mac46 wrote:Well, assuming your not specifically talking about America, I believe in the classical social contract theory. In America, per se, a lot of it goes back to the Puritan ideals of individualism and civil liberty while providing and taking care of the weaker members of society when necessary. As far as the modern state, I just believe that I am far better off with it than without it. I feel like I benefit everyday from the market systems, the police protection, and the utilities provided by the state.
The Puritans were NOT standard-bearers of Individualism or Civil Liberty. They were collectivists and Statists through and through. They ran from one tyranny and established another.
Additionally, you're presenting an underlying dichotomy and a simple untruth. The untruth is that that Market Systems actually exist in any functioning capacity with State Intervention. The dichotomy is that without the State, you cannot be provided protection and utilities; this is nothing short of false and an appeal to state solipotence. You're erroneously asserting that the State is the only institution capable of providing certain services, but the fact is that all the services the State offers could be and have been offered by private organizations in the past, without infringing on anyones rights.
I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Guiscard wrote:I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.
Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
Guiscard wrote:I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.
The "Not so Wild West?!" You do realize that the one hing each territory wanted WAS statism. And we still like it. Law and order only existed in town limits, even then, there was crime abound! And no, it is not asking the same as Abolition and slavery, even though it started with indentured servants who would work for someone to pay off debts, then they would be released. Statism was created to bring law and order to land that was ripe with no law, and vagabonds abound. The problem with Anarchism, is that even if humans were to some how allow it to exist (though it goes against our very nature), there would be bands of criminals whom would work together. Because 1 man can not fight back dozens, or even hundreds. Everything would be in utter chaos.
see, all you're going to do is try to disprove each individual post and then assume that because you did that, you disproved the justification for the state and therefore proved the legitimacy of an anarchy. How about you lay out all your justifications for an anarchy like I asked to begin with, then we'll rip your shit for a change.
Guiscard wrote:I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.
We obviously 'evolved' a state system at some point. We began giving certain elements of our community (whether elected, inherited or otherwise justified) power because it was a more efficient and safer way for society to run. Without some form of government, some form of authority or leadership, we find important decisions crippling. Take the example of a famine. In an entirely individual society famine is entirely crippling. On your voluntary, non-coercive scale a number of people are going to keep the adequate amount they own, and others will starve. The state circumvents this on a very basic level. Society needs authority to help it function. We need to be told to share out food and we need to be punished if we murder or steal. because people will murder and steal...
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
XD Jesse, Bad Boy is/was here? Yes, we Market Anarchists are somewhat acquainted with each other, and the more vocal of us (Jesse, Bad Boy, Brainpolice, Alex the Market Anarchist Advocate, myself (although this isn't my usual name)) can be found on a variety of sites in conversations like these, across the internet. We all pool our knowledge, so most of our arguments somewhat similar after repeating them and refining them time after time.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
mac46 wrote:see, all you're going to do is try to disprove each individual post and then assume that because you did that, you disproved the justification for the state and therefore proved the legitimacy of an anarchy. How about you lay out all your justifications for an anarchy like I asked to begin with, then we'll rip your shit for a change.
It isn't an assumption. What conclusion have I left after disproving the moral, logical, and ethical legitimacy of the State? That no State is preferable.
As for all of my justifications, you find them in my posts spread out, as it would be too much to justify all my stances on Anarchism in one post. Unless you can counter my reasons as I put them out logically and with a solid ethical stand-point, you'll have a hard time ripping my "shit".
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
New Hampshire, if we're thinking of the same thing he in all probability would be talking about.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
New Hampshire, if we're thinking of the same thing he in all probability would be talking about.
In that case, do you know where he's got to? He was a good chap. Just disappeared one day, either to Australia or New Hampshire - we never quite worked it out.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
From what you just said, it is an assumption. You've assumed that the only possible solution is no state. That's fine for you, but don't act like you're proving anything, because you're not giving "reasons," you're just countering our posts.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
New Hampshire, if we're thinking of the same thing he in all probability would be talking about.
I think it was New Hampshire. I am sure you, Jesse, Brainpolice and Alex the Market Anarchist Advocate will be very happy there, not shooting one another while interacting voluntarily and agoristically
Alex the Market Anarchist Advocate is most probably the best internet moniker I've ever come across...
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
New Hampshire, if we're thinking of the same thing he in all probability would be talking about.
In that case, do you know where he's got to? He was a good chap. Just disappeared one day, either to Australia or New Hampshire - we never quite worked it out.
He went to Australia for a while, had problems with Immigration, and came back to the States (cost him more money then he could afford, poor guy). He's in New Hampshire now, coordinating with some programs for the Free State Project, working for a local firearms distributor. If you want to find him, he's largely on the mises.org forums and various other political forums, under the same name, or I could give you his Screenname or Email in private.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
New Hampshire, if we're thinking of the same thing he in all probability would be talking about.
In that case, do you know where he's got to? He was a good chap. Just disappeared one day, either to Australia or New Hampshire - we never quite worked it out.
He went to Australia for a while, had problems with Immigration, and came back to the States (cost him more money then he could afford, poor guy). He's in New Hampshire now, coordinating with some programs for the Free State Project, working for a local firearms distributor. If you want to find him, he's largely on the mises.org forums and various other political forums, under the same name, or I could give you his Screenname or Email in private.
Oh wow. He was serious then... Just tell him to get his arse back to CC. While you're there, ask him about Jamie. Thats a good yarn. He really should make a return. The conspiracy theory stuff around at the moment is possibly the most humerous CC trend yet.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
heavycola wrote:Meh. I read The Dispossessed. Great book. Nice idea, on paper.
I thought Jesse Bad Boy had come back.
just out of interest, is there a clique of anarchists who surf the web, posting 'Anarchy: leet or WTF' threads and then replying with things things like 'straw man' and 'your position, sir, is logically untenable'?
I am sure this has happened here before.
I have nothing positive to contribute.
Jesse advocated everybody moving to Alabama, or something...
New Hampshire, if we're thinking of the same thing he in all probability would be talking about.
I think it was New Hampshire. I am sure you, Jesse, Brainpolice and Alex the Market Anarchist Advocate will be very happy there, not shooting one another while interacting voluntarily and agoristically
Oh we will be
I just need to get out of this Democrat infested hellhole called Wheeling, West Virginia.
Guiscard wrote:Oh wow. He was serious then... Just tell him to get his arse back to CC. While you're there, ask him about Jamie. Thats a good yarn. He really should make a return. The conspiracy theory stuff around at the moment is possibly the most humerous CC trend yet.
Wilco. Did he start the "conspiracy theory" trend?
mac46 wrote:From what you just said, it is an assumption. You've assumed that the only possible solution is no state. That's fine for you, but don't act like you're proving anything, because you're not giving "reasons," you're just countering our posts.
It's either "State" or "No-State". There is no between.
And I have given reasons. You just don't see them as "reasons".
Guiscard wrote:I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.
We obviously 'evolved' a state system at some point. We began giving certain elements of our community (whether elected, inherited or otherwise justified) power because it was a more efficient and safer way for society to run. Without some form of government, some form of authority or leadership, we find important decisions crippling. Take the example of a famine. In an entirely individual society famine is entirely crippling. On your voluntary, non-coercive scale a number of people are going to keep the adequate amount they own, and others will starve. The state circumvents this on a very basic level. Society needs authority to help it function. We need to be told to share out food and we need to be punished if we murder or steal. because people will murder and steal...
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Guiscard wrote:I'm afraid people naturally exploit other people. Whatever system you have isn't going to change that. At some point we had no 'state' at all. You have to be able to explain why we developed the state before you can argue for its abolition.
That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you need to be able to explain why we had slavery before we can argue for its abolition". The reason why it came into being is frankly unknown. Can you think of any clear reason why it was created? What sort of system existed prior to it? We've have periods where no State has existed... only for it to be usurped by Statists. Iceland, The Not-so-Wild West, somewhat-Somalia.
We obviously 'evolved' a state system at some point. We began giving certain elements of our community (whether elected, inherited or otherwise justified) power because it was a more efficient and safer way for society to run. Without some form of government, some form of authority or leadership, we find important decisions crippling. Take the example of a famine. In an entirely individual society famine is entirely crippling. On your voluntary, non-coercive scale a number of people are going to keep the adequate amount they own, and others will starve. The state circumvents this on a very basic level. Society needs authority to help it function. We need to be told to share out food and we need to be punished if we murder or steal. because people will murder and steal...
