billvon 2,426
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
TomAiello 25
QuoteNow they've formed their own little community and are firing mortars into Las Vegas. Most of them miss. Who's going to go in and deal with that?
The defense force of the nation being attacked? At least that's what I'd expect.
QuoteNow there's an outbreak of leprosy and nearby communities are getting infected. Who's going to deal with that?
The nearby communities, presumably?
QuoteNow they've started a child prostitution ring, and are selling child porn via black market satellite data systems. Who's going to deal with that? Should we just let it happen?
Whoever's children are involved?
Or are you suggesting that we need to maintain a giant military machine to impose our morality on anyone, anywhere in the world, who happens not to share it?
Oh wait, that's exactly the way it works right now...
QuoteNow they're making lots of money at child porn, and can afford to start making simple chemical weapons. We still going to leave them alone?
Sure. Sovereign states have a right to arm themselves however they see fit. I see no moral justification for invading a foreign country because, ohmygosh, they have those scary looking weapon thingies.
jcd11235 0
QuoteIt's voluntary. You are not being compelled to join the new system.
The primary defining characteristic of taxation, the thing that makes it taxation, is it's involuntary nature.
You are not compelled to stay in the current system and continue to pay taxes. You do so voluntarily.
QuoteThe big concept here is the voluntary financing of government. I don't think it's impossible.
Correct. That is exactly the system the United States has now. People can stay and pay their share, or they can leave and not be subject to taxation from the US government. It's their choice to make.
Some people seem to want their cake and to eat it, too.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
billvon 2,426
>The defense force of the nation being attacked?
Fair enough. Repeal posse comitatus and use the military as police. You still have to pay the military, of course, so just replacing prison guards with military doesn't save you money.
>Whoever's children are involved?
Say it's their children, born in 'exile.' Still OK with that?
>Sure. Sovereign states have a right to arm themselves however they
>see fit. I see no moral justification for invading a foreign country
>because, ohmygosh, they have those scary looking weapon thingies.
OK. So to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you'd be OK with creating an armed camp of convicted violent criminals within the borders of the US - and then giving them sovereignty to conduct their own affairs, make their own treaties, and develop their own military/police/weapons systems?
And you think that, in the long run, this would lead to less money spent, and therefore less taxation?
Fair enough. Repeal posse comitatus and use the military as police. You still have to pay the military, of course, so just replacing prison guards with military doesn't save you money.
>Whoever's children are involved?
Say it's their children, born in 'exile.' Still OK with that?
>Sure. Sovereign states have a right to arm themselves however they
>see fit. I see no moral justification for invading a foreign country
>because, ohmygosh, they have those scary looking weapon thingies.
OK. So to make sure I am understanding you correctly, you'd be OK with creating an armed camp of convicted violent criminals within the borders of the US - and then giving them sovereignty to conduct their own affairs, make their own treaties, and develop their own military/police/weapons systems?
And you think that, in the long run, this would lead to less money spent, and therefore less taxation?
GeorgiaDon 340
Well for one thing they could have accessed the value of those assets only by selling them. Yay we just got our own country! But wait, to run it we've got to sell it to get some money! Maybe the Canadians would have bought it (but of course Canada was still British then).Quote
I bet a few million would have been enough, actually. And they could have accessed those assets pretty readily, because they had just seized a whole lot of real estate with actual value, that had previously belonged to their opponent.
It doesn't get more coercive than to tie BIG fees like that to childbearing. What will you do with people who get pregnant and don't have a couple of hundred grand on hand to cough up? Throw them out of the country? Who's going to make that happen? Or would you force them to have an abortion? Your country doesn't feel very free to me, unless you happen to be quite rich. Anyway what's with the up-front fee for everything? We had this discussion before wrt the military, you suggested that everyone pay the entirety of their lifetime share of supporting the military at their 18th birthday. The alternative was to pay it off in military service, which of course would mean some years of unpaid indentured servitude to the military (because if they paid you to serve, you wouldn't really be paying into the system, you'd be taking out of it). So again the wealthy get to fork over some money and get on with their lives, and the not-so wealthy have to do the grunt work. What is so wrong about paying one's share of the cost of running whatever government we as a society decide is needed on the installment plan, i.e. TAXES? If you don't want to pay your share you can always leave, which is exactly the same choice as you would give people except that you would not allow them to pay it off over time.QuoteIf you want each generation to pay, it would be easy to establish a "per child" fee that gets paid into the endowment at birth. People can choose to have more children, staying in the system, and pay the fee. Or they can choose not to have children. Or they can choose to leave the system, rather than pay the fee for the children they are choosing to have.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
TomAiello 25
QuoteSo to make sure I am understanding you correctly...
Nope. I'm mostly advocating the creation of a new system. Within the confines of the current USA? I doubt that's very likely.
QuoteSay it's their children, born in 'exile.' Still OK with that?
Define "ok"? Do I think that's terrible? Yes. Do I want to pay for a military force to go kick their butts and impose my morality on them? No.
Sovereign nations have a right to conduct their own affairs as they wish.
When we expel you from our nation, then your affairs are no longer our business. You get to regulate them all for yourself, without my interference.
billvon 2,426
> I'm mostly advocating the creation of a new system. Within the confines
>of the current USA? I doubt that's very likely.
Are you advocating the creation of a new prison/judicial system outside the US, or a completely new society outside the US?
>When we expel you from our nation, then your affairs are no longer our
> business. You get to regulate them all for yourself, without my
>interference.
Agreed. But the world is a lot smaller today, and sending people to Australia doesn't work as well. Mars might work.
>of the current USA? I doubt that's very likely.
Are you advocating the creation of a new prison/judicial system outside the US, or a completely new society outside the US?
>When we expel you from our nation, then your affairs are no longer our
> business. You get to regulate them all for yourself, without my
>interference.
Agreed. But the world is a lot smaller today, and sending people to Australia doesn't work as well. Mars might work.
Quote>That isn't Anarchy.
Actually, it is.
Well you can call it that if you like but it only highlights you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote
I can decide that slavery should be legal, and no one else can impose their morality on mine in an anarchist system. I can then keep slaves, provided I am strong enough/have enough guns/enough employees to keep them from escaping.
Employees? Becoming clear you don't know anything about this subject.
billvon 2,426
>Well you can call it that if you like.
Since several anarchists call it that as well, I'll let you take it up with them.
Since several anarchists call it that as well, I'll let you take it up with them.
Quote>Well you can call it that if you like.
Since several anarchists call it that as well, I'll let you take it up with them.
There isn't a single anarchist theorist who has ever argued that Anarchy is a strong conquering the weak model for society.
If anything this theory applies directly to today's world.
billvon 2,426
>There isn't a single anarchist theorist who has ever argued that Anarchy is a
>strong conquering the weak model for society.
Max Stirner, who published a seminal book on the philosophy of anarchism (The Ego and Its Own) said "the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or moral rules."
Like I said, you can take it up with him.
>strong conquering the weak model for society.
Max Stirner, who published a seminal book on the philosophy of anarchism (The Ego and Its Own) said "the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or moral rules."
Like I said, you can take it up with him.
Quote>There isn't a single anarchist theorist who has ever argued that Anarchy is a
>strong conquering the weak model for society.
Max Stirner, who published a seminal book on the philosophy of anarchism (The Ego and Its Own) said "the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire, without regard for God, state, or moral rules."
Like I said, you can take it up with him.
max stirner isn't the only anarchist philosopher...
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
how about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin
QuoteIn 1868, Bakunin joined the International Working Men's Association, a federation of radical and trade union organizations with sections in most European countries. The 1872 Congress was dominated by a fight between a faction around Marx who argued for participation in parliamentary elections and a faction around Bakunin who opposed it. Bakunin's faction lost the vote on this issue, and at the end of the congress, Bakunin and several of his faction were expelled for supposedly maintaining a secret organisation within the international. The anarchists insisted the congress was rigged, and so held their own conference of the International at Saint-Imier in Switzerland in 1872. Bakunin remained very active in this and the European socialist movement. From 1870 to 1876, he wrote much of his seminal work such as Statism and Anarchy and God and the State. Despite his declining health, he tried to take part in an insurrection in Bologna, but was forced to return to Switzerland in disguise, and settled in Lugano. He remained active in the radical movement of Europe until further health problems caused him to be moved to a hospital in Berne, where he died in 1876.
Bakunin is remembered as a major figure in the history of anarchism and an opponent of Marxism, especially of Marx's idea of dictatorship of the proletariat. He continues to be an influence on modern-day anarchists, such as Noam Chomsky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakunin
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
or...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
QuoteProudhon was the first to refer to himself as an anarchist. In What is Property, published in 1840, he defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign," and in The General idea of the Revolution (1851) he urged a "society without authority." He extended this analysis beyond political institutions, arguing in What is Property? that "proprietor" was "synonymous" with "sovereign". For Proudhon:
“ "Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.”
Proudhon in his earliest works analyzed the nature and problems of the capitalist economy. While deeply critical of capitalism, he also objected to those contemporary socialists who idolized association. In a sequence of commentaries, from What is Property? (1840) through the posthumously-published Théorie de la propriété (Theory of Property, 1863-64), he declared in turn that "property is theft", "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom". When he said "property is theft", he was referring to the landowner or capitalist who he believed "stole" the profits from laborers. For Proudhon, the capitalist's employee was "subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
billvon 2,426
>max stirner isn't the only anarchist philosopher...
Of course he isn't. He advocates "pure" individual anarchism (egoism) where anything is OK if you have the might to do it. Murder is OK as long as you 'feel it's the right thing to do.' William Godwin advocated a slightly less extreme form, where a very small government would still remain, dedicated primarily to things like national defense.
Most anarchists are somewhere between that extreme and the laws-and-government approach. Some prefer economic anarchy (see the first post in this thread) but social law and order. Some prefer mutualism, which includes organizations, guilds and the like, but no central governmental power. Then there's libertarian socialism (socialist anarchism) in which there is very little government but also no private property ownership.
There are endless varieties on the road from pure anarchy to a strong and lawful state; take your pick of philosophies.
Of course he isn't. He advocates "pure" individual anarchism (egoism) where anything is OK if you have the might to do it. Murder is OK as long as you 'feel it's the right thing to do.' William Godwin advocated a slightly less extreme form, where a very small government would still remain, dedicated primarily to things like national defense.
Most anarchists are somewhere between that extreme and the laws-and-government approach. Some prefer economic anarchy (see the first post in this thread) but social law and order. Some prefer mutualism, which includes organizations, guilds and the like, but no central governmental power. Then there's libertarian socialism (socialist anarchism) in which there is very little government but also no private property ownership.
There are endless varieties on the road from pure anarchy to a strong and lawful state; take your pick of philosophies.
OK. You "expel" them to a fenced off area in Nevada.
Now there's a breakout; they go on a rampage, looting and pillaging. Why pays to round em up again?
Now they've formed their own little community and are firing mortars into Las Vegas. Most of them miss. Who's going to go in and deal with that?
Now there's an outbreak of leprosy and nearby communities are getting infected. Who's going to deal with that?
Now they've started a child prostitution ring, and are selling child porn via black market satellite data systems. Who's going to deal with that? Should we just let it happen?
Now they're making lots of money at child porn, and can afford to start making simple chemical weapons. We still going to leave them alone?
I think that idea needs a little more fleshing out (even on paper) before it's viable.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites