Looking for fellow anarchocapitalists.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we reverted to anarch-capitalism tomorrow, eventually people would come together and form governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

People would steal and murder, too. Does that justify it?

[/ QUOTE ]

So government's on par with those? Socio-contractually (I'm not even sure if that's a real word) entering into a government has the same non-justifiability as people murdering each other? I don't really see how they can be compared, especially in the context of 'justification.' No one can give a justification for someone else murdering them (before it took place, obviously). You can justify power/government by looking to the consent of the governed.

I just want you to be on record stating that people forming a government have no proper justification in doing so. If that wasn't exactly what you were saying, go on record saying whatever it is you meant.

[KaneKungFu123]

how can people say that the poor would get by without a government, they werent getting by -- that is how governments were formed... you know...to demand rights...

"rich people would give to charity instead of taxes"

its pretty funny that people actually believe this.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we reverted to anarch-capitalism tomorrow, eventually people would come together and form governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

People would steal and murder, too. Does that justify it?

[/ QUOTE ]

So government's on par with those?

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

[ QUOTE ]
Socio-contractually (I'm not even sure if that's a real word) entering into a government has the same non-justifiability as people murdering each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Social contracts are tools of oppression. They effectively say that people consented to things they never actually consented to.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how they can be compared, especially in the context of 'justification.' No one can give a justification for someone else murdering them (before it took place, obviously). You can justify power/government by looking to the consent of the governed.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF (and only if) you actually have that consent. From everyone.

[ QUOTE ]
I just want you to be on record stating that people forming a government have no proper justification in doing so. If that wasn't exactly what you were saying, go on record saying whatever it is you meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I mean. Unless *everyone* that the new government will have jurisdiction over has *voluntarily* agreed to it, it's oppressive, and unjustifiable.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

So people are poor because they are stupid, not stupid because they are poor?

has anyone else noticed that anarcho-capitalist-libertarians are usually white males from middle-upper class families?

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]

That's what I mean. Unless *everyone* that the new government will have jurisdiction over has *voluntarily* agreed to it, it's oppressive, and unjustifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone gets to make their own rules, then how can there be any courts, any order?

How are problems solved except through violence?

Here is a giant guess what will happen: A bunch of these people will get together and control the other people.

Why will this happen? The answer is human nature.

What is written above is called history .

[BCPVP]

A side question for the AC people here. I just watched a video in psych class about feral children (children that were abandoned and grew up wild). Many are the product of abuse and neglect. So that got me thinking. In an AC utopia, is there anything to stop a parent from abusing their child? Since there wouldn't be any central authority, is that child doomed to a life of misery with little hope of freedom?

On a related note, what's to stop me from starting a new slave trade?

Also the whole role of a free-market judiciary confuses me. How is someone who aggresses against another made to pay for his crime? Where is he "tried"? Doesn't the fact that those seeking justice are also paying for a decision cause a big conflict of interest for the arbitrator? Even if there is a decision reached, how will it be enforced and by whom?

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
A side question for the AC people here. I just watched a video in psych class about feral children (children that were abandoned and grew up wild). Many are the product of abuse and neglect. So that got me thinking. In an AC utopia, is there anything to stop a parent from abusing their child? Since there wouldn't be any central authority, is that child doomed to a life of misery with little hope of freedom?

On a related note, what's to stop me from starting a new slave trade?

Also the whole role of a free-market judiciary confuses me. How is someone who aggresses against another made to pay for his crime? Where is he "tried"? Doesn't the fact that those seeking justice are also paying for a decision cause a big conflict of interest for the arbitrator? Even if there is a decision reached, how will it be enforced and by whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

answer: AC is [censored].

[tomdemaine]

[ 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.

[dogreplacer]

[ QUOTE ]
how can people say that the poor would get by without a government, they werent getting by -- that is how governments were formed... you know...to demand rights...

"rich people would give to charity instead of taxes"

its pretty funny that people actually believe this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think it's pretty funny that people actually believe poor people have a right to other people's money.