Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Brian Blackwell]

We deny ceding any function of power (authority) because it is impossible to do so, and to pretend otherwise is immoral. Unalienable rights means they cannot be removed from the being, even by their own consent. This is key.

In addition, we don't even have the power we delegate to representatives ourselves (the right to tax, the right to make law which others must obey under threat of violence), so delegation of such power is impossible; demonstrably invalid.

That's a pretty narrow view of sanctity of individual rights. We enter in contracts and agreements ALL the time. Some of them are VOLUNTARILY pretty restrictive. Like marriage for instance, or taking on business partners. As long as it's limited, succinctly put on paper, and VOLUNTARY -- it's part of social interaction.

It's NOT impossible to cede some power. You need to do that for mutual defense. For medical advice. For delegating others to handle your affairs. Sorry man -- but even hard core anarchists cede rights if they want to survive.

And then there's the fact that ALL authority is definitively immoral. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. Authority is only needed to do what he does not have a right to do, and things we do not have a right to do are called "wrongs".

Use of FORCE by authority when it becomes a primary tool is wrong. It's not immoral to cede authority to a surgeon. You sign your literal life AWAY to that person. Your family has recourse to recover damages if the team screw up --- but there WOULDN'T BE surgical teams if they couldn't ask the patients to "cede authority" to them.

I think what Anarchists need is a couple 600 page romantic novels about the BEAUTY and RIGHTEOUSNESS of anarchy to play out how this really works. You folks need an Ayn Rand who was a VICTIM of abuse of ceded power to WRITE how stuff REALLY WORKS. Not just make blanket statements about how any societal organization arrangements are immoral.

Do you have ONE person who has written a fictional validation of Anarchy? Anything LIKE "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountain Head"?? No you don't. And there's a good reason for that. Anarchy is NOT a natural state for society..

Fictional validation... an interesting term. I think you've found a new synonym for authority.

"Anarchy is not a natural state for society"... What does this mean? That the natural state for mankind is slavery? Anarchy means "no rulers" (i.e. no masters, and thus no slaves). And how would having a book about it validate anything?

The term "authority" is being misunderstood. A person does not cede rights to a surgeon or grant him authority. He employs a surgeon to perform a service. To grant the surgeon authority would be to allow him to perform surgery at his own discretion, regardless of the patient's expressed consent in each instance.

Marriage (as an agreement between two people) is a contract where one agrees to refrain from expressing the individual right to screw other people. They do not give up that right. Adultery does not become punishable by violence. Except of course, in the government version, which is invalid because it makes that liberty punishable via divorce settlements. Plus it's pretty gross to get government involved in your relationship. i wish I knew this before I got married.

Unalienable rights is not a "view", narrow or otherwise. It is a description of reality. It is wholly outside your power to make immoral actions moral, even by your consent.

Use of force does not "become" a primary tool of authority, it IS the primary tool. In fact, it's the only tool. Without it, there is no authority. What would it mean to say, "Hey! Don't do that! I'm not going to do anything about it if you do, but ya know... you better not!" That is not authority. That is suggestion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This conversation has been nothing but speculation?! Only in your own mind, because the speculation is all you care about. You want a guarantee that things will be better under anarchy. You want answers to all your questions about how things will work. You want your fears abated. Your acceptance of the information being offered hinges on that emotional need.

A free society has never come about via the widespread evolution in consciousness being suggested here, and so I offer this quote (from a very unusual source):

"When one is asked to speculate on the unknown, one should not anticipate pragmatic answers." - Dr. Demitrius, Blood Beach (1981)

But this thread has not been mere speculation, there has been logical presented to you time and time again as to why governmental authority is invalid, immoral, and ineffective (or better said, counter-productive), but you do not answer for these arguments. Let's try to focus on that now. If you would, please address the following points directly and succinctly:

I do not want a guarantee, I want you to understand what it is that you are putting forth. It is not fact, it is not reality, it is mere speculation supported by logical arguments. Lot's of people have logical arguments for all sorts of things. There are some great logical arguments for the existence of a superior entity, but that does not make true.

Using logic to speculate does not remove the fact it is speculation. Right now I could give you 50 logical reasons why the Cubs will win the World Series this year, but until such time as the World Series is over, or the Cubs are removed from contention it is still speculation.

You can give me 100 points of logic of what will happen when the chains of government are totally removed from mankind, but until such time as it happens, it will always be speculation. So, yes this entire conversation is speculating what would happen if the chains of government were suddenly removed from mankind.

So, can we at least agree that the whole exercise is just speculation supported by logical arguments?

1. Authority exists for no other purpose than to grant license for immoral action. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. He only needs authority to do what he does not have a right to do, i.e. things that are wrong.

How is it determined what one has a "right to do"? You claim a right to own land, to claim it as your own and then claim people do not have the right to come and take it from you. Where does this right come from other than the human mind? You claim it is yours due to you working it and building a house on it. And you also speak of natural laws, well in nature there is no right of ownership of land. If a bear claims land as its territory and makes a nice comfy den on that land, there is nothing to keep a bigger, badder bear from coming by and taking that land for itself.

So I would ask, what authority you appeal to in support of things you claim are your "rights"?

2. If a person does not have a right to do something, he cannot validly delegate that right to someone else. Individuals do not have the right to lay claim to the labor of others under threat of violence (taxation), or to make law which others must obey. Therefore, they cannot validly delegate these rights to government.

Why does someone not have the right to lay claim to the labor of others under threat of violence? What authority says they do not have that right?

3. If humanity is deemed to be immoral, such that government is required to keep them in line, how can clothing some from among that immoral throng in immense power do anything but magnify the problem? Where is more morality injected into the system via this method?

Let's deal with those before moving on.

I am not saying it is more "moral", I am saying it is the best system mankind has found so far. Mankind started under your proposed system and for whatever reason found it lacking and replace anarchy with government.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

[care to elaborate?

It's really what we've been saying with regard to morals. My strongest argument goes back to comparing societies' morals. If you think that one society's morals are superior to another's, then morals are absolute and it all comes down to our understanding of them. The only way you can deny that morals aren't absolute is if you agree that society's morals aren't better or worse than others. It's as simple as that.

Edit to add: i think you could frame it within "ethics" as well. I think the word morals and ethics are being used interchangeably here though.

Things that are absolute can never change, yet morals are in a constant state of flux.

 

[Some Guy]

Things that are absolute can never change, yet morals are in a constant state of flux.

I think i might have been mis-speaking in how i'm referring to this according to the definition of the word "moral." Societies don't have a set of morals, they have a set of values by which they operate, and those values are either moral or immoral (or somewhere in between). So, my apologies for how i was conveying the message but the message is still the same.

What's in flux are those values, and values are either informed by or disregarding of morality. The definition of "value" in this context from Merriam Webster is: something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable. So, a given society may say that "killing Jews is valuable because they're subhuman and so on and so forth." That society may deem that valuable, but it doesn't make it moral, which the definition of "moral" is: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. Is killing someone solely based on their religion a "principle of right behavior?" Absolutely not.

What's not in flux is what absolute morality is. Humans' ability to discover, interpret and live by true/absolute morality is definitely what's in flux. Where i agree with you is that Anarchy won't be truly sustainable societal model until humans can both identify absolute morality and subsequently live by it in vast, vast majorities. That very well may never happen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You're citing the lack of self-responsibility in our culture, but mistaking its source as human nature, rather than the infantilization of the people that results from (and is purposefully encouraged) by authority. Conditions matter. They effect the expression of human nature.

Are we this way because of the chains of government or did we create government because we are this way by nature? Keeping in mind that once there was no government and now there is, so it was developed for a reason.

We see in disasters how people rise up to meet the challenges facing themselves and their neighbors. We see billions in charity dollars every year, despite government (and all the money it leeches out of the system). Human nature shines through the cracks.

We do see that, and we also see people looting stores during those same times, we see con artist converge on these areas and take advantage of people when they are at their most vulnerable. And then we see most people doing neither of these things.

That is human nature in a nutshell, some are good, some are evil and some are in the middle. That will never change and it is why utopias will never exist.

People will always be primarily focused on taking care of themselves and their family, but this does not obviate their participation in the challenges of the larger society. Right now they support government because they believe that is all that's required.

I say they do it because it is the easiest and requires the least amount of effort on their part. Instead of a neighborhood fire brigade we pay people to keep us safe from fires. Instead of each household having its own private security firm we hire police. We pay people to mow our lawns and wash our cars and even clean our homes. We do all these things (those that can afford to) because they make our life easier.

But go tell the ancient Native Americans that they have no need for weapons, or to defend themselves and their community. That their needs are someone else's responsibility. It's laughable outside of this artificial environment.

I have never said we have no need for weapons, I have a nice collection of guns, knives and swords from around the world.

This is an indoctrinated idea. In the absence of this mind control, people will return to being actual human beings. I have seen the effect this understanding has had on me personally, and I am hardly the most courageous and energetic among us; but I am absolutely prepared to do what is required to protect freedom and help my community in a free environment. Freedom enlivens the spirit, and it has a way of drawing people together in cooperation; as is seen anytime people wind up in situations where they realize that no helps is coming, and it's up to them to git 'er done.

This sounds wonderful, but is mostly a pipe dream, in my opinion.

 

[Oddball]

What's not in flux is what absolute morality is. Humans' ability to discover, interpret and live by true/absolute morality is definitely what's in flux. Where i agree with you is that Anarchy won't be truly sustainable societal model until humans can both identify absolute morality and subsequently live by it in vast, vast majorities. That very well may never happen.

Being able to sort out the moral from immoral would happen in a society where the vicissitudes for immorality were swift and efficient...The free marketplace is the only system devised there this occurs most often...Though imperfect as anything else (perfection cannot ever be an option), it has elevated mankind more quickly and equitably than any other paradigm.

 

[Some Guy]

Being able to sort out the moral from immoral would happen in a society where the vicissitudes for immorality were swift and efficient...The free marketplace is the only system devised there this occurs most often...Though imperfect as anything else (perfection cannot ever be an option), it has elevated mankind more quickly and equitably than any other paradigm.

I think what you meant to say was "Though imperfect like anything else." Socialism is vastly more imperfect than capitalism.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

This conversation has been nothing but speculation?! Only in your own mind, because the speculation is all you care about. You want a guarantee that things will be better under anarchy. You want answers to all your questions about how things will work. You want your fears abated. Your acceptance of the information being offered hinges on that emotional need.

A free society has never come about via the widespread evolution in consciousness being suggested here, and so I offer this quote (from a very unusual source):

"When one is asked to speculate on the unknown, one should not anticipate pragmatic answers." - Dr. Demitrius, Blood Beach (1981)

But this thread has not been mere speculation, there has been logical presented to you time and time again as to why governmental authority is invalid, immoral, and ineffective (or better said, counter-productive), but you do not answer for these arguments. Let's try to focus on that now. If you would, please address the following points directly and succinctly:

I do not want a guarantee, I want you to understand what it is that you are putting forth. It is not fact, it is not reality, it is mere speculation supported by logical arguments. Lot's of people have logical arguments for all sorts of things. There are some great logical arguments for the existence of a superior entity, but that does not make true.

Using logic to speculate does not remove the fact it is speculation. Right now I could give you 50 logical reasons why the Cubs will win the World Series this year, but until such time as the World Series is over, or the Cubs are removed from contention it is still speculation.

You can give me 100 points of logic of what will happen when the chains of government are totally removed from mankind, but until such time as it happens, it will always be speculation. So, yes this entire conversation is speculating what would happen if the chains of government were suddenly removed from mankind.

So, can we at least agree that the whole exercise is just speculation supported by logical arguments?

1. Authority exists for no other purpose than to grant license for immoral action. A person does not need authority to do what he already has a right to do. He only needs authority to do what he does not have a right to do, i.e. things that are wrong.

How is it determined what one has a "right to do"? You claim a right to own land, to claim it as your own and then claim people do not have the right to come and take it from you. Where does this right come from other than the human mind? You claim it is yours due to you working it and building a house on it. And you also speak of natural laws, well in nature there is no right of ownership of land. If a bear claims land as its territory and makes a nice comfy den on that land, there is nothing to keep a bigger, badder bear from coming by and taking that land for itself.

So I would ask, what authority you appeal to in support of things you claim are your "rights"?

2. If a person does not have a right to do something, he cannot validly delegate that right to someone else. Individuals do not have the right to lay claim to the labor of others under threat of violence (taxation), or to make law which others must obey. Therefore, they cannot validly delegate these rights to government.

Why does someone not have the right to lay claim to the labor of others under threat of violence? What authority says they do not have that right?

3. If humanity is deemed to be immoral, such that government is required to keep them in line, how can clothing some from among that immoral throng in immense power do anything but magnify the problem? Where is more morality injected into the system via this method?

Let's deal with those before moving on.

I am not saying it is more "moral", I am saying it is the best system mankind has found so far. Mankind started under your proposed system and for whatever reason found it lacking and replace anarchy with government.

I agree that all discussion about what would happen in a free society is speculation. As such, It's also a divergence from the main issue here, but you seem to want to discuss the topic, and you know me - good Smeagol, always helping. The real issue here, however, is that valid authority does not exist, and therefore to support a violent institution based upon this invalid premise is both immoral and insane.

And so you ask me to cite the origin of morals to justify this claim. I have cited natural law - extant cause-and-effect reality - though you do not accept it. I've offered one method of beginning to verify this for yourself (contemplation of the chain of immorality), but it would be very complex to delve into the various interrelated elements that comprise a thorough understanding of this topic here. The founding fathers discuss it, many ancient wisdom traditions describe it, and even psychology has something to say on the matter. Mark Passio's Natural Law seminar is probably the most comprehensive exploration of the topic in a readily accessible format, which I will link at the bottom of this post.

Luckily your acceptance of natural law is not necessary for the purposes of this argument. You appear to have some sense of morality, and whatever its basis, it will serve perfectly to prove the ultimate point I've been trying to make...

Governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding YOUR behavior. If you accept the validity of this claim, then you are obliged to obey under any and all circumstances - even where it conflicts with your own moral standards. Is there any instance where you would place your own judgement above your government's law? If so, then you do not recognize its claim to authority as valid.

If you believe you have the right to decide when to obey - to pick and choose - then it is not authority, just a suggestion. And if you don't even recognize their authority as valid, what right do you have to support government as an authority over anyone else? To do so is to suggest that you have a right to decide when to obey, but everyone else doesn't. It's an assertion of an inequality of rights; in which case you must prove a basis for this distinction between you and the other 325 million people who you are subjecting to an invalid governmental authority by your support.

 

[kaz]

His security agency just told your security agency to go fuck themselves. What is going to compel them to drop him? He pays triple their going rates. You mean you'd have government force them to drop him? Oh, wait ...

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding YOUR behavior. If you accept the validity of this claim, then you are obliged to obey under any and all circumstances - even where it conflicts with your own moral standards. Is there any instance where you would place your own judgement above your government's law? If so, then you do not recognize its claim to authority as valid.

I disagree with the premise that governmental authority claims to be the primary obligatory authority guiding MY behavior. It is not the government that keeps me from robbing a bank or killing my neighbor. Those are things I would not do regardless of the government.

If you believe you have the right to decide when to obey - to pick and choose - then it is not authority, just a suggestion.

I reject this premise as well. I do not know if you are a parent or not, but as a parent I have authority over my children (while they were children), but they did pick and choose and often faced the consequences of those choices. Does this mean that a parent has no authority?

I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, I had people in authority over me and I was in authority over other people. Never once was that authority absolute either direction. If I was given an order that I felt was unlawful it was my duty to ignore it (and it did happen) just as if I gave an order that was deemed unlawful then it was to be ignored.

If authority has to be absolute to be authority, then there will never be such a thing as we are not robots but humans with free will. Even in your utopia there would be no authority, which is what I said anarchy was and I was told that was incorrect.

And if you don't even recognize their authority as valid, what right do you have to support government as an authority over anyone else? To do so is to suggest that you have a right to decide when to obey, but everyone else doesn't. It's an assertion of an inequality of rights; in which case you must prove a basis for this distinction between you and the other 325 million people who you are subjecting to an invalid governmental authority by your support.

I recognize their authority as valid, but not absolute. Nobody will ever had absolute authority over me, but me. NO matter what system is in place.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

With this view it would be wrong to say that slave owners were immoral as their reasoning, empathy and compassion told them it was ok to own another human.

Agreed, but the best ethic standards emerge and society changes in response. It will be constantly changing, hopefully for the better.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I would like to take a change of pace here and ask a few questions, I hope the anarchist will indulge me.

Let's say that tomorrow you all convinced the county that government was indeed evil and we got rid of it...

First and foremost, what will be different for me and the average Joe like me?

Taxes will be gone so that is a plus, but then I will have to pay for fire protection, security forces to replace the police, for the roads I drive on and many more things. So I am not sure I will have any more money in the end, I will just have to be paying it to a dozen different places instead of just one.

Will there be any authority and if so what will it look like? Will there be rules and if so how will they be chosen and enforced?

It was said that government is the biggest intrusion on freedom, so I started to think about the things that impede my freedom the most.

Two things are tied for first as far as I can tell, my job and my children, though the latter is getting better as one is out of the house and the other is getting closer.

In exchange for money being put in my bank every other week, I give up the freedom to choose where to be for at least 8 hours a day, what to wear and what to spend my time doing. I do this at least 5 days out of 7. It is hard to impede my freedom much more than that.

But kids, now those little buggers are even worse. When they are young they suck away your freedom 24/7, well except for the time you are at work giving your freedom to something else. I do not have freedom of what to spend my money on as they have needs that much be met, from a moral standpoint at a bare minimum. I have a son who is a Type-1 diabetic, this is a crappy disease, but it is also an expensive one. From insulin (the 3rd most expensive liquid in the world) to test strips, meters, insulin pumps, CGMs and more.

Now, do not get me wrong, I like my job and I love my children and give them more than is required by mere morality, but both are huge sucks on one freedom.

Can one of you explain how the government in this country is worse for my freedom that those two things?

 

[bripat9643]

I just told you, they are not going to make war on another security agency. The cost would be astronomical. They will drop him because they can't afford to comply with his demands. If they refuse to comply with the arbitrator's decision, they open themselves up to a host of unpleasant responses from the arbitrator and other security agencies.

Of course, all this has already been explained. You're just playing stupid like you can't read or something.

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

 

[kaz]

Actually, your neighbor's security agency works for people who are complete asses and like to intimidate people and are willing to pay for it. They invest in guns and training and are ready to defend his property. The part that used to be yours.

Your security agency calls you and tells you that isn't what they signed up for. They try to negotiate with reasonable people and they are willing to put some pressure on others, but they aren't going to war to get your land back. See you. They'll refund your premium since they couldn't work it out for you.

So what do you do now? Concede a the chunk of your property to your neighbor?

BTW, he just tore down his fence and is building a new one. He took over your back yard. He's building a tree house and a garden.

So what do you do now?

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

And they don't give a shit what other security firms think. They care what their customers think. Your view that companies wouldn't try to differentiate themselves to serve a market segment is wow ... massively stupid. And even more naive.

So are you moving out in 24 hours? You got the notice. Or are they going to kill you and your family?

 

[Oddball]

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

 

[bripat9643]

I would like to take a change of pace here and ask a few questions, I hope the anarchist will indulge me.

Let's say that tomorrow you all convinced the county that government was indeed evil and we got rid of it...

First and foremost, what will be different for me and the average Joe like me?

Taxes will be gone so that is a plus, but then I will have to pay for fire protection, security forces to replace the police, for the roads I drive on and many more things. So I am not sure I will have any more money in the end, I will just have to be paying it to a dozen different places instead of just one.

Will there be any authority and if so what will it look like? Will there be rules and if so how will they be chosen and enforced?

It was said that government is the biggest intrusion on freedom, so I started to think about the things that impede my freedom the most.

Two things are tied for first as far as I can tell, my job and my children, though the latter is getting better as one is out of the house and the other is getting closer.

In exchange for money being put in my bank every other week, I give up the freedom to choose where to be for at least 8 hours a day, what to wear and what to spend my time doing. I do this at least 5 days out of 7. It is hard to impede my freedom much more than that.

But kids, now those little buggers are even worse. When they are young they suck away your freedom 24/7, well except for the time you are at work giving your freedom to something else. I do not have freedom of what to spend my money on as they have needs that much be met, from a moral standpoint at a bare minimum. I have a son who is a Type-1 diabetic, this is a crappy disease, but it is also an expensive one. From insulin (the 3rd most expensive liquid in the world) to test strips, meters, insulin pumps, CGMs and more.

Now, do not get me wrong, I like my job and I love my children and give them more than is required by mere morality, but both are huge sucks on one freedom.

Can one of you explain how the government in this country is worse for my freedom that those two things?

Freedom doesn't mean freedom from the laws of nature. Food doesn't appear from nothing by magic. Someone has to grow it, harvest it and send it to market. The same goes for clothes, housing, medical care and everything else you consume. That means humans have to work.

Freedom refers to being constrained by other humans, not the laws of nature. If you were genuinely a libertarian, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

 

[kaz]

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

View attachment 191631

From an anarchist. Now that's funny.

Tell me again how I microaggressed you by disagreeing with your opinion.

Clearly why your arguments are consistently based on cartoons ...

 

[bripat9643]

Now whose indulging in fantasy. Do you know of any business that sacrifices profits for the sake of petty motives?

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

And they don't give a shit what other security firms think. They care what their customers think. Your view that companies wouldn't try to differentiate themselves to serve a market segment is wow ... massively stupid. And even more naive.

So are you moving out in 24 hours? You got the notice. Or are they going to kill you and your family?

A company is going to differentiate itself by preying on the customers of other security agencies? Really? And you believe those other agencies wouldn't feel threatened by such a business model?

Talk about being massively stupid and even more naive

 

[bripat9643]

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

View attachment 191631

From an anarchist. Now that's funny.

Tell me again how I microaggressed you by disagreeing with your opinion.

Clearly why your arguments are consistently based on cartoons ...

Your arguments are cartoonish. That's why his graphic stings so much.

 

[kaz]

Try reading what I said again since you failed the first time

I've read it five times, and it's still just as stupid.

Seriously? I'll color code it for you since there's no way to use crayons for you on the internet. You didn't get that? Seriously?

So since you were screwing around arguing gee I don't get it like a leftist, your other neighbor seeing their results hired them and took the other side of your yard and the front yard. You're down to your house and driveway. That is until the mail came. The first neighbor's security company has notified you that you build your house in your neighbor's yard and you have 24 hours to vacate it or they are going to remove you.

So what are you going to do now?

You're going to argue like a leftist again? Gee, I don't get it and gee, that wouldn't happen. Feel behind your ears, it's actually wet, isn't it? There's no money in being belligerent? Wow.

Bripat: No one would do that, it would be mean

Welcome to the real world ...

Willing to pay millions or even billions of dollars? Any security company that did something like that would immediately become the enemy of all the other insurance companies. It would immiediately become a target. It would no longer be allowed to use arbitration services to settle disputes with other security companies.

Your secerio is idiotic and would never happen. Turning a security company into a criminal gang just isn't going to happen.

And they don't give a shit what other security firms think. They care what their customers think. Your view that companies wouldn't try to differentiate themselves to serve a market segment is wow ... massively stupid. And even more naive.

So are you moving out in 24 hours? You got the notice. Or are they going to kill you and your family?

A company is going to differentiate itself by preying on the customers of other security agencies? Really? And you believe those other agencies wouldn't feel threatened by such a business model?

Talk about being massively stupid and even more naive

Other companies don't give a shit about protecting you, Virginia