I have created this thread primarily for the sake of not derailing other threads with my long rebuttals to the brief claims and questions of others. I also believe it will be a useful reference point so I won't have to repeat the same arguments.
I get a lot of objections and claims from statists, which I will reiterate in the form of debatable questions. Feel free to address however many you like:
1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?
2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?
3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state? If not, who else can provide any of them? If another system can, which is more efficient for society?
4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?
5. Assuming there is no good reason for the state to have a monopoly on providing essential goods and services for society, can a voluntaryist society possibly come to be, or would that be an impossible utopia? Is there historical precedence for such an idea?
My response addressing some of these will come in the following post, which may take time considering my lengthy style. I will be responding to questions from other threads which relate to the above.
nursebenjamin wrote:
How does a “voluntaryist� propose that we deal with vital issues such as global warming;
Wait 40 years, we will soon be worrying about global cooling, as we were when the EPA was established.
preservation of natural and cultural resources for this and future generations;
So, that those natural resources can never be used, while cultural resources like portraits of elephant dung and a crucifix in urine are not only displayed but publically funded?
and, international terror groups such as al Qaeda?
Defense from foreign entities is one of the few things that the constitution did establish as a federal responsibility. The stated purpose of the second amendment was to establish internal defense.
What makes you think that under anarchy, people won’t end up as commodities?
Are those who apposed to statism really proposing anarchy?
What is to prevent the rich and powerful 1% from turning the rest of us into serfs?
Personal property rights. It appears that in discussions like this each side sees the other in the extreme. Admittedly, the title of this thread sets it up that way. However, opposing a strong federal government and a weak local government does not mean that one is in favor of anarchy.
You seem to confused about what this thread is about. It is about volunatyism, which is a form of anarchy.
help3434 wrote:You seem to confused about what this thread is about. It is about volunatyism, which is a form of anarchy.
Voluntaryism is a philosophy of non-violence, or consent. Anarchy is simply the logical conclusion of that viewpoint; any other conclusion, like minarchism, is simply the result of inconsistency (not practicality). I think it is possible for you to be a voluntaryist and also an anarcho-communist, but I strongly support anarcho-capitalism, and most ancaps are voluntaryists and vice versa. Sometimes I'm guilty of using voluntaryism as a synonym for anarcho-capitalism but there is a distinction. Most anarchists don't consider ancaps as such, because most anarchists either support the use of violence, force, vandalism, and theft, or strongly oppose capitalism. A voluntaryist society however would allow for ancaps and ancoms to experiment as they want. My views do not necessitate the destruction of someone else's lifestyle, or property. I can't say the same for other anarchists.
And in speaking of anarchists I am not talking about opportunistic vandals who's only guiding principles involve proper throwing techniques for their Molotov cocktails. A lot of anarchists tend to be Marxists thinkers.
In any case, I prefer the term voluntaryist, or voluntarist because the word "anarchy" is commonly associated with chaos and criminal behavior, not a peaceful philosophical/political position.
If there is a positive relationship between statelessness and public good, then why are Southern Afghanistan and Eastern Congo not meccas for libertarian expats?
Statelessness alone does not create prosperity. If the local mafia once promised protection to you in exchange for your compliance to their demands -- but now it no longer exists -- what are your alternatives? There is no security firm you could go to because the mafia drove all the businesses that provided services and protection out of town. At least your life and property are not facing the guaranteed risk of the mafia anymore, but that's not ideal. At least now there is a clean slate for businesses to form or come in from the outside, but it's no paradise believe me.
Confusing failed states, such as the ones you mentioned, or broke cities like Detroit, with the handiwork of the market is as fallacious as it is common. This is why I support a free market; only freer markets can create the variety necessary to provide essential services if the state ever becomes obsolete. Failed states, prior to their collapse, tend to restrict market freedoms which has a negative impact on the economy. The most powerful states achieve that wealth through allowing more economic liberty, which in turn means more tax revenue. If a state adopts communistic and socialist policies that drive businesses away, it's only a matter of time before the wealth they once had runs out, and that's when people get desperate. That's when you end up with Greece or Egypt.
If the United States were to cease to exist tomorrow, which is a bit sudden, Americans would be better off than the Somalis or Afghans were because there would be enough businesses and wealth created by the market to provide for society's needs. In countries that have been ravaged by imperialism and socialist policies for decades, there just isn't much prosperity that can arise from that.
The Eastern areas of Congo are the free market libertarians’ wet dream. Macho rebels seized the local mines, and in doing so, also drove out the Statists. No wimpy vulture capitalist sitting in a cozy boardroom planning a corporate takeover could achieve what the rebels have. The rebels saw what should be theirs and took control.
After the statist where driven out is when the voluntaryist miracle happened. Local voluntaryists came out of the woodwork and built a better society. The providence of North Kivu now boasts the world’s first voluntarily-built high speed train. No tax dollars were used; expenses were entirely paid for voluntarily by voluntaryists.
The train station located near the local stock exchange is an architectural marvel and considered one of the Seven Wonder’s of the Art World. And were paid for entirely by anarchist, voluntarily out of the goodness of their heart. “Art create identities for cultures and societies,� explains voluntaryist Antoine Muamba.
Probably the biggest benefit to the providence has been an improved health care infrastructure. Local voluntaryists have been extremely generous in providing supplies and funds to village heath clinics; the area’s infant mortality rate is now half that of Western Europe. Generous employment benefits are such that American nurses are moving to the stateless North Kivu in waves so large that many are crediting voluntaryist policies in Africa with the current nursing shortage in America.
Voluntaryists in Congo have such personal responsibility for future generations that ¾ of the vehicles seen on the streets are Toyota Prius. By personal choice, not state policy, the average vehicle in North Kivu gets at least 70 miles to the gallon. “You look at the large problems that we face -- overpopulation, water shortages, global warming, AIDS, -- all of that needs international voluntary cooperation to be solved,� says voluntaryist Joseph Bemba.
Righteous voluntaryists have funded HIV research. Local researchers are just finishing stage three in clinical trails for a breakthrough HIV vaccine. This vaccine would never have been possible if state-funded R&D was an option. Voluntaryists, out of the goodness of their hearts, will ensure that poor people everywhere have equal access to the vaccine.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of farsighted voluntaryists in the stateless regions of Congo is the Star Trek space program. To go boldly where no man has gone before is the perfect motto for visionary voluntaryists. Only with the destruction of the modern nation-state will such grand programs become a possibility.
If only voluntaryists in America could be as courageous as voluntaryists in the Congo.
nursebenjamin wrote:The Eastern areas of Congo are the free market libertarians’ wet dream. Macho rebels seized the local mines, and in doing so, also drove out the Statists. No wimpy vulture capitalist sitting in a cozy boardroom planning a corporate takeover could achieve what the rebels have. The rebels saw what should be theirs and took control.
Are you aware of just how much the living conditions of the Congolese were shaped by states and colonialism?
As for the Congo, you're probably familiar with King Leopold. This was a man shaped by dreams of empire, who was given funding by Belgium and the approval of the Conference of Berlin to confiscate the property of the Congolese. His "free" state funded public and private projects in Belgium, and the core of his army was comprised of Belgian soldiers. For libertarians and ancaps, there can be no justification for taking land from others. What King Leopold did was not unlike what the founding fathers did -- they gave themselves authority to rule. King Leopold was a product of the state, a child of imperialism -- not a free market hero.
So for you to claim, albeit sarcastically, that the Congo represents a voluntaryist ideal -- well that's nothing but a straw man that could take on Godzilla.
nursebenjamin wrote:After the statist where driven out is when the voluntaryist miracle happened. Local voluntaryists came out of the woodwork and built a better society. The providence of North Kivu now boasts the world’s first voluntarily-built high speed train. No tax dollars were used; expenses were entirely paid for voluntarily by voluntaryists.
A land and a people who've been raped by imperialism and socialism for so long can't be expected to produce very much.
But in places where there is more freedom for markets to operate, we do see private high speed railways, such as All Aboard Florida. And as I mentioned before, the SpaceX hyperloop in California. All this without robbing everyone.
nursebenjamin wrote:The train station located near the local stock exchange is an architectural marvel and considered one of the Seven Wonder’s of the Art World. And were paid for entirely by anarchist, voluntarily out of the goodness of their heart. “Art create identities for cultures and societies,� explains voluntaryist Antoine Muamba.
People are self-interested, which means that people will either pay for something they want, or volunteer their time. One does not need an army to force people to do things, and you certainly don't need to change human nature. Are you going to actually deny the existence of the private and voluntary sectors? I would list examples, but I don't wish to insult your intelligence.
nursebenjamin wrote:Probably the biggest benefit to the providence has been an improved health care infrastructure. Local voluntaryists have been extremely generous in providing supplies and funds to village heath clinics; the area’s infant mortality rate is now half that of Western Europe. Generous employment benefits are such that American nurses are moving to the stateless North Kivu in waves so large that many are crediting voluntaryist policies in Africa with the current nursing shortage in America.
Claiming that only the government can provide healthcare is the same as saying only the government can provide bread. History shows that there was a time when healthcare was actually affordable for the poor, before the state got involved.
nursebenjamin wrote:Voluntaryists in Congo have such personal responsibility for future generations that ¾ of the vehicles seen on the streets are Toyota Prius. By personal choice, not state policy, the average vehicle in North Kivu gets at least 70 miles to the gallon. “You look at the large problems that we face -- overpopulation, water shortages, global warming, AIDS, -- all of that needs international voluntary cooperation to be solved,� says voluntaryist Joseph Bemba.
nursebenjamin wrote:Righteous voluntaryists have funded HIV research. Local researchers are just finishing stage three in clinical trails for a breakthrough HIV vaccine. This vaccine would never have been possible if state-funded R&D was an option. Voluntaryists, out of the goodness of their hearts, will ensure that poor people everywhere have equal access to the vaccine.
Because there's just no such thing as private and voluntary organizations that search for cures.
nursebenjamin wrote:Perhaps the greatest achievement of farsighted voluntaryists in the stateless regions of Congo is the Star Trek space program. To go boldly where no man has gone before is the perfect motto for visionary voluntaryists. Only with the destruction of the modern nation-state will such grand programs become a possibility.
If only voluntaryists in America could be as courageous as voluntaryists in the Congo.
Even the US doesn't have a Star Trek program, and that's because NASA is a jobs program that's taking in much more money than private companies and promising us stuff that won't happen until the 2020s.
Meanwhile, guess who can get those of us to space who want to contribute to that cause? Even major progressives acknowledge this:
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
I think I'll take the next step towards building the Enterprise, and you can keep the shuttle with rusty heat shingles that you're oh so happy to be forced to pay for.
Secondly, voluntaryists don't advocate for the destruction or failure of the state, but a phase out or obsolescence of the state. It's as if you expected Walmart chains to exist in Communist Russia to stop the famine and democide that resulted from collectivized farming -- but because they didn't exist at the time due to Soviet polices that destroyed economic freedom, it's the "free market's" fault. In progressive circles, it's always the free market's fault, especially when it's obviously the government's. Slavery, segregation, mercantilism -- all government created problems, but freedom always get's blamed for what the empire does.
nursebenjamin wrote:The Eastern areas of Congo are the free market libertarians’ wet dream. Macho rebels seized the local mines, and in doing so, also drove out the Statists.
… So for you to claim, albeit sarcastically, that the Congo represents a voluntaryist ideal -- well that's nothing but a straw man that could take on Godzilla.
Much of what I wrote was satire. Virtually all state institutions have disappeared in Eastern Congo; those people must really feel free. [/Sarcasm] This stateless society is the voluntaryist ideal that I speak of.
nursebenjamin wrote:After the statist where driven out is when the voluntaryist miracle happened. Local voluntaryists came out of the woodwork and built a better society. The providence of North Kivu now boasts the world’s first voluntarily-built high speed train. No tax dollars were used; expenses were entirely paid for voluntarily by voluntaryists.
A land and a people who've been raped by imperialism and socialism for so long can't be expected to produce very much.
But in places where there is more freedom for markets to operate, we do see private high speed railways, such as All Aboard Florida. And as I mentioned before, the SpaceX hyperloop in California. All this without robbing everyone.
<<<“A land and a people who've been raped by imperialism and socialism for so long can't be expected to produce very much.�>>>
So, in order to reach the voluntaryism dream, one first needs a stable government to maintain order and build infrastructure?
<<<“All this without robbing everyone.�>>>
All Aboard Florida is building its railroad with a low interest loan from the Federal Railroad Administration.[1] This, by the way, is a branch of the federal government. If we going to use your definition of taxation (taxation is theft), then the railroad is being built by robbing everyone.
The SpaceX hyperloop project is still in the conception phase; we’ll have to wait and see if it gets built without governmental intervention.
nursebenjamin wrote:The train station located near the local stock exchange is an architectural marvel and considered one of the Seven Wonder’s of the Art World. And were paid for entirely by anarchist, voluntarily out of the goodness of their heart. “Art create identities for cultures and societies,� explains voluntaryist Antoine Muamba.
People are self-interested, which means that people will either pay for something they want, or volunteer their time. One does not need an army to force people to do things, and you certainly don't need to change human nature. Are you going to actually deny the existence of the private and voluntary sectors? I would list examples, but I don't wish to insult your intelligence.
<<<“People are self-interested�>>>
I don't believe this is always true. But perhaps altruism versus selfishness is off topic.
<<<“One does not need an army to force people to do things�>>>
Sometimes they do.
<<<“Are you going to actually deny the existence of the private and voluntary sectors?�>>>
Of course not.
nursebenjamin wrote:Probably the biggest benefit to the providence has been an improved health care infrastructure. Local voluntaryists have been extremely generous in providing supplies and funds to village heath clinics; the area’s infant mortality rate is now half that of Western Europe. Generous employment benefits are such that American nurses are moving to the stateless North Kivu in waves so large that many are crediting voluntaryist policies in Africa with the current nursing shortage in America.
Claiming that only the government can provide healthcare is the same as saying only the government can provide bread. History shows that there was a time when healthcare was actually affordable for the poor, before the state got involved.
According to your article, it's been about 100 years since health care was affordable to the poor.
Under voluntaryism, how would you ensure that the poor have equal access to health care? What if there is not enough charity to go around? I would like freedom from worry that one illness or injury stand between security and foreclosure/bankruptcy.
nursebenjamin wrote:Voluntaryists in Congo have such personal responsibility for future generations that ¾ of the vehicles seen on the streets are Toyota Prius. By personal choice, not state policy, the average vehicle in North Kivu gets at least 70 miles to the gallon. “You look at the large problems that we face -- overpopulation, water shortages, global warming, AIDS, -- all of that needs international voluntary cooperation to be solved,� says voluntaryist Joseph Bemba.
This is how the US government handles AIDS. No one will argue that government sometimes royally screws something up. If you want a better government, then elect better politicians.
Should I find a story on some corporation polluting the air and then claim that corporations are always screw-ups?
nursebenjamin wrote:Righteous voluntaryists have funded HIV research. Local researchers are just finishing stage three in clinical trails for a breakthrough HIV vaccine. This vaccine would never have been possible if state-funded R&D was an option. Voluntaryists, out of the goodness of their hearts, will ensure that poor people everywhere have equal access to the vaccine.
Because there's just no such thing as private and voluntary organizations that search for cures.
Yes, but when government sponsors research, the results are publicly shared and profit is not the main motivator.
nursebenjamin wrote:Perhaps the greatest achievement of farsighted voluntaryists in the stateless regions of Congo is the Star Trek space program. To go boldly where no man has gone before is the perfect motto for visionary voluntaryists. Only with the destruction of the modern nation-state will such grand programs become a possibility.
If only voluntaryists in America could be as courageous as voluntaryists in the Congo.
Even the US doesn't have a Star Trek program, and that's because NASA is a jobs program that's taking in much more money than private companies and promising us stuff that won't happen until the 2020s.
Meanwhile, guess who can get those of us to space who want to contribute to that cause? Even major progressives acknowledge this:
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
I think I'll take the next step towards building the Enterprise, and you can keep the shuttle with rusty heat shingles that you're oh so happy to be forced to pay for.
No private space company has done anything exciting without first being funded by the US government. (Oops, I meant without first stealing your hard-earned money.) SpaceX – half of its funding came from NASA.
Darias wrote:Secondly, voluntaryists don't advocate for the destruction or failure of the state, but a phase out or obsolescence of the state. It's as if you expected Walmart chains to exist in Communist Russia to stop the famine and democide that resulted from collectivized farming -- but because they didn't exist at the time due to Soviet polices that destroyed economic freedom, it's the "free market's" fault. In progressive circles, it's always the free market's fault, especially when it's obviously the government's. Slavery, segregation, mercantilism -- all government created problems, but freedom always get's blamed for what the empire does.
<<<“Secondly, voluntaryists don't advocate for the destruction or failure of the state, but a phase out or obsolescence of the state.�>>>
Here's a problem that I have with this so-called voluntaryism. In my opinion, Libertarians are basically free-loaders; they expect public services but don’t want to pay for them. Voluntaryism takes free-loading one step further. The purpose of our government is to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity�. Many of us believe that the US is the best country in the world; thousands died in creating her; and millions have died protecting her. I have personally sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies -- foreign and domestic. And, now, we’re supposed to destroy the government for your untested beliefs?!?
Why don’t you guys bear the risks of your own thought experiment? Religious cults have bought tracts of land and set up their own communities. Libertarians should do the same. Privatize the roads, schools, police, libraries, fire department and parks. Have no local tax nor local regulations. Show us the benefits of voluntaryism.
<<<“Slavery, segregation, mercantilism -- all government created problems�>>>
Are they? Isn’t it the Bill of Rights, Congress, the Courts, the Armed Forces, National Guard, police, etc responsible for ending slavery and Jim Crow? What role did voluntaryists play?
The biggest problem that I have with your theory is this: What if I’m a homeless man (through no fault of my own -- perhaps I have schizophrenia) living in a society where even the streets are privately owned? I have no money. Where will I sleep? Where may I walk? Pee? May I beg, or do I have to pay for this privilege as well? The types of "freedoms" and "rights" that you are proposing are not something that I want.
Darias wrote:
I have created this thread primarily for the sake of not derailing other threads with my long rebuttals to the brief claims and questions of others. I also believe it will be a useful reference point so I won't have to repeat the same arguments.
I get a lot of objections and claims from statists, which I will reiterate in the form of debatable questions. Feel free to address however many you like:
1. Do you believe that the state/government is synonymous with society and civilization?
2. Do you believe that the absence of the state/government necessitates chaos, disorder and destruction?
3. Are essential goods and services (food, water, roads, security, insurance) which are necessary for the survival and prosperity of society, incapable of existing apart from their provision by the state? If not, who else can provide any of them? If another system can, which is more efficient for society?
4. Assuming the needs and wants of society are met equally by both government programs, and by voluntary behavior, (in the free market, or alternatively, collectivism), is there any other reason why the former shouldn't?
5. Assuming there is no good reason for the state to have a monopoly on providing essential goods and services for society, can a voluntaryist society possibly come to be, or would that be an impossible utopia? Is there historical precedence for such an idea?
My response addressing some of these will come in the following post, which may take time considering my lengthy style. I will be responding to questions from other threads which relate to the above.
To be honest Darias, after reading your questions again I have to say that they do not make much sense. I support free markets like you do. I support the idea of a constitutionally limited government and I support many of the libertarian stances on social issues like drugs and gay marriage. But, unlike you, I am not an anarchist or a Rothbardian.
There has to be a government and there has to be some level of taxation to fund it. You need to have a government if you're going to have private property rights, which is also a libertarian virtue. The only reason why private property exists is because the government adjudicates property rights. If there was no government society would exist in the 'state of nature' and there would be no entity to stop unreasonable people like criminals or thieves. In a society without government, there would be nothing to stop people from infringing upon other people's rights to life, liberty and property. Therefore, a government is required in order to protect life, liberty and property.
You are reading to much into the extreme libertarian position. Let me guess, you also believe the government has no right to maintain police officers and firefighters? You don't think public education is necessary?
nursebenjamin wrote:
Much of what I wrote was satire.
Indeed, a joke, well written, with everything you could ever want but a valid argument.
nursebenjamin wrote:Virtually all state institutions have disappeared in Eastern Congo; those people must really feel free.[/Sarcasm] This stateless society is the voluntaryist ideal that I speak of.
If you're going to continue to insist that state created chaos and government failures are the fault of the market, or the goal of those who argue for peaceful solutions, then I'm not going to bother to waste my time while you do battle with your own misconceptions. Stop dishing out fallacies like we're playing a game of cards. Debate, or don't bother.
Eastern Congo is by no means free. A lack of public services does not mean there is no influence from the state, or foreign intervention. Historically the governments presiding over that geographical area have not permitted much economic liberty, which of course means that there is not a robust economy which can meet the needs of society in lieu of the state.
Moreover, the violence in that area would not exist today had states not exaggerated and exacerbated racial tensions in the first place. The current Congolese President backed the Hutu rebel group comprised of people responsible for the Rwandan genocide.
nursebenjamin wrote:
So, in order to reach the voluntaryism dream, one first needs a stable government to maintain order and build infrastructure?
No, but laws and policies that monopolize services or prohibit the existence of private markets will no doubt mean that when states fail, there won't be existing market alternatives on standby. The demand will have to quickly be filled, but that might be difficult, thanks to the state of the economy that was left behind by the state.
nursebenjamin wrote:All Aboard Florida is building its railroad with a low interest loan from the Federal Railroad Administration.[1] This, by the way, is a branch of the federal government. If we going to use your definition of taxation (taxation is theft), then the railroad is being built by robbing everyone.
The SpaceX hyperloop project is still in the conception phase; we’ll have to wait and see if it gets built without governmental intervention.
Loans can be repaid but taxes are not returned. In this day and age companies have an incentive to work with the state, or to treat the state as a customer. And if the state wants to save money on certain things it will be more than happy to pay companies to do it for them. If we're weighing the construction and maintenance costs to taxpayers of a state railway vs. a private one, the private one will cost less even if it does take a loan that it will repay. My point was that private forms of transportation exist apart from government planning and funding.
I believe the hyperloop will go alongside highways, so SpaceX might have to purchase land from the state in order to build it, but as you will see in subsequent paragraphs, SpaceX has done plenty without a dime from the public.
nursebenjamin wrote:I don't believe this is always true. But perhaps altruism versus selfishness is off topic.
Altruistic behavior is not unconditional. Self-interested behavior is not necessarily selfish, and arguably includes acts of altruism. Who doesn't get some level of satisfaction from helping others? Who doesn't work their day job in the interests of making a living?
You don't need an army to create Wikipedia; people just created it on their own. Other people prefer monetary incentives. But all behavior is incentivized at some level.
Force is not required to get people to do what they want or need to do. Take the failed bus project in Detroit for example -- tax dollars went in, and nothing came out.
So this guy did something about it. No he's not a voluntaryist, he's a statist, most likely a progressive, who still thinks public transportation is the solution -- even though it failed his community. But, still, look what he did. Those buses have music and they've got designs and GPS and all sorts of cool stuff, all for $5 day pass. They don't need to be big enough to cover the whole city, that's what competition is for anyways.
nursebenjamin wrote:
According to your article, it's been about 100 years since health care was affordable to the poor.
Under voluntaryism, how would you ensure that the poor have equal access to health care? What if there is not enough charity to go around? I would like freedom from worry that one illness or injury stand between security and foreclosure/bankruptcy.
I'm not sure where to begin if you actually believe that people are guaranteed equal access to health care now.
Healthcare for a year was once the price of a day's worth of wages within friendly fraternities:
nursebenjamin wrote:If you want a better government, then elect better politicians.
You would not have the audacity to tell that to survivors of the Holocaust or to Ugandan homosexuals, or to Japanese Americans during WWII, so don't keep repeating this mantra as if it were a solution.
The dream of electing better, more informed, more accountable leaders is naive when one considers the reality. Most people are not informed about politics because they value their time. Others who do follow politics may very well be more duped than informed, especially if they watch CNN and Fox News all day, which forgo journalism in favor of party rhetoric and dishing out government reports/statements, no questions asked.
Statistically, your vote doesn't matter, and going to the polls is not worth risking your life in the very likely chance of a car accident, only to have your "informed" vote canceled out by 10 other clueless people who vote based on party, or who choose to do so based on some indoctrinated sense of "duty" to the public. People whose rights are on the line vote to defend themselves against a moral majority who end up winning in the end.
[center][youtube][/youtube] [/center]
Your solution amounts to telling the victims of democracy to do the impossible. It's like a Pharisee who tells the starving and the helpless to, "keep warm and well fed.� It's patronizing and it's beneath adults to actually believe such nonsense.
nursebenjamin wrote:Should I find a story on some corporation polluting the air and then claim that corporations are always screw-ups?
You are more than welcome to point out the crimes of corporations, but if your goal in doing so is to lay the blame of man-made climate change on the free market -- then you're essentially ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room that is the state. By far, the state, specifically China and the US (factoring in all the wars, the state-owned industries, the bailouts for the auto industry, the construction of interstate highways that incentive car production, the mutually beneficial relationship between big oil and governments etc.) are the greatest polluters the earth has ever known. And this is not accidental. These policies are intentional. Subsidizing bankrupt clean energy companies for political gain does not undo the oceans of pollution generated by the state. Politicians are beholden to corporate interests and to pork barrel projects, so the idea of voting to get money out of politics, or that politicians are accountable to voters is comical.
nursebenjamin wrote:
Yes, but when government sponsors research, the results are publicly shared and profit is not the main motivator.
First of all, don't sit there and tell me the state has no interest in money; do the vast majority of public servants work for free, if so why do they need all our tax dollars?
Secondly, when the state sponsors research, it can be done in secret and your money can fund atrocities like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, or the Guatemala syphilis experiment. And we don't get to hear about the results until 40 to 70 years later. And what do the survivors get as a result? Well none other than an apology from the Clintons, and that's a treat in and of itself. I guess that's what they get for not voting for better leaders.
nursebenjamin wrote:
No private space company has done anything exciting without first being funded by the US government. (Oops, I meant without first stealing your hard-earned money.)
[center] [/center]
Max Engel, [i]Via Satellite[/i] wrote:SpaceX is not the first private company to try to break through the commercial space launch market. The company, however, appears to be the real thing. Privately funded, it had a vehicle before it got money from NASA, and while NASA’s space station resupply funds are a tremendous boost, SpaceX would have existed without it.
Wikipedia: SpaceX wrote:SpaceX is a privately funded space transportation company.[25] It developed its first launch vehicle—Falcon 1—and three rocket engines—Merlin, Kestrel, and Draco—completely with private capital. [. . .] SpaceX is developing the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle and the Raptor methane-fueled rocket engine with private capital.
nursebenjamin wrote:SpaceX – half of its funding came from NASA.
After SpaceX had it's first ship built, NASA started getting interested, and now SpaceX treats the state like a customer. The money SpaceX received was about 500 million, and it had to do with fulfilling contracts. Because the state is a force to be contended with, it's almost foolish for companies not to do business with it; it's not right and I'm not saying it is, but the incentives are there, especially for companies like SpaceX who do things the state has an interest in.
The development of Falcon Heavy has been privately funded; it can carry more, and will be much cheaper:
John Strickland, [i]The Space Review[/i] wrote:One estimate of individual SLS launch costs (not including the payload) can be obtained from private launch cost projections, which are now about ten times lower than the current prices for government-sponsored launchers like the Delta 4 Heavy, which are actually increasing due to reduced launch rates. If the projected cost for the Falcon Heavy is about $850–1,000 per pound, or $100 million per 53-ton launch, for about four launches a year, then the cost per pound for an SLS payload would be about ten times higher at $8,500 to $10,000 per pound to low Earth orbit (LEO). This would equate to about $1.3 billion for the 70-ton payload version and $2.45 billion for the 130-ton version. Projected launch costs for the proposed Falcon Super Heavy (150 tons to LEO) are about $300 million, giving cost per pound that are comparable to the Falcon Heavy or still about ten times cheaper per pound than existing costs or projected SLS costs. Some estimates for the SLS test launch costs are as much as 25 times more per pound ($25,000 per pound) than those for the Falcon Heavy. These estimates are based primarily on the development costs. If we include a typical government payload, the cost per mission (vehicle costs, operational launch costs and payload costs) approaches $5 billion or more per launch. It is thus probable that the cost of each SLS launch with payload will be much more than the cost of a shuttle launch, which recent calculations have shown to be about $1.5 billion apiece. The Shuttle did recover the “upper stage� (the Shuttle itself) with all of its expensive rocket engines.
Isn't it amazing how voluntary exchange can get things done cheaper and more efficiently than force? It's as if voluntaryism was based off economists observations of the real world rather than utopic visions.
nursebenjamin wrote:Here's a problem that I have with this so-called voluntaryism. In my opinion, Libertarians are basically free-loaders; they expect public services but don’t want to pay for them. Voluntaryism takes free-loading one step further.
Free loaders are people who want other people to pay for their wants and needs. Free loaders are people who think that public services are free and provided for by "government money." Free loaders are people who don't want to pay more taxes or cut military and medicare spending. In other words, free loaders constitute many Obama and Romney supporters.
But that doesn't matter because in your mind, libertarians are freeloaders, selfish, unpatriotic, and whatever other ad-hominem you can come up with. Why bother to actually read their arguments when it's more fun to make stuff up?
nursebenjamin wrote:The purpose of our government is to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity�.
And the "purpose" of the USSR was to:
1924 Soviet Constitution wrote:All these considerations insistently demand the union of the Soviet Republics into one federated state capable of guaranteeing external security, economic prosperity internally, and the free national development of peoples. The will of the peoples of the Soviet Republics recently assembled in Congress, where they decided unanimously to form the "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics", is a sure guarantee that this Union is a free federation of peoples equal in rights, that the right to freely withdraw from the Union is assured to each Republic, that access to the Union is open to all Republics already existing as well as those that may be bom in the future, that the new federal state will be the worthy crowning of the principles laid down as early as October 1917 of the pacific co-existence and fratemal collaboration of peoples, that it will serve as a bulwark against the capitalist world and mark a new decisive step towards the union of workers of all countries in one world-wide Socialist Soviet Republic.
nursebenjamin wrote:Many of us believe that the US is the best country in the world; thousands died in creating her; and millions have died protecting her. I have personally sworn to protect the Constitution from all enemies -- foreign and domestic. And, now, we’re supposed to destroy the government for your untested beliefs?!?
Many more believe that Allah is the one true god and Muhammad is his messenger, pbuh; countless have died throughout the centuries proliferating the "one true faith." That must mean Islam is true and worth dying for.
People, especially the politicians, tried to justify the prolongation of the Iraq War by pointing to the mounting pile of fallen Americans and wasted treasure. Your appeal to sincerity does a disservice to men and women who fight, die, lose their mind, and their homes all for the sake of US hegemony and corporate interests. The very suggestion that our friends and family members are over there getting killed for "freedom" or for our "protection" is the most disgusting untruth of the century. Since you enjoy satire so much, maybe you can appreciate the Onion's Take on your apology for nationalism:
Curtis Stalbank, [i]The Onion[/i] wrote:As a true patriot, I would gladly die in battle defending my homeland. I love my country more than my own life. But I would also be more than willing to give my last breath in the name of, say, Mexico, Panama, Japan, or the Czech Republic. The most honorable thing a man can do is lay down his life for his country. Or another country. The important thing is that it's a country.
Like those heroes who spilled their blood fighting for independence against the British Empire, I, too, would forfeit everything to win for my countrymen the right to be governed by politicians in our own capital instead of in a capital located further away. Nothing is more profound or more sacred than to die for one's country, an adjacent country, or some other, foreign country.
The truth is, there are a lot of countries, each of which is the most noble cause possible to die for. I only regret that I have but one life to lose for but one country.
I would not hesitate to give my life for or against any other noble nation. Come to think of it, I would even die for a neutral third party caught in the crossfire during a heroic peacekeeping effort, just so long as my death would be in some way related to a country of some kind. That's how committed I am to the concept of nationalism.
The bottom line is that the current boundaries of a nation are worth protecting at all costs. Otherwise, what would so many brave and patriotic souls have lost their lives for?
I was lucky enough to be born in one of the 200 greatest countries in the world, and I promised myself long ago that I would never forget it. I can only hope to someday have the privilege of protecting this great land against whomever may seek to do it harm. Or to defend some other country against whomever may seek to do it harm. And vice versa.
Ideally, I'd like to die for a country that was at least in the Western hemisphere but it'd be just as heroic to expire bravely on the end of a pointed stick deep in the jungles of Africa. My wife would be widowed and my children orphaned, but they would take solace in the knowledge that I had given my life to a cause that the people of some nation believed in.
I only ask that I be given a soldier's funeral so that I may be buried holding the flag or flags of wherever it was I was fighting for.
There comes a time when all of us, no matter who we are, heed the call to the battlefield. It is a call we cannot and should not ignore, no matter where it is coming from. And if I must die, in the service of this or that country, I only hope I can at least take as many of the enemy with me as possible before I fall and breathe my last. Unless of course, they're also fighting for a country. In which case, their deaths, at my hands, will have been honorable—because they, like me, would have died for a country.
Without nationalism, our deaths in the countless wars we constantly wage to defend our own nations against others defending their own nations against us would seem arbitrary, almost meaningless. But as long as we have a higher purpose—the love of whatever country we happen to be fighting for—we will always know we did not lose our lives in vain.
You don't want to see all the hypothetical deaths that result from market anarchy, so you're more than willing for all of us to fund bloodshed or be put into the meat grinder ourselves out of love for your precious country.
And I can hear it now, "If you dunt leik this cuntry, you kin get ouwt!" That would be pointless, as you're just trading one prison for another, one tax farm for another. Your only other alternative is to go into the wilderness, and that doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Of course the slaveholders also used this reasoning, telling the slaves that if they weren't grateful for their slavery, they were more than welcome to die trying to escape to the frozen wastelands of Canada.
I personally, and ironically, like Captain America's take on the suggestion:
[center][/center]
And as for the ineffectual piece of parchment you believe you protect:
Lysander Spooner wrote:. . . it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.
nursebenjamin wrote:Why don’t you guys bear the risks of your own thought experiment?
You really have a lot of nerve, telling us to bear the infinite multitude of conjectural risks, while in the mean time subjecting us to the very real consequences of your beliefs. Telling me that I have the right to protest taxation that supports failing wars, but that I do not have the legal right to withhold my funds from the IRS is tantamount to telling me that I have the freedom to marry or not to marry while having someone else force me into an arranged marriage. Even if you were open to extending the same courtesy to me as I would to you, the fact of the matter is that I would still be forced to pay for what I don't support, and so that's what I find myself doing.
nursebenjamin wrote:Religious cults have bought tracts of land and set up their own communities.
nursebenjamin wrote:Libertarians should do the same.
I personally don't think it's wise to herd freedom lovers into a confined geographical location, but since I don't claim to be in charge of other people -- some libertarians have proposed just that. There's the Seasteading Institute, the Citadel, and perhaps most successful so far, the Free State Project.
Of course the reality is that the UN does not recognize the right of statelessness. And you still have to pay taxes to your home country unless you want the IRS to come after you. For this reason alone, you don't see many people paying additional costs for services they must pay for, unless public services are inadequate and those persons can afford better alternatives after taxes.
nursebenjamin wrote:Privatize the roads, schools, police, libraries, fire department and parks. Have no local tax nor local regulations. Show us the benefits of voluntaryism.
nursebenjamin wrote:
Are they? Isn’t it the Bill of Rights, Congress, the Courts, the Armed Forces, National Guard, police, etc responsible for ending slavery and Jim Crow? What role did voluntaryists play?
Ask yourself where slavery and Jim Crow laws came from.
Slaves were used by the British and Spanish Empires to increase the production of their colonies, and so those states profited from mercantilism and slave labor.
The Constitution and the bill of rights when written did not abolish slavery; and they were in fact used to justify it.
Lincoln waged the Civil War to preserve the Union and he did not care whether slavery would end:
Lincoln wrote:My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. . . .
Today, people think the war was waged to end slavery; in reality that was just an ex-post facto justification for the war and for the over 360,000 dead Union troops.
And Jim Crow laws which sprang from the state in wake of the war (and not from the market), applied to public and private services alike. It perpetuated racism and segregation in the public schools, which everyone had to pay for and everyone had to enroll their children in.
You thanking and praising the government for ending slavery and segregation is like holding a man in high esteem for the fact that he stopped beating his wife.
As for your question, where were the anarchists in all this?
[center][/center]
[center][/center]
nursebenjamin wrote:The biggest problem that I have with your theory is this: What if I’m a homeless man (through no fault of my own -- perhaps I have schizophrenia) living in a society where even the streets are privately owned? I have no money. Where will I sleep? Where may I walk? Pee? May I beg, or do I have to pay for this privilege as well? The types of "freedoms" and "rights" that you are proposing are not something that I want.
Ask yourself what is the driving factor of homelessness today. Taxes are an unnecessary burden for the poor, and the dollar's purchasing power is reduced every time money rolls off the printing press. The state monopolizes many fields and stifles competition. Minimum wage laws prevent small businesses from competing with mega corporations, which means unemployment for the unskilled. Meanwhile corporate personhood shields CEOs from personal accountability when their company damages property. In short, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer when statists rule the world.
16% of homeless persons are former veterans, having been promised money they were never given, or having lost a part of themselves over the course of several tours of duty. Wasteful, costly, pointless wars are going to be hard to wage without people willing to surrender their own money to fund them and their own sons and daughters to go fight them.
Ask yourself how the homeless are treated now. This man was fined $500 for pan handling on a public street:
[center][/center]
And this man was given a $500 ticket for littering and giving money to a pan handler, after dropping some of the bills he gave to a homeless man.
Such "strange" behavior by those who supposedly have no interest in money whatsoever. Those who claim to protect and serve are not constitutionally required to do so. Not to worry citizen, I'm sure an internal investigation will prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future.
The reason why these things happen in the first place is that there is no accountability... because these police departments don't have to work for your money; their income is assured thanks to a continual stream of your tax dollars. They're the only ones in town with the guns and if you have a problem with the "services" they provide, that's just too bad. You and I get to pay for the damages they cause, if they even bother to reimburse the victims of their carelessness. After a month of public outrage, the LAPD decided to buy the victims of "mistaken identity" a new truck, which the women would still have to pay taxes on, money that would in turn go on to pay the salaries of the men that almost killed them.
No, I'm not saying that all or most cops are bad, but law enforcement in this country is driven by quotas and by arresting non-violent persons. This isn't an accident; this isn't a "screw up." This is a trend, and a predictable consequence of giving a bunch of guys a bunch of guns, calling them "government," and appealing to their power whenever a problem arises -- especially when its one of their own doing.
Are you aware of just how much the living conditions of the Congolese were shaped by states and colonialism?
[/center] 
[/center]
[/center]
[/center]
[/center]
[/center]
