Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 26. (Read 33901 times)

I'm not sure it works pretty good right now, but it also depends where you live (I don't know much about Denmark).


How is this different from the Yakuza, Mafia, Islamic Courts, or other non-governmental organizations that provide "security" to the locals?

What will prevent those security providers from imposing their morals on the locals? What will prevent them from becoming warlords?

What am I pushing?

see? you are pushing stuff onto other, which you said that you would not.

... and this is why i argue that it works pretty good right now, so why not just continue with that evil state?

because the options with NAP is:
a) allow murder.
b) push stuff onto others.

Im not that saying a statist society would be murder free, just that it would not be allowed. Im perfectly fine with pushing stuff onto other.

If you are saying it is not enforced from the top down you are correct.  It is a general principle.  A truth.   Nobody has the right to interfere with someone's else's life.

Now obviously not everyone in a free society is going to adhere to this which is why security providers will still be in demand by the market.  Just there will be competition in geographical areas rather than the coercive, controlling monopolies that we currently have which there is no evidence they have the rights to do what they claim to be able to do.

But why is that wrong? Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, is the only true justice (except when it is applied collectively).

I agree in theory with libertarianism and NAP. But many things worry me. I find that just like Communism, Anarcho-Capitalism/Voluntarysm, and The Zeitgeist Movement ignore human nature. By being focused on their perceived evils (lack of free market for An-Cap/Vol and money for Zeitgeist), they could repeat the failure of Communism, which was focused on class warfare. Many things look perfect on paper as was Marx's manifesto, but when implemented in real life can have horrible results.

Most humans are selfish, lazy, and greedy. A few are psychopaths which tend to end a the top of governments and other organizations.

Communities, religions, and corporations can be far more oppressive than government. You can say that one should choose their community careful or leave, but you can't choose where you are born and you can't leave without money or resources (or without trespassing in a fully privatized world).

Even today people are far more scammed/abused of by businesses, small businesses, and religions. There is nothing to stop an alliance between those entities in an An-Cap world. We have enough problems with many corporations/religions corrupting governments.

Also, I don't even want to imagine the hassle of having to pay for toll roads, private security, water, sewer system, etc.

But I don't like the status quo either, governments are becoming more authoritarian by day, and individual freedom vanishes. The Left and Right are becoming more and more idiocratic. I also believe there is a false dichotomy between individual freedom and socialism.

So far I can't find a political platform/movement that matches. I am attracted by many of the ideas from the Zeitgeist videos, but also see many faults, and at times seems idiocratic (perhaps because it was targeted at an American audience?).

but the NAP does only apply to the person declaring it, or you would be forcing stuff onto others(and thereby violating itself).

The NAP says that i may murder you, but that i should expect retaliation.

Is murder not an initiation of force?

the NAP says no such thing.

If I say to someone, you are not allowed to murder me, how am I controlling them?

Perhaps because the point was wrong.

of course i would not let him go... i would be angry and try to control his nexts actions by apply pain to him.

and i have never said otherwise, it was myrkul who said that he did not want to control others. it was a example to show that NAP believer who does not want to control others are actually pacifists(no matter was the call them selves).


you clearly missed the point.

As I said, it is quite literally impossible to take into account all the historical factors.  If somebody is malfunctioning, ie they think it is OK to initiate force against others, then it is impossible to know why exactly they think this only that they do.  It is obviously wrong and they must pay restitution every time they do it.  And then at some point before they lose everything they have they may learn that it's wrong.


Societies thought human sacrifice was OK too.
Societies thought slavery was OK too.
Societies thought racism was OK too.

Well, because society thought something was OK, I guess then that makes it OK?

Or maybe it actually takes the thinkers in society to think about these things and point them out so society can move beyond primitive, barbaric traditions despite how much some people benefited from them.  Despite the objections of all those who say "but that's just how it is".  All of those things I brought up above were abolished in our deterministic universe, because some humans know what's right and speak up and attempt to reason others out of their nonsense traditions.   Determinism established these things (in primitive times) and it destroyed them (in more modern enlightened times).  Think about that.

Society is trending towards more reasoned, scientific thinking.   It's a 2 step forward, 1 step backward process.  Not saying, "hey, this is how things are this is how things will always be".

Seriously, I don't think you understand the concept of evidence.  You do understand that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, right? 

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Hey, no such thing as bizzare sexual fetishes. Just rare, unique, and creative ones 

Oh, no, he'd definitely try to put you in a cage for that, but I think that has more to do with his bizarre sexual fetishes than anything else.

Why? All he did was destroy "property" concepts. Why not just ignore him and let him continue doing whatever he wants to do? After all, anything he destroys is just property that shouldn't be owned, anyone he kills is just biological property that doesn't belong to anyone, and really, ultimately, driving drunk wasn't his fault to begin with, since it wasn't determined by his choice, anyway.

Thus, the problem of drunk driving is not solved by the state, and has not been solved since motor vehicles have been around (nor has the general issue of drunks been solved for millenniums.)  The law is but an expensive band-aid and has no intent to solve a problem.  Discouraging drunk driving with law--even through threats of the death penalty--will not stop drunk driving (see: losing a hand for theft, and yet theft still happens.)

However, the state makes money charging the drunk driver hefty fines, or if it can't monetize, it charges the public for the accident through jails and using tax money to fix whatever damage was caused (e.g. socialism.)  In other words, public loss, private gain, for a system which has no intention of helping the general public.

Lemme know when this sounds appealing to anyone

Wait, you would let him go without any recourse? I'll be going to Denmark in a few years. If you're still around, would you mind if I came by and kicked you in the nuts?