What I'm saying is that if we adopt the system of voluntary associations 100%, what will the world look like in 100 years? It will probably look much like what it looks like now: voluntary associations will get larger and larger from entirely natural market forces until they become governments.
I don't see why. In any case though, you aren't making a compelling argument as to why we shouldn't do it. Wouldn't it be better to have freedom for 100 years and then have it POSSIBLY "become government" than to just keep the crappy government we have now?
To a certain extent, I think you're right. I think BOTH sides tend to overestimate the impact that such a change (and ANY political change, for that matter) would really have on the average individual's day to day life. However, I think the advantage mainly will come to the outliers. In a voluntary society, it would be MUCH easier to live "outside the system" if you so desired. Granted, the overwhelming majority of people would not desire, and for them, life would proceed largely as it did before. But for those who really and truly value freedom, the gains would be significant.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Especially as we can view governments as just a large voluntary association.
We can, but does anyone? I feel like you're way too reasonable to actually believe this, and you're just playing devil's advocate with me here.
In other words, a legal system of property rights does exist, and it is not "natural." One cannot get away from the arbitrariness of setting property rights.
If that's not natural, I have no idea what is. What would YOU suggest is a "natural" way of determining property rights. You say "arbitrariness" as if its a bad thing. Would you rather live in a society where there were no property rights at all? I would suggest to you that such a thing never has, and never could, exist.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
kinda funny, the intellectual part of Adam absolutely knows that Glenn Beck did something great, but he just can't seem to bring himself to actually say anything nice about a religious person without disrespecting the **** out of all religious peoples beliefs.
It would be great if we could somehow combine Adam's an-cap political beliefs with Glenn's more open and accepting message. Unfortunately, as it stands, it's a rivalry between a correct douchebag and an incorrect, but genuinely nice guy.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
That article comes off as intensely paranoid to me, but I suspect I'll be in the minority on that subject in this thread.
Regardless, I'm a bit confused by the "put your hands on your head" thing. I can't see someone doing that without looking ridiculous, which the police (particularly the vindictive jackass officer that this article seems to be warning us about) might take as a sign of mockery or contempt. Wouldn't "keep your hands at your sides" work better?
It SEEMS paranoid, but honestly, when dealing with the police you have absolutely nothing to gain and absolutely everything to lose.
Hands on your head is best because your hands are visible and farthest away from any potential weapons. Hands at your sides, say you move one of them up too fast, officer blows you away, says he thought you were reaching for a gun, you're dead, and he gets a month off with pay before returning to the job.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The IBET facebook feed is starting to get quite a lot of pushback for some of their more "anti-military" content. They can be jerks (and a little over the top) about it sometimes, but I don't think they're technically wrong here...
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Um, no. She's the absolute worst kind of statist troll. Obama's "you didn't build that" comment was basically a rip-off from a popular soundbyte of hers a few months back.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
So, I did end up enrolling in Bob Murphy's AnCap course. Starts this week. Not going to pirate any of his lecture stuff, because I respect his property rights, but much of the reading materials are offered for free on mises.org (imagine that, free stuff from a committed capitalist and free-market organization). I'll post them as I read them, so you guys can follow along if you'd like.
The first is a chapter from Murray Rothbard's book, For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. The suggested reading is Chapter 12, dealing with a privatized police, law, and court system, which starts on Page 267.
I'm actually kinda surprised some of them did back down. I was expecting this to be their moment to get on their "corporations aren't people and therefore have no free speech rights" high horse. Shame they're too stupid to have made that connection.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Well yeah, Canada and such places are FAR less free in other ways. The concept of "freedom of speech" pretty much doesn't exist there. You can get thrown in jail for reading from the bible on a street corner.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Something doesn't quite add up with the whole cyberattack narrative. We're told that the amount of attacks is nearly constant and keeps increasing. We're also told that the consequences of the attacks are completely devastating and could like, completely collapse the country and send us back into the dark ages.
So, if both of those things were true, wouldn't that have already happened by now? The way I see it, there are only three possibilities.
1. The government is lying about the nature of the attacks. They're exaggerating either the amount of them, or the expertise of those engaging in them.
2. The government is lying about the potential consequences of the attacks. They're exaggerating how easy it would be to dramatically collapse important institutions via computers.
3. The government is being completely truthful, but the NSA (or whoever we have that is fighting against these things) is just that damn good and has successfully prevented 100% of the attacks. We as a nation are just SO much further advanced than China that they just have no hope of ever penetrating our cyberdefenses.
Which of those things do YOU think is most likely?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Right, of course, that's YET ANOTHER benefit of the free market and deregulation.
Despite what a lot of idiots believe, it's not as if somewhere underground in Washington DC we have one giant computer that is labeled "US INFRASTRUCTURE" and once the Chinese hack that one thing it's all over.
Every corporation has its own network, complete with multiple firewalls and safeguards against such things. Even "the" power grid is regional, it's not like there's a single power grid that controls the entire nation.
Of course, if the commies had their way and absolutely everything was controlled by DC, we might end up with that one giant computer and it would be that much easier for terrorists to bring us down.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I think a "they're both the same" message benefits Obama a lot more than Romney, because Obama's supporters are MUCH more heavily brainwashed and less likely to believe it. I know PLENTY of Republicans who despise Romney. I'm not sure I know any Democrats whose opinion of Obama is any worse than "I'm disappointed on how he has handled a few issues (wars, drugs, etc.) but overall he's doing a great job and I'm willing to give him four more years to turn it around"
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Indirect/direct is a false dichotomy. It affects me, does it not? Who pays for a large company's $800/hr attorneys? The customer. Plus, if I were to do what I'm supposed to do and read contracts before signing them, it would affect me a lot by making me read for hours every time I want to buy anything.
Technically speaking you're right about this, but the common man doesn't necessarily realize it.
Ask random people on the street WHY you have to click through pages of disclaimers to use anything and I'll bet you over 75% say "because greedy corporations are trying to screw you over." The common man doesn't understand how federal action is the root cause of so many problems. He DOES understand that they take a bunch of his money every month.
On a similar note, I'll bet you that if you did a survey of Americans and asked them whether they were net payers of income tax or not, WELL over 50% would say that they pay. I'd be shocked if the number was less than 90.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
The law. State sovereignty has been eroded to the point that any law/regulation you come across in daily life is as likely to be federal as state (or the federal government using states as their agents).
Walk into a store and you'll see notices posted about federal and state employment laws. Buy a song on itunes, and you're presented with pages upon pages of contract language, most of which is made relevant by our laws. Buy food and it has to be regulated by the FDA. Buy stocks and your broker has to be regulated by the SEC. Go to college and get financial aid from the government.
Ah, but this is an indirect interaction with government, not a direct one. The business owner is interacting with government, you are not.
From: red sox 777 | #230
Also, the marginal tax rate you speak of is paid by very few people- basically it's a levy on the 5% after the top 1%- the top of the middle class. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, bankers, and small businessmen. But not the bankers and lawyers at the top of their field (such as Harvard grads Obama and Romney) nor very successful businessmen (because then they have large businesses that are better able to maneuver around the tax code). Yes, class warfare exists, and the principal action in it right now is the continued attack by the rich on the middle. In war, you attack the most dangerous parts of your enemy's position, which is why the taxes are focused on this group (the 2nd 5%). These are the people most able to fight back, so you want to render them powerless.
And? This just furthers my point that Obama and Romney are not substantially different. If we assume they agree on the entire taxation system in the United States EXCEPT that when it comes to the top marginal rate, they have a 5% difference, then their overall position on taxation is something like 99% identical.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
I think the "50% of people don't pay taxes" thing is considering the net effects after the receipt of benefits. In other words, someone making $20k a year still DOES in fact pay income taxes, they just will almost certainly receive a net receipt of money from the government in terms of welfare or whatever.
I mean, even when I was an E-2 making less than minimum wage, I still paid income taxes.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Remember: Obama wants to steal 40% of rich people's money. Romney wants to steal 35% of rich people's money. Both sides would have you believe this is a vast and completely irreconcilable difference. The implication of course being that anyone who would dare advance the opinion that the government should be taking less than 35% of your money (or, God forbid, none of it at all) is an extremist nutjob well outside of mainstream opinion and therefore not to be taken seriously.
The income tax is by far the most direct way in which most citizens interact with the federal government. On this matter, there is exactly 5% of difference between Obama and Romney. And yet somehow, we're supposed to believe America will be destroyed if one is elected in lieu of the other. How about this cheery little proposition for you: America will be destroyed if we elect either of these men who aspire to the office of thug-in-chief.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Sure, people make mistakes. But I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't let the people who've made mistakes rot on the streets.
So, just to be clear, you ARE of the opinion that we should hold a gun to the head of someone who didn't make mistakes and force them to pay for the life and livelihood of the person who did, right?
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
That, and they realize they'll ****ing die when capitalism is in effect and people don't feel like giving money to charity anymore.
I state right now for the record, that I will help ANY person in need who comes to me and is willing to sign a sworn statement that they are in need solely because of their own faults and shortcomings and not due to "society or "bad luck" or any other such thing..
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Anyone who thinks that the "American Dream" (for whatever the **** that even means) is "if you work hard you'll be rich" is a ****ing idiot who doesn't understand economics AT ALL.
Working "hard" (there's a specific and quantifiable term if I've ever seen one!) is irrelevant, and I can't imagine that Americans historically believed that would be enough for wealth. That's an effort-based measurement. It's the equivalent of a participation trophy. How hard you work doesn't matter, what matters is how much benefit you can provide to your fellow man. THAT is what determines your salary in a free market.
No wonder the lazy and incompetent are so drawn to socialism. It's the only way they can get their participation trophy.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Don't ever let statists - even Dear Leader - tell you that government created or invented the Internet. The government paid a private company (Rand Corporation) to create a packet switching network. The government then used this "creation of government" as a compliment to its weapons systems. In other words, the government viewed the Internet as a tool to help them kill more efficiently. And even with all of the contributions to the eventual DARPAnet - both public and private - the government still couldn't figure out a damn useful thing to do with it. Then it released this technology and you see what the market did with it. The government creates nothing but destruction. The government didn't create the Internet. We did. The market did.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
Well that's just a terrible use of English then. When you're going to use a pronoun like "that" it should be in use to what you were JUST talking about, which in this case was "a business."
Example:
KingBartz is a smelly and annoying loser. He's also a pretty nice guy, but I don't really mean that.
If your first assumption is that what I don't really mean is that you're a smelly and annoying loser, you're doing it wrong.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
