If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Because it isnt that free, compared to what I would advocate.
Thats because people are nannied by the government. They are used to it coming to their rescue. If you gave them a taste of true freedom without the kind of interfering, sclerotic state we have become to attached to theyd take it in a second.
The only system which is necessary is one between individuals who believe in liberty.
Would you classify the right not to be killed by an invader as a liberty?
In which case you must agree every war and conflict is wrong, including the countless ones initiated by your favourite nation.
Seeing as you keep wishing that Iran gets attacked, I don't think you treausre the liberty of the locals too much.
Also, seeing as taxes have nothing to do with liberty, I am glad that you think taxes are right, and a secondary aspect of life.
And there was me believing you thought taxes were so wrong...
Freedom from coercion.
Yes, I would.
You are simplifying things. Sadly, in the modern world we can seldom enact a foreign policy which fulfills our ideological desires.
Taxation is one of the greatest affronts to personal liberty.
I'd say a far more fitting description of liberty is the right to do as many class-A drugs as one wants without being aprehended and locked up in a jail against one's will, don't you think?
You can have invaders in a free society? Do tell me how.
Taxes are forced burdens and have no place in a voluntary world. Freedom starts with keeping your own money in your own pocket and not having grasping fuckwits waste it en masse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Read JS Mill - On Liberty, Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.
As long as you dont infringe on someone elses liberty.
Its a greater liberty to be free from nuclear attack than to build a nuke, surely?
Like I would touch that.
(As you prettym uch put when someone suggested you read Chomsky.)
And to above - Yeah, they were actually. And you just slagged off one of hte best perdiods for Music. It changed forever after the 60's. The 60's were an elightening period - people finally began to question right and wrong. Were the accepted views REALLY true?
Suit yourself. Go and read some comic books instead.
Cunningly ignoring what was after it, I see.
Double Standards, eh?
Negative liberty then. What about positive liberty?
Not a desirable goal.
Not possible without negative liberty first. Otherwise, you are endorsing force to get your own way, destroying liberty right at the start.
What has the state got to do with it?
No, negative liberty would mean there were a lot less rich and powerful people about. Think about it.
The loss of humanity that comes from any form of socialism is why I am more on the side of anarcho capitalism. (That and the fact that you can actually do things with that philosophy as opposed to setting fire to burger king and dressing like Swampy.)
I have thought about it. A lot. it would mean there are more rich and powerful people as all it would do is to consolidate their positions, remove any limits on trade. If you're so in favour of removing coercion, why do you not care about economic coercion?
Explain?
Which is, of course, a contradiction in terms.
Swampy was never an anarchist. All you're doing (again) is illustrating your ignorance of the subject.
How would you get someone to sign a contract with you for a pittance if they could refuse offers until they got a fair one?
Yes. It's the only one that counts. Without a state to enforce one set of opinion's over another, what would happen?
You can be as "rich" as you want but you have to play fair or you aren't getting fed by everyone else. Freedom to contract, freedom not to contract.
#
Nah, there would need to be some changes to the money supply to make profit much more difficult i.e. banishing usury, return to gold standards and so on.
Never said he was. Just that I don't want to dress like him.
As long as some people have to sell their labour to survive and others control that labour and the resources (i.e. capitalism), economic coercion will exist. All of your guff about contracts is just that - guff. Your refusal to go start from first principles is where you go wrong.
I don't know any anarchists who do.
Missed a bit here - for less than they are worth.
Have you read Spooner? Under anarcho-capitalism you couldn't employ anyone, you could only take on more, equal partners in the venture. And, fail or succeed, those partners would be fully, equally responsible for the whole thing.
I think the type of institution you work in is pretty close to a first principle, don't you? The nature of the relationship from the outset is where the rubber hits the road.
Because capitaism is run by and for the banks, no one else. They trade worthless paper for everyone elses efforts because they bought the country a long time ago. If they had to trade with real stuff they would have to behave responsibly.
Yes, OK. But selling labour at worth would remove accumulation of profit from the equation.
Leaving aside the fact that "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction in terms, you're ignoring the real world. In a world where resources are controlled on the basis of private property, coercion will always come into it.
More gibberish.
And that is the problem with politics. Anarchists, communists, socialists, democrats, republicans, etc. cannot agree with each other. They all believe that their way is right. And that is why, although I vote, I will always go with what I dislike least, rather than what I like most. And I don't plan to become part of a political philosophy.
I choose to be an atheist for pretty much the same reasons. Even that can be made into a doctrine where you believe your way is right. (Btw, some atheists do believe in the supernatural, they just abstain from believing in a God)
If no-one can agree then how can all these things mean anything? The only decision one can make is what one sees fit, which is what happens anyway. That's the cause of conflict, from a petty squabble to a world war.
Until everyone can agree on everything there will always be conflict. But then I could be wrong? :chin:
so ...part of the human condition is conflict.
we need to learn how to deal with that conflict.
Nah, doesn't. Every year we make more and more stuff. Profit could come from the growth in our turning the land, trees etc into useful stuff.
You don't understand what ownership is then.
All modern banking is fraud. you must know this, surely to god? It amazes me that you never seem to ask how things operate, only why and what.
Errr...that's not what profit means. That's utility.
No, its you that doesn't understand the terms being used 'cos you don't bother to educate yourself in this stuff. You just think you can use your own terms and expect everyone else to know what they mean.
You're crazy. You have everything back to front.
No, it's you who accepts definitions of others and then assembles the little packages of other people's thoughts to save the effort of doing any yourself.
On ownership - ownership isn't something you do, it's something everyone else doesn't.
No, i have everything the right way around. let's take your "all property" relies on force rubbish. Yes, you might need some people to occasionally use force to maintain property rules. Do you get those people to obey you through force yourself? No of course not, you persuade them. Which is why I begin with language because it's how everything is done.
You jump right to force, inequity, exploitation etc, which as true as people think it is can't be understood let alone got rid of without taking the first step.
You're not making any sense.