Topic: AnCap is inherently unstable, would immediately fail, and could never last.... (Read 8873 times)
January 11, 2013, 04:13:43 PM
I felt that this might need a bump. I don't think Dalkore got a chance to read it the first time.
December 22, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
I read once, I can try to find the reference, that if the Irish provincial kings had united they would have easily repelled the invaders. However, the invaders practised the very successful "divide and conquer" method, and exploited differences and petty wars to actually have the Irish fight themselves.
Isn't this the same tactic that government and politicians use on the voting public?
I'd say that's a fair characterization.
December 22, 2012, 12:03:20 PM
I read once, I can try to find the reference, that if the Irish provincial kings had united they would have easily repelled the invaders. However, the invaders practised the very successful "divide and conquer" method, and exploited differences and petty wars to actually have the Irish fight themselves.
Isn't this the same tactic that government and politicians use on the voting public?
December 17, 2012, 02:38:28 PM
So, why the Celtic Irish people did not voluntarily organized to defend themselves against the English state subjugation?
Perhaps the Celtic Irish people did not have enough mirrors to find where their sovereignty resides?
Perhaps the Celtic Irish people did not have enough mirrors to find where their sovereignty resides?
I read once, I can try to find the reference, that if the Irish provincial kings had united they would have easily repelled the invaders. However, the invaders practised the very successful "divide and conquer" method, and exploited differences and petty wars to actually have the Irish fight themselves.
December 14, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
You're an idiot. It's the person in the mirror, not the image.
Just to reiterate, you're a moron.
If you don't know what those words mean, maybe the OED will tell you.
Just to reiterate, you're a moron.
If you don't know what those words mean, maybe the OED will tell you.
There is no person in the mirror and sovereignty is not related to an mirror image.
You are really delusional....
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong.
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf
Quote
I will describe for you the millenial long anarchic society of Celtic Ireland - destroyed after a six century struggle against the English State in the wake of the military victories, confiscations and genocidal policies of successive English governments in the 17th century.
(...)
The rebellions, conquests, and confiscations of the 17th century finished the destruction of the old anarchic society.
(...)
The rebellions, conquests, and confiscations of the 17th century finished the destruction of the old anarchic society.
So, why the Celtic Irish people did not voluntarily organized to defend themselves against the English state subjugation?
Perhaps the Celtic Irish people did not have enough mirrors to find where their sovereignty resides?
December 14, 2012, 03:47:30 PM
States do not 'outcompete' the individual. Competition is, you do X, I do X, the best one wins. But that is not what states do -- what states do is, you do X, the state threatens you with ruin or death, game over.
People who use aggression to get what they want aren't 'competing'. They are just being malevolent. Malevolent people don't compete --- they just shoot you it you tell them 'no'.
Only a sociopathic person who wants organized aggression to take place would euphemize it as 'competition'. Like only a rapist would euphemize rape as 'lovemaking'.
People who use aggression to get what they want aren't 'competing'. They are just being malevolent. Malevolent people don't compete --- they just shoot you it you tell them 'no'.
Only a sociopathic person who wants organized aggression to take place would euphemize it as 'competition'. Like only a rapist would euphemize rape as 'lovemaking'.
December 14, 2012, 03:35:38 PM
Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor. In contrast, there are good
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
Very well, If I rob you to pay for my grandmother's new hip, does that make the robbery OK? Does the fact that I am robbing you to pay for my grandmother's new hip make you purchasing a better lock a non-voluntary transaction?
Why keep making up these storied scenario?
Because analogies sometimes help you see things better. Kindly address this one, if you would.
December 14, 2012, 03:24:07 PM
Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor. In contrast, there are good
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
Very well, If I rob you to pay for my grandmother's new hip, does that make the robbery OK? Does the fact that I am robbing you to pay for my grandmother's new hip make you purchasing a better lock a non-voluntary transaction?
Why keep making up these storied scenario? Lets just stick the the discussion at hand. If that is all you can come up with to make your point, it doesn't sound like you have much of a rebuttal other than using stories with shock value and sympathy to make your point.
In desperate times all people including you may do things that you wouldn't agree with.
December 14, 2012, 03:18:42 PM
Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor. In contrast, there are good
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
Very well, If I rob you to pay for my grandmother's new hip, does that make the robbery OK? Does the fact that I am robbing you to pay for my grandmother's new hip make you purchasing a better lock a non-voluntary transaction?
December 14, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Its doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation.
So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position?
Basically yes, they type of person that would be part of this sounds like the person who does not want to be part of state but a voluntary association. The second you see this threat, you are then forced to act or be dominated. History is filled with this type of domination so this is not speculation.
I see. So does the existence of rape make all sex non-consensual? What about defending my spouse from rape?
First off, I am disgusted that this is the best example you could come up with.
Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor. In contrast, there are good
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions.
The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.
December 14, 2012, 03:09:44 PM
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Its doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation.
So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position?
Basically yes, they type of person that would be part of this sounds like the person who does not want to be part of state but a voluntary association. The second you see this threat, you are then forced to act or be dominated. History is filled with this type of domination so this is not speculation.
I see. So does the existence of rape make all sex non-consensual? What about defending my spouse from rape?
December 14, 2012, 03:06:24 PM
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Its doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation.
So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position?
Basically yes, they type of person that would be part of this sounds like the person who does not want to be part of state but a voluntary association. The second you see this threat, you are then forced to act or be dominated. History is filled with this type of domination so this is not speculation.
December 14, 2012, 03:00:47 PM
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Its doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation.
So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position?
December 14, 2012, 02:56:07 PM
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
Its doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes. Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation.
You idea sounds nice and some parts are appealing but it is not realistic and would not form under the manner you state.
December 14, 2012, 02:50:30 PM
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality?
There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
December 14, 2012, 02:44:16 PM
Question: What is the nature of sovereignty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownershipQuestion: Where does sovereignty ultimately reside?
Look in a mirror. There, and only there.I agree at one point in history this was the case, but once one state of forms, others form the same to either join in partnership or defend itself against it. In essence, states out-compete the individual.
With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it. How does AnCap survive in this reality? There is not path to regress to this state of being. You may be able to setup a cove somewhere to try your experiment but once any threat to your sovereignty, you will need to join up not out of voluntary association, but necessity. At that point, people who do you join could either be an enemy or a threat to the whole and you would need to subjugate them to you system of rule of law. You system does not seem to be able to survive this real and present danger.
Reply Kindly,
D
December 14, 2012, 02:43:43 PM
A vase appreciating where it sovereignty resides...
December 14, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
Question: What is the nature of sovereignty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownershipQuestion: Where does sovereignty ultimately reside?
Look in a mirror. There, and only there.Amazing... Myrkul is quite delusional... He answer questions with Wikipedia links and thinks that an image on a mirror is where sovereignty resides...
Just to reiterate, you're a moron.
If you don't know what those words mean, maybe the OED will tell you.
December 14, 2012, 02:37:50 PM
Question: What is the nature of sovereignty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownershipQuestion: Where does sovereignty ultimately reside?
Look in a mirror. There, and only there.Amazing... Myrkul is quite delusional... He answer questions with Wikipedia links and thinks that an image on a mirror is where sovereignty resides...
December 14, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
Question: What is the nature of sovereignty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownershipQuestion: Where does sovereignty ultimately reside?
Look in a mirror. There, and only there. Jump to: