ClumsyMonkey.net

scarcity. the fact that i want it.

money today is based on gold.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:scarcity. the fact that i want it.

money today is based on gold.

Used to be. Currently there is more money in circulation than we have in value of gold.

Joey wrote:

your own ghost wrote:i think it's really interesting to see people who have the belief that the soil on which you were born can have an effect on your personality to this extent.

Where you were born and raised means everything. It definitely has an effect on your personality.

So the majority of Candians were raised to think they are morally superior to Americans?

lukin wrote:So the majority of Candians were raised to think they are morally superior to Americans?

wow, really off topic, but I love "a sunday" by jimmy eat world. (for those of you who think i'm on crack, his green avatar sig. thingy)

okay sorry,

[/spam]

Doug Bin Laden wrote:we would still have schools, hospitals, etc. anything the state can do, private enterprise can do better.

without government the schools won't get the $40 a day they get per student. that's the majority of the income for schools, without government there won't be taxes and your schools will lose out on that money too. there is not a single company in North America that would do any buisness with a country with no government, in fact just the scare of comunism or anarchy will send them packing. this has all been done before and it failed miserably.

people are being killed by the government, first off.

everyone who died in 9/11 was killed by a government.

everybody who will die in the upcoming iraq war will be killed by the orders of government.

The American govt did not kill those people on 9/11, they weren't killed by a govt, they were killed by terrorists, who MAY have financial support from govt but there is currently no link to saying that the Taliban or Iraq told the terrorists to commit those crimes.

we would still have schools, hospitals, etc. anything the state can do, private enterprise can do better.

Privatization does not make things better. It will provide a monopoly and eventually prices will sky rocket. Ask any Ontarian about their hydro bills once Hydro become privatized in Ontario... Most bills were doubled or tripled, this during summer months when levels are at its highest. It took a freeze by the govt to help bring the price back to normal.

there's nothing wrong with survival of the fittest in my opinion, although i personally am of the belief that all men are capable of self-government. frankly, if you can't figure out how to surivive independently of me, then i believe that falls under the heading of "your problem."
if you need me to survive, and i die, how will you keep going? making people reliant on their peers weakens the society.

What you're pretty well saying is that only the rich should live, unless you belong to a mob or other such class. What about welfare? what do those families that need those cheques from the govt do? do we just let them die since they can't support themselves due to various reasons? That sure as hell doesn't seem fair. And these poor ppl, how would they pay to visit a doctor? or even have a child? Not everybody makes 6 figures or even over 50,000$ for that matter. It would just seperate the classes even further and the rich would just get richer while the poor get poorer, and nothing good can come of that. Disease would become widespread since families would not be able to pay for medication or simple checkups and our society would be terrible.


Technically with no govt I can shoot whoever I want. I can kill you just because I wanted and nothing would be done to me. Sure your friends or family could kill me, but then my family would just kill yours and vice versa. Somehow that doesn't seem right to me, but since govt. wouldn't be in place neither would laws, or people to govern them.
Jobs would be lost because hundreds of thousands of people rely on the govt and the jobs they provide, and I guarentee that if privitization occured in these jobs there would still be thousands of people in trouble.

I don't know why you're so blind to this. It's quite obvious that the govt IS needed. You may not agree to it but it's pretty obvious that without it, we might as well all be dead.[/quote]

very very good points, Anarchy just liek communism only looks good on paper, the only places either can work and still hold true to the origanal beliefs is in very small colonies, the human being is to weak morally and mentally to live ina communist or anarchist system

re: the schools.

education is like any other service. it can be provided for profit as long as their is a need. if you want to learn math, and i know math, i will teach it to you. for ten bucks an hour. if you (my consumer) thinks $10/hour is too high, i will lower the price until we reach the price point where the consumer can afford the service and the producer can still make a profit. if another person, say Corey, needs to learn math and i can't teach him because i'm teaching you, then before you can draw up your times tables somebody else will be in the teaching business.

that's the way the free market works. as long as there is need, capitalists will flock to fill the need and get rich.

the beauty of being an individualist society is that we don't trade with other nations as a society, just as individuals. if you want some kickin' dutch cheese, your government doesn't buy it for you and then sell it back to you - you buy it. if you want a certain raw material that comes from another country, you make the arrangements. tell me why i can go to holland now and buy some round cheese, but if canada was a free/anarchist country, i couldn't?

o man. i really don't want to get into this, but let me point out that you are dismissing anarchism without bothering to learn a thing about it. that would make you close minded.

The American govt did not kill those people on 9/11, they weren't killed by a govt, they were killed by terrorists, who MAY have financial support from govt but there is currently no link to saying that the Taliban or Iraq told the terrorists to commit those crimes.

the american government had foreknowledge of the attacks. there is an overwhelming body of evidence to this effect. for more information, please see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/comp ... /index.htm

Privatization does not make things better. It will provide a monopoly and eventually prices will sky rocket. Ask any Ontarian about their hydro bills once Hydro become privatized in Ontario... Most bills were doubled or tripled, this during summer months when levels are at its highest. It took a freeze by the govt to help bring the price back to normal.

this is hardly an example of privatization. when the government sells off one of it's massive failures to one company and continues to restrict competition, not a whole shitload has changed.

What you're pretty well saying is that only the rich should live, unless you belong to a mob or other such class. What about welfare? what do those families that need those cheques from the govt do? do we just let them die since they can't support themselves due to various reasons? That sure as hell doesn't seem fair. And these poor ppl, how would they pay to visit a doctor? or even have a child? Not everybody makes 6 figures or even over 50,000$ for that matter. It would just seperate the classes even further and the rich would just get richer while the poor get poorer, and nothing good can come of that. Disease would become widespread since families would not be able to pay for medication or simple checkups and our society would be terrible.

which theories of what economist are you basing this on? because the accepted standard of economics taught in universities across canada is in absolute opposition to what you just said.

a. if you had studied anarchism or economics you would by now be familiar with the term "welfare wall" which is used to explain why many people who are on welfare do not get off of it, ever. because they do not have to work to live, they do not. like with communism, it removes the natural incentive [ bettering yourself ] to work. furthermore, welfare, the minimum wage, unemployment insurance et al. increase unemployment therefore making it impossible for the market to achieve full employment.

b. with bothersome bureaucratic institutions removed, competition in the field of pharmaceuticals would be greatly increased. due to the tremendous restrictions on the development of new drugs, it is almost impossible for persons other then huge corporations to develop and market any new medicine. if this were not the case, entrepeneurship would lead to drastic reduction in price of drugs.

Technically with no govt I can shoot whoever I want. I can kill you just because I wanted and nothing would be done to me. Sure your friends or family could kill me, but then my family would just kill yours and vice versa. Somehow that doesn't seem right to me, but since govt. wouldn't be in place neither would laws, or people to govern them.

how does the government stop you from killing me right now? the law is not prohibitive, it is punitive.

furthermore, what is to stop private security firms from being formed and protecting the rights of their citizens? nothing.

Jobs would be lost because hundreds of thousands of people rely on the govt and the jobs they provide, and I guarentee that if privitization occured in these jobs there would still be thousands of people in trouble.

really? and once again, which economist are you getting this from? i would really love to know.

privatization is always superior in efficiency and profitablity then public industry. this is a widely accepted fact of economics.

furthermore, the government creates a great deal of unemployment with it's mandatory unemployment laws [ minimum wage etc. ]

I don't know why you're so blind to this. It's quite obvious that the govt IS needed. You may not agree to it but it's pretty obvious that without it, we might as well all be dead.

the only thing that is obvious is that you don't know anything about anarcho capitalism.

J-Neli:

First of all, you say "the american gov't did not kill those people on 9/11"

I say: prove it.

and if there was no link tying bin laden to the taliban then why the hell did a government that was elected by a system that YOU BELIEVE IN just drop a billion bombs on afganhistan?

re: privitization

the free market makes prices go down and competition go up. this is university level economics 101. there are thousands of examples throughout history of this happening. free enterprise IS good for business.

monopolies can only occur in the free market if one product is far superior to all it's competitors. if the consumers only want to buy Brand A, that's not the fault of Brand A. He just made his product the best/most appealing to consumers. the only entinty that can create an enforce a monopoly where no new firms can enter the market is....... GOVERNMENT.

re: your ontario example

very likely there were not enough competing firms entering the power market to offset the costs of doing business. but if you think you're still not paying those increased power bills, you're wrong. if the private firm needs $100 to supply power to a neighborhood, so does the government. the difference is that the private firm covers it's costs with 100% user fees whereas your government uses 50% user fees and 50% taxes.

re: the great welfare debate.

wealth redistribution is irrational and immoral. if i work for ten hours to earn $100, then all of that $100 is morally, rationally, reasonably, fairly, justly and rightly mine. i do not owe the government any of it. i do not owe my employer any of it. and i do not owe the poor any of it.

you say that other families can't support themselves for "various reasons". I say, sadly, that falls under the heading of "their problem". If I did not exist, those other families still would not be able to support themselves. Therefore, their suffering has nothing to do with me. I am not responsible for it.

"If welfare recipients won't pay for my law school, then I do not feel that it's my responsibility to buy their supper"

re: laws, crime & punishment

I have bad news for you. If you wanted, you could shoot & kill me right now. If you did a good enough job of covering your tracks, nothing would happen to you. Random acts of violence are very hard to solve, even if the killer leaves evidence behind.

no criminal is deterred by laws, because nobody commits a crime thinking they're going to get caught. Do you know why so many crimes are sovled? Because so few are random. That's why "motive" is such a big deal when solving crimes. Most crimes are commited for a reason, and premeditation leaves a trail that can be followed. People don't just randomly lash out violently against others. Why is that?

Because man is rational. Not because of the law. Do you drive 30 through a school zone because you're afraid that Big Brother will slap you with a fine if you speed? No. You drive that speed because you don't want to hit anyone.

There will always be people who are irrational and who do things without rhyme or reason. Demockracy, anarchy, communism, whatever.

jobs would not be lost. again, i refer you to my economics post to reno. you need to understand that everything the government is doing, the private enterprise can and would do better. Because if there is a need for services, capitalists will flock to fill the need. That's what we do.

now it's my turn:

supporters of demockracy/government: according to me, all governments rule by force. the <a href="http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html">ultimate penalty of disobeying government is death.</a> If you believe in demockracy, and i think most of you do, then please tell me why you believe using force is okay.

Staying with that idea, why do you believe it is okay to kill someone for disagreeing with you?

In kanada, just under half the nation clearly does not support the demockratically elected government. These people are being forced to pay taxes to and obey the laws of a government they do not believe in. please tell me why this is ok. please tell me how demockracy is working in kanada.

in kanada, the government takes up to 52% of the working man's income. tell me why this is not theft. justify it using a rational argument.

I have defended my beliefs countless times against nitpicky questions about how we would pay our credit card bills or who would make laws. I'm not saying those questions are not valid, because they are. Truth is, i don't know all the answers about how anarchy would work.

But you guys are digging deep. And frankly, deciding a social system would never work in real life because we don't have a hard currency system seems to me to be kind of silly in light of the glaring flaws in demockracy that i have illustrated.

Finally, even if we don't have hard currency or a guarenteed system of laws, that doesn't change the solid moral and just foundation of freedom. Does the fact that there would be no hard currency change the fact that coercision is wrong? no.

I wouuld like to see some philisophical arguments from you guys. Tell me why you believe in the concept of mob rule, where the guys with the most guns make the laws.

but what you suggest gives the power to the people with the most money. The people with the most money force their ideas and get what they want.

Might doesn't make right but money does?

The only difference between voting and money is that everyone gets the same number of votes.

Have you ever worked on a school project with a group? Do you allow the person with the most money make all the decisions? No. You vote on it. If one person doesn't agree with the decision, too bad. The majority feels the other idea is better.

Ever sit in a room and watch tv with a bunch of your friends? How do you decide what to watch? According to your views, you might as well buy a TV for everyone in the room because there's no reason to coerce anyone into what they should watch.

I agree with pretty much all your beliefs about private ownership. That's the way to go. Capitalism is good.

However, there needs to be regulation. Imagine if just anybody could build a road anywhere they wanted. There would be a spider web of streets all over. We're talking mass confusion. Even better yet, just fly a plane anywhere you want. Nobody owns the sky.

Money is a huge issue but you pass it off as "nitpicking". Again, we need the regulation. That keeps pricing fair. Say store A is selling Pet rocks for 100 snazzles and store B is selling them for 3 googleplexes. How do I know which is cheaper? How bout I just flood the market with googleplexes because I have a googleplex machine. Yay, inflation is wonderful!!!

Your existence does effect others. Please convince me that Einstein's contributions to the Nuclear bomb didn't effect the lives of thousands of Japanese people. Please tell me that the Strip Bar you built next to the my children's playground doesn't effect anybody.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:In kanada, just under half the nation clearly does not support the demockratically elected government. These people are being forced to pay taxes to and obey the laws of a government they do not believe in. please tell me why this is ok. please tell me how demockracy is working in kanada.
in kanada, the government takes up to 52% of the working man's income. tell me why this is not theft. justify it using a rational argument.
I have defended my beliefs countless times against nitpicky questions about how we would pay our credit card bills or who would make laws. I'm not saying those questions are not valid, because they are. Truth is, i don't know all the answers about how anarchy would work.
But you guys are digging deep. And frankly, deciding a social system would never work in real life because we don't have a hard currency system seems to me to be kind of silly in light of the glaring flaws in demockracy that i have illustrated.
Finally, even if we don't have hard currency or a guarenteed system of laws, that doesn't change the solid moral and just foundation of freedom. Does the fact that there would be no hard currency change the fact that coercision is wrong? no.
I wouuld like to see some philisophical arguments from you guys. Tell me why you believe in the concept of mob rule, where the guys with the most guns make the laws.

taxes...simple, when you drive in your car somewhere, your driving on your tax dollars, the signals lights come from tax dollars, and all the signs come from tax dollars. the government put regulations on gas companies to formulate gas a certain way so they don't put lead in and let it burn way too inefficiently. becaue of this there is a tax on your gas. furthermore, the saftey features in your car are usually government mandated. that costs money and they get it from...taxes. state and federal parks, concert halls, especially those built during the great depression. now if 52% of your paycheck goes into that as well as other things the government did for you that tells you something...your not efficient. and you want to go into anarchy? yeah...that seems rational enough for you.

what social system have we chosen? democracy? i keep telling you that it looks good on paper but democracy doesn't work...what you use is a Republic. democracy doesn't work because it's the equivalent of mob rule. In a republic the minority get a voice and often times get what they need. Now because your representatives aren't working for you, then you get them out and get in someone who will get the job done. that's the beauty of a democratic republic.

tell me how your going to get rid of a centralized government? or a dictator for that matter? how do you get rid of something that doesn't exist like bartering a cow for a car with no gas?

corey, without politiks, there is no power. in a world where all men are equal, and judged on their ability only, no man would have dominion over another.

in market anarchism, the only advantage to being rich is that it opens more doors. it does not allow you to take control of others lives. a government is the only body that takes control of your life and enfores it's will under pain and penalty of death. If you want to quit your job, your boss is not going to shoot you. Try "quitting" the united states and see how long you live.

the principle of majority rule is morally flawed because it assumes that by joining a larger number then i have, my rights in a disagreement with you suddenly vanish.
examples:

we're working on a school project in a group of four. 3 people vote to make the project about third world debt. I vote for a project about the ability of the individual to succeed. According to you, the 3 have rights whereas i have none simply because there are more of them. Therefore, they are right, and i am not.

let's take it to another forum. This time it's a group of 3 white men and one mexican. The white guys decide they want to beat up the mexican. 3 votes to one. Majority rules.

re: the TV example

according to my views, the guy who owns the TV picks what we watch.

corey, if you want a pet rock, you pay the guy what you think is fair. you don't just make up your own currency and pay him with that because he wouldn't accept it. You barter. you give up something of value.

einstein's contributions to the invention of the bomb didn't cause the americans to drop it. my building a strip club near your neighborhood won't force your kids to become sexual predators.

you are accountable for your own actions.

now how about you respond to some of my questions about demockracy?

why don't you explain to me, rationally, how the use of force is acceptable. Rationally defend the double standards that the government you believe in rules by.

reno, the minority is me. I don't want to pay taxes, drive the speed limit, be arrested for drug use or soliciting prositutes.

i don't want to be drafted or have my business regulated.

how does your republic represent me? and what justification is there for not allowing me to practice my beliefs?

re: taxes

i didn't ask them for any of those services. i would rather pay a private enterpriser a user fee everytime i drive on his road rather then pay the government 365 days a year for services i quite often don't use. I have a feeling it would be cheaper.

if i walk up to you in the street and hit you over the head, steal your wallet and then use a portion of your money to buy you a new tie and fill your car with gas, did i still rob you?

is it still theft if the portion that i didn't use to buy you things was given to a poor family to help them get by?

how is what i did any different from what the IRS does?

i am still waiting on your rational justification of the use of force to coerce me to pay taxes and obey laws that i don't believe in. furthermore, tell me why your opinion is better then mine.

or not your opinion, but that of the government. they think i should pay taxes. i think i shouldn't. why are they right?

but if that mexican were Julio Cesar Chavez (IN HIS PRIME) and all 4 would live in an anarchy society, he's gonna kick all three asses. why? because he "stronger" and more skilled in the art of Pugalism.

I hade to sneak in some boxing somewhere in this thread.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:reno, the minority is me. I don't want to pay taxes, drive the speed limit, be arrested for drug use or soliciting prositutes.

i don't want to be drafted or have my business regulated.

how does your republic represent me? and what justification is there for not allowing me to practice my beliefs?

re: taxes

i didn't ask them for any of those services. i would rather pay a private enterpriser a user fee everytime i drive on his road rather then pay the government 365 days a year for services i quite often don't use. I have a feeling it would be cheaper.

if i walk up to you in the street and hit you over the head, steal your wallet and then use a portion of your money to buy you a new tie and fill your car with gas, did i still rob you?

is it still theft if the portion that i didn't use to buy you things was given to a poor family to help them get by?

how is what i did any different from what the IRS does?

i am still waiting on your rational justification of the use of force to coerce me to pay taxes and obey laws that i don't believe in. furthermore, tell me why your opinion is better then mine.

or not your opinion, but that of the government. they think i should pay taxes. i think i shouldn't. why are they right?

well who does want to drive the speed limit? but anyway about your buisness being regulated, ok chances are your loaded and your going to send Lobbist to the legislature and your lobbiest are going to make that case for you. they'll go around and presuade senators to shoot down a bill that's going to regulate your sector of the economy. In order to get the most from politics you have to play these shitty games and alot of people do.

if you paid the private sector for EACH road they make your going either make a monthly payment to them or those roads are going to be blocked off and your going to have to constatly be paying tolls for you just to drive on them because it's their property.

as for stealing yes of course it is. the fact is that government should optimize your tax dollars. not just buy you a tie and gas. You pay X amount of cents on the dollar for streets and other government funded projects because doing/paying for it yourself or having a private owner of those particual projects would cost way too much. that in itself should justify the need for taxes.

megxyz128 wrote:

lukin wrote:So the majority of Candians were raised to think they are morally superior to Americans?

wow, really off topic, but I love "a sunday" by jimmy eat world. (for those of you who think i'm on crack, his green avatar sig. thingy)

okay sorry,

[/spam]

Heh, I've noticed we have similiar taste in music in general.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:corey, without politiks, there is no power. in a world where all men are equal, and judged on their ability only, no man would have dominion over another.

You are an idealist. There is always going to be someone who is more powerful than somebody else. Politics or no politics. I'm stronger than you and threaten to kick your ass if you don't give me your wallet.

Two men want the same house. One man offers $100,000 the other offers $500,000. Who will get the house?

You're a dumbass. I convince you to give me $300 a month for robot insurance. (Those who deny the existence of robots may be robots themselves) Here my superior intelligence forces you to my will.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:in market anarchism, the only advantage to being rich is that it opens more doors. it does not allow you to take control of others lives. a government is the only body that takes control of your life and enfores it's will under pain and penalty of death. If you want to quit your job, your boss is not going to shoot you. Try "quitting" the united states and see how long you live.

What keeps the government going? Certainly not money. nahhh... that's impossible. Barely any politicians are rich.

I can throw my money around all the time to force you to do many things. Your landlord sells his complex to me. I bulldoze the thing. You're out a home. You have an account at my bank. I charge you a $100,000,000 fine for having exactly $1234.56 in your account (guess you should've read the fine print). Tough luck, your life is over. There is a new device on the market that sends waves into someone's brain which turns them into your slave. Cool, I'm the only one who can afford it.

Quit the US? Quite easy actually.. just pack and leave. (They don't kill you for that you know)

Doug Bin Laden wrote:the principle of majority rule is morally flawed because it assumes that by joining a larger number then i have, my rights in a disagreement with you suddenly vanish.

Why is that morally flawed? If you don't like the majority rule then disassociate yourself from the group. You are not forced to be in the group. If you get a job and you don't like what your boss makes you do, quit. You are binded to what your boss wants while you are associated with that position.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:examples:

we're working on a school project in a group of four. 3 people vote to make the project about third world debt. I vote for a project about the ability of the individual to succeed. According to you, the 3 have rights whereas i have none simply because there are more of them. Therefore, they are right, and i am not.

Bingo. You do what the majority of the group wants. If you don't like that, leave the group. Certainly there will be some negotiating until everyone agrees. That's another possibility. But if the other 3 aren't willing to do that then they are assholes anyways and you don't need to be in their group.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:let's take it to another forum. This time it's a group of 3 white men and one mexican. The white guys decide they want to beat up the mexican. 3 votes to one. Majority rules.

If those 4 men are the only people in the world then yes, they are right. However they are not the only ones in the world and they are part of a larger group (i.e. the US population) and the majority of them believe that beating up mexicans is wrong.

Doug Bin Laden wrote:re: the TV example

according to my views, the guy who owns the TV picks what we watch.

My mistake. You are right. In that case I change my example to going out to a movie. Now how do you decide?

Doug Bin Laden wrote:corey, if you want a pet rock, you pay the guy what you think is fair. you don't just make up your own currency and pay him with that because he wouldn't accept it. You barter. you give up something of value.

The only thing that guy wants is rocks for without rocks he wouldn't have a business. So I'll pay him a rock for a pet rock. I make out like a bandit!

Not to mention barter systems are for the middle ages. Ahh the good old days when nobody was coerced to someone else's will...

Doug Bin Laden wrote:einstein's contributions to the invention of the bomb didn't cause the americans to drop it. my building a strip club near your neighborhood won't force your kids to become sexual predators.

you are accountable for your own actions.

But would the nuclear bomb have existed had einstein not invented it? Would the US still drop something that didn't exist?

It doesn't force my kids into anything. I didn't say that. I said that it changes my life. Does it not?

Doug Bin Laden wrote:now how about you respond to some of my questions about demockracy?

why don't you explain to me, rationally, how the use of force is acceptable. Rationally defend the double standards that the government you believe in rules by.

Force is acceptible when the reasons behind it are good. You run a child pornography business in your basement and I know it. It is morally good for me to force myself into your house and stop your operation. I see you dumping poison into public water lines. I smash the line so that the water doesn't reach homes even though it isn't my property. My kids hate school but I know the value an education is so I force them to go to school.

Government runs the same way. I believe majority rule is good and that force is also good when the end result is good. I can't defend it any better than the fact that I believe the principles are good. Very similar to your way of defending why you think force is bad because its bad.

this has become pathetic. period.

The fact is that anarchy cannot work and will never even be attempted because the vast majority (which according to Doug means shit all anyways) know better. Do you know how much more difficult life would be if you had to worry about every single damn thing that happened everyday?

I'm honestly tired of this conversation. It's become obvious that you do not respect the views of others on this board, and its become pointless to debate.
Pretty much since you have anarchist views you can claim anything and everything and no matter what you say it can be merited without any evidence or reason, just so long as it is against govt how can you be wrong?

Govt is not perfect, I'll admit that and I'm sure everyone will admit that, but it is far superior than anarchy, no matter how you look at it.