I just watched Princess Mononoke - great film for thinking about this stuff. One takeaway- force multipliers(like guns) require specialization. You don't get steel without society.
I don't know what you mean by force multipliers, nor how society or specialization require government, whatever you mean by those terms.
So like trains - what needs to exist societally to turn iron ore into a functioning train system? How much cheaper is it to transport goods via rail than carrying it on foot to market?
What does this have to do with a voluntary society vs an involuntary society?
That's why pay tribute to Caesar - YOU USED HIS SYSTEM OF COMMERCE TO MAKE THAT MONEY IN THE FIRST PLACE <---- Make your money outside that system, then you can say taxation is theft.
What do you mean by "his system of commerce"?
Do you create the money system you use every day? Didi you build the highways and the rails? Why do you think you get to use them for free?
Why do you think that stealing money (taxation) is how things are built in a sustainable fashion, supposing that this is what you think?
Not taxation =/= free.
Some taxes are theft for sure, that's an inevitability of having any centralized power structure. That doesn't mean the alternative is going to be any more efficient.
You have no evidence that privatized everything is more efficient. Hong Kong was a great example of good balance between public and private. Sorry but cities need utilities and police.
You mean that cities need utilities and defense?
I'm not against that. I'm only against systematically involuntary interactions, which the police are based upon, per funded with taxes.
Could you link me to what you're talking about in regard to Hong Kong?
Do you think I'm against cities having utilities? I advocate for utilities being funded voluntarily.
I think you'll hit a point where there's too many takers and the people actually paying will start feeling like they're being taken for a ride. You know, like socialism.
Too many takers of what? Utilities?
This is what I don't get about the ancap belief system. Does a completely unregulated market suddenly turn people into altruists who just let you use their infrastructure for free??
What do you mean by "unregulated market"?
The market, when free (no gov interference), is regulated by customers.
Do shitty stuff, go bankrupt, or be unable to buy stuff. Deadly.
I suppose you also believe in the tooth fairy and santa clause? Have you ever observed this thing that you think exists in the real world?
I myself? In general, no, I have not witnessed a free market where there is no government interference.
I find that question curious. Does an answer of "no" imply impossibility? Why?
This is how ancap is essentially the same as socialism, just with the words replaced. They hate "capitalists" you hate "governments" 😩😩😩😩 ITS THE SAME FREAKING PEOPLE😑
With the way people talk about capitalists and what they mean, you're quite right.
Capitalists, in common colloquial, means corporatists. Welcome to our current Orwellian reality :)
You have to go back to the 19th century. To see something close to a libertarian state.
Perhaps you could be more specific than that?
This is exactly how ancap belief is like socialism - "true free market has never been tried!" lol. Have you not considered that the biggest winners in the market BECOME the government?
Yes. My lack of witnessing a "true free market" means one has never existed?
I answered your question directly; did you not turn it into a generalization about all human societies?
Here's a fairly simple question you'll probably have no idea how to answer - If a truly free market has ever existed, why does it no longer exist?
Murder, democide, genocide, and so forth, is my guess.
Also, you're being very condescending and I don't like that.
But hey - you already know how you're going to dismiss me, right?
You're not actually coming up with any cogent arguments. You're dismissing yourself. Try thinking ahead?
Question: which came first, the murder & genocide, or the government?
I wasn't aware that directly answering your question was supposed to be an argument.
I don't know. Do you? Based on what?
Simple logical deduction.
You say the government is bad because they do *X*.
SO - to eliminate *X* simply eliminate the government!
But *X* obviously exists in spite of government.
A monopoly on force exists without government?
Go read Lord of The Flies. I'll wait.
Read it years ago. Nice dodge.
But yeah, let's just say that you've won this because responding to you is incredibly annoying.
You win. Rejoice. Bye.
Not a dodge, that book is famous because it's TRUE. The last ancap I tried to reason with stormed off in a triggered fit too. Just like a socialist. All emotion, zero logic.
You call what I'm doing storming off?
Geez. Enjoy your strange world.
This isn't worth my time.
It's absolutely a generalization about human societies. Like I said earlier, we're talking about human nature here. Ancaps don't understand basic human nature, just like socialists.
And how do you know you're generalization of human societies is accurate?
How do you know you understand human nature?
Republican democracy is the only defense against whales. What do you think the 1st and 2nd amendment are for? Shakespeare and hunting? NO - they're for when a whale gets in to office!
"Republican democracy is the only defense against whales."
Based on what?
Historically you get people who win big in some revolution(e.g. The industrial revolution etc.) in crypto we call them "whales". They're the real monopoly on force.
That's very vague. I'm not even sure what you're saying.
But hey, you know stuff better than I do.
Shan't I just blindly take your word on it?
You're quite the authority, huh?
Sometimes being concise in Twitter format harms coherency of information:
*Yes, I have considered that.
No, I don't, though I do believe in the spirit of the christmas holiday, and am quite appreciative to see the opposite effects from corporatism. It shows the possibilities to me.
Huh. Friedman thinks there's a proper role of gov.
Unsurprisingly, that "freedom" is slowly eroding with inevitably more and increasing gov involvement: systematically involuntary.
You're either ruled by an elected government or by a mafia. One you have some semblance of choice, the other you have no choice but to submit or join. Perpetual power vacuum is a myth.
Just to clarify here, you want no enforcement whatsoever. No regulation, no government, no police, no judges, no mayors or city councils, etc etc.. Is this correct?
What do you mean by "no enforcement whatsoever"? I'm in favor of enforcement by the customer, for instance.
I'm not in favor of enforcement by a monopoly on force that steals to exist.
It's not a monopoly on force if it's given to them via fair and free elections. The alternative is being ruled by a mafia. I believe the neither realm you desire can not exist.
It's not a monopoly on force if the money taken from me without my consent is given via elections?
How is that free or fair? How is the other alternative being ruled by a mafia?
I can't tell if you're a troll or just completely delusional. There's plenty of countries you can move to that have anarchy. Try Somalia! Great weather I hear.
How do you define anarchy?
The power vacuum that exists temporarily after an established authority is suddenly taken out. Maybe Somalia is a theocratic dictatorship now? Hard to tell at any given moment I guess.
Sounds like these little towns instantly established governments! Great argument for why you need one! Protects you from the tyranny of an unelected foreign super state. Perfect.
*le sigh* Mkay. Have a good day.
How do you differentiate between someone who is writing for just emotional reaction (troll) vs someone who believes what they think (according to you, delusional, here)?
What do you think it's either rule by elected government or by mafia?
"You have no evidence that privatized everything is more efficient."
We just start the discussion and you head in with that I have no evidence? Jumping the gun much?
It's not a question of sustainability(good job busting out the socialist rhetoric btw), it's that you've able to amass wealth partially due to society existing before you.
The idea of sustainability is socialist rhetoric? How? Socialism is unsustainable.
How does amassing wealth based on previously-existant society validate theft?
Illustrate to me how the money you pay to a local, elected authority to build and maintain roads and sewers, pay police and fire fighters etc. is theft? If you don't like it, move!
When those things are maintained by taxation, which is involuntary.
If I were paying them and could stop, then you'd be right - it wouldn't be theft.
All taxes are theft. Theft for sustainability is nonsense bullshit.
I need to be able to trade widgets for potatoes or socks, even if the farmer or seamstress don't need widgets. Money is the greatest force multiplier cuz it allows specialization.
I'm not against money.
I'm against fiat.
What is money?
Money is that which is "fungible, portable, durable, and divisible", as Mike Maloney has said, which is why he advises buying gold. I think BCH is better.
I think this is a bad definition though - things that have those characteristics can *become* money. But that doesn't tell me what money *is*.
Ok. Money is what people trade their energy and time in to get stuff.
Does USD work for this purpose? Does gold? Bitcoin?
BCH yes. BTC no.
Ok I'll race you. Go buy a banana with BCH, I'll buy one with Japanese Yen - Winner is using the superior money(at least in the short term). I'll go when you say go.
You want to just talk about short term?
No game. I'm here for sustainability.
Short-term, yes. It eventually won't.
To a limited degree.
BTC or BCH?
Gold isn't portable or divisible. Dollars aren't especially durable and are becoming less fungible. I think portability and divisibility is more important. You can always convert out.
Well, you can't use memo unless you do.
You need ppl in a society to specialize into certain professions or you'll never have enough scale to produce steel - but that doesn't happen without a functioning money system.
Are you saying that the only kind of functioning money system, is a fiat one?
gun vs. sword = women can defend home
asphalt vs. dirt road = shipping is faster and cheaper
trains vs. dirt road = same
telephone vs. carrier pigeon(?) = you get the point
