Pages:
Author

Topic: We already live in an AnCap world - page 2. (Read 3177 times)

legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 04:47:53 PM
#27
Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?
lrn2freedom

Can you tell me what this means.   Learn 2 Freedom sounds nonsensical. 
It means the only freedom that there is to find is in one's mind.
Real slavery is not appropriation of 100% of one's productivity.

The real slaves are the people who are guided by their ego, their fear, their greed, their addictions, their thoughts and their delusions. Those who expect something else than what is right in front of them, those who fail to realize that everything is already here and that nothing exterior can truly free or enslave them.

Look at the poor myrkul, he's enslaved to his idea of what ancap is, what it should be, what it should look like. He's so attached and married to this idea that he starts wasting his time responding in a thread that has the word "trollitics" in the first line. And now he might be raging a little, because I predicted that after ignoring me quite vocally, he'd go out of his way and click the infamous "show/hide" button, just because he's identified himself so hard to this idea and he wants to know what this stupid frenchman dares to say about it. Myrkul, also the game.

Bottom line : freedom is subjective, it's not a percentage of whatever.

Yes, freedom of the mind is something only you control, you are responsible for and only you can give away to other ideas.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
December 18, 2012, 03:46:33 PM
#26
Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?
lrn2freedom

Can you tell me what this means.   Learn 2 Freedom sounds nonsensical. 
It means the only freedom that there is to find is in one's mind.
Real slavery is not appropriation of 100% of one's productivity.

The real slaves are the people who are guided by their ego, their fear, their greed, their addictions, their thoughts and their delusions. Those who expect something else than what is right in front of them, those who fail to realize that everything is already here and that nothing exterior can truly free or enslave them.

Look at the poor myrkul, he's enslaved to his idea of what ancap is, what it should be, what it should look like. He's so attached and married to this idea that he starts wasting his time responding in a thread that has the word "trollitics" in the first line. And now he might be raging a little, because I predicted that after ignoring me quite vocally, he'd go out of his way and click the infamous "show/hide" button, just because he's identified himself so hard to this idea and he wants to know what this stupid frenchman dares to say about it. Myrkul, also the game.

Bottom line : freedom is subjective, it's not a percentage of whatever.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
#25
That percentage of what I would call "tax" is always being debated and changed.  I don't think or have an exact utopian figure but I would prefer something over 10% but under 20% to go towards infrastructure, education, basic health and a standing army.

But is taking, by force, not more than 20% of a person's productivity not slavery? If it is not, why is it not? What quality sets it apart from 21%, or 100%?

I am not saying more than a 21% tax is slavery.  I just don't want to give a blank check to people I don't know personally and have any oversight on where my money goes.

I do not believe a "tax" forced on me is slavery because I believe their are public services that are better handled by a more centralized administration that a private for-profit company.

OK. Would a 100% tax not be slavery, then?

100% tax would "in fact" be slavery being that I would not be in control of any of my productive output. 

So then you still have not answered my original question. At what percentage is it not slavery?
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 03:24:21 PM
#24
That percentage of what I would call "tax" is always being debated and changed.  I don't think or have an exact utopian figure but I would prefer something over 10% but under 20% to go towards infrastructure, education, basic health and a standing army.

But is taking, by force, not more than 20% of a person's productivity not slavery? If it is not, why is it not? What quality sets it apart from 21%, or 100%?

I am not saying more than a 21% tax is slavery.  I just don't want to give a blank check to people I don't know personally and have any oversight on where my money goes.

I do not believe a "tax" forced on me is slavery because I believe their are public services that are better handled by a more centralized administration that a private for-profit company.

OK. Would a 100% tax not be slavery, then?

100% tax would "in fact" be slavery being that I would not be in control of any of my productive output. 
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
#23
Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?
lrn2freedom

Can you tell me what this means.   Learn 2 Freedom sounds nonsensical. 
sr. member
Activity: 247
Merit: 250
December 18, 2012, 03:04:24 PM
#22
This has been talked about before & I agree with it.  But doesn't mean the world can't evolve (or at least some of it).  It takes a while for the potential of new technologies to really shape our political landscape.  The internet has been available to the public for 15-20 years, but you are only recently seeing revolts in Egypt & Syria.  Just imagine 15-20 years from now when more & more people are discovering the benefits of crypto-currencies.  Right now they settle with the current systems because there aren't any good alternatives.  Once new technologies like crypto-currencies make those alternatives available, people will migrate.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 03:04:12 PM
#21
That percentage of what I would call "tax" is always being debated and changed.  I don't think or have an exact utopian figure but I would prefer something over 10% but under 20% to go towards infrastructure, education, basic health and a standing army.

But is taking, by force, not more than 20% of a person's productivity not slavery? If it is not, why is it not? What quality sets it apart from 21%, or 100%?

I am not saying more than a 21% tax is slavery.  I just don't want to give a blank check to people I don't know personally and have any oversight on where my money goes.

I do not believe a "tax" forced on me is slavery because I believe their are public services that are better handled by a more centralized administration that a private for-profit company.

OK. Would a 100% tax not be slavery, then?
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 03:01:58 PM
#20
That percentage of what I would call "tax" is always being debated and changed.  I don't think or have an exact utopian figure but I would prefer something over 10% but under 20% to go towards infrastructure, education, basic health and a standing army.

But is taking, by force, not more than 20% of a person's productivity not slavery? If it is not, why is it not? What quality sets it apart from 21%, or 100%?

I am not saying more than a 21% tax is slavery.  I just don't want to give a blank check to people I don't know personally and have any oversight on where my money goes.

I do not believe a "tax" forced on me is slavery because I believe their are public services that are better handled by a more centralized administration that a private for-profit company.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 02:35:55 PM
#19
Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?
lrn2freedom
Welcome2ignore.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
December 18, 2012, 02:34:04 PM
#18
Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?
lrn2freedom
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
#17
That percentage of what I would call "tax" is always being debated and changed.  I don't think or have an exact utopian figure but I would prefer something over 10% but under 20% to go towards infrastructure, education, basic health and a standing army.

But is taking, by force, not more than 20% of a person's productivity not slavery? If it is not, why is it not? What quality sets it apart from 21%, or 100%?
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
#16
You should just leave my own or anyone elses family out of this discussion.  You're just stating pure speculation about people you know nothing about or even ever had any contact with to try and suit your political goals.  Even if it were true, that is their views and that has none or very little bearing on my own.

That's funny, because the anti-abolitionists had much the same views of the slaves, as you do of humanity as a whole. (Or is it just some people, Dalkore? Which group of people would you enslave for their own good?) They viewed them as savages, who needed the guidance of a civilized white man to get through their lives.
Well if you equate having a government as slavery, then you are beyond any rational discussion.  Even slaves had a government before they were apprehended by slave-traders.   

Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?

At what percentage does it become not slavery? 99%? 50%? 20%? If the slaves are allowed to pick who gets to be Overseer, does that make it not slavery?

And perhaps you forget that the slaves were not captured, typically, but sold, either by their own "governments" or rival ones?

That percentage of what I would call "tax" is always being debated and changed.  I don't think or have an exact utopian figure but I would prefer something over 10% but under 20% to go towards infrastructure, education, basic health and a standing army.

I am quite aware that in the beginning of the African slave trade, it was those African nations own aristocracy that sold their own people into the slave-trade through blood-debts.  I am also aware that the demand for this cheap form of labor outstripped the supply until non-African slave traders started sending in raiding parties to get who ever they could find.

 
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 01:31:43 PM
#15
You should just leave my own or anyone elses family out of this discussion.  You're just stating pure speculation about people you know nothing about or even ever had any contact with to try and suit your political goals.  Even if it were true, that is their views and that has none or very little bearing on my own.

That's funny, because the anti-abolitionists had much the same views of the slaves, as you do of humanity as a whole. (Or is it just some people, Dalkore? Which group of people would you enslave for their own good?) They viewed them as savages, who needed the guidance of a civilized white man to get through their lives.
Well if you equate having a government as slavery, then you are beyond any rational discussion.  Even slaves had a government before they were apprehended by slave-traders.   

Slavery is the appropriation of 100% of a person's productivity, is it not?

At what percentage does it become not slavery? 99%? 50%? 20%? If the slaves are allowed to pick who gets to be Overseer, does that make it not slavery?

And perhaps you forget that the slaves were not captured, typically, but sold, either by their own "governments" or rival ones?
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 01:16:07 PM
#14
You should just leave my own or anyone elses family out of this discussion.  You're just stating pure speculation about people you know nothing about or even ever had any contact with to try and suit your political goals.  Even if it were true, that is their views and that has none or very little bearing on my own.

That's funny, because the anti-abolitionists had much the same views of the slaves, as you do of humanity as a whole. (Or is it just some people, Dalkore? Which group of people would you enslave for their own good?) They viewed them as savages, who needed the guidance of a civilized white man to get through their lives.


Well if you equate having a government as slavery, then you are beyond any rational discussion.  Even slaves had a government before they were apprehended by slave-traders.   
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 01:13:44 PM
#13
You should just leave my own or anyone elses family out of this discussion.  You're just stating pure speculation about people you know nothing about or even ever had any contact with to try and suit your political goals.  Even if it were true, that is their views and that has none or very little bearing on my own.

That's funny, because the anti-abolitionists had much the same views of the slaves, as you do of humanity as a whole. (Or is it just some people, Dalkore? Which group of people would you enslave for their own good?) They viewed them as savages, who needed the guidance of a civilized white man to get through their lives.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 12:58:50 PM
#12
You seem to assume AnCap would be run by corporations. You are wrong.
Humans are social animals. Deal with it.
But it does not follow that Humans are social animals, therefore, corporations.

My great grandpa was a sliver/gold prospector in California and Oregon.  He need that you needed to be forced to do what is right, that is why he carried a revolver, rifle and shotgun on his person.  He lived in an AnCap society, guess what, it sucked and life could be cheap and depending on where you were, much cheaper.
You dropped a great, Dalkore. You may have also selected the wrong side of your family tree. Go far enough back, and you'll find someone who would be very upset with the views you espouse.

No one is advocating people becoming corporations.   In our society, it would almost be mandatory as form of prudence because the risk of being sued and having your assets getting a lien or face being ex-communicated from your trading group / community is very real.


You should just leave my own or anyone elses family out of this discussion.  You're just stating pure speculation about people you know nothing about or even ever had any contact with to try and suit your political goals.  Even if it were true, that is their views and that has none or very little bearing on my own.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
December 18, 2012, 12:51:27 PM
#11
You seem to assume AnCap would be run by corporations. You are wrong.
Humans are social animals. Deal with it.
But it does not follow that Humans are social animals, therefore, corporations.

My great grandpa was a sliver/gold prospector in California and Oregon.  He need that you needed to be forced to do what is right, that is why he carried a revolver, rifle and shotgun on his person.  He lived in an AnCap society, guess what, it sucked and life could be cheap and depending on where you were, much cheaper.
You dropped a great, Dalkore. You may have also selected the wrong side of your family tree. Go far enough back, and you'll find someone who would be very upset with the views you espouse.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 12:41:38 PM
#10
You seem to assume AnCap would be run by corporations. You are wrong.
Humans are social animals. Deal with it.

We are social and some are animals and some hold themselves to a higher standard.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
December 18, 2012, 12:40:02 PM
#9
You seem to assume AnCap would be run by corporations. You are wrong.
Humans are social animals. Deal with it.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
December 18, 2012, 12:39:43 PM
#8
No, just sad and disappointed that this old turd is getting trotted out again.
Massive corporations evolve into require governments.

Fixed that for ya.

And Dalkore, I'm sure your great-great grandpa would be very saddened to hear that you're of the opinion that people need to be forced to do what's good for 'em.

My great grandpa was a sliver/gold prospector in California and Oregon.  He need that you needed to be forced to do what is right, that is why he carried a revolver, rifle and shotgun on his person.  He lived in an AnCap society, guess what, it sucked and life could be cheap and depending on where you were, much cheaper.

Pages:
Jump to: