Completely false, it relies on people doing what's in their self-interest, which is exactly what the majority of people try to do already. The difference is that people are allowed to pursue their interests without the Government using force and coercion against them for doing so. What I said was "If you want something, you're willing to pay for it".
I see you're ignorant AND illiterate. I said that he could ask other people if they want sidewalks to, and establishments typically build their sidewalks regardless, this case was assuming FEW people wanted sidewalks. I find it hilarious that you can only make an argument by straight-misreading my posts.
Except Railways and highways were already being built before the Government declared imminent domain over them, you historical illiterate. All the Government did was monopolize them.
So, you THINK everyone would want them, therefor they should be forced to pay for them, and they should be monopolized under a ruler. Flawless logic.(That's sarcasm, by the way, I just need to make sure it doesn't fly over your head like everything else in this discussion) It's funny that you claim to be a Conservative, because last I checked, they claim to be pro free market, yet you seem perfectly content with the Government monopolizing services to the detriment of the citizens, and funding them through straight theft. Oh, and this question is answered in that video that you ignored.
So, it's totally fine that a little kid was gunned down in cold blood, because the Road Pirate thought said little kid may be a threat. Let's not, like, avoid being aimed at and assess the situation, let's claim that paid leave at the cost of someone else's life. So much for serving and protecting.
I'm fully aware that he kept pulling up his pants, and that the Road Pirates who broke into his house and held him at gunpoint had told him they would shoot at the slightest provocation, as if they were a group of rabid dogs. Are you trying to argue that despite the man being unarmed, this was fully legitimate, or are you arguing that it's ethical to gun people down as long as you warn them first?
Yeah, bro, she shot herself in the head with her hands cuffed behind her back, in a Road Pirate vehicle where she's separated from the armed driver. Totally shot herself in the head, dude.
No, I perfectly understand, I understand better than you do, apparently, because you're saying it's perfectly legitimate and ethical for people to be able to consent to me being robbed and harassed by the Government and the Road Pirates, and that I should leave my property to escape it, and that people should just be subservient to this unethical monopoly on force. You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me, despite the fact that the initiation of force is coming from the Government.
So, more rights that no other people have, coming from Government official, because they wrote on a piece of paper, and more telling me to move away from my property in order to escape the violence and unethical actions of the Government. I already linked you a video, several actually, where this statement is refuted.
Every "country" is in tyranny. Besides, it's called consistency. If standards are not applied consistently, then the standards by which you're holding people are arbitrary. That's why I kept pointing out that you're applying rights that nobody had to grant in the first place, to other people on the basis that they're calling themselves Government. For one, someone cannot give a person a right they don't have, and for another, saying that one person can do something while others can't is just special pleading.
So then if a parent decides their child should be murdered by the Government, or that the child should be sold into slavery, the child consents because the parents decided it was so.
I call it breaking and entering, and literal theft. You also just admitted that the same standards aren't applied to them, because they can break into your house.
Well, firstly, "we" do not pay them for that, our property is stolen to fund them. Secondly, that was the point I was trying to make; Our property is stolen and given to them so that they can infringe on our individual rights. I doubt you recognize that, but I'll say it anyway.
The Road Pirate shows up and threatens you, that's an active position, the burden of proof is on the Road Pirate to show that the victim is hurting or depriving someone else of their property.
See what I mean? Pick up a book or see youtube or docudramas but don't learn about politics here....
Building sidewalks and roads in your anarchist society would require approval of every property owner involved. If not sidewalks and roads would not be completed. Suggesting that owners that approved of the project pay the full cost would only encourage others that are less enthusiastic to hold out for payment. The more people that dropped out, the higher the cost would be for those that supported the project. The end result would be no sidewalks.
Anarchism is simply not a realist ideology in towns, cities, or nations. There has to be some authority that creates rules or laws and enforces them. When the needs of one group are contrary to the needs of another group, a ruling has to be made as to who's needs will be met. Again, there has to be a method of enforcing those rulings otherwise the result will be disorder and chaos in which society can not progress.
Except, as usual, you're freaking wrong. I guess it's a foreign concept to someone who believes someone is fully legitimate in declaring ownership of an entire continent so long as they refer to themselves as Government, but people take ownership of land by putting work into it, such as building a structure on it, or gardening, or building a road on it. People would be able to build sidewalks or roads on an area as long as nobody is using that area. Besides, if a person is living somewhere and a person wants to travel from that location, yeah, pretty sure they'd want a road. I also want to draw your limited attention span to the Iowa road that people built for themselves in an hour because they wanted it.
I find it amazing that your reading capabilities are below first grade level, yet you claim to have ran a business. Who did you hire to read for you?
It's called imminent domain, and the Government is the one who uses it to force people out of their homes, so they can build where they used to be.
So, your logic is "Because the Government allowed a single business to monopolize the industry in this city, it's privatized."
Please don't *study politics*. Political science is just communism 101. If you want to learn about our politics and make informed decisions, study the CONSTITUTION and our history (not social science, not social studies...AMERICAN HISTORY and WORLD HISTORY taught by a real scholar, not a PhD in Stupidity).
That was never in question, what I was saying, which you conveniently ignored, was that paying for it through the Government gets less for the money. Due to the Government's inability to properly allocate resources, paying for anything through the Government's theft results in getting less for what you spent. It's called the Economic Calculation problem, and it applies to ALL Government programs. Besides that, people should be allowed to choose for themselves how they want to dispose of their trash. They could pay any one of many businesses to do it, do it themselves, or just burn it. That is, of course, if the Government wasn't monopolizing the market.
Government is not the people, they don't even listen to the people, and they never got consent from the people in the first place. I already refuted all of your arguments regarding consent, so we're left with the Government just giving us the illusion that we consented to this.
Yes, not just because there's no way to actually prevent that, but also because everyone trading peacefully with each other for their mutual benefit is preferred over people deciding they're a danger to themselves and their loved ones, or a danger to their business to associate with. In an armed society, especially, people risk getting shot for acting to someone else's detriment.
It would look like there's a new demand, and thus profit incentive, therefor private industries would make businesses to dispose of people's trash. Were you not paying attention when I explained that if you want something, you're probably willing to pay for it? Besides, people could just burn their trash in the absence of Government.
This section was refuted above, it's just fearmongering based on what happened in a heavily regulated society that bars business from entering the market and solving people's problems themselves.
I guess classified material doesn't freaking exist? Oh wait, it does, meaning Government literally hides things from you, go figure.
Or they could just burn their trash in their front yard or put it in your trash bin, or dump it in street and there is nothing you can do about in your world of make believe.
They could just ask instead of hassling someone, using someone's property without permission just makes enemies for yourself. I know if someone asked me, I'd say they could, or just help them burn it, why not help each other?
Again, my argument is that people would do what's in their self-interest, and pissing others off is rarely that. I don't get how you are having such a hard time comprehending how the market works, and how trading peacefully and voluntarily creates greater mutual benefit than screwing over others. How many people do you think would want to associate with you if they see you throwing your trash all over other people's yard? I personally wouldn't, and I bet you wouldn't, so how can you argue that people would find greater benefit to that? You literally can't, and that's why you keep ceasing replying to me, and instead talking about me to that economic illiterate, because neither one of you can make an effective argument against me.
For one, you're talking in dollars, which is an unsustainable fiat currency that's not backed by anything but violence, to force other people to trade in it, which is why Russia, Venezuela, and several other places have recently stopped trading in it. So, in a world without Government, purchasing power would be much greater.
Probably lower cost, because if it was more expensive to do it yourself, your business wouldn't exist. Then again, barriers to entering the market currently exist, so a business which already exists is cheaper than starting a business, which is one of the reasons I keep pointing out that competition would be more prevalent. You literally have to hire someone to help you navigate through all of the regulations, then there's monopolistic practice laws, preventing you from undercutting or raising prices to certain levels, then there are the requirements on pay, regardless of whether the task is worth that cost or not(Only less than 4% of people make minimum wage), then there's the benefits requirements, zoning depending on the business, IP laws, etc. Gosh, it's like they're trying to create monopolies by preventing competitors from entering the market or something.
Ahem, do you understand the statement you just made?
