Jean Chrétien and Carolyn Parrish are Poo Poo Heads

[Corey]

not quite. the difference between the us government and what i described above is that i was talking about a voluntary government. the united states government is not voluntary.

you don't have a choice about which laws you obey. you don't have a choice about paying taxes or not.

in market anarchism, you have all those choices, even if you choose to let somebody else (ie an elected govenor) make some or all of them for you. and you ultimately retain the choice to one day stop letting that person make those choices for you.

You do have a choice what laws to obey or paying tax. You help put them in place whether it is voluntary or involuntary. If you and a million of your fellow man don't agree in a law, then you do something about it. If you and your fellow man don't agree with the taxes, then you do something about it. By not doing anything about it (i.e. not voting) then you in turn are telling people that you agree with the law or tax. Complaining about a law, is not doing something about the law. Your description of not letting your governor make choices for you any longer is exactly how a republic works. If you don't like the job they've been doing, you don't re-elect them. Simple as that.

When the US government was formed, it was voluntary. Nobody forced it on the people that started it. It was their choice to form one on their land.

[mosaik]

corey. i do not have a choice about obeying drug laws. if i am found with an ounce of cocaine and bills of sale showing that i've been selling it, i am going to jail.

i do not have a choice.

i do not have a choice about paying tax. nobody ever asked me if i wanted to have income that was mine by right garnished. the idea that by simply being born on canadian soil i have somehow consented to the rule of government is preposterous. and what's more, i can't STOP paying taxes or STOP obeying the law. in a free society, i would be able to.

in a republic, can i veto obeying any govenor and simply govern myself? where's the freedom in choosing who makes me their slave? there isn't any.

i don't want a government. i don't support a government. voting lends legitimacy to their regimes. i do not vote for that reason.

actually, the us government was NOT voluntary. give me five minutes to produce a handy link detailing the early stages of your government and i'll show you how it went.

EDIT: <a href="http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html">The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action</a>

Read that for a better understanding of the thought process behind voluntary government, and an excelled explanation of why the USA is not a voluntary state.

[Corey]

blah, blah, blah.. you posted that already.


Here is a link of how Marijuana is no longer illegal in Canada. Look at that. People working together to change the government's laws. Why is it now legal? Not because the government wanted it, but because the people did.

http://www.medicalmarihuana.ca/possession.html

If you want to have Cocaine in Canada, go through the same process.

[mosaik]

why should i have to?

whose business is it to tell me what i can and can't put it my body besides my own?

and you still haven't told me how i can just up & stop paying tax.

government has no right to make laws. the column shows you why. i don't want to use their system to change things to suit my needs, that's branch hacking. government is evil. i want to strike the root of evil, and get rid of the state.

[Corey]

People don't mind paying taxes any many of them think it is necessary. Take this article from Australia. The people voted to STOP cutting taxes.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/ ... 75181.html

[mosaik]

well if 100% of the people paying taxes voted to continue paying them, good for them.

the point is this: i don't believe in taxes. I don't want to pay them. why should i have to, if government is voluntary?

[Corey]

Oh I don't know. Move maybe? You don't need the government after all. Better yet. Stop working. People who don't work don't pay taxes.

[mosaik]

they don't earn a living either.

and some people who don't work do pay taxes

you're really dodging the issue here man. i'm not trying to press you, but i would like to know what moral basis you think there is for forced taxation and forced government.

[Corey]

That was in my long post. I'll discontinue my posts until you reply to that one (like you said you would)

[Corey]

...and come on... no props for the excel spreadsheet?

[mosaik]

the spread sheet was freakin genius man.

i mean that. it was the best thing anybody has ever done when countering my point.

i applaud you

and i'll look at your long post now.

[Corey]

the spread sheet was freakin genius man.

i mean that. it was the best thing anybody has ever done when countering my point.

i applaud you

and i'll look at your long post now.

Thanks man. That means a lot coming from you.

[Bandalero]

Like an Old man that regular visits a coffee shop and meets up with his buddies, i walk back into this thread, hey doug, corey, um...is it chris? damn me and my old age.

there's nothing wrong with anarchism, per se. it's the people inside of it that would be the troublesome part.

some people could and would abuse their new freedoms with more abandon then previously. however, institutions set up by the market could and would prevent this. private security companies and arbitrators would take over where the state left off, the only difference is that they would be voluntary institutions.

so what's the plan here? anarchy with perfect people? you gonna rid your region with troublesome people...cause that's genocide or murder. or you gonna lock them away somewhere? remember they have to go willingly, and it's going to suck getting rid of them without a government funded institution. what i find funny about the second paragraph is that your going to to have regulation of buisness...in a free market? the federal reserve banks in the US are privately owned but are federally regulated. seems either way your stuck with big brother looking over the shoulder.

there is a way to rid yourself of taxes...get a real good accountant. sure you'll end up paying every check but lets face it there are so many different exemptions that me and you don't know about and that the government doesn't want you to know. basically you need to get informed about how to cheat the system, get your tax money back, send your lobbyist to the senate, and stuff ballots like the holy gone wrong.

[nelison]

My largest problem with your ideas is what do the people below poverty levels do? They wouldn't be able to attend school, get health care, etc. The world you describe would pretty well kill off the poverish, or force them to rebel, which is probably what would occur.

[Johnny]

[nelison]

and just because that isn't "your problem" doesn't mean that it's best for society as a whole. The classes will seperate and a revolution will occur because the low will want more power and they'll demand it. A perfect example is the French Revolution.

[I AM ME]

very true

[starvingeyes]

reno - yup, i'm chris.

so what's the plan here? anarchy with perfect people? you gonna rid your region with troublesome people...cause that's genocide or murder. or you gonna lock them away somewhere? remember they have to go willingly, and it's going to suck getting rid of them without a government funded institution. what i find funny about the second paragraph is that your going to to have regulation of buisness...in a free market? the federal reserve banks in the US are privately owned but are federally regulated. seems either way your stuck with big brother looking over the shoulder.

i was thinking we'd deal with the troublesome very much the way we do now, by having men with guns come after them and exact compensation for their crimes. whether or not we had "prisons" is really not important.

obviously in a society with no government, other 'police forces' would be required. the difference is that these forces would be paid voluntarily and occupy themselves soley with protecting the rights of their clients, not violating them.

to replace courts and the law, arbiters enforced by the private police force would spring up.

most "criminal punishment" would be carried out in this fashion, through a system similar to tort law in today's society. sure, you can go 140 through a school zone but if you get caught, you get sued. it will bring about the return of the long lost concept of personal responsibility.

second, i have no interest in regulating any business. regulations are the #1 killer of the small market. think about it: after the enron scandal, new laws about using stock options as payments were passed. think about it, who does this hurt?

coca cola? ibm? microsoft? nope. these companies all have pockets so deep they can pay their executives higher salaries in lieu of stock options. however, small, mom and pop type organizations cannot. their only hope of attracting skilled management staff is to use stock options.

what about the fda? once again, bayer can afford to have it's cure for aids tested to fda standards. doug's drugs cannot. take the example of the two scientists who invented licotine, the most effective nicotine supplement to hit the market, ever. because they could not afford fda testing, the product was outlawed. watch for it to reappear in a few months with the brand of a major corporation on it.

corey - your spread sheet rocked my world. from now on i shall debate you using only flow charts and visual images to enhance my argument.


nielsen

My largest problem with your ideas is what do the people below poverty levels do? They wouldn't be able to attend school, get health care, etc. The world you describe would pretty well kill off the poverish, or force them to rebel, which is probably what would occur.

the, uhm, "poverish" would probably have to use the third option, and that is, get jobs. did you know there are countries in europe where welfare pays more then mcdonalds? that is a problem. a huge one.

and just because that isn't "your problem" doesn't mean that it's best for society as a whole. The classes will seperate and a revolution will occur because the low will want more power and they'll demand it. A perfect example is the French Revolution.

the french revolution was people revolting against "the man". everybody hates him, he's an asshole. in anarchy, we kill the man. he's dead. he can't bother anybody anymore. furthermore, as with nearly every revolution, ever, the french revolution was only able to succeed after the middle class got on board. the middle class loves capitalism. everybody does except for lazy people who believe they are owed something they didn't earn.

and actually, what's best for me is best for society as a whole. adam smith, baby, the indvidual does what's best for him, society is a bunch of individuals, therefore if everyone looks after themselves, we prosper.

freeloaders are a much bigger drain on "the system" then some kids who didn't get a tip top educations because their parents were too poor to send them to school, as unlikely as that may be.

[mosaik]

Ok, Corey, I'm doing my response to your long post now.

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.

I know that what you're saying about physical power is true. However, government and their laws are what gives people the ability to change my destiny without actually forcing me. I can fight a mugger off. I can run from him. But government is everywhere, I can't fight it or run from it.

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.

The man whose willing to pay more gets the property. That's not coercion, that's fair. The situation would be force if the individual who did not win the bid suddenly turned on the wealthier party with a gun and took the house.

If you convince me to buy a faulty product then i was tricked, not coerced. If you pointed a gun at my head and took $300 out of my pocket while offering Robot Insurance, that's force. Which is exaclty like the govenrment's unemployment insurance.

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

I'm not sure of your point here. the fact that the government steals from us is not what gives them the power to force me to obey their laws. money does not legitimize their regime.

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.

You didn't force me to live in the home. If I don't own the complex, for me to resist your right to bulldoze it would be force. It's your property. If you want to rent it to me, good. If you want to tear it down, then I will find a new home. If you charge a vicious service fee and I failed to read the fine print, it is my fault. It's not force. You didn't force me to not read the contract that i was signing, nor did you force me to invest in your bank.

If you take over peoples minds, that's coercion. But you didn't take over my mind with your money, you used a weapon to do it. Money itself can't force me to do anything.

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

I don't want to leave. I own the land. I just want to live on my 3 acres of dirt and not pay tax or obey laws. Do you think if I tried that, the government would allow it? *coughwacocough*

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.

I can do that at work, but as I have just explained, not with government.

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.

Now this I have a problem with. You are saying now that right and wrong really do depend on who has the most guns. Hitler was morally right. Rascism is morally right. That's what you're telling me, that these men are correct as long as they're part of the largest mob.

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

By consensus. However, again, i'm not forced to go to the movie my friends pick if i don't like it.

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...

Well what are you giving him today? Either you pay with your debit/credit card, in which case the vendor gets nothing, or you give him some paper. The stuff you trade isn't important, it's the value to the person you're trading with that matters.

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?

I'm not arguing that we don't have an impact on each others lives. I'm arguing that Einstein's existence didn't force the United States to drop the bomb.

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.

Correct. I am not a pacifist. I believe in the non-aggression principle, that is, that you do not iniate force. In the child porn example, the person who runs the porn factory has aggressed against the children and should be stopped. In the poision example, I'm agressing against a whole town of people.

Forcing your kids to go to school is not a moral action. If your son believes that he does not need school, he knows better then you what he needs. You can strongly reccommend he continue his education, but forcing him is wrong.

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.

But I have a rational basis for finding flaw with majority rule. Majority rule is irrational. It is irrational to suggest that once a person is not part of the largest mob, his rights no longer matter.

Force is irrational. Force renders the mind useless. Any action taken under force or the threat of force is a non-thinking action. The use of force is a non-thinking action. Human beings are seperate from the lower animals because of our ability to think and act rationally. When we use force, we aren't acting human.

[Johnny]

Once again, this is a nice intellectual conversation that you guys have goin here