Topic: We already live in an AnCap world (Read 3177 times)

Your argument that freedom is subjective is true and that may be the core of the misunderstanding between you and me and between AnCap and the rest of the world. Thanks for pointing that out.

However the issue remains that as much as I respect your opinion, allow you to live by it and would never dream of using force against you for acting upon your beliefs, you do not extend the same courtesy to me on so many levels.

I think there are more options how to deal with this reality than to just roll over and die.

1) Ignore the issue, accept reality.
"We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."

2) Accept the issue, accept reality.
Look at it from a distance and accept that you have no stake in the outcome. http://youtu.be/i9CjBtv7j78?t=2m58s

Your "unconditional and non-judgemental acceptance" proposal falls in one of these categories. Actually most people I know in the end make the case that I should just accept it.

I have tried both approaches. They might have worked for me if I felt that the situation would actually improve slowly or at least remain bad at a constant level. Unfortunately that is not the case because "you" are giving away more and more of my subjective freedoms without my approval.

3) Rebel against it, try to change it.
I have been there, done that and am still doing it. What I clearly realize is that this will not change much, at least not in our or our children's lifetime.

4) Move away.
This is the last option I see and I am seriously investigating Libertarian/AnCap history, libertarian communes and other countries with less invasive governments.

I am absolutely and thoroughly convinced that the consequences of the current system are going to be devastating. If you know you are on a sinking ship, you try to tell as many people that want to listen. If they decide to ignore you or accept the fact that they are going down, fine, but don't blame me and the ones I love from getting into the lifeboat.

And now you're starting to make some sense.

The question is, and I feel this strikes to the heart of why you even made this thread, is it wrong to attempt to free some other slaves (in either of those senses) on your way out?

Of course. Life isn't about being as insensitive as possible and not giving any fucks about anything.

But still, looking for freedom outside of yourself is delusion. If you're enslaved true freedom comes either from uncoditional and non-judgemental acceptance, or from freeing your mind from the fear of getting killed trying to escape.

Ever hear of the serenity prayer?

That last line is important. It's just as important to know when you're accepting something you can change as to know when you're about to tilt at a windmill.

The reason for this is that true freedom doesn't come from outside yourself.
I don't feel less free because gravity sticks my feet to the ground. Even though I'd really like to fly I don't think I'm fooling myself, or settling for a dumbed-down version of freedom, when I'm saying I'm free, even with my feet stuck to the ground

Freedom is accepting reality as it is, exactly as it is without any kind of interpretation or judgement attached to it. Recognize ideas and concept, and be fully aware that they're just thoughts that sometimes stick to our egos.

Who do you think is convinced of what exactly ?
We all live with a different world around us, and there's always going to be something in the way. If I don't feel free because I can't keep as much of my own money as I'd wish, I might as well start to feel enslaved to the weather who is preventing me from motorbiking around bare-chested, I might as well start feeling enslaved to my kid who wakes me up at 7 am a saturday telling me its time to play or the neighbor's dog that prevents me from enjoying perfect silence or [insert something to complain about here]

You can be a slave of your own mind, I agree with that. But what I don't get is how you can feel free, when someone else decides they own part of your productivity and are prepared to taken it from you by force.

Sure I understand that you can accept it or submit to it, but let's not fool ourselves and call it freedom.

Your country is a good example. I cannot grasp how a society can tax the income of some of its (most productive) members at 85% and is still absolutely convinced that they are a free country. This simply blows my mind.

Populus.

Yes, I have already seen that taxation is not voluntary. That's my problem with it. I see reality. All of it.

If the ref is a member of one of the soccer teams, is he going to make fair calls? No? Then why do you give the duty of judging and enforcing law to a monopoly? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Taxation is what you keep referring to.  It is mandatory not voluntary.  I am showing you reality. 


AnCap is a pipe dream with good points but that is all.  Not enough substance to keep a functioning society together.  By functions I mean Law & Order that is fair and just.

Because it is such a clear benefit. I am not showing "partisan" politics. I'm showing you reality. The reality is that you are asking someone to point a fucking gun in my face and demand my money. If you wouldn't do that yourself, why do you ask someone else to do it?

Ok, there is a difference between our perspective.  Good luck selling AnCap on the people.

Why are you focusing on healthcare so much, that was only one item on the list?   You show your partisan politics pretty heavily.  Its taxation, get over it or don't.   AnCap is a libratarians wet dream, but that is all it is.  Some pieces have promise but as a whole, inadequate.

Translation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s


But that is exactly what you are doing. Worse... you aren't even ballsy enough to do it yourself. You're asking someone else to point a gun at me so you can have healthcare.

Response to 1st line of discussion:  I reject your premise that a government is a Master/Slave relationship & than having things your are required to do in a society is a form of slavery.  Actually, the government has done many positive things for me.  I am not satisfied in many areas but I won't write it off completely either.


Response to 2nd line of discussion:  No I would not point a gun at you for healthcare, but I would also not defend you not paying taxes that were put in place in American through our republic if you lived in America.  If a court found you guilty of tax-evasion and decided that jail-time was the prescription under the law, then if they needed to grab you by force because you would not surrender yourself,  so be it.  Go live somewhere else or start a revolution and see if you get broad support.  If you did the later and was proven correct, I would support the will of the people, and still think they were wrong.

And if the slave didn't work for Master, what happened? The whip. So they get money from people by threatening them with guns, just like the plantation owners got work from the slaves by threatening the whip.


You would, then, point a gun at me, to provide yourself with healthcare?

Taxation is backed up by force of arms. Do you dispute that? - No I do not.  Non-compliance will land you in jail and so armed force will come to your place of residence if you do not voluntarily surrender if judgement deemed your incarceration.  (I am not saying this could be the only punishment, just that is the current remedy)

Then, a not-for-profit charity, perhaps?  

Charity Definition - The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need.

Keep the non-profit and change voluntary to mandatory giving of money and you will have what I am advocating for those basic services I feel is not an option for the vast majority of societies.  

Taxation is backed up by force of arms. Do you dispute that?

Then, a not-for-profit charity, perhaps?

I am not sure where this "pointing guns at people" is referring too, please elaborate?

Now to the question about why not a for-profit company.   Because the incentive is not the same when you are in a job "for profit" than when you in a job "providing a public service not for profit".    To close, I fee their are "services" that I believe are better provided by a
"not for profit" administration than a "for profit" one.   I mention a list in an earlier reply in this thread.

Not this again. Stop using the state's infrastructure without paying if you don't want a gun pointed at you. Just like sooner or later, if you keep using your landlord's house without paying, you're going to get physically abused.

Is there any reason that central administration can not be run as a for-profit company, rather than pointing guns at people to get their money?

Like I said before, there is not an exact number.  You should just take away that I believe their are basic responsibilities that I do not believe some private entity will be a good custodian of, better than a central administration (ie: a government).