What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
I think you grossly misunderstand capitalism. You profit from your own abilities, not the "stupidity and misfortune of others." Incidentally, everyone else benefits, too. It's a positive sum game, not a zero- or negative sum game.
Topic: The legitimate purpose of military... - page 4. (Read 4961 times)
...
- What system of global government "points a gun" at the national governments and brutally coerces them into obeying? If it's not Anarchy (or An-Cap, take your pick), then please tell us what system it is.
They are criminal because they are assuming rights that they clearly don't have. We would generally regard any person who violates another's person as criminal.
The reason they don't have those rights is because there is no proof that any one human has more rights than any other human. Therefore any humans claiming they have are just lying. And it doesn't matter what label they put on themselves.
So what you're saying is...
Quote
They are [bad] because they are... [doing bad stuff they clearly shouldn't be doing].
We would generally regard any [bad stuff] as [bad].
The reason they [shouldn't be doing bad stuff] is because there is no proof that [some philosophical argument is valid]. Therefore any humans claiming [that philosophical argument] are just [doing bad verbal stuff]. And it doesn't matter what [name they give to that argument].
Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Emotion.We would generally regard any [bad stuff] as [bad].
The reason they [shouldn't be doing bad stuff] is because there is no proof that [some philosophical argument is valid]. Therefore any humans claiming [that philosophical argument] are just [doing bad verbal stuff]. And it doesn't matter what [name they give to that argument].
Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier question. "The World Government" is:
[please select from the following options...]
- A Democracy.
- A Dictatorship.
- A Monarchy
- There isn't any. At the top, there are only two things that can boss you around: yourself, or god. Either way no-one rules over you. Therefore it must be Anarchy.
- The US gov. (or other super-power), but they're really just "top dog" and no-one bosses them around so it's still Anarchy.
- The US gov. (or other super-power), but they're really just "controlled by their own people" in a circular fashion, and no-one bosses the whole organisation around so it's still Anarchy.
- Other:______________ [please specify the system using as few words as possible.]
Quote
Let me ask you this: I'm content to let you have your government if that's what you want. Are you content to let me have nothing to do with the government on the proviso I don't violate anyone else's person or property. ie. can I opt out of your system?
You can already move countries if you want. It's my contention that since there's no "world government holding a gun to the national governments' heads" and enforcing some system of world law, those "criminal monopolies" as Myrkul likes to call them are in fact natural regional monopolies because they are unforced.Since they are natural, clearly they must have somehow evolved out of an earlier state where there was even less structure. Therefore, the whole "let's introduce An-Cap" thing is sounding more and more like an impossible pipe dream.
I said it is generally considered criminal to violate another person. I can only assume you disagree with that statement, in which case, I really don't have anything else to say to you.
As for your World Government question, there clearly isn't one.
And your final point. Yep, that's what I thought you'd say. I have to leave my home, my property, in order not to be forced to do things or be involved in things that I have no wish to be.
There are words for people who force themselves upon others when the person doesn't want themself to be forced upon and there only option not to be is to leave their home. I'll leave it to you to figure it out what they are...
"Yes but it's not the good kind of Anarchy, it's bad Anarchy!" ??
Your claim seems illogical.
If they are criminal, then clearly there must be a system of international laws that are enforced by some global government and their 'guns'. We hear a lot of rhetoric about international 'laws' but there never seems to be any higher authority to enforce them -- it's just Anarchic equals hurling insults at each other (and sometimes making unilateral or multilateral decisions).
- What system of global government "points a gun" at the national governments and brutally coerces them into obeying? If it's not Anarchy (or An-Cap, take your pick), then please tell us what system it is.
They are criminal because they are assuming rights that they clearly don't have. We would generally regard any person who violates another's person as criminal.
The reason they don't have those rights is because there is no proof that any one human has more rights than any other human. Therefore any humans claiming they have are just lying. And it doesn't matter what label they put on themselves.
Let me ask you this: I'm content to let you have your government if that's what you want. Are you content to let me have nothing to do with the government on the proviso I don't violate anyone else's person or property. ie. can I opt out of your system?
I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other. Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.
Nope, that that's what the current society is about. Indoctrinating and threatening people so everyone follows whatever laws a small group of, well, quite frankly children for the most part (have you seen the way they behave in parliament?) says.
People are individuals who can make their own choices. The market system allows for this. You can see this in any product the market makes, from foods to furniture to computers to internet service etc. None of that requires the whole of society to play nice with each other to be produced. The incentives are that people make money by providing products and services.
There's no reason putting out education or money or security on the market, instead of having the govt produce it, won't produce the same effects as every other product.
Putting a forced monopoly on them basically forces you to be a customer whether you like it or not and closes out alternatives by law. In such a situation there is no incentive for the people working in these areas to provide good service. Most just realise they don't need to make much effort and they will get by just fine. There are those that try to in each of these areas but they eventually burn out from the effort of trying to make headway against an unmoving bueracracy.
What made my neighbor so innocent?
The fact that he hasn't done anything to aggress on another. Unlike Snarky.Isn't his dealing with Snarky between him and Snarky? Why should I interfere?
You don't have to interfere. You just shouldn't support Snarky in his crimes.What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
I think you grossly misunderstand capitalism. You profit from your own abilities, not the "stupidity and misfortune of others." Incidentally, everyone else benefits, too. It's a positive sum game, not a zero- or negative sum game.I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other. Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.
No, I'm calling you a sociopath because your statements have revealed you to be one. I think you're getting a little upset about that, based on your spelling errors.People will behave badly. Any societal system that is dependent on them behaving well will fail.
AnCap doesn't depend on people behaving well. It depends on them behaving in their own best interest, which, contrary to your delusions, employing a criminal to watch your house at night runs counter to.With luck, foresight and a lot of planning some really smart folks put together a government that os designed to balance those base designs against each other and thereby protect the governed.
At least mostly, so far.
Which government would you be speaking of? Certainly not the US government. That went off the rails in 1791, and has only gotten worse since. To say nothing of what's happened in the past dozen years or so.At least mostly, so far.
If you want to build something better, you need to start with the assumption that _anyone_ who ends up in power is on their way to being corrupted.
Precisely. Which is why it is imperative that those who purchase security purchase it at the best price, from the best provider, and not from shady characters who overcharge and burn down the neighbors' house. Vigilance is indeed the price of liberty, and it is the very providers of security against whom you must remain vigilant.Your ANCAP society already exists on earth and you don't want to live there.
Oh, I see you've picked up blablahblah's fallacy.No, I still live in a world dominated by criminal monopolies. As do you. The difference is, I'm not blinded by the flag waving.
This thread caught me. I haven't had the chance to read through all the posts, but the OP mentioned one purpose of the military. For Escrow.
Now, I do not represent a military (not even mine), but I did offer (or am thinking of offering) escrow for larger transactions that would require physical presence.
Is there a market for large escrow transactions? 10k or 100k BTC?
Now, I do not represent a military (not even mine), but I did offer (or am thinking of offering) escrow for larger transactions that would require physical presence.
Is there a market for large escrow transactions? 10k or 100k BTC?
What made my neighbor so innocent?
Isn't his dealing with Snarky between him and Snarky? Why should I interfere?
What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other. Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.
People will behave badly. Any societal system that is dependent on them behaving well will fail.
With luck, foresight and a lot of planning some really smart folks put together a government that os designed to balance those base designs against each other and thereby protect the governed.
At least mostly, so far.
If you want to build something better, you need to start with the assumption that _anyone_ who ends up in power is on their way to being corrupted.
Your ANCAP society already exists on earth and you don't want to live there.
Isn't his dealing with Snarky between him and Snarky? Why should I interfere?
What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
I think you are just calling me names because you have realized your Utopian dream depends on everyone playing nuce with each other. Since that is about as likely as a bull sh1tting china, your dream has faded into oblivion.
People will behave badly. Any societal system that is dependent on them behaving well will fail.
With luck, foresight and a lot of planning some really smart folks put together a government that os designed to balance those base designs against each other and thereby protect the governed.
At least mostly, so far.
If you want to build something better, you need to start with the assumption that _anyone_ who ends up in power is on their way to being corrupted.
Your ANCAP society already exists on earth and you don't want to live there.
I guess Myrkul's just frustrated that everyone keeps trying to twist Capitalism around instead of seeing the light! 
You're just upset you got pwned in your own thread, after practically begging me to come in and do it.
So if I don't want to take care of my neighbor, I am a sociopath?
No, If you're OK with paying Snarky to sabotage your neighbor, like you said here:Quote from: myrkul
Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.
And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
And here:
Because this is entirely a financial arrangement between Snarky's Security Company and me, I really don't care what he does to the neighbor's house.
If you're OK with supporting an organization that aggresses against innocent people, you're a sociopath.
Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"
On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.Tsk... you need to work on your reading comprehension:
If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?Quote from: myrkul
Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.
And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
This sure looks like you're explicitly saying you'd be OK with it. Ergo, Sociopath.
So if I don't want to take care of my neighbor, I am a sociopath?
Seems like there are a lot of sociopaths out there, especially in that big city of yours where all security is privatized.
I'm paying for my house to be secure. Because this is entirely a financial arrangement between Snarky's Security Company and me, I really don't care what he does to the neighbor's house. If I did, I would ask Snarky to quote me a rate for my neighbor's house and mine.
If Snarky ends up burning down the neighbors house as part of the contract negotiations, not my problem.
Isn't this what you wanted?
What about neighbors who engage in badger huggings?
What you do in your free time, with your own money, is your own business, so long as you're not aggressing against anyone. If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
Good, Welcome to the forums.
I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.
What about neighbors who engage in badger huggings?
Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"
On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.Tsk... you need to work on your reading comprehension:
If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?Quote from: myrkul
Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.
And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
This sure looks like you're explicitly saying you'd be OK with it. Ergo, Sociopath.
Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"
On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house.Nice strawman. You should work on your reading comprehension.
I asked why should I care what the security forces do in their off hours as long as my house is secure.
If their business model includes burning out people who they view as a security threat is it my concern?
Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist"
On the contrary. I've had great conversations with people who disagreed with me, but didn't advocate violence against their neighbor, and I didn't call them a sociopath. I call 'em like I see 'em, and Tommy boy here stated he'd be perfectly fine with paying for his security company to burn down his neighbor's house. Don't worry. Everyone who questions his rosy perma-visions is a "sociopathic Statist", and/or the victim of some nasty conditioning, brainwashing and whatever other state-imposed ill-treatment. He (and a couple of other An-Cap devotees) is the only one who's 'sane' around here. So far I don't think he has accused anyone of being a victim of torture or of suffering PTSD yet, but it's only a matter of time. 
Actually I think someone already offered me that free diagnosis.
Lovely community you have here.
Plenty of free psychological counseling services.
If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
Good, Welcome to the forums.
I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.
Does this mean you won't be coming to the BBQ?
If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
Good, Welcome to the forums.
I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.
Does this mean you won't be coming to the BBQ?
If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
Good, Welcome to the forums.
I hope you'll understand if I don't want you as a neighbor.
[
Because you're paying for things you're not getting. Either he is charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house - and instead of doing that, he's sabotaging your neighbor, or he's charging you enough to cover his costs for watching your house and for sabotaging your neighbor. Either way, you're paying him to sabotage your neighbor, when he signed up to watch your house.
[/quote]
And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?
If the person you pay to watch your house at night were instead expending efforts to break into your neighbor's house, or to burn it down, or to sabotage your neighbor's security, would you continue to pay for such poor service?
Is my house safe? If so, why should I complain?[/quote]
And if I don't like my neighbor, this works for me. Even better if the newly empty lot next door becomes available for me to annex as a garden.
I might as well do it first before my neighbor does it to me, right?