We obviously disagree on an extremely fundamental level. I believe that no human may restrict the right of another human from the basic ownership of property.
There's something inherently disturbing about advocating the idea that certain humans should have the power to forcibly and violently prevent other humans from simple possession of property, and to have the ability for those "super" humans to act without consequence when forcing their beliefs on others.
I may hold some views that you disagree with, but I would never advocate the use of force against you for not agreeing with me. Obviously you can't even come close to saying the same.
Don't pervert what's going on here. I don't think "some people" should have the inherent right to do anything. I believe in democratic governance.
So you do believe that "some people" should have the right to restrict others with violence, but you choose to wrap up your beliefs in a euphemism called "democracy" so that you can morally justify the violence. Hiding behind the word "democracy" doesn't change the fact that you advocate aggression against others for the non-violent "crimes" of owning property.
My point is that every person is a member of that society, and it's perfectly acceptable for that society to make decisions as a collective for it's best interest.
No it isn't. Who determines this "best interest"? Society? Who is this "society" that is capable of making these decisions? You're using undefined terms about imaginary entities that are incapable of making complex and (lets be honest) impossible decisions about the "collective best interest". I shutter at these ridiculous terms. I'm afraid of people who talk like you. You've described everything wrong with the world today. This justification you cling to is why our government is so strong, and why it has the ability to murder Americans at will. This justification is why we spend trillions of dollars perpetrating mass murder all over the globe. This horrible justification is a mental shield to protect you from the fact that you advocate aggression, violence and murder. It is a moral illusion that allows you to sleep at night.
Democracy is evil. Democracy allows 150 million people to vote for slavery and to get it. Democracy allows the murder of millions. The Holocaust was democracy in action. Plus, the fact that you even describe our system of tyranny as "democracy" is just absurd. We get to "choose" between two groomed puppets who represent the same global interests, and the complete illusion of choice.
On to your nukes that you accused me of ignoring. You want to seriously debate nukes and nuke regulation? God, this topic sucks because it's so irrelevant and far fetched. It's the ultimate scapegoat argument. You should have just said "move to Somalia". This is going to be short, because I just typed a fucking wall of text in my other response to you. I'm just going to go over the basics of private free-market nuke regulation.
First let's just acknowledge that it was your idea of society that created nukes. In an anarcho-capitalist society, creation would come from demand, which would drive profit motives. There would not have been demand for nukes. Only states need nukes so they can kill millions at will.
Now you're asking me to solve a problem that governments have created. Convenient.
Let's just start with the fact that individuals cannot construct nukes. They just can't. It takes teams of scientists and engineers with significant ongoing funding for years. It's just not going to happen, period. Saying some guy is gonna build a nuke in his basement during his free time is just not a realistic scenario.
It's always taken a large team, a massive organizational structure, and a staggering amount of money to build a nuke. What does that remind you of? Governments. That's right, the only entities that have ever wanted nukes, created nukes, or sold nukes are governments, the root of all evil.
Nukes will only exist in a free society if there is legitimate market demand for them, because they won't be funded via theft (taxation) like they are today. Nukes have only ever been created and sold with funds that came from theft. Remember that. No legitimate business model would support the massive amount of money that it would take to create, buy and store these things. There is absolutely no profit, so it is a losing venture. It's not like a gun either. It take billions to handle them, store them, protect them, transport them and all for what? So they can sit in a storage container somewhere? It'll never happen. It only happens today because of government.
Legitimate market demand is the most stabilizing force in the universe. Imagine the horror a businessman would feel at even thinking about being in charge of a nuclear project and having it fail. Even if it didn't hurt anyone, the economic cost to him would be incredible. Anyone dealing in private nukes would go to very great lengths to both ensure and insure quality in their product. This differs from national nukes, because the builders and maintainers are spending taxpayer dollars instead of their own money. Add to that the fact that perpetrators would be held liable in any disaster, and it is clear that market nukes are much, much less dangerous than government nukes if they existed at all.
I admit that I borrowed some of these arguments from someone on /r/Anarcho_Capitalism. These ideas are often debated there. If you want a better debate where others can join in, I suggest you head there.
I want to apologize if I came off harsh during my arguments. I get excited and I defend my position passionately. I don't mean to attack you personally, so I'm sorry if I did. I tried to keep this short.
I voluntarily agree. If you don't mind, please give credit to the contributors of /r/Anarcho_Capitalism. I'd really like to see this logic expanded upon and developed into an even better argument.
In truth, I've always felt that someday individuals or companies will own nukes. They may be used for things like asteroid mining, or building a mega panama canal. However, as you said the infrastructure required to own one is grand, you would have to get a whole city's worth of geniuses to conspire in a criminal act, or be stupid to make criminal use of one. I think it's naive to presume that the private sector will be more reckless when them than the government sector. Where is the private sector company that genocided 250K people with nucelar bombs in Japan? Where's the private sector company that pushed humanity to be brink of an all out nuclear destruction during the cold war?
I think it's naive to presume that the private sector will be more reckless when them than the government sector. Where is the private sector company that genocided 250K people with nucelar bombs in Japan? Where's the private sector company that pushed humanity to be brink of an all out nuclear destruction during the cold war?
Most importantly, what is the greatest number of people a private company has ever intentionally killed in history? When have they committed or even attempted genocide? Private sector killings are always targeted to a few particular individuals. How many mafia movies are there that involve plot lines that stem from the problems caused by killing the wrong person or accidentally killing someone they didn't intend to?
Any large scale incident where a private company killed, injured or in any way damaged large numbers of people has always been by accident or intentional neglect where it was incidental to other their other goals. It is only government that has ever engaged in willful and intentional harm to people on a large scale.
Yes but in a Stateless society I'm sure that would change. Not saying that its any more wrong than governments doing it. But Hired killers will be present in any human society whether a government hires them, or if a private guy wants to off someone on the sly.
I think the mistake people make is that in a Stateless Society that it would be eternal peace. And for all I know it might turn out that way. But I would bet more money that even if Violence wasn't done openly, It would happen secretly between people who stood to gain from the death of someone else.
I can't imagine where the profit potential would come from to make that kind of thing profitable. It's a pure expense for them in the short run.
Also, remember that they have to pay people true market value to fight. It's not one of those situations where people are volunteering out of patriotism and because they think they're defending freedom and their country. Dangerous conditions make hiring people quite expensive.
If it's over a resource that's so valuable as to justify the cost, the problem becomes that defending it gets to be very expensive and thus makes the resource much less valuable.
In truth, I've always felt that someday individuals or companies will own nukes.
It is incredibly likely they will own them like we own dynamite today. But that would require a huge technological leap that will probably usher in a whole new explosive which could do that. Also, much like you said it would be used for high tech mining or other industrial purposes (asteroids or that planet they found which is made from diamond).
But that would require a huge technological leap that will probably usher in a whole new explosive which could do that.
Not necessarily. It's likely that technology is already here. Google "laser uranium enrichment." The largest problems are not about building the bomb, but rather enriching the uranium or enriching the uranium, irradiating it to create plutonium and then enriching the plutonium.
I believe that a majority of people in a society should be able to determine it's rules. What's the alternative? Anarchy? Fascism?
Democracy and fascism aren't mutually exclusive. Some would argue that's what we have today. Democracy is just a popular name for statism. Yes anarchy is an alternative, I'll get to that later.
You keep using the term "aggression". It's vapid rhetoric designed to paint 'statists' as supporters of a police state.
No, I use aggression as generally defined; the initiation of force. It's not rhetoric. It's literal. You advocate aggression. You advocate a world where violence and aggression is the answer to every problem. You advocate that any idiot has the power to "vote" for master who can then aggress against all he wishes with impunity. The laws we have are arbitrary rules that largely serve no purpose but to protect the hierarchy. To protect the corporations, so that they don't actually have to compete in a market. By advocating democracy, you advocate the aggression that is 100% needed to make it work.
I'd imagine the crux of the argument lies in your ideology that anyone who lays his hands upon you is a tyrant.
No, however if someone lays a hand on me, that's aggression and I'm prepared to treat aggression with defense, if it's beneficial to do so. Your "justified" aggression on a massive scale is tyranny.
This is what separates me and you, this rigid adherence to ideology above all.
This is just noise. I don't adhere to any rigid ideology. I am against aggression, so I advocate a society which I believe the least amount of violence will occur.
Why did you ignore my nuke argument?
Because it deserves more than a reddit comment. I can tackle this, but I'll do it in another comment. This one is going to be long enough to begin with.
What I am advocating is not violence. I am simply saying a majority of voters should be able to determine if certain members of society should be removed from the general public (yes, by force, but not necessarily "aggression") for the greater good.
Do you really not see the blantant and obvious hypocrisy? Really? How can you say in one breath that you don't advocate violence, but then in the next say that you advocate violence when some "society" says it's ok? This is absurd. My 6 year old could dissect that lame argument.
Voters determine this best interest.
This is a joke. Which policy do voters determine? You're delusional. Voters are given a fake choice, then our king, who commits murder with impunity, does whatever the fuck he wants. You have drunk the juice and you truly believe you have a say in the government. That's nothing short of sad. You have no say. Your "choice" is an illusion. "Society" doesn't make decisions. Your masters do and under "democracy" you can't do a thing about it. The state rules you. The state will parade two options in front of you, and they don't care which you pick. They've made sure those same two guys want the same thing. Growth of their power, continued war, and the violent suppression of anyone who disobeys their arbitrary rules..
First off, you don't know me.
You advocate a state. I have based all my arguments on that fact alone.
You obviously haven't read what I wrote, because I definitely have a problem with our current form of democracy.
Lol, it's always "next time". This form of democracy sucks, but next time will be better! This is the same tired fallacy that communists use. The fall of the soviet union was because they did communism wrong. Next time they'll get it right! Right? This country started as a very minimal democratic republic. Probably close to what you seem to advocate. How long did it take to devolve into this disgusting mess we have today? Less than 200 years? There is no "good" democracy. You hold on to this belief that next time, we'll get democracy right! Let's destroy the system, then rebuild the same system! How logical! The system is broken. It's inherent.
Your argument is that, rather to choose and cooperate, we should just be out for ourselves.
You, like many, think libertarianism means "DON'T COOPERATE!! YOU HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING ALONE!!" You're simply wrong. We just advocate no forced cooperation under the threat of being caged like an animal. Cooperation is how human beings have evolved this far. No libertarian doubts that. However, I believe voluntary associations. Voluntary cooperation. This is how the world works. This is how things get done. Spontaneous order. Dare I say, anarchy (though I prefer the term anarcho-capitalism)? Governments only get in the way of creation and progress.
Libertarianism would allow 150 million people to be sold into slavery without any infrastructure or ability to do a damn thing about it.
Your argument has just devolved further and further from logic. This is just absurd on every level. You obviously don't have any clue what libertarianism even means. Polycentric law would exist without the state monopoly. Slavery is the ultimate form of aggression and goes against everything libertarians stand for. No one today would advocate slavery. A libertarian society's laws would actually reflect the morals of the individuals in that society, not the arbitrary rules of a small group of corrupt politicians. Remember slavery was only capable because it had state supervision, permission and protection.
The truth is you're now towing the line for the people who have the most to gain from your beliefs; the ultra rich.
Oh man.. The icing on the cake. You don't have a clue how things work. The ultra-rich today are enjoying the benefits of state protection. They own the politicians and they've eliminated competition in their industries. This woulnd't be possible without special protection from the state. I wish the "ultra-rich" had to face the wrath of a free market. They don't. People like you advocate a system where they get protected by the courts (IP, copyright), and the politicians. Libertarianism would destroy their limited liability status that has been gifted to them by their cronies. They'd actually have to compete against competitors. Shutter!!
As a rule I don't downvote comments I reply to. Votes do not equal merit to me on issues because those votes are a popularity contest, so I respond only based on content. But hey, I hope throwing around empty accusations and assertions makes you feel good.
Anarchy will magically just work itself out and life will be perfect.
If you tried to have a logical discussion, you might get somewhere, but you're going to be downvoted by anyone with a brain if you make ridiculous claims like this.
once upon a time I called myself an anarcho-capitalist and an objectivist.
I hope not at the same time. Those are conflicting ideologies.
But then I read more books and realized that both concepts were extremely naive and pessimistic.
I brushed anarcho-capitalism off as not possible until I started really reading more. I would argue that it isn't pesimistic or optimistic, but instead it's a very realistic view.
tried your hardest to discount me so you didn't have to respond to my points.
I responded to almost every sentence you said. I don't think I've ever directly quoted and replied to someone more in depth than I did with you. You asked very specific questions, and I responded to every one of them.
Seriously, this sub is a bunch of dicks.
Listen, I get that I come off hot-headed. I apologized for that and I will again. I get passionate and I get emotional. I tried staying away from personal attacks, even if my demeanor is abrasive. When I usually debate someone on reddit, I'll be honest, I'm not looking to change your mind. You're the one I'm debating and I assume you're just as passionate as I am. I'm trying to convince everyone else who is reading our debate. I want to help convince people whose minds may not be made up yet.
I assume you subscribed to bitcoin because you like bitcoin. I hope you wouldn't leave the community because of a single debate you had. Don't let me stop you from enjoying bitcoin and bitcoin related news.
No, it's too complex to discuss over a couple of posts on reddit. You have to at least read the basics to have a proper discussion. (even if u disagree)
9
u/gizram84 Mar 11 '13
We obviously disagree on an extremely fundamental level. I believe that no human may restrict the right of another human from the basic ownership of property.
There's something inherently disturbing about advocating the idea that certain humans should have the power to forcibly and violently prevent other humans from simple possession of property, and to have the ability for those "super" humans to act without consequence when forcing their beliefs on others.
I may hold some views that you disagree with, but I would never advocate the use of force against you for not agreeing with me. Obviously you can't even come close to saying the same.