Topic: Myrkul Sells AnCap... - page 6. (Read 8719 times)

I love the air of arrogance in your statements like this.  "The Statist Mind".  If you want to use Logic and Reasoning then lets just take it back that Humans are highly evolved animals and we still have maintained basic animal instincts and they is exactly why you need a government of force to keep the people from turning this place in utter chaos.   I will admit when we had much fewer people and more land to spread out, we didn't need to be as competitive but now, that is not the case.  

Incorrect. efficiency implies lower costs per it's definition -

dictionary.com
ef·fi·cient  [ih-fish-uh nt]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2.
satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3.
producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4.
utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.


Gain efficiency by reducing waste, but also by centralizing processes, training etc. So when we're talking about armed (and potentially violent) interactions - it's always going to be more efficient to have a group of highly trained tactical troops with the best (and probably most expensive) equipment, who do nothing but 'soldier'... instead an unorganized group of people who won't be as effective simply because it isn't their source of income, and they can't devote nearly the amount of time to training compared to that other group.





 

No aggression is very simply "don't hurt me, or take my stuff without permission." Nothing more. There's no "cherry-picking."
What do you mean by "continuation of violence?" Are you saying that if someone violently robbed you, you should just let them go and let them keep the stuff they took, because doing otherwise would be a "continuation of violence?"
Can you give an example of your activity based on greed and narcissism that causes harm to society? There are two ways someone who is greedy can satisfy their greed: take what they want by force, or exchange their wealth and labour for it. Our premise is that the former is aggression, and will be checked by aggression in kind, and the later only works if the greedy person has something of value to exchange and contribute to society. So I want to know how else might a greedy person be greedy and cause harm?

OK, a little misleading. Yes, they pay taxes, though not a lot, and the people it is abusing do still pay (in part) of the security force that is keeping them down. And if it's a government entity that is being abusive, then it's directly people paying to keep themselves at bay. At least with AnCap you could hope that those people would stop buying/paying for services provided by that security firm.


Actually, no. This wasn't somethingI just pulled out of my ass. I'll admit, "trading peacefully is way more profitable than using force" isn't even my original idea. It's supported by most of last century's history. See Japan, and more recently China, and America's relationship with both as a blatant example, and there are many more out there.

Completely misleading and false. Corporations also pay taxes, therefore a corporation is also entitled to protection as is the individual.


All you have is assumptions without any scientific evidence to prove the hypothesis. In other words, what you have is a fantasy world which will never exist outside the delusional imagination of some users in this forum.

I never conceded that your assumption that a person would only be able to defend themselves vs a larger force by hiring a security firm. Basing a question on that being accepted as true therefor makes it a fallacy of begging the question.

The fact is we don't know how an individual would acquire enough firepower to defend themselves. Would he own missiles? How about flying robots? Maybe a sentry machine gun? Maybe DNA based chemical weapons? Would he ask his friends and family living nearby for help? Would he form a neighborhood watch of sorts with his neighbors and call them?

You assume it's a security firm, while the truth is WE DON'T KNOW how it would happen because ultimately only a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market can figure that out.



It is a fallacy because you assume you are correct that the form of defense vs a larger force will be a security firm and then you imagine a problem this creates and you ask us to solve it. Well, I don't agree this problem would exist in the first place because I don't agree a security firm would be hired in the first place.

Ah, the ferry. Excellent opportunity to let your natural aggression out. How many people did you push into the water? How many died to ensure you were first onto the boat? You did fight it out, right? You didn't wait in line like some pussy, did you? Humans are naturally aggressive, after all.

Tell you what. Let's start fresh. Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
and then tell me if you disagree with anything in there.

Sorry, starting to get burned out on all the malignancy. Maybe it's just willful ignorance.

I was a statist too, so that can't be it...

It is hard for some people to grasp that corporations as entities never existed before the state made the laws to create them.

It is just like patent laws and antitrust laws.  The state is the entity that grants patent and copyright monopolies, then claims it has to regulate the monopolies that it helped create.  This is a common scenario.  A organization is created to solve some problem but its own creation creates another problem.  Instead of going extinct to solve this new problem, it instead tries to find a solution to the problem of its own existence.

Because logic is something the statist mind is carefully stripped of.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

Oh dear fucking god, we will have actual real trolling in actual real life 

Step one on your trail, you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them. Many regulations are structured in such a way that only the corporations can afford to follow them, essentially keeping all smaller competitors off the market. Also, business people know business very well, while politicians who pass laws do not. So any laws and regulations that get passed are often written by the corporations themselves. The most egregious offense in regards to this abuse is corporations helping pass regulations that either make what what do actually legal, even if it is unethical, or they pass regulations with suggested fines, which when levied are actually way too small to punish. Heck, look what happened when BP spilled oil in the Gulf. All their safety regulations were followed, because they wrote them, and the regulators were too incompetent to follow up on and enforce them, and the "huge" fine they had to pay, which they got in exchange for not being allowed to be sued by anyone else, was tiny and way less than the cleanup cost.
In an AnCap state, the first thing that may go is the corporation's "limited liability" status. If the person running it fucks up, HE has to answer for that, not the shareholders out of who's stock the fines get paid out of. The second thing will be that there wont be a government with its laws making what the corporation is doing "legal." If it's not screwing people, it will do well. If it is, it wont have a  veil of "legality" to protect it. Here's another thing: what do you think will happen now if a corporation screwed people so much that the people decided to go beyond simple boycotts, and staged a violent protest, trying to kick the corporation out of their area? In AnCap nation, either the corporation will have to leave, or it will have to spend enormous amounts on private security 24 hours a day. Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for them for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

Once the biological problem of dying is solved then there will be no more aggression.  As people cannot die, cannot feel pain, and cannot be imprisoned due to technological advances, then the government and other people cannot use aggression to gain a benefit for themselves.  Aggression is just a tool for the aggressor to get something that they want.  When that tool has no more power then it won't work.

I know this is hard to imagine at some time in the future (if we don't cause our own extinction) immortality is a real possibility.  We have been a species for 100,000 years yet within the last 100 years we have tremendously increased our technological advances.  Imagine a time when people can backup their own mind and have an non-aging body and you can see that the use of aggression as a tool to coerce others to do things against their will is over.

Then with your own statement, we will never be without Aggression.


A person murders in cold blood - He will be executed

Feeling pain is part of life and a survival function

People will be imprisoned when they are a threat to society and if their crime was heinous enough, possible executed. 

We will be the robots.

Just you wait for the robot rebellion.

All this arguing is pointless.  Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.

Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.

Actually I took the ferry to work that is supported by my sales tax and rider card revenue.  It is affordable, dependable, clean and I trust in the people running it.