Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 27. (Read 33901 times)

You must think that an ideal society is one where ownership doesn't exist, everyone shares everything equally, and everyone lives in harmony, working however much they can on want, with the product of their labor going to those who need it.
There is just one problem with your idea, which is a problem that is constant with all things that involve people: assholes. If your utopia comes true, it will only take one single asshole to come up with an ownership idea, and before you know it, he will take ownership of your stuff, and then take ownership of your life. And you'll be powerless to stop him, because in your society, you're supposed to share, so he should be able to take whatever he wants. End result is USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, and a slew of cults that ended in murder-suicides.
In AnCap society, there are assholes, too. But they get stopped or shot if they try to take ownership of someone's life.

And again you show that you completely fail to grasp what NAP is, and are trying to attack it by making it something it's not. Actually, this statement betrays your rather stern adherence to the idea of a state. Who determines the NAP? Nobody. There is no government that can determine it, no democratically chosen representatives, and no chosen leader. It really is nothing more than "don't aggress against me, but if you do, know that I will retaliate." That is absolutely fucking it. No strange oppressive rules, no questionable bs. Each individual determines if they have been aggresses against, and decides how they wish to retaliate, and others decide whether they agree with them all on their own. And they don't even need to retaliate with violence. It could be as much as, "Hey, that thing you did ruined my yard. Please don't do it again." You yourself practice the idea of NAP all the time with your neighbors and people you live around, when you decide not to randomly punch them in the face, with the understanding that they will beat you up if you do.

Seriously, why is this concept so hard to grasp? (My guess is because you believe that no one is responsible for their own actions, no matter what they may be, and thus a government is not responsible for what it does, either, and is just the natural "outcome" of how things will always end up)

But that doesn't repay any of the damages he caused. Worse, it's usually paid for by the victims, without their consent. They're being violated twice. That's not justice.

Restitution. Setting things right. Shouldn't that always be the first thing you're concerned about after an accident?

Neither of those repay the damage he caused.

How would caging him repay all the damage he's caused?

Arresting the drunk driver after he's caused a major traffic accident

Nope. Sure wouldn't. If he had already kicked me in the nuts, there would be little point in attempting to control him. Rather like closing the barn door after the horse is out, don't you think?

so if someone comes and kick you in the nuts, would you not try to control him? (are you a pacifist or NAP believer?)

The NAP allows you to try and control people under some circumstances. Give up the NAP and you will win the argument...

You say that I would. That's not me saying. That's you. Nice try, though. Especially for you. It almost made sense.

Yes, I know. You're a statist to the core, and freely admit it. You love the thought of people being shot in your name.

Edit: And I forgot to mention, robbed at gunpoint so you can have lunch.

i have never claimed to be a libertarian of any sort(and even i have it was a part of a argument).

well you have agreed that its human nature to be violent sometimes... and i guess you are human... and i will also go as far as to say that this violence will in some way be used to enforce control of some sort over someone.

so yes, you want to control others.

You know, I think it's kinda funny how I get along better with the actual libertarian socialist than I do either of you.

Have I ever said that I wanted to control others? That would be required for me to "flip," would it not?

AAAAAAND he flipped back...

I have no interest in controlling others, save preventing them from controlling me. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It doesn't even mean no leaders. It means no Rulers. In a N.A.P. respecting anarchy, groups of people could agree to share their property, and set aside the idea of ownership amongst themselves (though historically that has typically failed miserably), they just couldn't make others "share" against their will.

don't push him too hard, dude. he will just flip right back into the denial stage again.

Sorry. Let me rephrase.

First off, burglary sneaking into someone's place of residence and removing things from it becomes an accepted act, as does breaking and entering damage to buildings so as to gain access to them. Also, vandalism willful destruction of material objects would be acceptable. For that matter, simply walking in into some's place of residence in broad daylight and walking out with the entire contents would be fine as long as you never used or threatened force against the occupants. After all, those are crimes only against a person's "property". You would have to sleep in your car - at least, if you wanted to use it in the morning - because taking it out of the driveway would be perfectly fine. Basically, anything not physically in your possession is "up for grabs." It's not all bad, though, you can't force someone to "share" their food, because that would require the initiation of at least a threat of force upon the person. Of course anything just sitting there in the pantry, unused, you'd be free to take, and nobody could stop you, since that would be initiating force against you.

So, if this were implemented tomorrow, I imagine there would be an orgy of theft appropriation and redistribution, after which I doubt anyone would do much work, given that the proceeds of that work could be taken from him as soon as he set it down. Anything that a person wanted to keep, they'd need to keep on their person at all times.

Better?

Sucker bet. Chart clearly shows it going down.

wanna bet if Denmark is going up or down?