Topic: Freedom is ... - page 7. (Read 14409 times)

If they're so mutually beneficial, why the force? Could it not be voluntary?

Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects.

No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not.  Logic.

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

+1
If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots. The sight of someone dying of starvation because they failed to secure their own lives and are unwilling to do anything about it may be somewhat common 

It doesn't have to be the state. If there are issues with lawlessness, people can obtain their own security to counter it without needing a state (personal weapons, security systems, private security, private military, etc).

That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you.

First, think you either don't understand what "to react" means, or are just really stretching definitions beyond what they typically mean.
And second, in what world is someone not responsible for their actions, even if they were forced? I'm pretty sure in your world the Nuremberg Trials would have been very short and unproductive.

The circle that is you is subtracted from the circle that is the community. Wherever you are, that part of the Universe (the physical extent of your body) is owned by you.

You don't own yourself, do you? Then who is moving your fingers? And if I don't own myself, why are you trying to convince me of that fact? Here, let me quote the wikipedia article for you:
Go ahead and draw that venn diagram for me. Or even just list some of the things that would go in the overlap.

Basically doing things for yourself,
what you want.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

Great. Since we all agree on the principle of self-ownership, we can work from there. I do not wish to pay for services I neither need, nor desire, such as the drone strikes killing children in the middle east. Since the military makes up the vast majority of government spending, I feel no great desire to pay any taxes. Sales tax, similarly, is an intrusion upon my private dealings with merchants. If they are providing me needed and worthwhile services, why do they feel the need to point a gun at me to make me pay?

Road construction and maintenance is paid for out of the taxes on gasoline, so while I object to the monopoly and taxation on principles, if we're going to have a monopoly, that seems to be the fairest way to pay for it, aside from direct tolls. A private system could probably do it for cheaper, but you live with what you've got. Same with the taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and similar products.

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't. If I don't, why did I pay so much money to the previous occupant? Why did I not simply assume the payments to the government? That's what you do when you get a new apartment, is it not? You simply start paying rent? So property taxes seems to be the basest of protection schemes. Either you pay up, or bad things happen to you.

So, tell you what, drastically cut military spending, and get rid of all income/capital gains taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, and I'll happily pay what remains.

I agree as well.  He does own his body.

Myrkul owns his body. Give him that. He still owes taxes though if he's going to take up residence in some country and use their infrastructure.

Because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to force me out. (unless of course, I voluntarily abdicated possession of my own body) And we definitely agree that using force is not a legitimate method of gaining property, right? If he sought a way to get me to voluntarily abdicate my body, then that itself recognizes my better claim on the body. No matter what action he takes, he's affirming my ownership of my body, even as he tries to take it.

ok why does being the first person to occupy a body grant you a better claim than not being first. For me the answer is that accepting the legitimacy of the homesteading principle allows people to peacefully co exist. This is good to me because i personally prefer peaceful coexistance to the alternative. Your job is to demonstrate that property ownership is more than a useful convention well suited to acheving perticular goals that are personally important to you but rather an intrinsic law of the universe, which i still do not think you have done. So basically my position is that we own our bodies because recognizing the social convention of property ownership allows more people to acheve the things that are importent to them than the alternative would allow your position is that we own our bodies because there is some fundamental law akin to the laws of physics which states that this is so. What is this law how do we use either the scientific method or deduction to demonstrate its existence?

"Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient." good point and it should be noted that fundamentally we are on the same team. The only thing we disagree about is how to come to the conclusions that we both agree with.

Funny thing is that your 1st response to link a website. 

1.  Stating the fact of human nature is not a logical fallacy.  It is the way things are, I operate in the present and read about the past.

2.  That is not what I said at all.  I said that as people skirt the laws, the voluntary society will fall into a state of lawlessness and the longer that persists the more likely a State will form to deal with it with enforced rules.

3.  I never said AnCaps didnt agree there are rules.  I am saying humans tend to cut corners at others expenses and when you have a weak state (AnCap) that will be more rampant. 

You need to actually read what people say and respond with your own thoughts.   Your all over the board on a very direct statement.

I see. so, the rape victim is actually initiating sex with her attacker, huh?


Ahh. You think that rejecting coercion somehow is an attempt to absolve the coerced of responsibility?

Quite the contrary. In fact, accepting coercion, "Just following orders," that's rejecting responsibility for your actions.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
...and the funny part that you want a State in order to solve the possible eventual problem of getting a State

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
At least most AnCaps agree there are rules, they are just determined by an infinite set of voluntary market transactions and the social ostracism of "bad actors" (or people who choose systems opposing to yours), rather than the arbitrary decrees of a handful of politicians of whom were never agreed upon by everyone affected. (Obama was elected by about 1/6th of the USA, as only 1/3rd of Americans even voted. Congressional and local elections have even lower turnouts on average).

This has been one of my major areas of contention.   If I had to name a single habit of society that keeps gnawing at us and hurting our character, it is the continual habit of people trying to dodge responsibility and the inability for them to take responsibility for their actions.

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.   Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not.  I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them.   AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society.  You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on.