Looking for fellow anarchocapitalists.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Selling a pack of gum to a serial killer is a lot different than hiring one.


[/ QUOTE ]

True, but it's not much different from saying "two dollars please" when a dude rolls up in his car to enter a stretch of road, which was one of your examples.

I used to be pretty high up in the tobacco industry and we had some big clients who were known criminals, and I don't just mean tax evasion which you could argue is not a crime. I mean nasty stuff like killing, hiring hitmen and that sort of thing. OK we didn't have it on videotape and you could say it was gossip or whatever, but the info. was pretty reliable nonetheless because our guys needed to know where various shipments of contraband was going and that involved getting close to some shady characters.

The HR and finance guys in the various countries were upstanding citizens for the most part (myself included) and whenever a relative newbie found out about what was going on there was usually some shock and awe but never anything in the direction of "let's not do business with these guys 'cuz they're bad". And that includes private conversations under the influence of alcohol, not just official statements.

You could say the tobacco industry is shady itself and attracts shadier characters than average, but above a certain level everyone's resume had all sorts of "legitimate" industries on them as well. I've never heard of a case where getting a job in another industry was ever made more difficult by having a tobacco company on your CV as opposed to, say, the coffee or chocolate industries.

My experience in the company was an eye-opening experience to say the least and it taught me a lot about human nature. It would be nice if it were different, though, and violence (or threat thereof) could somehow be taken out of the equation (or reduced substantially) but I don't see it happening in the next 10 generations at least.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
So people are poor because they are stupid, not stupid because they are poor?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reciprocal causality at work here. Think about it.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would you say to someone that didn't want to be a part of this society anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

What society? If you're talking about an AC society, I wouldn't say much of anything, just like I don't say anything to someone that doesn't want to eat broccoli anymore. Stop eating broccoli.

[ QUOTE ]
Or a group of people that wanted to be governed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Go for it. Get together and govern yourselves. Have fun. Just don't subject anyone else to it.

[ QUOTE ]
It would be destined to happen, since there will never, ever be 100% agreement among any large number of people. What would you say to these people?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hi"? I have no idea what you want me to speak to them *about*. The reality that people have different preferences? How about "congratulations, you're now free to pursue your preferences without anyone else making decisions for you or telling you what to do."

Are you seriously arguing that since 100% of people can't agree on anything 100%, someone should step in and force all of them to conform to an arbitrary decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I wasn't arguing anything. I was simply pointing out that if a large group of people get together and make a decision about what type of society to live in, there will be unhappy people. Simple enough. For instance, you're one of those people. People with your opinions make up an incredibly low percentage of the population.
The same "Fare thee well" can be used on ACers. Get together, go off somewhere, and (not) govern yourselves. The vast majority of people don't see taxes as Big Brother holding a gun to their heads, and they're more or less happy with the system. We want government. We like government. Some feel they need government.

I'm really trying to understand AC because it sincerely intrigues me. I just don't see the point of telling a bunch of people that they're oppressed when they clearly don't see it that way. You obviously do. You're in the same situation as the person(s) that didn't want to be in the AC society, only difference being you have an oppressive gun to your head. What's to stop us from saying the same thing? Get together and go somewhere else. I don't know if I'm coming across as rude; I'm not trying to. I guess I'd just like to hear your response to those who would say "We're happy with government, go away."

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's betterfor the survival of the species if we group together and penalise the strong to help the weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard. You just claimed that success should be punished, and stupidity rewarded.

This does NOT help the survival of the species, and it is completely contrary to evolutionary principles. "Survival of the fittest" means that the monkey who was too stupid not to eat the poisoned berries doesn't go on to infect the world with his stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutly knew that someone would take this the wrong way. Survival of the fittest is a complete misnomer. It may benefit nature as a whole if we let the "weak" die out but the human species is more likely to survive if we have as diverse a range of people as possible. How does it help the monkeys if through their inaction, a prospective mate dies of poisioned berries? Because in another few million years they'll become a "better" species. If one day a parasite emerges that feeds on brainwaves we'll need stupid people around to continue the species. High IQ, risk taking behaviours, the things that the market value are not the only important aspects of humanity. Don't be so arrogant to think that you can affect the billion year process of natural selection by cutting off a few welfare cheques. That's not how it works.

[/ QUOTE ]

The benefits of diversity are an ability to make better-educated decisions on cultural and social ideas. I myself went to a very liberal school, and had exposure to people with different races, political beliefs, religious beliefs, lifestyles and sexual choices. In the end, I felt I had a much more informed opinion with regards to many different social issues (drug use, gay rights, women's rights, etc.) It was very good for me, and I wish that everyone could have the same experience. I don't believe there is anything objectively "bad" for society about being gay, of different religious pursuasion, or of different ethnic background.

The economy, however, is a little more objective. Some economic choices are objectively worse than others. A loser smoking pot on his couch collecting unemployment does not do an ounce of good for the economy. Why should his lifestyle be protected?

Some people preach diversity blindly. Perhaps their children should be exposed to cults, drug addicts, and n.igger-hating rednecks. I don't think you'd be wild about having a KKK member come to your child's school to give a speech. Diversity encompasses some bad. We should not be trying to protect that bad.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I wasn't arguing anything. I was simply pointing out that if a large group of people get together and make a decision about what type of society to live in, there will be unhappy people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if some people are forced to participate. If it's all voluntary, who's unhappy (except for the people that only want to tell other people what to do)?

[ QUOTE ]
Simple enough. For instance, you're one of those people. People with your opinions make up an incredibly low percentage of the population.
The same "Fare thee well" can be used on ACers. Get together, go off somewhere, and (not) govern yourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes that some overlord's desire to tell me what to do trumps my property rights. That's oppression. If I have to leave my property to get away from someone else, I'm oppressed.

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of people don't see taxes as Big Brother holding a gun to their heads, and they're more or less happy with the system. We want government. We like government. Some feel they need government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, go for it. Just *do not force your system on others*. It's not oppressive until you cross that line.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really trying to understand AC because it sincerely intrigues me. I just don't see the point of telling a bunch of people that they're oppressed when they clearly don't see it that way. You obviously do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't really care if someone else wants to pay taxes. The fact that they like paying taxes does not justify forcing someone else to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
You're in the same situation as the person(s) that didn't want to be in the AC society, only difference being you have an oppressive gun to your head. What's to stop us from saying the same thing? Get together and go somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except you don't force anyone to be "in the AC society". You simply don't force *anything* on them. If they want to put construct some arbitrary framework, they are free to do so. They don't even have to "go somewhere else" to do it - they can do it on their own property.

[hmkpoker]

I'm just curious...

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Any lurking around in here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha. Something about this really makes me smile.

[ShakeZula06]

A better poll

[ShakeZula06]

Point is many people are trying to say that privatization wouldn't work because of under funding. The only reason in a free market world it wouldn't get provided is if the people as a whole didn't care about it enough. Can you really argue against this? SHould an orginaztion of people be able to take money from others so that they may fund what they think society cares about most? Why?

[tomdemaine]

Ha thanks for the ninja bump. Man I come off as a dumb jerk in this thread. At least I stayed open minded.