political ideologies should strive for this goal.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 8:00:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 7:04:24 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:56:13 PM, jharry wrote:
Maybe the sheer size of the endeavor.
Private corporations start massive projects, often ranging in the billions of dollars. Consumers pay for it indirectly through their purchases of products. In short, there is already a way for large endeavors to materialize outside the government.

Maybe they don't want to do certain things like deal with criminals or teach their children so they basically pay the government to do those things for them.
If a community paid a jailer to lock up criminals, there would be no government involved. If I pay a school to babysit or teach my children, again, there is no government involvement.

Is government just redundant then? Can everything that people use government for be done outside the government?

I will summarize all the above to conserve time a space. At one time in this country all those things were taken care of by the people without the government. But it all changed. It is no longer that way. Why?

Why do I pay taxes to an organization I oppose?
Because you are in the minority. And the majority has been complacent for to long.
Many people in the minority pay taxes. I pay taxes because they will send me to jail if I don't. They will kill me if I resist being sent to jail :(
That is the chitty part of being the minority.
If an organization threatened to kidnap or kill me if I didn't pay up, most people would consider that immoral. Why is it okay when the government does it?

Because there are laws legislated by the people to enforce such things. Do you expect to reap the benefit of roads, schools and protection without paying? Do you expect me to pay your way for you? I consider it immoral for you not to pull your own weight.

LBut you can always go to a place that doesn't do such things. But there is the problem, you don't. So you are in fact supporting this government even though you oppose it by staying here.

If someone broke into your house and started stealing your stuff, but then said "if you dont like it, you can leave" would that make it okay? Or do you have a right to be secure in your own house...

That is my house, not the country. And yes I can move, and I would. If my house was broken into every day then I would move to an area where this didn't occur. This is called common sense. I'm not so selfish and self centered to expect everyone around me to change.

Kinda like buying burgers from McDonald even though you think they suck.
The difference is that McDonalds doesn't threaten me if I don't buy their burgers.

Exactly. They are not the government.


So, this brings me back to the core organizational problem of society: to align individual incentive with group incentive. If individuals have an incentive to do things that will harm the group, everyone will harm the group and everyone will suffer. If the opposite is true, society flourishes. That's why I put it forward as a criterion to judge political ideologies.

I have no idea about what you just said. Sorry.

Each individual will do what benefits him, regardless of its impact on others. For example, people might burn coal because they individually like its heat, but suffer from the aggregate pollution.

The problem with that is your burning of coal can effect me.

You want to organize society to avoid problems like this, and in fact promote the opposite. If each individual benefits the group by acting in his own self interest, everyone wins. All political ideologies should strive for this goal.

Good political ideologies don't focus on each person, they support the whole of society. Let's say that in your pursuit of your interest you decide to start raising hogs. But you live in a suburb where the average lot size is a quarter of an acre. Your hogs would raise such a smell that it would affect me. That is why there are laws that limit this practice. There are police that are payed to enforce this law. I don't want to go over and make you get rid of your hogs, it would probably become confrontational so I would prefer to have the cops do it so I can be free from liability if I make a mistake.

The problem with any form of anarchy it can't deal with these common problems in everyday life. That is why ALL societies ALWAYS go away from these forms of ideologies. They simply are not effective.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 8:20:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 8:00:40 PM, jharry wrote:
I will summarize all the above to conserve time a space. At one time in this country all those things were taken care of by the people without the government. But it all changed. It is no longer that way. Why?

Because government slowly began forcing its way into these industries. People put up with it because they believe government is legitimate. There is a long tradition of statist mythology - the narrative that government is good and people should put up with it. It is often distributed by churches, or through news organizations with ties to the merchant class who benefit from expanding their privileges under government.

If enough people believe this ideology, they will not resist government. It will be very easy for whoever controls the state to take power.

If an organization threatened to kidnap or kill me if I didn't pay up, most people would consider that immoral. Why is it okay when the government does it?

Because there are laws legislated by the people to enforce such things. Do you expect to reap the benefit of roads, schools and protection without paying? Do you expect me to pay your way for you? I consider it immoral for you not to pull your own weight.
But those laws were forced on me. Surely if I force feed you, you don't have to pay me for the food you have eaten?

You are touching on the concept of excludability/public goods though. Its a complex area but the long and short is that externalities are resolved via appeal to property rights or through contract. Very specific public goods that require there to be one owner of a large amount of property do not justify states. Property has been pooled en masse many times without government.

If someone broke into your house and started stealing your stuff, but then said "if you dont like it, you can leave" would that make it okay? Or do you have a right to be secure in your own house...

That is my house, not the country.
This makes no difference. Either you have a right to live in peace or you don't.

And yes I can move, and I would. If my house was broken into every day then I would move to an area where this didn't occur. This is called common sense. I'm not so selfish and self centered to expect everyone around me to change.
It might be practical for you to move, but surely it is immoral and sub optimal for you to have to move just because someone is stealing from you. The same logic applies to states. They are threatening me to pay up.

(And actually, you cannot always leave states. In America, there is a $450 fee to revoke your citizenship, and you pay taxes for 10 years afterwards... so that's kind of lame :P)

Kinda like buying burgers from McDonald even though you think they suck.
The difference is that McDonalds doesn't threaten me if I don't buy their burgers.

Exactly. They are not the government.
So the defining feature of governments is that they are allowed to threaten everyone?

The problem with that is your burning of coal can effect me.
Exactly. You have to set up the rules such that things that benefit me don't harm you. So some good rules might be - I can't rob you, or murder you, or burn coal right next to your living room, etc etc.

The problem with any form of anarchy it can't deal with these common problems in everyday life. That is why ALL societies ALWAYS go away from these forms of ideologies. They simply are not effective.
Why can't it deal with these every day problems? Because of police? Didn't you concede that you can provide all the services of government outside of government?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 9:47:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 8:20:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 8:00:40 PM, jharry wrote:
I will summarize all the above to conserve time a space. At one time in this country all those things were taken care of by the people without the government. But it all changed. It is no longer that way. Why?

Because government slowly began forcing its way into these industries. People put up with it because they believe government is legitimate. There is a long tradition of statist mythology - the narrative that government is good and people should put up with it. It is often distributed by churches, or through news organizations with ties to the merchant class who benefit from expanding their privileges under government.

Those seem to be some very opinionated answers. Can they be backed by any facts? Or could it simply be that it is easier for most people to allow the government to to handle certain aspects of this country? I don't believe any of what you stated. I believe government is only a good thing when it is in direct control of the people, only allowed to make any move when directed by the people. I'm against federal government except in areas that are needed where people can't deal with the problem. It has gotten out of hand the first time a federal judge imposed anything on any state. And when the opinions of a few men brought on a federal tax on individuals. But I will get into the heart of the issue when I respond to your comments below.

If enough people believe this ideology, they will not resist government. It will be very easy for whoever controls the state to take power.

No it is easier the more people give the federal government power to make rulings that appeal to the minority. In a smaller government control of the government can be achieved.

If an organization threatened to kidnap or kill me if I didn't pay up, most people would consider that immoral. Why is it okay when the government does it?

Because there are laws legislated by the people to enforce such things. Do you expect to reap the benefit of roads, schools and protection without paying? Do you expect me to pay your way for you? I consider it immoral for you not to pull your own weight.
But those laws were forced on me. Surely if I force feed you, you don't have to pay me for the food you have eaten?

The laws are there so you have to pull your own weight and not free load. Those laws are there for a reason. Just like the laws about burning coal that blows into my living room. You can leave at any time you chose.

You are touching on the concept of excludability/public goods though. Its a complex area but the long and short is that externalities are resolved via appeal to property rights or through contract. Very specific public goods that require there to be one owner of a large amount of property do not justify states. Property has been pooled en masse many times without government.

Or it holds free loaders accountable.

If someone broke into your house and started stealing your stuff, but then said "if you dont like it, you can leave" would that make it okay? Or do you have a right to be secure in your own house...

That is my house, not the country.
This makes no difference. Either you have a right to live in peace or you don't.

I have that right but to many people believe in might is right. The good people move out of bad areas and leave the bad people to roll around in there own filth. I know it may be hard to understand for some people, but to most it's called dealing with reality. No matter how much we don't like somethings doesn't change the fact that they are real and we have to deal with them. The world is an evil place, all we can do is manage it the best we can. I don't make excuses or blame people for my misfortune, I simply do what I have to do to take care of myself and my family. If that means moving then so be it. Should I stay because I believe I have the "right" to live in peace and endanger my family? Or should I do what I have to if the situation is serious enough? Oh yea, is a mamby pamby world where everything is nice and everyone gets along I wouldn't have to. But the cold hard fact is that it aint a perfect world.

And yes I can move, and I would. If my house was broken into every day then I would move to an area where this didn't occur. This is called common sense. I'm not so selfish and self centered to expect everyone around me to change.
It might be practical for you to move, but surely it is immoral and sub optimal for you to have to move just because someone is stealing from you. The same logic applies to states. They are threatening me to pay up.

They are threatening you to pull your own weight. Immoral? Yeah it;s immoral for people to live by might is right. But they do. I will do what is needed to take care of my family as I feel best.

(And actually, you cannot always leave states. In America, there is a $450 fee to revoke your citizenship, and you pay taxes for 10 years afterwards... so that's kind of lame :P)

Actually that applies to people that make more the 139,000 a year. If you don't make that much you have no excuse. 450.00? Aint that better then a life time of taxation?

Kinda like buying burgers from McDonald even though you think they suck.
The difference is that McDonalds doesn't threaten me if I don't buy their burgers.

Exactly. They are not the government.
So the defining feature of governments is that they are allowed to threaten everyone?

If the laws are legislated. Thats like saying a law that prevents you from blowing coal smoke into my house is wrong or immoral.

The problem with that is your burning of coal can effect me.
Exactly. You have to set up the rules such that things that benefit me don't harm you. So some good rules might be - I can't rob you, or murder you, or burn coal right next to your living room, etc etc.

The problem with any form of anarchy it can't deal with these common problems in everyday life. That is why ALL societies ALWAYS go away from these forms of ideologies. They simply are not effective.
Why can't it deal with these every day problems? Because of police? Didn't you concede that you can provide all the services of government outside of government?

Who will enforce any given law? I don't want to deal with scum. The problem with government is too many people try to solve ALL their problems with it. Government that is small enough to be controlled is a good thing. Government that is shaped my majority is a good thing. Society will always lead to some form of government. Always has, always will. With or without religion. This country was founded on separation of church and state. And they left a King and Queen to have a President. The simple solution is for all that don't like that arrangement is to leave and go to an area where anarchy reigns supreme. The problem is that no such place exists. Well they do but you would have to desire death and carnage to move there.

Government didn't force itself on anyone. The people allowed it because of their selfishness. All politicians destroy this country because people are selfish.

All I can tell anyone that doesn't like the it here is to leave. That is the main problem with this country at it's root. People won't leave, do you know why? Because besides the b1itching and whining it's pretty damn good here despite all the problems. If it were truly that bad people would leave and then the government could fold. I have every intent on leaving when this country gets bad enough. When the liberal left passes enough laws and the country get's to the point that it is so secularized that it's impossible to be human any more I will leave. When I become the minority I will leave. I save everyday for the chance that it will become reality in my time. I don't expect others to deal with m
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2010 7:44:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 9:47:01 PM, jharry wrote:


Those seem to be some very opinionated answers. Can they be backed by any facts?
Yeah. See "how the state preserves itself". There are many links. http://www.lewrockwell.com...

Or could it simply be that it is easier for most people to allow the government to to handle certain aspects of this country?
Obviously it is easier to let the government do its thing than to revolt and abolish or change it significantly.


If enough people believe this ideology, they will not resist government. It will be very easy for whoever controls the state to take power.

No it is easier the more people give the federal government power to make rulings that appeal to the minority. In a smaller government control of the government can be achieved.
Smaller governments are easier for majorities to control, but then the majority becomes synonymous with government, and you still have the problem of forcing minority groups to pay in.

But those laws were forced on me. Surely if I force feed you, you don't have to pay me for the food you have eaten?

The laws are there so you have to pull your own weight and not free load. Those laws are there for a reason. Just like the laws about burning coal that blows into my living room. You can leave at any time you chose.
This does not address the concept of force. Those laws were forced on everyone. We had no choice. You seem to be justifying this aggression on the basis of free riding. See below for that... but if there were no free rider problem, then would you agree that it is immoral to force me to be a part of government?

You are touching on the concept of excludability/public goods though. Its a complex area but the long and short is that externalities are resolved via appeal to property rights or through contract. Very specific public goods that require there to be one owner of a large amount of property do not justify states. Property has been pooled en masse many times without government.

Or it holds free loaders accountable.

Would you like me to link you some literature on solving the free rider and public goods problems outside of government?

This makes no difference. Either you have a right to live in peace or you don't.

Should I stay because I believe I have the "right" to live in peace and endanger my family? Or should I do what I have to if the situation is serious enough? Oh yea, is a mamby pamby world where everything is nice and everyone gets along I wouldn't have to. But the cold hard fact is that it aint a perfect world.
So, it might be practical for you to move. But you know that A) you have a right to peace in your own home and B) Crime is still immoral and ought to be opposed, even if you can't do anything about it.

Well being an anarchist is kind of like opposing crime. You might not be able to do anything about the government, and it might be practical for you to just move, but government is still in the wrong. They abridge your right to live in peace, because they have decided you are one of their citizens from birth, and put their obligations on you.

It might be practical for you to move, but surely it is immoral and sub optimal for you to have to move just because someone is stealing from you. The same logic applies to states. They are threatening me to pay up.

They are threatening you to pull your own weight. Immoral? Yeah it;s immoral for people to live by might is right. But they do. I will do what is needed to take care of my family as I feel best.
So you agree that governments are immoral? That them threatening you to pay up or leave is really just theft?

It seems like a lot of this will hinge on the free rider problem. I can address that later. For now, please just answer - if there were no free rider problem, would you oppose government forcing people to pay taxes etc?

(And actually, you cannot always leave states. In America, there is a $450 fee to revoke your citizenship, and you pay taxes for 10 years afterwards... so that's kind of lame :P)

Actually that applies to people that make more the 139,000 a year. If you don't make that much you have no excuse. 450.00? Aint that better then a life time of taxation?
Yeah its better. Still theft though :)

So the defining feature of governments is that they are allowed to threaten everyone?

If the laws are legislated. Thats like saying a law that prevents you from blowing coal smoke into my house is wrong or immoral.

Well a law against theft is intrinsically fine, but if they force everyone to pay for the police and court services to enforce it, that's a little contradictory right? They're trying to make theft illegal by forcing everyone to pay in to the system. I.e. they are fighting theft with theft.

Yeah yeah I know free rider problem. We'll address it. But the point is to establish that you agree that a government is defined by the right to threaten everyone.

Why can't it deal with these every day problems? Because of police? Didn't you concede that you can provide all the services of government outside of government?

Who will enforce any given law? I don't want to deal with scum. The problem with government is too many people try to solve ALL their problems with it. Government that is small enough to be controlled is a good thing. Government that is shaped my majority is a good thing.
Government is not the only institution that can be shaped by its constituents.

The simple solution is for all that don't like that arrangement is to leave and go to an area where anarchy reigns supreme. The problem is that no such place exists. Well they do but you would have to desire death and carnage to move there.
Actually if the government would just release its deathgrip on unused land we could do it right now. Anarchy only requires that you leave other people alone. So, lets say if there were 10,000 square miles unused in the mid-western USA, which there are, would you be opposed to letting it be a "free territory"? Of course you can intervene if we pose a threat to anyone, but assuming we are peaceful, would that be okay? Because that would be anarchy.

Government didn't force itself on anyone. The people allowed it because of their selfishness. All politicians destroy this country because people are selfish.
I am not stupid or selfish. Government has forced itself on me.

At any rate, it is rational to be ignorant in a democracy. I won't make it one of my core arguments (because I argue against ALL governments, not just democracies), but Bryan Caplan has done some good work. http://en.wikipedia.org...
All I can tell anyone that doesn't like the it here is to leave. That is the main problem with this country at it's root. People won't leave, do you know why? Because besides the b1itching and whining it's pretty damn good here despite all the problems. If it were truly that bad people would leave and then the government could fold. I have every intent on leaving when this country gets bad enough. When the liberal left passes enough laws and the country get's to the point that it is so secularized that it's impossible to be human any more I will leave. When I become the minority I will leave.

All the nice countries in Europe have very restrictive immigration laws. The whole planet is locked down. Government has claimed every scrap of land, and they are the gatekeepers. If you a fortunate, you can move from government to government hoping to escape tyranny, but at some point, you will have to bite the bullet.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2010 12:59:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/26/2010 6:48:55 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Oh hey, get a PM, use your profiles or start I debate, I don't care which.

No. And I don't care either. Thanks:)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2010 1:09:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I could't reply to your post. I typed on sentence and ran out of characters. I understand the flaws in our government. I believe the government has gotten to big and has to much control of our lives. So far you have illustrated why the government as it stands today has many flaws. I agree. it has became too big for the people to manage. I believe that this has happened because to many people rely on the government to take care of them in TOO many ways. I don't believe it is only religious that have made this possible. Every believer I know feels the government has gotten too big and ends up representing only the biggest complainers and whiners.

We may find out that we agree on many many things. But to see I would now like to direct this conversation into your idea of how a society can function and flourish under a different type of system. You mentioned in another thread different ways anarchy can actually work. I'm very curious about these idea's, I thought this was what this thread was going to be about. I didn't know it would become a thread where I have to defend a inflated system that I too don't think is efficient.

I hope we can now direct this thread into better conversation about how something else can work and how.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2010 1:34:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/26/2010 7:44:09 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 9/25/2010 9:47:01 PM, jharry wrote:
Yeah. See "how the state preserves itself". There are many links. http://www.lewrockwell.com...
All those examples required people to allow those things to happen. Government is made up of people. And they were still opinions.
Obviously it is easier to let the government do its thing than to revolt and abolish or change it significantly.
Most of the wrongs were committed in the past. The wrongs that made it possible for this size of government to exist today. Health Care is a wrong in government. But selfish people want it. Obama pulled a fast one to get it in. Are you ready to take up arms? Do you think enough people are? Do you realize what that sacrifice will be?
Smaller governments are easier for majorities to control, but then the majority becomes synonymous with government, and you still have the problem of forcing minority groups to pay in.
That is what the States of America was intended to handle. Federal government destroyed that. A handful of people oppressed the majority. Lincoln and his followers had a hand in destroying this country as we see it today.
This does not address the concept of force. Those laws were forced on everyone. We had no choice. You seem to be justifying this aggression on the basis of free riding. See below for that... but if there were no free rider problem, then would you agree that it is immoral to force me to be a part of government?
We have found ourselves in a situation in a country that we were born in. You have benefited from tax payers money since the day you were born. If these laws weren't enforced what would happen?

Would you like me to link you some literature on solving the free rider and public goods problems outside of government?
Sure.
So, it might be practical for you to move. But you know that A) you have a right to peace in your own home and B) Crime is still immoral and ought to be opposed, even if you can't do anything about it.
Yes I do. But I also am able to understand that reality is a b1tch.
Well being an anarchist is kind of like opposing crime. You might not be able to do anything about the government, and it might be practical for you to just move, but government is still in the wrong. They abridge your right to live in peace, because they have decided you are one of their citizens from birth, and put their obligations on you.
Citizen from birth is a convented position. Millions of people across the world would and have given up everything to get here. There are worse places on this earth then here, that is simple reality. Could it be better? Sure. So are you ready to sacrifice everything or do you prefer to just complain about it? When it get's bad enough I will do what I have to do.
So you agree that governments are immoral? That them threatening you to pay up or leave is really just theft?
If I didn't receive anything in return I could see it as theft. Government isn't immoral. People are immoral. Governments are made up of people, a government can't do anything on it's own. It is called life, it is a b1tch. You have to decide how you are going to deal with it.
It seems like a lot of this will hinge on the free rider problem. I can address that later. For now, please just answer - if there were no free rider problem, would you oppose government forcing people to pay taxes etc?
If they didn't take government assistance yes.
Yeah its better. Still theft though :)
How? Don't you drive the roads and have the fire and police? I know you don't want them but they are there for you. They have to respond if you call.
Well a law against theft is intrinsically fine, but if they force everyone to pay for the police and court services to enforce it, that's a little contradictory right? They're trying to make theft illegal by forcing everyone to pay in to the system. I.e. they are fighting theft with theft.
Most people want that protection. You seem to be the minority. Just like living in a crime ridden are. If you consider it theft then no one is stopping you from leaving. If I had to spend more money on a better living area then I would to take care of my family. I work harder and get a better job. I get better education. No one stopped or held me back, I had to sacrifice but I'm a better person because of my sacrifice.

Yeah yeah I know free rider problem. We'll address it. But the point is to establish that you agree that a government is defined by the right to threaten everyone.
No. It is the legislation of the people by the people. That is what government is supposed to be.
Government is not the only institution that can be shaped by its constituents.
No it is not. But I can't see how it could be any better.
Actually if the government would just release its deathgrip on unused land we could do it right now. Anarchy only requires that you leave other people alone. So, lets say if there were 10,000 square miles unused in the mid-western USA, which there are, would you be opposed to letting it be a "free territory"? Of course you can intervene if we pose a threat to anyone, but assuming we are peaceful, would that be okay? Because that would be anarchy.
No one owns the 10,000 square mile piece of land? This is interesting, please start this in a new string in this thread.
I am not stupid or selfish. Government has forced itself on me.
I'm not talking about you. I aint either. But their are a lot of people out there that are.
At any rate, it is rational to be ignorant in a democracy. I won't make it one of my core arguments (because I argue against ALL governments, not just democracies), but Bryan Caplan has done some good work. http://en.wikipedia.org...
And that happens when government gets to big. I'm for smaller government closer to localities. Local governments. No bigger then States.
All the nice countries in Europe have very restrictive immigration laws. The whole planet is locked down. Government has claimed every scrap of land, and they are the gatekeepers. If you a fortunate, you can move from government to government hoping to escape tyranny, but at some point, you will have to bite the bullet.

That is because true anarchy has never worked anywhere on the planet. I hope you can tell me in another string how anarchy can really work, I'm very interested in talking about that. I have a feeling we will agree on many things.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 12:26:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I would love to see an example of how a society would run under anarchy. Everything from education to crime. So far no on has given an example of that.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2010 1:02:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Before I launch into examples let me say this - we have no way of knowing exactly what or how a free society would look like. When eastern european countries were collapsing from socialism, there was great debate over whether to privatize agriculture. The opponents asked "Who will farm if we do not tell them to? How will they get farming equipment? How will they know what to grow? What will they grow?" etc. You can't give a clear picture of what it will look like.

All you can say is that the market fundamentals are there, and they'll work their way out somehow. You can point to historical examples, but those probably aren't the optimal ways of providing things. For example, our modern police and court system was designed by 1850's Victorian elites. Its core structure and mode of operation have changed very little since then. Are we more advanced than 1850? Heck yeah. They did math on their fingers, our computers solve billions of simultaneous equations to model multiphase flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs a mile beneath the earth.

So I can speculate on how anarchic security would look, but I'd probably be way off (but not in a bad way!). Education too would probably be radically different, since our current textbook model of schooling is from the freaking stone-ages too. I took a course online for personal interest, and the institution hadn't even thought very hard about e-education, but so many advantages of web conferences/chat rooms appeared organically.

One of the reasons that anarchic functionality is very very important to people is because they're afraid that the whole world will be destroyed if I'm wrong about it. I could be, so I'm all for incremental progress towards anarchism. Most people think smaller governments are easier to control, so let's start with that. Maybe allow secession at the state-level, then regional, district, local, and individual level (which is anarchism). All slowly, carefully, intentionally, depending on how it goes.

If you tell people what you're going to do in advance, they can plan for it and find a way to make it work.

At any rate, do you prefer me to link papers or youtube or mp3s?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 12:03:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/29/2010 1:02:06 PM, Sieben wrote:
Before I launch into examples let me say this - we have no way of knowing exactly what or how a free society would look like. When eastern european countries were collapsing from socialism, there was great debate over whether to privatize agriculture. The opponents asked "Who will farm if we do not tell them to? How will they get farming equipment? How will they know what to grow? What will they grow?" etc. You can't give a clear picture of what it will look like.

All you can say is that the market fundamentals are there, and they'll work their way out somehow. You can point to historical examples, but those probably aren't the optimal ways of providing things. For example, our modern police and court system was designed by 1850's Victorian elites. Its core structure and mode of operation have changed very little since then. Are we more advanced than 1850? Heck yeah. They did math on their fingers, our computers solve billions of simultaneous equations to model multiphase flow in hydrocarbon reservoirs a mile beneath the earth.

So I can speculate on how anarchic security would look, but I'd probably be way off (but not in a bad way!). Education too would probably be radically different, since our current textbook model of schooling is from the freaking stone-ages too. I took a course online for personal interest, and the institution hadn't even thought very hard about e-education, but so many advantages of web conferences/chat rooms appeared organically.

One of the reasons that anarchic functionality is very very important to people is because they're afraid that the whole world will be destroyed if I'm wrong about it. I could be, so I'm all for incremental progress towards anarchism. Most people think smaller governments are easier to control, so let's start with that. Maybe allow secession at the state-level, then regional, district, local, and individual level (which is anarchism). All slowly, carefully, intentionally, depending on how it goes.

If you tell people what you're going to do in advance, they can plan for it and find a way to make it work.

At any rate, do you prefer me to link papers or youtube or mp3s?

No. I can't ask a video a question.

Well lets look at education. I talked briefly about it with LF but it was all about how this system is bad and how it would be better, never touching on how it would really work from the beginning. Please know that I highly object to the federal government having ANY say in what my child learns.

Let's say there is a community of 1000 people. There will be communities right?

And that community would like to have education. There will be education right?

GO!
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 12:23:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 12:03:25 PM, jharry wrote:
At any rate, do you prefer me to link papers or youtube or mp3s?

No. I can't ask a video a question.

Oh, I'm happy to talk with you myself. Its just there's a lot of good presentations out there, and you shouldn't have to take everything I say at face value.

Let's say there is a community of 1000 people. There will be communities right?

Communities would probably be much larger than 1000, and they'd all trade and interact with one another just like now.

And that community would like to have education. There will be education right?

Education is demanded. Both by people and by industry. People who want to learn a set of skills are willing to pay money for it. Entrepreneurs who want to make a buck can set up schools, that charge tuition, and use that money to pay for teachers/buildings/whatever. It's pretty simple.

The kinds of courses that get taught would depend on what the buyers want to learn. So if you want your kid to learn about advanced physics or ancient Babylonian history, the market will try and find a way to provide that service.

You might think "hey, but if people can choose what to learn, they'll only learn about fun stuff like art and football, and never try anything difficult like math." Well how useful is math? Pretty useful in some careers. If parents spend a lot of money on subjects that are useless, like ancient history or latin, they're throwing money down the drain. On the other hand, if you become educated in math, physics, etc, you're prepared to go earn 70k/yr as an engineer.

But what about families who are too poor and can't afford an education for their children? Well, poor people are still valuable. They have undeveloped skills that could increase their productivity drastically. Companies have an incentive to set up company education programs, where people go to get trained for a certain job for free, and in exchange work for the parent company for a set amount of time, usually 3-5 years. Many companies also give out scholarships to colleges just as a way of advertising themselves.

So, like in all markets, the price system works wonders. First, the demands of individuals and industry bid up the price of education. Then, entrepreneurs start schools in order to fill that demand. The subjects taught in school are dependent upon what is demanded. It is possible that everyone could demand useless classes, but it is far more likely that they will realize that education uses scarce resources, so there's no point in wasting it on art or home-economics unless you're really set on those subjects.

But that is all traditional schooling. The internet is driving down the costs of education as we speak. Wikibooks has full open source textbooks available for free. http://en.wikibooks.org....

At any rate, there is a lot of documentation on historical and contemporary private schooling. Its so thoroughly covered by economic theory that most free market advocates don't stop to look twice at it (partially explaining the lack of statistics and links), though I'm sure LF had lots of those.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 12:29:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 12:23:57 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:03:25 PM, jharry wrote:
At any rate, do you prefer me to link papers or youtube or mp3s?

No. I can't ask a video a question.

Oh, I'm happy to talk with you myself. Its just there's a lot of good presentations out there, and you shouldn't have to take everything I say at face value.


Let's say there is a community of 1000 people. There will be communities right?

Communities would probably be much larger than 1000, and they'd all trade and interact with one another just like now.

And that community would like to have education. There will be education right?

Basically it will work like it does now. But I am crap at math and I make more the 70/k a year. But anyway. That is because of unions. But that is a topic for another day.

Now there are communities with 1000 population out there right now. 1000 is just a simple number to deal with. Or are you proposing that 1000 will be to small in anarchy?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 12:36:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 12:29:57 PM, jharry wrote:

Now there are communities with 1000 population out there right now. 1000 is just a simple number to deal with. Or are you proposing that 1000 will be to small in anarchy?

Well, if a bunch of pot smoking hippy anarchists want to set up a drum circle and grow yams in the middle of the desert, I ain't stopping them. On the other hand, division of labor rules so hard that everyone's probably going to want to specialize so they can earn higher incomes, and specialization requires that you rely on a ton of other people.

I mean, we'd still probably have suburbs and neighborhoods, if you call that a "community". But I'd imagine there'd be some huge cities w 10s of millions of people.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 12:59:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 12:36:06 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:29:57 PM, jharry wrote:

Now there are communities with 1000 population out there right now. 1000 is just a simple number to deal with. Or are you proposing that 1000 will be to small in anarchy?

Well, if a bunch of pot smoking hippy anarchists want to set up a drum circle and grow yams in the middle of the desert, I ain't stopping them. On the other hand, division of labor rules so hard that every one's probably going to want to specialize so they can earn higher incomes, and specialization requires that you rely on a ton of other people.

I mean, we'd still probably have suburbs and neighborhoods, if you call that a "community". But I'd imagine there'd be some huge cities w 10s of millions of people.

If that is anarchy you can keep it. I want nothing to do with living in a city like that. I live in a community of just around 7000, and that is getting big to me. And right now I make 70k plus. Why would I want to trade that in for your system, that system would step on my ideal of freedom. And it aint no hippy village, I ain't no hippy. I'm the opposite. So I wouldn't fit in there.

So basically I'm seeing Nashville, Atlanta and Montgomery but on a much bigger scale. To me those places are Hell on earth. And I aint the only one.

But besides that let's keep going. So now we have these vast cities (the thought of it turns my stomach) stretching everywhere. I'm not sure I can get past this. Maybe you can tell me some of the possible advantages of these huge cities.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2010 1:26:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 12:59:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:36:06 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:29:57 PM, jharry wrote:

Now there are communities with 1000 population out there right now. 1000 is just a simple number to deal with. Or are you proposing that 1000 will be to small in anarchy?

Well, if a bunch of pot smoking hippy anarchists want to set up a drum circle and grow yams in the middle of the desert, I ain't stopping them. On the other hand, division of labor rules so hard that every one's probably going to want to specialize so they can earn higher incomes, and specialization requires that you rely on a ton of other people.

I mean, we'd still probably have suburbs and neighborhoods, if you call that a "community". But I'd imagine there'd be some huge cities w 10s of millions of people.

If that is anarchy you can keep it. I want nothing to do with living in a city like that. I live in a community of just around 7000, and that is getting big to me. And right now I make 70k plus. Why would I want to trade that in for your system, that system would step on my ideal of freedom. And it aint no hippy village, I ain't no hippy. I'm the opposite. So I wouldn't fit in there.

First of all, you are already kind of part of the global economy since you trade with them etc. Second, I don't think suberbs and towns would get millions large necessarily. I still think there's space for smaller towns. I just can't predict where/when.

I guess one advantage under anarchy is that no government could force you to move out of your house to make way for urban development of your town into a big city.


So basically I'm seeing Nashville, Atlanta and Montgomery but on a much bigger scale. To me those places are Hell on earth. And I aint the only one.

P.s. my mom lives in crosseville :)

But besides that let's keep going. So now we have these vast cities (the thought of it turns my stomach) stretching everywhere. I'm not sure I can get past this. Maybe you can tell me some of the possible advantages of these huge cities.

We have huge cities now. Actually the internet might reverse things. If people can communicate with each other everywhere instantly, there's less of a point having everyone bunched up in big cities.

And there's probably even more room for small communities if you disband the government. Currently, there is a lot of unused land in the US. http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com... It would all be open for community development if the feds would just let it go...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 5:31:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/1/2010 1:26:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:59:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:36:06 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/1/2010 12:29:57 PM, jharry wrote:

Now there are communities with 1000 population out there right now. 1000 is just a simple number to deal with. Or are you proposing that 1000 will be to small in anarchy?

Well, if a bunch of pot smoking hippy anarchists want to set up a drum circle and grow yams in the middle of the desert, I ain't stopping them. On the other hand, division of labor rules so hard that every one's probably going to want to specialize so they can earn higher incomes, and specialization requires that you rely on a ton of other people.

I mean, we'd still probably have suburbs and neighborhoods, if you call that a "community". But I'd imagine there'd be some huge cities w 10s of millions of people.

If that is anarchy you can keep it. I want nothing to do with living in a city like that. I live in a community of just around 7000, and that is getting big to me. And right now I make 70k plus. Why would I want to trade that in for your system, that system would step on my ideal of freedom. And it aint no hippy village, I ain't no hippy. I'm the opposite. So I wouldn't fit in there.

First of all, you are already kind of part of the global economy since you trade with them etc. Second, I don't think suberbs and towns would get millions large necessarily. I still think there's space for smaller towns. I just can't predict where/when.

Or how. Like you said, it would depend a lot on numbers. Take a small town under 2000. The poor would basically become generational slaves. Can't afford to go to school? Then clean my toilet, and when you die your children can.

I guess one advantage under anarchy is that no government could force you to move out of your house to make way for urban development of your town into a big city.

Force? They pay above market value.



So basically I'm seeing Nashville, Atlanta and Montgomery but on a much bigger scale. To me those places are Hell on earth. And I aint the only one.

P.s. my mom lives in crosseville :)

I've been there many times. My oldest daughter was born there.

But besides that let's keep going. So now we have these vast cities (the thought of it turns my stomach) stretching everywhere. I'm not sure I can get past this. Maybe you can tell me some of the possible advantages of these huge cities.

We have huge cities now. Actually the internet might reverse things. If people can communicate with each other everywhere instantly, there's less of a point having everyone bunched up in big cities.

The internet can go so far.

And there's probably even more room for small communities if you disband the government. Currently, there is a lot of unused land in the US. http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com... It would all be open for community development if the feds would just let it go...

Yeah, but you and I pay for that land.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 6:02:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 5:31:35 PM, jharry wrote:

Or how. Like you said, it would depend a lot on numbers. Take a small town under 2000. The poor would basically become generational slaves. Can't afford to go to school? Then clean my toilet, and when you die your children can.

Small towns trade with the global economy, even if they still have local football games and church cook outs. They won't automatically be poor.

I guess one advantage under anarchy is that no government could force you to move out of your house to make way for urban development of your town into a big city.

Force? They pay above market value.

I can get a hooker for $100. Isn't it still rape if I pay a woman $150 and force her to have sex with me?

We have huge cities now. Actually the internet might reverse things. If people can communicate with each other everywhere instantly, there's less of a point having everyone bunched up in big cities.

The internet can go so far.

Why? It brings unlimited information to everyone. You can learn how to be an engineer or a physicist with a few clicks and some dedication.

And there's probably even more room for small communities if you disband the government. Currently, there is a lot of unused land in the US. http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com... It would all be open for community development if the feds would just let it go...

Yeah, but you and I pay for that land.

Why should we pay for land that isn't even being used? It's open. Its like what if I reserved all the seats in a public library with a bunch of coats and then made you pay me to let you use a seat..
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 6:09:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 6:02:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 10/2/2010 5:31:35 PM, jharry wrote:

Or how. Like you said, it would depend a lot on numbers. Take a small town under 2000. The poor would basically become generational slaves. Can't afford to go to school? Then clean my toilet, and when you die your children can.

Small towns trade with the global economy, even if they still have local football games and church cook outs. They won't automatically be poor.

No I was talking about the poor in the small community. I know they till trade, but I'm talking about the people in the town.

I guess one advantage under anarchy is that no government could force you to move out of your house to make way for urban development of your town into a big city.

Force? They pay above market value.

I can get a hooker for $100. Isn't it still rape if I pay a woman $150 and force her to have sex with me?

I bought a bigger better place due to being bought out. And the town needed to grow. How would it be any different in anarchy? Would the town just remain the same size or die? There are a lot of real world situations that need to be addressed just like this.

We have huge cities now. Actually the internet might reverse things. If people can communicate with each other everywhere instantly, there's less of a point having everyone bunched up in big cities.

The internet can go so far.

Why? It brings unlimited information to everyone. You can learn how to be an engineer or a physicist with a few clicks and some dedication.

It still costs money. And there are a lot of things you can't learn looking at a computer screen. A lot.

And there's probably even more room for small communities if you disband the government. Currently, there is a lot of unused land in the US. http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com... It would all be open for community development if the feds would just let it go...

Yeah, but you and I pay for that land.

Why should we pay for land that isn't even being used? It's open. Its like what if I reserved all the seats in a public library with a bunch of coats and then made you pay me to let you use a seat..

It is reserved for future generations.The only place to hunt around here besides your own land or paying up to 3 grand a year clubs is public land that some legislator put back for future generations. Now due to people (not government) and their greed to many people are afraid t let people hunt on their land. I can't see that any different under anarchy, maybe even worse.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen