Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards.
Fuck off to your seastead! 
Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 29. (Read 33901 times)
April 29, 2013, 03:24:23 PM
April 29, 2013, 03:23:40 PM
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
AnCap would require a zero-regulations policy, and we therefor would need armed security guards.
Follow now?
April 29, 2013, 03:23:04 PM
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
Then go to a university that doesn't have security guards. I didn't want guards on my university either, but the state said that they should be there at all universities, and that they should be armed. You get the difference yet? In AnCap, a university will be free to choose if there are armed guards or not, and you are free to choose whether to go to a university with armed guards or not. With our current governments, your university can't have armed guards even if it wants them, even if Denmanrk's economy starts deteriorating, some crazy people turn to socialist nationalism, and start going around universities, trying to kill off "elitists" in the same way Soviet Union did when they were killing off all their educated people as "enemies of state." At the same time, my university is forced to have armed guards, even if there's nothing to say whether those guards actually know how to use those guns, and may end up accidentally shooting someone they thought was threatening.
In short, you are very specifically and rather agressively advocating for the position that people should not have a choice, because some other people should make all the choices for everyone, while at the same time accusing AnCaps of trying to push through a system where some people will make all the choices for everyone, and not allowing people to have a choice. You are basically accusing AnCap of being the very exact opposite of what it is.
April 29, 2013, 03:19:47 PM
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
April 29, 2013, 03:17:56 PM
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
April 29, 2013, 03:16:33 PM
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
April 29, 2013, 03:14:12 PM
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
April 29, 2013, 03:12:01 PM
can't you people see "nearly unlimited" power of the state is because its allowed to force people to do stuff?
We do indeed see that. a state would not be a state, if it could not do that. it would just dissolve into a voluntary organisation, and therefor loosing its power.
You say that like it's a bad thing...it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
But not it's ability to keep them safe.I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
The state is a necessary evil, and AnCap is more poison then its medicine.
No such thing as a necessary evil. April 29, 2013, 03:04:21 PM
can't you people see "nearly unlimited" power of the state is because its allowed to force people to do stuff?
a state would not be a state, if it could not do that. it would just dissolve into a voluntary organisation, and therefor loosing its power.
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
The state is a necessary evil, and AnCap is more poison then its medicine.
a state would not be a state, if it could not do that. it would just dissolve into a voluntary organisation, and therefor loosing its power.
it is not that same as religion, where people are able to believe in what they want.
I only used that analogy to make the simple point, that some people need religion, even though some(most!) don't. the same is it with the state, some people need the state because it makes them feel safe. you would be hurting a lot of people by removing the state's monopoly on power because that would destroy the state.
The state is a necessary evil, and AnCap is more poison then its medicine.
April 29, 2013, 02:42:30 PM
It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other.
Can you give me an example of some of these other NAPs that would be competing?
April 29, 2013, 02:40:27 PM
We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
It would be freedom of religion if you wanted lots of different "Non-Aggression Principles" all competing with each other. April 29, 2013, 02:37:06 PM
SOOOOO many misconceptions...
AnCap's "weird-al property concept" is just "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it was, or what do you disagree with in that?
You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?
The idea of AnCap is that no one is in control, thus no one can take over. If someone takes over, that's no longer AnCap, that's a government. And anyone trying to take over, and in the process trying to get control aggressively, is breaking the NAP agreement, and those "The rest" are free to use the exact same NAP to defend themselves against these controllers. So obviously you had no idea what AnCap was exactly when you wrote that. And I guess you had no idea what NAP was.
Btw, the opposite of NAP is that it's ok for people to steal, assault, and murder people without retaliation. Basically, the opposite of the NAP is that some people should be free to commit crimes and get away with it. Do you support that opposite of NAP? (you might say "no" but you actually do)
The An-Cap Story...
An-Cap supporters: "hey everyone! We've got this cool political idea we wanna try out..."
Some other people: "sounds cool! Let's do it."
The rest: "hey, wait a minute. I didn't sign up for your weird-al "property" concept."
An-Cap supporters: "hey everyone! We've got this cool political idea we wanna try out..."
Some other people: "sounds cool! Let's do it."
The rest: "hey, wait a minute. I didn't sign up for your weird-al "property" concept."
AnCap's "weird-al property concept" is just "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it was, or what do you disagree with in that?
Quote
An-Cap supporters: "too bad! It's in the NAP."
The rest: "but you said the NAP was voluntary and non-coercive!"
An-Cap supporters: "It is. In fact it's SO AWESOME that we (my An-Cap buddies and I) decided to make an exception and enforce it, so that everyone can enjoy it equally!"
The rest: "but you said the NAP was voluntary and non-coercive!"
An-Cap supporters: "It is. In fact it's SO AWESOME that we (my An-Cap buddies and I) decided to make an exception and enforce it, so that everyone can enjoy it equally!"
You can't "enforce" the NAP. It's basically just a general agreement that states, "if you screw with me, I have the right to retaliate." Nothing more, nothing less. What did you think it meant, or if that's it, then what do you disagree with in that?
Quote
The rest: "You're like the pigs in Animal Farm. Selling us an appealing idea of "peaceful revolution by education, not by force" [getting rid of the Farmer]. But then you take over and manipulate things. Anarchy is supposedly leaderless, yet you are obviously trying to lead and control the NAP [7 commandments], keeping it out of the hands of the common man [the sheep]."
The idea of AnCap is that no one is in control, thus no one can take over. If someone takes over, that's no longer AnCap, that's a government. And anyone trying to take over, and in the process trying to get control aggressively, is breaking the NAP agreement, and those "The rest" are free to use the exact same NAP to defend themselves against these controllers. So obviously you had no idea what AnCap was exactly when you wrote that. And I guess you had no idea what NAP was.
Btw, the opposite of NAP is that it's ok for people to steal, assault, and murder people without retaliation. Basically, the opposite of the NAP is that some people should be free to commit crimes and get away with it. Do you support that opposite of NAP? (you might say "no" but you actually do)
April 29, 2013, 02:28:26 PM
We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
then go build a sea-stead!AKA, "You're not Christian? Then GTFO out of my country!"
So very nazi of you
April 29, 2013, 02:26:38 PM
We don't want to remove the state. Just the monopoly it has. Since you're comparing it to religion, consider it like wanting freedom of religion, instead of a state religion.
then go build a sea-stead! April 29, 2013, 02:25:01 PM
many people need a state, just as they need religion. You are hurting a lot of people if you remove the state.
Many people NEED to steal things to survive, and many more NEED to steal things so that they can keep living without bothering to work. For example, many people might NEED to steal money from their parents wallets, or NEED to steal cars, to be able to pay for their apartment, their food, and/or their addiction...
What's your point? That we should indulge them because they have a need? What entitles them to have their needs fulfilled at the expense of others? (not expecting much of an answer, since you already claimed you don't believe in personal property, and won't care if someone stole your bike, or I guess your car or house).
April 29, 2013, 02:23:46 PM
...ancap does not function well without a state...
I'm just catching up on this thread, and thought this was worth calling out. April 29, 2013, 02:21:41 PM
...ancap does not function well without a state...
I'm just catching up on this thread, and thought this was worth calling out. April 29, 2013, 02:19:20 PM
Ok, please give me a list of what kind of rules or things will be forced on you should AnCap take over and you find yourself in an AnCap world? What exactly will you be oppressed with or forced to do?
absolut freedom and resposability will be forced upon me, and i don't want that.No, they will NOT be forced upon you. You can still pay someone to control you, and have them force you to make decisions. You just won't be able to make others pay to be forced around as well.
Quote
do you think AnCap people is a minority? (please just for once answer the fucking question)
Actually, it's hard to tell. A LOT of people are AnCap when it comes to the internet. They want their internet access, search engines, file downloads, communications, etc totally unregulated when it comes to the web, yet many are just ok with how things are in real life. I would say the answer to your question is "AnCap people who KNOW they are AnCap are a minority, but those who don't know they are AnCap quickly realize they are as soon as they bump up against regulations they find annoying, or as soon as someone tries to screw with their internet." Which, of course, makes statists like yourself, be similar to the majority christians, trying to opress non-religious types, or AnCaps, with your laws, and screaming bloody persecution when you are told to stop it.
April 29, 2013, 02:17:13 PM
...ancap does not function well without a state...
I'm just catching up on this thread, and thought this was worth calling out.i like the no gun laws and armed police officers, because it makes it unnecessary to have scary armed guards at my university.
Wow, this one too!universities in Denmark does not have armed security guards.
just saying...
April 29, 2013, 02:13:44 PM
absolute freedom and responsibility will be forced upon me, and i don't want that.
You're free to select a leader for yourself. Just not for anyone else.
Jump to: