+Brandon Sergent If you want to try to get around to actually having a conversation, that’s fine. But you escalated this thread from simple question and answer to a list of arguments that required walls of text in response.âSo that’s your real answer. You refuse to answer because the question being real is unlikely. (Is that how you deal with all game theory?)â
âSo it doesn’t matter what I say. You’ll just toss in probability as an excuse to avoid any hypothetical that falsifies your assertion.â
I asked you to justify coercion. You gave me a lifeboat scenario defined on your terms and I pointed out the problem with people resorting to lifeboat scenarios and now you are accusing me of not accepting any argument. Â You didnât bother to actually argue with what I said in response.
Back to your silly lifeboat scenario:
Why is it moral to coerce the people in the lifeboat scenario? Â Do you not see that people are still being immoral? Â Do you think the people who are infected still are living being with choices and desires and so on? That coercing them is still violating them? Â If all the other people in the geographic region are convinced that they are nothing but walking death, those people are going to react, of course, but it doesnât mean they find their reaction moral – it just means they find it necessary for survival.
Why is this concept so difficult for you? You havenât even come close to explaining how coercion is moral. All youâve done is offer a LIFEBOAT SCENARIO where people would have to make a really hard decision about how to act on their own survival and decide to act immorally.
If you truly believe coercion is moral, that was the question after all, not is there a case ever that coercion would be something that people would be compelled to do, how about describing a scenario that actually DOES HAPPEN INSTEAD OF A SCENARIO THAT MUST BE IMAGINED BY PEOPLE WITHOUT AN ARGUMENT?
Can you think of one?
If you canât here are a few:
Is it moral to force drug users to go to prison?
Is theft moral?
Is it moral to take other peoples money against their will or else you imprison them?
Is it moral to shoot someone if they refuse to let you take them to prison?
Is rape moral?
Is it moral to take someones children away from them if they refuse to put them through school?
Is it moral to force people to pay for road work on roads they donât drive?
Is it moral to force people to pay for debts that were created before they were born?
Is it moral to murder someone because they are developing nuclear weapons?
And seriously man:
Is it moral to steal food to survive if they refuse to give you any?
My argument is intact. You arenât even arguing whether or not coercion is moral.
âAnd I could just as easily counter it as you have by saying that such is improbable so I therefor don’t need to consider it.â
But I literally listed things that government has done. Not that I would be surprised if you ignored every bad thing government has ever done out of your worship of authority and your need to subjugate yourself to a ruler.
âYou’ve rendered your argument null by refusing to consider falsification scenarios of every stripe simply because they falsify your argument by way of an arbitrary probability threshold.â
No, I addressed the problem with lifeboat scenario arguments. Â You displayed your argument was empty and illogical by resorting to specifically thinking up a situation that never happens in attempt to justify something that already has offered an entire history full of examples in a constant and never ending stream. Â If you could actually have thought up a reasonable example, why would it be something so perposterous and unlikely? Â And to really get down to the point, your example wasnât an arugment for coercion being moral. Â It was an example where people act immorally to survive. Â So you are still completely wrong and completely avoiding the argument.
âAnd what happens when they are so angry at having been “ostracized” and having their resources “extracted” that they resort to violence to pre6
Man your facepalm and O.o shit makes you look like a fucking retard. Â I get it that you think itâs cute and condescending, but when you come back with something so illogically embarrassing, it just makes you look even more stupid.
What the hell do you think happens when someone tries to coerce someones? Â People defend themselves. Do you honestly feel good about this insane argument you are using? Â And donât try and redefine what I explained in some silly ass horse shit that you like arguing against yourself with in one strawman after another. Â If people agree to give someone access to their bank account in the event of a dispute, or if someone literally hands over money up front for a contract that will be used in the event of a dispute, they will have their funds extracted.
âAt some point the needs of the individual are out stripped by the needs of the group. Culture must address these situations. If a culture lacks policy to indicate when this is appropriate then that culture’s policy is incomplete and will encounter situations for which it does not have policy but which require policy for the culture to survive. It’s only a matter of time.â
How about naming one that is moral? Â Your plague lifeboat scenario is still immoral. Â And really, you donât have to elevate something to collectivism to try to justify coercion. 1 person deciding another personâs land belongs to him because he thinks he has a better use for it, is immoral. 100,000 people deciding 1 personâs land belongs to them collectively because they think they have a better use for it, is immoral. Â Collectives are still individuals and itâs individuals that act. Some divine worth is not granted to them because they collected. Â What if it were 100,000 people taking 100 peoples land? Â Or, 50,000 peoples land? Â What if those 100,000 peoples owned 100,000,000 time the amount of land they were stealing already? Â And you accuse me of arbitrary? Â Collectivism is not a wholesale justification for coercion. Â Where does this data set converge so we can know precisely how many people it takes to justify taking peoples land? Â Or do you just collectively take it 1 person at a time so itâs somehow moral?
So there was an examplem, taking peoples land. Â See how common and historically repetitive it is? Now you try. Take your time.
âAnd what if everyone tries to similarly ban then? (Like how we’ve ended up with a national de facto dress code?) You going to push them into the sea? Launch them into orbit? You’re just avoiding the answer.â
No I donât have any problems with how people dress. We also have a government enforced dress code. Â Want to run around naked? Get kidnapped by the police. Â Anyway, I donât require people to dress a certain way, but since you brought it up, dress code is something almost entirely managed by social ostracism in an anarchistic way without government influence. Do you really think weâd be overrun by people running around naked if it wasnât for the government?
If people wanted to dress any way they wanted on their property what business is it of mine? If theyâre on my property I probably wouldnât really mind either but considering this really isnât a problem anyhow, why would it be a problem in a stateless society where people arenât coerced by rulers? Â Oh are you literally saying that without the fear of violence everyone would dress improperly?
Next stupid ass question?
âBy your logic starving them to death is not coercion. What you are talking about is prison or execution. Prison if there is anyplace they can go and execution if there isn’t.â
Of course by âmy logicâ I donât consider withholding my property to be coercion, because itâs not âmy logicâ, itâs what those words mean. Â If someone starves to death because I didnât want to give them my property, itâs not coercion. That isnât the word coercion. If I initiate violence against them, tie them to a tree, and prevent them from seeking food <- that is coercion. Â The problem in your scenario is morality, not coercion. Â Morality and coercion are not synonymous. Â Would I starve someone to death? Of course not. Â If someone attacked my family with intent of murdering them, would I refuse to let them on my property or refuse to share my property with them? Definitely. If someone broke into my property to steal food from me so they could survive, would I starve them to death? Of course not. Iâd more likely feed them and try to help them get on their feet and on with their life.
I would also support an organization that aims to rehabilitate criminals. Not just create a threat of violence and think they can help society somehow, but literally try to guide criminals into becoming better people. So if they are assaulting people in my community, they can either face the consequences of business not being willing to do business with violent criminals, join our rehabilitation program where they will be fed, sheltered, and hopefully reformed, or they can either leave the community or keep hoping someone will throw scraps to violent criminals. Â Why someone be entitled to access to other peoples property including feeding and sheltering without any say so of the other people?
Another concept you need to get through you head is that taking away peoples choices takes away peoples ability to develop ethically about those choices. So you really have a society full of people who didnât arrive somewhere ethically, but just werenât given a choice, so really donât understand the concept and execution of ethics on those issues.
Why would I want someone to starve to death? Â Even someone who does something really really bad. Iâm under the impression that people do bad things for specific reasons. One being they are incentivized to do really bad things, for example, all the benefit the government has created out of criminal activity, you know, like the drug business. Â Another reason being that people are mentally ill, had abusive childhoods, either are literally broken mentally or arenât capable of functioning in society for one reason or another. Â Why would you think Iâd be so heartless as to want these people to just die?
âYou’ve admitted you haven’t felt the need to exposure yourself to the opposing evidence I presented last time. Finding a way to absolve yourself by blaming me doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t done the reading.â
I never said anything even close to that. Â What did you interpret to get the idea that I made that claim?
It looks like we arenât even having the same discussion here if you can making such a delusional accusation.
âWhen you make it clear that you’re in “write only” mode. I might as well argue with a DVD. And I wouldn’t be bothering except that I am using you to check my own ideas and to elaborate on them.â
Projection.
âMetachat, and strawman. What I said was what I said in the context that I said it and I’m not going to fall for the trap of being prompted to endlessly repeat it in different ways so you can then pull those answers further out of context to create the appearance of contradiction to weaken my position without having to actually counter it.â
You havenât repeated it a single time, youâve only avoided it. Â Saying that the exact thing that I asked isnât the question isnât a valid argument for not answering the question. Â But I donât really think you avoided it because you canât deal with it, I just think you refuse to process it.
âI didn’t I was refuting the absurd notion that government is born of coercion. It’s behavior is in some sense defined by coercion but it’s definition is its purpose and that is capturing economies of scale and more importantly repressing behavior that while ethically legitimate at the individual scale, causes group destroying tragedy of the commons (TOC) type problems.â
Without coercion, who would follow the rules?
If coercion is involved, how are people free to make ethical decisions?
Why do you think government leads to crimes against humanity and unethical outcomes?
Also, I recommend reading a little on the fallacy/myth of the tragedy of the commons. Â Itâs an economic fallacy that has been repeatedly refuted, yet repeated by people who are still under the impression that classical and keynesian economics are sound – regardless of keynesian economists being consistently wrong in their predictions and the perpetual justification of oppressive government policy being the same fallacious economics. Â Perhaps looking at a failed government program and analyzing the theory that justified it could be useful, you think?
Letâs discuss a tragedy of the commons scenario. Â Should we just stick to one of the common ones, or would you prefer to muddle this with some massive economies of scale misinterpretation? Well of course you would, but I guess weâll get to that later if you actually provide an example that justifies your economies of scale fixation.
Sheep farmers who all have farms that surround an unowned plot of land and they let their sheep graze it.
One solution to this classical problem is that the farmers divide the land equally. Â They completely enclose it after all, itâs not as if someone else is going to make use of it without extensive policy, right? Â So why not divide it equally amongst themselves? After all, if theyâre willing to declare it is public property shared by each other, why not just slice it up equally? Â Tragedy of the commons averted. Â If it is made public property then the piles of regulation, policing, enforcement, and trial are going to be needed to make sure no one is over grazing. And of course being public property, someone is going to try to take advantage of the potential free access and try to over graze it. Theyâre entitled to it at least to some extent after all.
But if it was private property, people are incentivized to defend their property, or to at least sell usage of it to someone else. Â How could this possibly be more inefficient than trying to enforce equal sharing to it?
What if some of the farmers do a great job of handling grazing and fertility, and the other farmers just go at it haphazard and the public land is ruined because of the irresponsible? Now all of the public land is ruined, and not just the land that the irresponsible farmers are in control of. Â Now not just the unskilled farmers will lose production, but all of the farmers. Â And all of the farmers absorb the lack of performance, and the economy deals with a lack of product.
And we all know that public land and resources are commonly wasted in the hands of government donât we?
Anyway, so the argument against private property here is to say something along the lines, but who will decide who owns the land? Â Well, if no one already claims it, whoever stakes a claim to it, works it, and protects it, would own it, yes? Â If other people disagree, then they would need to work it out. Â Building a government to keep the land from being overused doesnât seem like a smart thing to do really does it? After all, the government is one of the most inefficient and extreme resource consumers on the planet. Â The govt literally generates problems of the commons. Â Basically, Iâm suggesting the govt is the ultimate manifestation of the problem of the commons.
Solving a resource issue still comes down to either a coercive or voluntary solution. Â Statists, that is to say, people so enthralled with the state and justifying its existence are convinced that ONLY coercive solutions can solve whatever problems theyâve chose to use to justify the state. Â Other than being illogical, itâs generally just circular reasoning. Â You and people with your ideologies donât even seem interested in TRYING to think of voluntary solutions to problems, and coming up with a way that society doesnât have to be based on coercing people. Â Itâs clear that you have absolutely no interest in trying to figure out a way to build a society that doesnât initiate violence against people because you donât even realize that coercion is immoral. Â Oh wait I forgot, itâs moral to you because magically a minority of plague victims are ok to initiate violence against, imprison, and murder, right? Â So government is justified to you based on that logic… What if the plague victims were the majority and wanted to live out their last days the bet they could, so they decided to imprison the non-infected before they try to stop them, or just go out and infect them? Â That would be moral right because they are the majority? Â In a 3 people moral situation, 1 person is all it takes to decide what is moral and immoral, by your logic. And as soon as someone changes their mind and shifts their position to create a new majority, that is the new moral path, by your logic.
Maybe you need to spend a little time on the concept that maybe society doesnât have to be coercive. Â Let me put it another way. If coercion is involved, then the room for good intentions are gone. Â People who donât have a choice how to act without being MURDERED BY THE FUCKING POLICE are not people acting ethically. Â In the place of an actual argument, you could just keep falsely accusing me and other people of desiring the suffering and starvation of people (even though it just makes you sound like a moron with too much pride to admit how stupid your argument is so you keep repeating this false claim), instead of realizing the fact that we want to make a better future without so much starvation, homelessness, institutionalized violence, impeding of human progress, empowerment of evil people through the oppressive mechanisms of government, and the best future we can figure out how to make as itâs clear coercion isnât fixing the problems. Â Or, you could think about the possible benefit to figure out a society not sustained by violence yourself instead of coming up with one illogical justification after another to try and deal with your acceptance of your abusive government masters.
And you can toss in your attraction to economy of scale, but there is a reason economists keep utilizing simple scenarios like the sheep farms all sharing access to a piece of unowned land to justify complex economic principle. Â Itâs because logic and morality doesnât alter just because more people are involved… To think otherwise is a silly, unacceptable fallacy without a logical path. Â If itâs so logical, why havenât you offered one?
âJust because you got an answer you didn’t expect, you think the answer is wrong, and you’re unwilling to explore any alternative.â
Hilarious. You mean the answers that I and most other people made when we first were confronted by the idea of stateless society? The same answers that people constantly come up with who donât know what in the fuck they are talking about? Yeah man, I was so super surprised.
âYou seem pissed the coercion of the individual by the group is the price we pay for being able to exploit economies of scale and avoid TOC problems. Have you asked yourself what if it’s not a choice?â
Ok now Iâm starting to think you just donât really know what economies of scale means. Â Do you mind giving an example of a product or service that you feel wouldnât be able to flourish without coercive collectiveness? Â Iâd pick something like the iPhone but itâs pretty damn clear how much smaller Appleâs market share would be if it wasnât for government assisted monopoly in the form of patents.
Would the energy industry be more efficient?
The food delivery industry?
The food production industry? Â Is it economies of scale that justified the government paying farmers not to grow food or to pay farmers to overproduce? Â Funny how the government is back and forth on that concept.
How do you think regulation assists economies of scale instead of literally making businesses less efficient.
âYou really don’t understand the TOC do you. It’s not about evil. It’s about diffusion of responsibility and scale. Wiki game theory.â
Of course I do. Itâs an old fallacious concept that the government creates more than it prevents. Â Do you have any examples of how a problem of the commons was created by the lack of a coercive institution?
If it wasnât for people acting outside of direct government suggestion or just acting on government regulation, do you honestly think we would have built any industry at all? Government doesnât facilitiate industry, it regulates it. How do you logically deduce that government stimulates industry? Are we going to argue that a government enforced privately banks fiat currency is what provides industry? Â What else could it possibly be that you think government provides that allows economies of scale?
â “so commonly utter failures”â
âBull.â
Oh I see. So you have no idea about the increasing numbers of homeless, old people eating cat food, literacy rate declines, reduction in wages (you know, inflation?), the repercussions on the economy as a direct result of government financial policy, the constant state of war, Â the consistent reduction of privacy and ability to change the government, the increase of health care costs, the decrease of health care quality, the increase of the number of criminals, the increased of the number of prisoners, the increase of policy brutality, the increase of government corruption, the increase of corporatism/revolving door/collusion… But seriously, social programs are getting better right?
âYou like all the rest of them want to punish the poor for being poor, as if it’s a choice. You islanders are hilarious. You probably think the dinosaurs are all dead because they were too lazy to find food all of the sudden, they should take responsibility for having a sunlight based food chain. Slackers.â
I definitely donât want to punish the poor. I want to incentivize them to live productive and have happy lives, and feed and shelter them when they canât gain it on their own, but still incentivize them. Â What drastic evil ideas your head is filled with about people with caring intentions towards humanity! You will believe or say ANYTHING to justify your worship of state wonât you? Â Is it time to point out the us vs them fallacy? lol
âYou have no concept of variable scalability. You think because something is true at one scale it’s true at all scales and you build your ethics accordingly. They are as a result hopelessly flawed.â
So you have a revolutionary idea that ethics and morals are modified by quantity. Â Go into details please, because thus far youâve just tossed generalizations and phrases without logic attached. Maybe you will do so further down in the post, but I doubt it. Â Anyway, I was kidding about revolutionary. Â Utilitarianism has been molested ever since its inception to justify atrocities against humanity. Â The very use of collectivism to justify immorality is a molestation of the public. In other words, the same unethical insanity you are spouting is the same thing the worst government leaders and supporters throughout history have spouted. Â And itâs the same nonsense that turns seemingly benevolent governments into protectionism and then inevitably to tyranny, if not inevitably then at least historically consistent.
âI see 6 year olds with cell phones texting away and all of them are on facebook. You don’t mean literacy, you mean English standardized test scores, which is a different thing entirely.â
Iâm also see these children txting and posting on facebook, and I also agree that it aids to literacy. Â Itâs probably more important than the public school system. The social ostracism alone that results whenever someone makes a tragic accident of grammar or spelling mistakes can really straighten out someones language… Anyway, if you support public education why are you opposed to the public tests that are intended to determine the results of public education? Â Are you saying that the tests are designed to trick us that the education system isnât functioning as intended?
âBesides you go on later to talk about education being optional with regard to responsible citizenship, so what do you care if literacy is falling?â
I said people couldnât more easily afford to send their kids to non indoctrinating private schools because of taxes to provide public education.
Your continued disingenuous accusations are irritating.
âOur government hasn’t been given free rein to try. Even in FDR’s time the 1% of his day hired PR types to sabotage helping the poor. You would know that if you’d watch/read the stuff I linked but you won’t, you’re more comfy with your bogey men and exploitation complex.â
Oh you mean the government failed to get its program working? Â So even though the government canât make it happen, we should still keep empowering government to attempt to get it working even though they keep failing? Regardless of the reason you believe in, itâs clear it doesnât work.
And this PR thing is hilarious. Â I still want to hear your argument about how PR is more dangerous in a stateless society than a statist society.
âAnd perhaps you should ask why given that it’s still everywhere as opposed to anarchy. I’ve explained but you don’t want to hear it. You’re like the feminist who thinks disparity of pay can’t possibly be due to anything other than male conspiracy.â
Slavery was abolished too even though people defended it just as emotionally as you for thousands of years. Â Even the slaves themselves. Â This is no justification for coercion though. Â Itâs no justification for being coerced by an institution that without oversight calls initiation of violence legal. Â Did not slavery provide economies of scale? Did not slavery produce for the majority? Was not slavery thus by your logic justified and moral?
âBecause your concern for helping people is secondary to your concern for who gets to dictate terms. Your help is conditional. It is dependent on the satisfaction of your ego and your perception of having enough.â
Oh I see, so you are just full of shit and making up arguments. Cool, at least weâre on the same page now. Â So you really havenât been reading what Iâm saying or giving a fuck at all about having a conversation.
You are accusing me having an ego and perception problem regardless of my clear suggestion that Iâm convinced coercive society is less effective at leading to human progress and happiness than a noncoercive society. Â Interesting set of values you have there.
âAlso, rich people often never feel like they have enough, this is a neurological thing in some, if not all, cases. As a result, they don’t donate except when induced or forced. Advocating a system that places the well being of humans simply for being human secondary to your right to acquire and hold property is inherently exploitative. It literally puts your needs above the group and the needs of the one do not outweigh the needs of the many.â
yawn
Where did I say I was driven by a desire to hold private property first and foremost? You are on a roll with making shit up!
My foremost desire from a societal standpoint is to see humans be free. Â Oh my gosh Iâm so evil and psychologically deluded!
âThat’s ego, not charity. That such acts feed your ego makes you a good person, but that trait cannot be relied on as the sole remedy for people unable or even unwilling to “earn” income.â
Youâre really grasping for any bullshit you can think of now man. Â Youâre really not doing anything but insulting. Â All youâre really doing now is abusing me. Â Iâm sad that you have been so abused by society that now you must abuse others in an attempt to defend your flawed ideology. Â I wish I could help you in some way.
Did you literally just say that the goodness of peoples hearts canât be relied on to help people who are unable or unwilling to provide their own survival?
Wow.
So somehow government is a magical replacement of goodness? Helping people is something that people do regardless of their intentions?
âYou islanders talk a big game about freedom and choice by one freedom you damn sure don’t want for everyone is freedom from work.â
On how your collective is so much better than my collective! So much smarter
Are you literally saying that I believe everyone should have to slave away at jobs or something?
âWell reality permits freedom from work and I think after 200,000 years of brutal Darwinian struggle to the top of the food chain we have collectively earned it. I deserve it and you deserve it for being the great grand sons of the tribe that invented fire and the written word.â
And you had the nerve to accuse me of some hopeless fantasy of utopia. lol
âThere needs to be an inheritance cap. We need to eliminate dynasties, not encourage them. I don’t want to trade one Pharaoh for another.â
More stealing of one persons property and handing it to another. Â Cause that will work so great right like all other government policy does lol. Â How do you imagine one people would become so massively wealth in a free market? Â The people who are massively wealthy now, and I mean billionaires, and we might as well just toss companies with insane profits — are using government assisted monopolies and government handouts to get so rich. Â So what mechanism would enable them in a free market exactly? Â Free market lowers prices, does not bar competition, does not stop someone from copying technology and making it cheaper, or selling it cheaper, or improving on it and then incentivizing people who love new technology from purchasing it, and so on. Â What is this mysterious mechanism that you are aware of that Iâm not which would make a free market just as bad or worse than what the government has wrought?
âI believe that. Honestly. But you don’t understand diminishing returns. You’d eventually stop. You’d eventually start blaming them and tell yourself “well they’ll just spend it on drugs” or “they’re just lazy and refuse to take responsibility” or “they don’t deserve it as much as I do” (or whatever) to keep your money.â
You are claiming that I would stop giving money if the government stopped taking it. Â Man I wish you could explain to me how you make this crap up. How do you reach a conclusion like that? I just donât see how someone says something that illogically. Â I donât see how itâs possible that you arrive to these conclusions critically. Â Other than the total lack of data you have to build such a conclusion, you are literally assigning characteristics to me. Â No wonder your arguments are so inconsistent. Â You claim that you care so for human kind, but then you appear to dig yourself this enormous whole of me vs you, my collective vs yours, and assign whatever value it takes to justify your claims regardless of a total nonexistent path of reasonable deduction.
âGranted you’re trying to solve the root problem, and I’m willing to pretend your ideas would, but you’re just replacing one form of government with another. And the current 1% would be even deeper in the 1%.â
Please explain to me how not having rulers is a form of government.
â”It’s not that the people are in charge but that the people’s desires are in charge.” That won’t change under a stateless system.â
Peoples desires arenât in charge. Big business is in charge.
â…would be motivated to perpetuate the problem for continued existence. Charity has to be managed by a multipurpose organization so it can survive actually solving some of the target problems. Otherwise it’s little more than a bilge pump strongly motivate to generally fail.â
So why do so many private charities exist? Â Only government programs are strongly motivated to fail, because government programs violate basic economics principles of reason to perform. Â People canât choose whether or not to pay into the program, so what incentive is there for performance?
On the other hand, how do you consider that someone motivated by profit is motivated to fail? That makes absolutely no sense and doesnât seem to reflect economic theory in any way.
Iâm not surprised that you didnât get the point, so let me help you out a little.
Given an equivalent ability to deliver food and services to the needy:
Charity A doesnât have a transparent business practice. So Iâd avoid it.
Charity B has 50% overhead and is paying its execs excessive bonuses.
Charity C has 75% overhead and is paying its execs much smaller bonuses.
Charity D has 75% overhead and is paying its execs the same size bonuses as Charity B.
Charity D has 90% overhead.
Iâd support Charity D as much as possible. Â If they were overextended or somehow unable to expand and it was somehow reasonable, Iâd spent additional funds on Charirty D. Yeah, their execs are making more, but if their business can perform so efficiently but still pay their execs so much, then their execs are going to do everything they can to keep that business chugging along. Â If they change their business practice, Iâd pick another charity with what I find to be a more ethical business practice. etc. My priority is first with helping the most amount of people sufficiently.
âThink about drug companies. Do you honestly think the largest manufacturer of cancer treatments on the planet would fail to oppose internally the release of an outright cure for cancer?â
Of course they would oppose it, just as the oppose it now. Â Except they can do more than oppose now, they can literally bar people from copying it through arbitrary government assisted monopoly: patents. Â So if someone decide they want to save more lives and copy the drug, they can be forced to stop, all in the name of the original companyâs interests. Â If it wasnât for the government, there wouldnât be anything stopping them from copying it, would there? Â Or do you believe that they would use their private army to go out and attack people in a stateless society to stifle innovation as well?
Are you familiar with the refusal of sale of HIV treatment to africa because they would have needed to sell it much cheaper (even though still at profit), but if they did that the drugs could have been sold back to their artificially highly priced markets like the United States? â government incentivizing companies to be unethical and literally follow a business practice that results in more suffering.
âNone. I have zero income. People like you would have me starve to death because of how I was born or how submissive I’m not.â
Do you need some money? Â Or is your pride for your faulty argument so strong that you must still accuse people who want to help people of in fact wanting to hurt people?
âI’m neatly excluded because leftists are mad that I like the 2nd, rightists are mad that I want a cap on wealth and a negative income tax, and tea partiers, are mad that I see the usefulness of some shred of government while believing we all have responsibility towards my fellow man.â
Iâm not mad, Iâm just impatient with your false accusations and sad at your inability to reason logically.
âYour self obsessions have ruined the world. I can’t go help anyone because it’s dog eat dog over the scraps of the 1% out there. The job market today is in effect a tide of starving slaves jockeying for a particular kind of whip.â
Looks more to me like the illogical acceptance of government has ruined the world. Â If people were so bad, it wouldnât take so much propaganda to get them to believe in the contradictions that lead to bad government policy.
âBecause you assholes have convinced each other that poverty is a choice and if only you can lash the poor with sufficiently harsh austerity and humiliations they’ll finally turn white and stop talking all funny.â
Not me. Â I want to help people succeed, not throw them to the streets. For example, Iâm a big fan of community farms. It doesnât take much to be involved in one, but it makes a big impact on the local economy and local homeless problems.
âSo I should totally disregard the suffering of others like Rand’s psychopathic disciples? I was born with a conscience. (Not merely an ego temporarily stoked by the thrill of magnanimity.)â
You are disregarding the point of a fallacy. Â No one said emotion was invalid. The point is that using emotion in the place of an argument… is a fallacy.
âDid the linked video not overtly and clearly laud the danger of forcing people to ignore their conscience?â
I would never suggest that people ignore their conscience. Â But I would suggest that they learn some logic skills, philosophy, economics, and psychology.
âI’m willing to stipulate that. I think diminishing returns would be a long term problem in a volition only system, but I could be wrong so I’m happy to pretend I am wrong there.â
Government isnât generating diminishing returns?
âDepending on how you define evilâ
I define evil as avoidable acts of immorality. Avoidable is the arguable part of the definition yes? If you canât avoid someone from killing you other than killing them, then it was unavoidable. If someone is initiating violence against you, and you must use violence to stop them, then it was unavoidable.
On the other hand if someone told you they would shoot you if you broke into their house, and in full understanding you chose to enter their house, then they pulled a gun on you, and you chose to pull your gun and shoot them first, then this is evil.
Initiating violence against against someone is evil.
Murdering people is evil. If you are defending yourself, the root here isnât murder, itâs preventing your murder.
Kidnapping people is evil.
Rape is evil. Â This one is pretty simple because, there arenât really situation where rape isnât even arguably not evil. Â If you try to claim that someone says, either sexually penetrate this person or we will kill your entire family and their family, then the real act of evil is the coercion, not the act you were coerced into. Â It still doesnât mean the rape isnât evil, but focusing on it in the scenario is a fallacy.
Putting nonviolent criminals in prison where they will be raped for however longer their sentence is, is evil. Supporting this prison situation is supporting evil.
âBut the fact remains it solves problems nothing else can solve. If anarchy had a solution to TOC problems it would be a game theory Nobel prize.â
For example?
âThe housing bubble proves awareness of players is insufficient. There will always be people willing to exploit the group to death. This is another reason for a cap on both wealth and poverty, one to pay for the other. A water cycle. We need evaporation and rain.â
The housing bubble proves that government financial policy is either wrong, or doing exactly what was intended in the first place – causing an economic crisis.
âSays the camp that blames the housing bubble on irresponsible home owners who got what they deserved. Your ignorance of scale is showing again.â
Sorry, which camp are you referring to? Anarchists? Â The housing bubble was due to government stimulus, which was justified by keynesian economics, but really who believes the government perpetrates this nonsense against us repeatedly unwittingly? Your ignorance about what me and possibly most anarchists, or rather your willingness to arbitrarily accuse me and other anarchists of any doctrine that strikes your fancy, is showing again. Â And yet you have the nerve to accuse me of being a poor critical thinker. But really, itâs just typical behavior of people who call a stream of fallacies an argument.
âWhat do you think stopped the banks from getting too big to fail? Regulation. Your culture would lack it and it would end up with the same monopolistic 1% we’re dealing with only you would lack the authority to regulate.â
Define âgetting too big to failâ. Â I donât agree that banks got to big to fail. Â The society I want does not prevent all types of guidance of business. But really man, you are talking about something that only exists in the confines of government. Â Fiat currency is not something that would rule the lives of a free society really now would it? Would there be a business that loans your wealth to you at interest in a stateless society. Â There is no government to force you to use that currency and give banks a monopoly on lending, and subsidizing the costs of protecting banks. Â So really, youâre just blowing smoke. Â Of course there wouldnât be any âbanks that got too big to failâ (not that there are now, that is just more keynesian economics) because there would be nothing like the banks that exist now in a stateless society.
âJust like you get it from being charitable. Yes.â
Cute but tragic that you compare a reward from helping people to a reward from hurting people. Â Typical though from your corrupted morality and intellect. Â Do you think that somehow people help people because they have achieved a zen state of being a robot, and not because it makes them happy to help people? Â Is there some better foundation of society than people who are happy to help people?
âWell causes of such brain states are not fully understood, but yes. I’m also aware of the rise of psychopathy.â
Are you changing subjects, or are you equating psychopathy and reward-seeking? Â They are completely different.
âHow a lack of conscience is utterly adaptive in today’s economy and political landscape and how easy it is to exploit the language of personal responsibility to charismatically mask that pathology. You’ve been taken in.â
Please tell me more about how people who want to help people and literally do help people are truly just wanting to seeking a society where they can watch people suffer. Â Itâs really fascinating. Really.
âYes, psychopathy coupled with sadism means cruelty and risk seeking is the only way they feel anything. The so called “dark triad.” I’d give you a link but you hate reading.â
Interesting. Let me make sure I understand what youâre saying… You donât know anything at all about this subject?
âBut then again future readers may not..â
Dark triad has nothing to do with what I was talking about. But please tell me more about how I donât like reading, or hate reading, or too scared. Any more characteristics youâve thought up to verbally abuse me with? Itâs very helpful, truly.
âBut your camp considers children property just as much. Just get Alex Jones on a spanking rant to get a clear example of that. Your camp routinely speaks about parenting rights as if they are property rights. The rights of the child don’t exist on your side.â
Youâve truly devolved beyond my level of patience now. Â But we arenât really having a discussion are we? Â That went out the window long ago. Weâre just in some kind of defensive pissing match now. You know, you making shit up and accusing me of it and then accusing the concept of stateless society of it.
Let me disabuse you, once again.
Children are the most delicate members of society. Theyâre unique position of not being able to strike out on their own creates the need to be thoroughly cognizant of the implications of our actions against them. Â The abuse that children are subjected to in the home, that they have no option to escape, becomes their personality, and is what they will inflict onto society and onto their children – perpetuating the existence of people like you with such deep infliction of Stockholm Syndrome in your abuse relationship with the state that you will literally write fiction in arguments against people that want a peaceful happy society, accusing them of in fact being evil people exploiters and selfish haters of human progress. lol
The abuse children suffer can be completely private. Which means we must be extremely vocal in or need to treat children peacefully, nonviolent parenting, and to show them love. Â I believe we should staunchly ostracize people who are violent with their children.
After all, children are the future of humanity.
But please tell me more about how I want to make children suffer.
âThis is where NO ONE agrees with me. I’m the one person in the room, always, that wants kids to be people from the start and society to be structured in such a way as it is possible to have one law which applies to both children and adults.â
I see, so you truly have no exposure to anarchist ideas, teachings, writings, theory, forums, community, or anything? Fascinating. Â Well. No wonder you donât have a fucking clue what you are talking about when it comes to anarchy.
But please tell me more about your revolutionary ideas that are unique to you that in all your scrutinizing of all subjects and fields of thought, are only present in your head and your writings.
âI wasn’t making the argument you think I was, I made the argument I made and you see it as the other because you refuse to critically examine your view. You assume because it contains elements of the argument with which you are familiar it therefor must be the argument with which you are familiar by virtue of my disagreement with you and your black and white thinking.â
So which part did you say that wasnât in my argument since you clearly claim to have accurate knowledge on the arguments that I have made?
âYou don’t see the difference because frankly you’re a poor critical thinker. (That really isn’t meant as an insult I just think it’s a fact, like I’m poor at remembering names and dates.) You realize the high priority of the issues in question and thus think checking what you feel to be right is a waste of precious time.â
Then lets pick a simple issue and step through the logical deduction shall we? Â Iâll be glad to enter into this if we continue communicating.
âRather than check your answer you move on to the next problem because we are drowning in problems. I completely understand. And I don’t blame you in the sense that I think you’re a “bad person” for this. I just think you’re dangerous because of it.â
Please tell me any place where you feel I didnât sufficiently answer you and I will revisit it. Â Or list them all and I will revisit them all.
âYou’re trying to drag down social policy to the individual scale where specialists dominate. You think a purpose built charity is going to be better in all cases than a group multi tasked effort because an individual specialist is better than an individual generalist, but groups don’t have such limits. They can be good at everything. But again you ignore the TOC because at that scale the charity contains a TOC.â
No.
I donât understand why you are so incapable of reading comprehension.
Iâm talking about GOVERNMENT COERCIVE POLICY AND COERCIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS.
Do you just not know what the word coercive means?
âIt has to exist to solve the problem, but if it solved the problem it could not exist. That’s why nothing ever gets done. When was the last time a drug company CURED something? Not developed a treatment for. Cured.â
Why would a drug company cure something when it has government assisted monopoly based incentive to continue profiting off their products?
âJesus man dentists are still using drills and glue. Â But I presume you blame government interference, not profit motive. And until we get rid of government the argument is unfalsifiable. So it’s win/tie.â
Of course I do. How else would dentists be able to innovate and compete if it wasnât for a pile of government regulation telling doctors what they can and cannot do. I mean jesus man, regulations are so amazing at incentivizing people to perform and innovate right? Instead of the other way around? Â What do you think would happen if a dentists opened a shop that didnât use government assisted enforced dental practices?
âYou’ll always have something to blame, and so will I till one of us gets total authority to re-write society, and until then those capable of playing both sides against the middle will win. And thus the glory of the two party system.â
Oh I see, youâre still making up shit. I kid I kid. Itâs not like I think you would stop or anything.
Let me bring you back to reality of my argument:
Coercion is immoral. Â People not having a choice to control their own actions, or to try and act ethically, or having to choose between what is being imposed on them by another human being or die, is coercion and it is immoral and evil.
âIncentive is in fact detrimental to the solution of complex problems. That’s another more subtle TOC.â
So people donât perform because they have a reason to perform, they perform because of some other force? Oh wait, wouldnât that be… incentive?
Do I have to ask you if you know what incentive means too?
Do you have some other explanation for why government programs perform so poorly than the basic economic principles that when acted on instead of violated result in performance?
âYes I have you’ve just assumed they were synonymous with previously heard arguments and dismissed them out of hand (which is why you feel justified in not exploring my links) you think it’ll just be same ol same ol, and it might well be in part, but again the problem is scale. I’m talking about the whole, not the part.â
Regardless of my finding of similarities, I still argued with you about them. Â Interesting new cop out of you latched onto though and utilized several times now, that somehow I didnât argue with you because I pointed out how elementary, common, and predictable your arguments have been. Â i.e. you are not exposing me to new arguments.
âLike I said, points at tin pot war lords and tribal war zones all over the planet. What do you call it when a previously autocratic setting suddenly loses its autocrat? Anarchy. They happen and implode constantly like pistol shrimp air bubbles. They are inherently unstable. That’s why a power vacuum is synonymous with instability.â
How about naming a specific one and weâll discuss whether or not an anarchy ever existed in it. Â The brief moment in time between when a government falls and a new government is in the works is not anarchistic society. Â Or were you truly going the anarchy is chaos route. lol. The word lord is not compatible with anarchy.
âIf anarchy was more adaptive than government that’s what we’d have. What we don’t have is proof of what works. We don’t have cubic eyes and tripedal creatures for similar reasons but you refuse to even think about that. Instead you rattle off counter pressures at individual scale making the implication that the reason anarchy doesn’t exist at the scale above is because of the individual pressures. In short you refuse to explore the possibility that anarchy simply can’t exist at the scale you’re suggesting because it can exist at the scale below.â
Actually exploring the possibility that it canât exist is step 1 to learning about anarchy. Â You seem to be caught up in constantly saying it canât exist without actually evaluating it. Â Saying economies of scale and tragedy of the commons constantly isnât an argument. Talk about some examples and weâll do some deductive reasoning.
Also, we do have proof that the systems throughout history failed.
âYou did. You said repeatedly that government is founded on coercion. But you weren’t going far enough back. It began in the ice age when environmental pressure coerced (heh) humanity to choose between cooperation or extinction.â
No, I didnât. I didnât say when government was founded, or when the roots of government were founded. Â I didnât say anything at all about ice age other than that I canât think of anytime someone mentioned it. Â Iâm sorry if you took that to mean Iâve never heard of the Ice age before in regards to the history of human beings. Â Iâm talking about in most of the discussions I have on these topics. Â It probably even came up before, but oh well.
Cooperation suggests voluntarism. Not coercion.
Just to make sure I understand you, you are justifying coercive government policy because you believe the idea that humans were forced by the environment to volunteer to act together?
Did you know that coercion isnât a requisite for the existence of a community, organization, or cooperation?
Did you know that coercion is literally a description of human behavior? Â Itâs not the description of general requisites. You should really look up the definition of coercion. Â It doesnât even mean without choice. It means people forcing people.
âAnd since before government people have been coerced by the consequences of the physical constants. (Of which the laws of game theory are an extension, the TOC being but one facet or one example.)â
And long before government people have overcome physical constants, and without government assistance people overcome physical constants, even today.
âNo, the smallest possible government is a single charismatic autocrat. The leap from kingship to democracy is by definition a leap in scale and size.â
Lol. Â No man. Â The idea is that the government with the least amount of regulation and influence on our lives turned into the government with the most amount of regulation and influence on our lives. Â I wasnât talking about employee count. Â I also didnât say âpossibleâ, and itâs alarmingly illogical to me that you would inject that arbitrarily into my statement.
“A hurricane has no moral gradient. Coercion of some sort is required to solve TOC issues for a non-homogeneous population, that’s not conspiracy, it’s simply physical fact. If you can solve that problem a Nobel in mathematics awaits you.â
So you believe that people canât build hurricane proof shelters without coercion?
Or that people canât decide to choose safer places to life, without coercion?
Or are you honestly personifying a hurricane and saying it coerces people?
Are you trolling me?
Please go look up the definition of coercion so we can start having the same discussion.
âComplain to the manufacturer. I’d rather we eliminate the entire pain based food chain. And I think we can, but it will mean the de facto extinction of humanity as it currently is. :/â
You said this in reply to my claim that coercion is the basis for the worst society. Â What does your reply have to do with coercion? Â Manufacturers have something to do with coercion? Â Why would I complain to a company about coercion?
âhttp://www.hedweb.com/huxley/
(More stuff you assume you already know the content of by a skimming glance at best.)â
Iâve read brave new world and much analysis of it. Â Do you think it strengthens your argument or character somehow with your consistent abusive accusations?
âNow you’re conflating all gov with current US gov. I’m rabidly opposed to 90% of us gov policy. But the difference is I don’t knee jerk my way from there into anarchy. Baby/Bathwaterâ
Oh you see, anarchy wasnât a knee jerk result for me. Â Knee jerking is when you donât think about something and jump to a conclusion. I have spent a lot of time arriving at anarchy, done much reading about it, arguing against it, learned much philosophy, economics, psychology, and history that all lead up to my current position. Â Itâs not a knee jerk. Â Calling it a knee jerk is just more of your silly ad hominem nonsense.
How about explaining the 10% of US govt policy that you agree with and Iâll tell you whether or not I agree.
âNo but “Coercion is immoral” is. Do you define coercion as requiring violence? (Shockingly, yes.) Do you then not consider fines/humiliation/etc coercive?â
Fines require violence because without violence there is no need to pay the fine. Â In a free market, if someone applies a fee to you, you can always go to another provider or decide not to do business with the person, or leave. Â When a govt fines you, you pay or go to prison, or get shot resisting going to prison.
What does humiliation have to do with coercion? Â I assume you donât mean tying someone down and then doing something embarrassing to them, because the tying down part is the coercion. Â You prove again and again that you donât know what coercion means. Â If you donât know what it means, how can you even begin to discuss whether or not it is moral?
Maybe we need to talk about what moral means?
âYou’re inventing your own hypothetical, not addressing mine.â
No I was trying to flesh yours out to give it some justification since you didnât bother to do it. You left it completely open and our NOW starting to describe it to any extent at all. Â So what was I supposed to do just accept it as the surface complete flexibility you left it wiht?
âWhich again is what game theory is. Tony and you are breaking the rules of the game to show that the game can be won. (Kirk did that also. But that lesson is intended to demonstrate sometimes there is no winning sometimes there is only minimized loss.)â
Cute but as you didnât actually describe the rules, I had no choice but to try to rationalize your scenario.  But please go on defending  yourself and accusing me. You left it WIDE open and I tried to rationalize it.  Please accuse me of more shit really itâs so ethical. Also Iâm just so thrilled with the idea of someone as illogical, abusive, and accusatory as you coming up with government policy.
âI think it’s possible that life presents us with situations where a life must be taken to save other lives yes. As a macroscopic predator you do it every day, you just find a way to make plants, animals, and bacteria, “not count” or do you live on minerals?â
Just to be clear, you have agreed that it is immoral to shoot plague victims.
âSimilarly however I think it’s perfectly in your right to pass the buck. To make someone else pull the trigger. That’s what soldiers are for in an uncorrupted culture. Those willing to take on a life and death burden for the good of the group.â
Then letâs hope itâs not a majority of plague victims then. Â Above you started to get around to saying that these people were without control of their senses. Weâre starting to get into the argument of calling them zombies at that point. If they have a sickness that makes them irreversibly incapable of reason is it really still coercion against a human being?
And to pick out the silliest thing you added (moving the goalpost) on this lifeboat scenario, a condition of the infection is that they would try to infect other people â that is coercion. That is initiating violence. Â So of course people would defend themselves.
Your scenario is utterly preposterous, utterly illogical, and utterly self defeating. Please explain how this isnât the case.
âOf course they’d feel bad. Plenty of people feel awful despite having had no alternatives. My mom was an ER nurse, I know all about feeling bad about atrocious situations.â
I stubbed my toe one time and I felt bad. Â But that isnât something to bring up in a discussion about coercion. Â Now if you said your mom had to choose between killing someone to free up a bed, that would be a different situation. But just seeing being in bad situations that make you feel bad is completely illogical to bring up in a discussion about coercion.
âYou’re changing topics.I already said the USG is corrupt and unjust, those aren’t attacks on the validity of government itself, merely the validity of this one.â
And Iâm suggesting that possibly the reason every government is corrupt is because it is built on a corrupted sense of morals; the contradiction of legalizing the initiation of violence against people to tell them what to do.
âNew? It’s the default condition. Government is newer and it’s prehistoric.â
We were talking about an actual function anarchy. Not the anarchistic principles of human interaction outside of a government. Â I wish you werenât so bad at communication.
So again, please point out or show documentation of an actual anarchy. Â After all, I didnât say âI never read about anarchyâ I said âIâve never read about oneâ, which should be pretty clear weâre talking about a society, not general human interaction. Â Otherwise Iâd just point to how people conduct their daily lives, or how the upper levels of government functions without oversight or coercion, but in fact on social ostracism, and so on.
“If you knew ANYTHING about it, you wouldnât be asking how it would work without coercion or that it is a form of government.”
âhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman.â
âIf it’s so easy then fire off the answer.â
Iâd really like to hear your justification of invoking that fallacy. You see, if I had said âno decent human being would say what you saidâ I would see the justification for it. But instead since you are making a knowledge claim that you clearly do not have, what you are doing is being disingenuous and literally lying about the foundation of your position and understanding. Â I donât know why you are doing it, either because you have no argument, have too much pride to admit you have no argument, or because you are mentally ill, or whatever. Regardless, youâre doing it, and then incorrectly thinking Iâm committing fallacy. lol
You see, when you make a knowledge claim about something and then donât understand the basic principles that define it, that is known as being full of shit.
âDRO models are orders of magnitude more equitable than government solutions, I’ll stipulate. But without coercion they are redundant/incomplete/incompetent and with coercion they are equivalent to good government.â
How is it redundant/incomplete/incompetent if I agree to pay something as a result of negligence to meet a contract? There are a lot of ways to to facilitate this, but lets just keep it simple. Â I had $10,000,000 to the DRO that will be given to the other side of the contract if I neglect. Â Where is the coercion? Â Where is the redundancy? Why would you even say that bullshit about redundancy? Where is the incompetence? Â Am I going to break into the DRO and take my money back? I volunteered to enter the contract. I volunteered to agree to the terms. I chose every step of the way. Where is the coercion?
âHow would a DRO solve disputes with implacable participants without coercion?â
Who would do business with a DRO that didnât have a guarantee? Â Who would do business with a DRO that wouldnât be obligated to meet their end of their contract regardless of their ability to settle with the negligent side of the contract? Â And if the DRO failed to meet their contract, who would do business with them again? And you do know a lot of business takes place without any formal contract at all, right?
You know, basically the same way the business world works outside of government coercion.
âLet me guess, that’s too far below your probability threshold to consider.â
Oh youâre trying to erase all of the argument I made against your lifeboat scenario and just sum up the fact that I accused you of having to think up something ridiculously unlikely instead of using actual real world examples? Please go on to use that as pre-emptive argument against my consistent offering of argument.
âsays the guy who redefines coercion arbitrarily and flippantly refuses to consider hypotheticals.â
BWAHAHAHA
I didn’t just consider your hypotheticals, ALL OF THEM I might add, but I even responded to all of them, and for the most part obliterated them. But keep on moving that goal post.
Coercion is when a human or human collective forces another human or human collective to do something.
Yet Iâm the one who redefines coercion? You are the one who personifies hurricanes so you can call hurricanes coercive.
Please show me anywhere that I redefined coercion. lol
âI know. You were being a smart ass. Not having asked your real question (if it even was a question as opposed to a statement) I’m not going to speculate.â
No, I was being honest. Â Why would I ask you to send me definitions on things that I could easily google? Â You seem to have a really serious projection issue.
âI feel no pressing obligation to duplicate effort just because you’re intellectually lazy/callow. If you don’t want the answer, fine. It’s there for future readers.â
Ok fine, then our discussion has to utterly fail while we both consume the list of materials that we both suggest. Right?
Or when you pose an argument you actually explain your argument instead of speaking in general concepts and links.
âAbsolutely. The state as a result of it’s own lust for power is a check on profit motivated PR, (Though granted it funds and develops power motivated PR of it’s own.) One less check improves it’s power.â
So you realize the state uses propaganda to mislead the public. To lie to the public. And this continues to lead to the stripping of freedom, the inefficiency of economy, the exploitation of the public, and war. And yet, you somehow think this would be worse in an anarchy, where there is no public to mine like a piggy bank for everything that big business wants to do, but where people actually have a choice where to spend their money.
In other words:
In a statist society, propaganda tricks the public into being ok with not having a choice where their money goes.
And your suggestion is that:
In a stateless society, PR would trick everyone into paying for atrocity anyhow.
I think itâs horse shit, but even if it wasn’t Iâd still rather have a choice.  I just donât see anywhere in your discourse an explanation that it would be worse in a stateless society. And I canât think of one myself, so I donât know how to agree with you.
âA stateless society would have less PR, but that’s only means the PR that remains would be the only player.â
What would prevent other people from advertizing? Â Under your description, how is the government no the old player?
You seem to make one argument after another against stateless society, but donât realize that you are simultaneously making that argument against government.
âHuman society is now a tripod, composed of religions, governments, and corporations. I call this arrangement “The Company” for short. They have historically be checks against each other to one degree or another. Sometimes they team up to attack the third.â
Religion is control of humans for profit.
Corporation s an attempt to make profit.
Government is corporations controlling humans for profit.
Business always look for ways to do business. The worst tools ever handed to them were religion and government. Iâve read of nothing that has ever allowed business to exploit and control the population more effectively than either one.  The way people authority worship government with complete irrationality is akin to religion.  The way people justify government atrocity on immoral contradictions, is akin to religion.  It seems to me like the problem is still people worshiping and empowering authority, not some separation of religion and government and business.
Religion empowers business immorally.
Government empowers business immorally.
For example: Government grants contracts without consulting the governed, and can do so secretly. Â Government starts war without consulting the governed. Â Government creates new ways to invade the privacy of the population, without consulting the population being invaded.
Religion did the same thing when it was governing people directly.
Corporations who have neither religion or government on their side have to make products that people want, or else no one will buy them. Â And they also have to compete, which means they have to keep making better products, which benefits humanity.
Anyway, I completely disagree with your tripod. Â Religion and Government are just businesses. Corporation is a form of business empowered by government. Â Removing government means corporations are just businesses.
âEliminating one of them entirely is risky.â
Because you feel they are somehow in a  checks and balance struggle with each other?  Are you familiar with the concept in most religions that you should follow the laws of the land?  And are you familiar with how corporations dictate to governments?
âYes, but I took it as a given that his anarcho syndicalism would in goal ultra minimize coercion not attempt to eliminate it. His model is far more workable than yours with regard to violence but the PR argument stands against both your models.â
But the nice thing is, under the model Iâm speaking of, people could create any kind of cooperative they want and see how it plays out. They just wouldn’t be able to coerce other people to be a part of it without society ostracizing them.
âI think yours would actually be worse because of what would rapidly follow it.â
âExample: Depressions defund governments, and governments fall. What follows are typically worse, though I’ll admit I know of no instance in history of a government being defunded while its populace remains funded. (As would happen if we all just stopped paying taxes.)â
Governments historically create depressions to expand their power and to expand the control of wealth of their financial institutions.
âI strongly suspect any government would just begin taking what it wanted and civil war would result. Which probably means the effect has happened and I just missed the cause.â
Government already takes what it wants, all the time.
âThe fact that they make drugs has nothing to do with it? Insulin is valuable because of patents?â
No Iâm not saying that, you are, right? You are the one justifying government policy here, not me.  Iâm saying that if it wasn’t for patents then the price of drugs would come down. Even the availability of drugs would come down, such as in the HIV treatment atrocity.
âCocaine is popular because of lobbying?ââ
Popular? Â Was that your point or something? I didnât know we were talking about popular since no one said popular anywhere.
Cocaine would just be another product if there wasn’t an incentive to the the drug cartels, prison system, and government control of our lives to keep it illegal.  If it wasn’t for drug cartels and the prison industry lobbying the government to keep the war on drugs going strong, maybe we could eradicate it.
âWhat about the fact that drugs are just chemicals and these companies can make whatever chemical they like? Like say Sarin or VX?â
How would that be profitable?
If they are so immoral and their plan is to kill people willynilly, why aren’t they doing it now? Couldn’t they just manufacture a bunch of VX and wipe out and take over the government?
To build on what you said, what about the fact that drugs are just chemicals and other companies would produce them and sell them as well if it wasnât for patents?
âHow about you tell me which of Edward Bernays’s techniqueswouldn’t work in a stateless society? Did the government force people to go to the world’s fair and visit “democracity”? Did he force women to suddenly start smoking? No. He manipulated their unconscious. And unless your model includes some radical brain augmentation/alteration any PR guru in a stateless setting would have 200,000 years of human evolutionary baggage to work with.â
Iâm not saying PR doesn’t work. Iâm asking, how do you think it would play out?  What do you think the population would be lead into doing exactly? Just going back to government or choosing to be slaves?
And more importantly, why do you think it would be worse in a stateless society? Â How could it be worse than what we have now where people are lied into accepting the murder of a million people in another country? Â How could something like that even be profitable to a country in a stateless society? Paying for war is all about debt that future generations have to pay off, against their ability to choose not to.
âAs I said the state is a check on the profit motive of companies, to a limited degree because it sees them as potential rivals for power. It cares about power. Your model would be ruled by corporations and religion. Sure they wouldn’t have the government to squash competition for them but they wouldn’t need it either.â
Then why is the government literally dictated by corporations? Â If government office is mostly composed of people who either work directly, enjoy revolving door, or benefit directly from the corporations you desire protection from, how are you being protected from them?
Is not the government the most powerful tool in history for those companies to get profit without the public having any choice?
âYou’d still have wage slaves and a ruling class of PR types, clergy, and land owners. Indeed your stateless society would rapidly turn into a kind of feudalism. Commerce and religion would be the two halves of The Company, as opposed to the three parts we have now. Gov/church/corporation.â
So you believe that people who ended the existence of state because they stopped practicing the abuse of children, the worship of authority, and coercion, would through the application of PR decide to go back to feudalism, or at the very least, something worse than current forms of government. lol.
Do I even have to ask you to explain this when we both know you wonât? Â Man I get it that you believe these things but if you canât explain WHY this would happen what is the point of even saying that you believe it would happen?
âNope. They are just the ones given the proceeds of power. The ones in power are the influence peddlers, the PR men, the volition engineers. That the 1% believes they own the PR men is doubtless, so in a sense big business is in charge granted. And sure individual PR men can be killed and replaced if they get too uppity. But as a class PR men are indispensable because of the power they wield.â
So you agree with me that businesses are in power.
âO.o Yeah because you refuse to read I’m the lazy one. I spent all day on this reply knowing full well you probably won’t even read it all the way through, let alone follow the links.â
No dude, the point is that if you canât make your argument, you might as well not have an argument. Â Itâs a cop out. Â If your concept is so complicated that you canât reduce it to first principle at all, then you donât even understand the concept and youâre just subscribing to ideology on faith.
âNo my point is how does your culture handle ebola? It has two choices. Coercion or destruction. Coercion is the wise move. Then we can study it and be ready for it. But your model lacks that ability.â
Why would coercion be necessary if a company decided to study Ebola You mean they should be coerced to study it? Or that the population should be coerced into paying for that company to study it?  Why is it impossible to study Ebola without coercion?
âOr are you seriously going to let just whoever wants (and can pay for) have a sample? Plagues are a special case weapon’s class for a reason. It’s a wmd that can be placed in a pocket. How would your society deal with a 12 monkeys scenario? Oh right, too unlikely, must not consider. My bad.â
You mean the way that it actually is now where companies can truly do anything they want in secrecy without anyone finding out? Â Well, I guess Iâd rather take coercion out of the equation since this already exists. You know, since coercion is immoral. Â Are we supposed to leave out the time travel portion of 12 monkeys?
Anyway, which part of 12 monkeys are we talking about? The part where the government turns everyone into slaves for protectionism? Avoiding that is part of the argument for stateless society. Â Or just the part about someone trying to release a deadly virus into the public. Â Which people are perfectly capable of doing now, yet, it never happens for some crazy ass reason, right? Â Maybe itâs because the governments are the ones perpetuating the terrorism of the public in the first place.
What is to prevent a CDC employee from destroying the population?
âSo now we know which PR men would run your culture. Religion would come to utterly dominate the uneducated, and encourage them to out reproduce competition.â
I would never promote an uneducated culture. Â Are you familiar with how knowledgeable people who are educated through a homeschooling community and how prepared they are to function in the market?
âWe’re not, even in this culture people for the most part don’t take people with severe mental illnesses to vote, prisoners can’t vote, and children can’t vote.â
I didn’t say children, the mentally ill, and prisoners. I said âeveryoneâ.  You are making the case that most people are without the skill set necessary to be free.
âThat’s because business adapts faster to reality than college curricula and their product’s value isn’t tied to usefulness. They sell entrance cards.â
If their value is entrance cards, then why are you making the claim about business adapting faster than college? Â I am suggesting that all colleges do is offer entrance cards and not true work skills.
âAnd the pool of needed skills is shrinking due to exponential technology increase scaling up both the power of automation and the complexity of demand.â
I disagree. Automation and complexity create and enable new skill sets and new fields of study.
âWhat happens when the first major employer corporation replaces all human employees with humanoid androids but doesn’t change prices any?â
And you think government will prevent this?
âYou’re creating a society that will come to be dominated by two classes, the obscenely wealthy/powerful and the contractually/spiritually enslaved. And the obscenely wealthy of this society are the ones penning your arguments.â
Who are some of these obscenely wealthy people penning my arguments.
Because it seems to me the people penning them are the people who are traumatized by abuse and being forced to act. Â Itâs clear coercion is immoral.
The obscenely wealthy, the people who literally dictate government and religion, are penning arguments to perpetuate and empower government, because it empowers their own wealth and control over the population. They arenât penning arguments to end government, or we would have gone to full free market long ago.
âYou refuse to accept the origins of government. We don’t tolerate it for those reasons alone.â
We tolerate it because we donât have a choice. You know, coercion.
âWell since you don’t include contractual obligation obtained via humiliation/starvation to be coercive then I guess I don’t. Your culture would eventually implement a de facto tax. Possibly a literal social contract that consumers would force producers and corporations to sign as a condition of not being boycotted. Assuming the target corporation didn’t have a monopoly on some critical good or service or was otherwise boycott-proof.â
Why would someone agree to boycott a corporation that is operating ethically and provides products they want? Â Because other people in society are coercing them into doing it? Â Sounds like government does it not? Â So weâre not even talking about stateless society. Â In paraphrase you are just saying that stateless society will turn back into statist society.
âYou custom defined coercion. In this sense your culture can work because you’ll ostracize (Isolate? Starve?) deviants until the culture is homogeneous.â
Your disingenuous accusations are completely unacceptable. Iâm sorry for you that you donât know what coercion means but NO WHERE in my posts have I âcustom definedâ coercion. Since you clearly donât agree with my explanation of the definition, go look up the word coercion so we can actually be on the same page.
Your personification of a hurricane and calling it a coercive force to get humans to cooperate is the fucking epitome of custom defining coercion. Â So please, tune back into reality.
âNo it isn’t. You just said a person doesn’t need to be critically educated to act peaceably. Playing by your rules I have no responsibility to you at all.â
I asked why it was necessary for people to be educated in the skill sets you listed for them to be able to act peacefully.  You’ve used my statement to justify a non sequitur statement about obligation.  Why do you think that is logical?
Peacefully and obligation donât mean the same thing.
Peacefully and responsibility also donât mean the same thing.
Why does my claim that people can act peacefully without critical examination education make it reasonable for you to make arguments and then ask me to do the leg work for your arguments? Â How is it not OBVIOUS that I was speaking about what is reasonable and not what you are obligated or what you should be coerced to do? Â Itâs unreasonable to make arguments without explaining them. Â That kind of nonsense is used to justify religion and oppressive government policy.
“Just as you don’t have the responsibility to read my links and watch my videos. Which incidentally is why I feel no over powering urge to drag you to water when evidence suggests you’re not going to drink anyway.â
Sure I feel some responsibility to watch and read everything you’ve posted. Iâm not surprised that your abusive mind has chosen to think I wouldn’t Iâm not really surprised at anything your abusive accusatory mind thinks up about me and people who want peaceful society.
âI wouldn’t know but I do know language changes context and context alters meaning. Not all concepts can be translated and expressed in all languages. Perhaps your potential unawareness of that fact is related to your manifest unawareness of the limits of scale?â
Perhaps your seemingly unawareness of the importance behind logically deducing from first principle means that it doesn’t take a specific language to speak about the very simplistic topics that are used to justify very complex ones.
âIndeed, fortunately that’s not my position. Straw man, again.â
Here is your post: âVirtually all of it. Right now I’d like to eliminate all these people whining about entitlement because they want other people to share their life style.â
The people you are labeling as âwhining about entitlementâ are the people who donât want coercive society, want to help society, and want to provide for the needy, so yes, they are the people you are talking about, and it is your argument unless you admit you donât know what stateless society is about at all.  So in fact, no straw man.
âNot an equal level, but enough at minimum to live quietly and peacefully so that participation in society is a real choice. That islanders never can get behind that idea is why I see them as enemies of freedom. What do I care who’s in charge if both sides want to force me to work?â
I would never force you to work. Â But you seem perfectly ok with forcing me to provide for you, which in essence, is YOU forcing me to work. Â I might volunteer to provide for you, but if you try to force me to provide for you, you can go fuck yourself.
âIf it’s a choice between slavers who feed me and slavers who make me gamble and beg for it who ultimately have no problem starving me to death, who do you think I’ll pick?â
Oh Iâm sure youâll pick the government just like you always do in this conversation. Youâll pick the one that is murdering people, arguably leading to the growth of the homeless problem, growing itâs oppression of the population etc etc. Itâs clear who you pick.
âYou people have no sense of community. You’re clannish at best. That’s a poor poor substitute.â
You have no sense of community. Itâs authority worship and removal of the ability to make ethical choices at best. Itâs a poor poor substitute for peace.
âI don’t think rain ruins the water cycle, no. The 1% are creating a global wealth drought. And they already have everything they want. They have nothing left to spend it on. It has to be taken from them. They are aristocrats. We’ll either be starved to the point of killing them, French revolution style, or the people will attempt in some way to force them to share systemically and they’ll wisely submit to our judgment, otherwise they’ll refuse and again, civil war.â
The point was that when people donât have incentive to work and produce, society fails, and has always failed. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the reason government hasn’t worked thus far is because of the super rich elite… So my question here is, why do you not get it yet that government doesn’t work and just empowers the super rich elite and that in fact it creates and perpetuates the super rich elite?
Funny how you keep invoking civil war when itâs always the poor that do the fighting.
âUntil someone gets a monopoly. You realize there are sources of monopoly other than government edict right?â
There has never been a natural monopoly. Itâs a myth perpetuated to justify classical and keynesian economics, and literally to justify the creation of monopoly by government. How typically self defeating and illogical of an argument to use in the justification of the moral contradiction of government.
âI’ve said for years if you’re too slow to outwit a child you shouldn’t have had one. My position on children I already explained. To me they are little people. No culture on earth honestly treats them this way.â
They is much more to children than just being little people. They are in a unique position that requires parents to exercise the most diligent implementation of moral behavior in society, in my opinion.
I said: “Youâll just utilize avoidance in your next response as well.
You replied: âSays the guy as an excuse for avoiding links.â
I havenât avoided your links. Â Are you literally asking me to come back and make your argument for you? Â Also, you STILL AVOIDED IT JUST LIKE I PREDICTED.
âBe sure to follow it up with how you think humiliation isn’t coercion. Because as all islanders know, poor people have no right to dignity.â
Or I could take them beyond your flawed logic and actually explain to them what coercion means.
âAnd if a workable society could be made that indulges that want it would be called utopian.â
So youâre admitting coercive society is a society built on moral contradiction?
âDid you not notice them ALL being neck deep in debt while the 1% is entirely corporate?â
Who are you talking about?  The super rich elite weren’t neck deep in debt. Theyâre the ones using government to take everyone’s wealth.
âGod you people are such literal tools.â
In what way?
âI suppose all of Greece just suddenly got lazy and it’s the government that bankrupted the people. It had nothing to do with global banks.â
Greeceâs government was already out of control with spending before entering the EU and the guaranteed subsidization of being a EU member allowed them to lower interest rates on government bonds. So of course government spending increased.  There wasn’t magically more money for Greeceâs govt to spend, just magically more ability to accumulate debt. Which it did. Why wouldn’t it? Government always tries to spend as much money as it can possibly get its hands on.  So Greece ran up its govt deficit.  When the global financial crisis developed, the ability of the stronger EU countries to subsidize Greece was impacted, especially in the eyes of European banks. Combined with Greeceâs govt deficit increasing as they reported escalating and doubling govt deficit ratios, the interest rates on their bonds of course increased. So now you have European banks buying Greek govt bonds with a premium over the bonds of other countries. Why not? The Greek bonds pay much more interest and European banks would still turn around and use them as collateral to get loans from the ECB with the same rates as if they were bonds form the strongest country in the EU.  So the Greek govt was still growing their debt to support their economy.
Greek taxes increased, so prices increased, so investors took their money out of Greek banks, which they were perfectly free to do under the EU rules. Â Capital was thus depleted.
How was this not due to the Greek government? Â I understand if you want to say the Banks created a debt hole for them to step into, but if they had listened to austrian economists instead of classical or keynesian economists, it wouldnât have happened. Â The government forces the citizenship to use Euros. Not the other way around. Â They donât have a choice but to be on a money system that let the government crash them. Â They allow a bank to loan their wealth to them at interest. So either the government is solely responsible for forcing this on their citizens, or if you want to just blame it on the banks, then the banks are running the government.
âTo secure rights for profit motivated big business.â
So you see my point that government is an evil tool for big business and canât be trusted to exist?
âTo secure antiquated business models for big business.â
So you see my point that government is the largest barrier to human progress?
âSays the guy who doesn’t believe forced starvation and humiliation are coercive…â
Sorry man, Iâm a little uncomfortable having to point out such obvious errors for you.  You said forced starvation and forced humiliation.  Force is the key word of coercive is it not?  Your lack of English comprehension or at least your need to just spout nonsense has enabled you to equate the word force and the word volunteer.  So let me rewrite your false statement for you to make slightly more sense:
— says the guy who doesnât believe choosing not to share your property with someone or choosing to socially ostracize someone is coercive. —
There you go. Â Of course I never actually said humiliate. Â But I guess your void of knowledge on these subjects is another area of ignorance for you that allowed you to equate humiliation and ostracism.
âBut holding their food and telling them what to sign is.â
You mean I took someones food away from them and then told them where to sign? Why would I ever do that? Â Why do you think Iâm evil and coercive?
Let me fix this insane statement for you too ok? đ
— but withholding my property unless the person trades with me, or unless the person is truly incapable of survival unless I share my property, is for me —
Every argument you made against anarchy was an argument against government.
You are willing to take other peoples property, arbitrarily, based on justifications that the most horrible governments have used since the beginning of governments.  The same utilitarian justifications that were used to justify  tyranny, slavery, conquest, loss of privacy, abuse, and imprisonment.  You are clearly an immoral person as you promote that quantity is the difference between moral and immoral action.  You have proven that you are unreasonable by continuing to accuse me and other people with similar viewpoints as mine to have the exact opposite values, regardless of my consistent explanation to the contrary.  You have proven that you are disingenuous by consistently assigning the same non sequitur value to my arguments and claiming to have knowledge about subjects that you clearly didn’t  You initiated condescension in this thread.  You are the kind of person I wouldn’t communicate with outside of having to defend myself in a public forum, like this one.  Iâll continue defending myself and refuting your accusations against me, but I really have no desire to communicate with such a morally perverted person.
