What is Anarchy?

simplistic2

Ataxia wrote: »

Because capitalism is inherently coercive and repressive. True anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist.

What is your definition of capitalism?

Denerick

simplistic2 wrote: »

The difference between them operating outside the state would be no different to then any company operating in the private sector. So they would be demand driven.

So as a consumer I would be terrified that some security firm is going to try to stockpile AK-47s hire a load of goons and take over and start taxing people ohhh the horror. So I would demand that for me to invest in this new company I would want certain safety precautions and I would assume so would anybody else. Therefore the entrepreneur that could offer the safest service would get the contract.

Unlike the state where it tells you what service you are going to get and if you dont like it and try to set up your own you will be killed.


What do you mean by other than commercial? Competing to see how many heads they can fit on pikes??

And what do you do if you are poor and are unable to pay the security fee's? Do you call 999 and get asked for your credit card details before you 'order' an armed response unit?

Get real... Honestly.

Denerick

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You make it sound as if you live in a place where the Gardai fear to tread.

I don't believe there is a Garda presence on Tory Island. 80 inbred islanders would be a major threat alright.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I must admit, I am very curious as to where you live. I live in the countryside and the nearest Garda station is around 80/90 minutes away on foot and I'm nowhere near scared enough to want to own/carry a gun (albeit I do it with the RDF, though they keep the rifle in the army barracks)
You make it sound as if you live in a place where the Gardai fear to tread.

I'm not revealing where I live. But like how naive are you? You're not aware of estates in Dublin that Gardai dont go into? I can start to understand your statist religion. You have no footing with reality.

Denerick wrote: »

And what do you do if you are poor and are unable to pay the security fee's? Do you call 999 and get asked for your credit card details before you 'order' an armed response unit?

Get real... Honestly.

I have already posted these stats. Security is cheap. Like most people pay 12k in taxes. Private security isnt going to cost 12k per head. "How can the poor pay for security?" is as dumb as asking "how can the poor pay for food?"

Denerick wrote: »

I don't believe there is a Garda presence on Tory Island. 80 inbred islanders would be a major threat alright.

I dont think Tory island is inbred. Mostly fruity artists. And I like fruity artists.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I have already posted these stats. Security is cheap. Like most people pay 12k in taxes. Private security isnt going to cost 12k per head. "How can the poor pay for security?" is as dumb as asking "how can the poor pay for food?"

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The poor pay for food from a combination of shít jobs and welfare.

The poor essentially receive a policing service as a subsidy from the rich.

Ignore reality all you like, it isn't going away anytime soon.

Denerick

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not revealing where I live. But like how naive are you?

You don't live in Supermans house in the North Pole, do you? I could understand if you didn't want to reveal its location. And I'm also confident there are no Guards in the North pole.

simplistic2

Denerick wrote: »

And what do you do if you are poor and are unable to pay the security fee's? Do you call 999 and get asked for your credit card details before you 'order' an armed response unit?

Get real... Honestly.

Clearly the poor are going to be chopped up and fed to the security staff to save on costs.

So you care about the poor great! so you would have no problem donating to a charity that helps the poor or insures them if they suffer a loss.

And who are these lowly poor you speak of? the people that had their jobs destroyed by a reckless government , or the poor that are priced out of a job because of the minimum wage , or the poor that are raped by the judicial system with fines for doing drugs, or the poor that lose their jobs from excessive taxation and regulation....

simplistic2

Ohhh lala

heres some nice stats

Hazlittle

Denerick wrote: »

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The poor pay for food from a combination of shít jobs and welfare.

The poor essentially receive a policing service as a subsidy from the rich.

Ignore reality all you like, it isn't going away anytime soon.

Lies? Go debunk the stats. I dont like believing in mistruths. Go debunk them. Please.

Why wouldnt the rich continue to subsidies the security like they did in the Wild west?

You sir are the one ignoring the reality. So far no one debunk the facts I presented.

Denerick wrote: »

You don't live in Supermans house in the North Pole, do you? I could understand if you didn't want to reveal its location. And I'm also confident there are no Guards in the North pole.

One can assume I do not live in the North Poll as I have already said I am constitutionally restricted from using a private police force. For funsies try and guess want country has that.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

I'm not revealing where I live. But like how naive are you? You're not aware of estates in Dublin that Gardai dont go into? I can start to understand your statist religion. You have no footing with reality.

Ha, of course these places exist, I'm just not buying that you live in one of these estates. Although my father used to work in North Dublin back in the 80s and Sinn Féin, the Workers Party and Labour were the biggest parties in the areas ravaged by drugs (especially Sinn Féin, for their strongarm tactics against drug dealers) and I doubt their statism would sit well with you.
If you refuse to reveal where you live, that's fine, I can't badger you to reveal overly personal information (although merely saying what region you live is hardly going to mean you have a team of Boardsies knocking at your door)
It just means I don't have to take your posturing seriously.

By the way, I love the way that throughout this thread, you've soapboxed your way through and then accuse others of having no grasp on reality.
Irony!

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

Lies? Go debunk the stats. I dont like believing in mistruths. Go debunk them. Please.

Why wouldnt the rich continue to subsidies the security like they did in the Wild west?

You sir are the one ignoring the reality. So far no one debunk the facts I presented.

Debunk? You've just soapboxed your entire way through. Rather than refuting individual points, you just post various links to libertarian websites and tell others to read them without engaging with what they are saying ("Your claim that Somalia is safer than other African countries is rubbish, look at what the BBC are saying" Rather than saying "But stats from *here* and *here* show that the security rates have been steadily improving", your answers run along the lines of "That's rubbish, read Mises.org"). When others produce facts from impartial sources like the BBC or history books, you just ignore them and keep up your rants.
An incredibly cowardly way out.

Hazlittle

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ha, of course these places exist, I'm just not buying that you live in one of these estates. Although my father used to work in North Dublin back in the 80s and Sinn Féin, the Workers Party and Labour were the biggest parties in the areas ravaged by drugs (especially Sinn Féin, for their strongarm tactics against drug dealers) and I doubt their statism would sit well with you.
If you refuse to reveal where you live, that's fine, I can't badger you to reveal overly personal information (although merely saying what region you live is hardly going to mean you have a team of Boardsies knocking at your door)
It just means I don't have to take your posturing seriously.

By the way, I love the way that throughout this thread, you've soapboxed your way through and then accuse others of having no grasp on reality.
Irony!

So you admit they exist? I didnt say I lived in an estate. I care not if you believe me. If you dont believe then dont bother argue with me.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

An incredibly cowardly way out.

I dont deal with name callers. Go debate with yourself.

Lockstep

Hazlittle wrote: »

So you admit they exist?

Oh they exist alright. I just honestly doubt you live in a no-go area.
No-go areas highlight what can happen in the abscence of impartial justice; gangs take over, with the rule of the stronger man.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I didnt say I lived in an estate. I care not if you believe me. If you dont believe then dont bother argue with me.

Whatever lawless place you claim to live then.

Hazlittle wrote: »

I dont deal with name callers. Go debate with yourself.

Frankly, it really feels like I'm debating with myself.
I'm not saying you are a coward, merely that endlessly evading questions on the issue and soapboxing is a cowardly way out itself.

Valmont

Excellent video Simplistic, I would really love to hear a defence of the welfare state based around those atrocious statistics. I had no idea it was even that bad. I see you have Freedomain radio in your signature, it's a great radio show. Molyneux presents excellent arguments and he has likeable persona so I can struggle through the more boring topics.

silverharp

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ohhh lala

heres some nice stats

where does the 2.2m figure come from. isnt there something like 15m americans receiving foodstamps?

simplistic2

silverharp wrote: »

where does the 2.2m figure come from. isnt there something like 15m americans receiving foodstamps?

1. 2005 Welfare Budget - http://tinyurl.com/mpfnmb
2. 2 Million on Welfare - http://tinyurl.com/mkzdlo
3. Charity 85% Efficient - http://tinyurl.com/dokab

It was, and remains to be, very difficult for me to find any actual figures from the government itself on exactly how many families were on some kind of welfare for 2005.

To give an idea of what the maximum number would likely be, we can look at the poverty rate, which is roughly 13% of the population. That would be 39 million people (3M*0.13). Considering that families on average consist of 4 people, that would mean 9.75 million families are below the poverty line (39M/4). Assuming all families under the poverty level are receiving welfare, they should each have received $41,435.90 for that year alone (404B/9.75M).

Assuming the average amount of money made every year from welfare (which again is a tedious figure to find hidden in government psuedostatistics) is $11,000 a year, the government would only have been 27% efficient (11,000/41,435.90).

The very fact that the government refuses to post what their actual efficiency ratings are and force us to estimate instead causes me to think that they know exactly how horrible they are at spending money and are embarrassed to make that figure public.

simplistic2

Valmont wrote: »

Excellent video Simplistic, I would really love to hear a defence of the welfare state based around those atrocious statistics. I had no idea it was even that bad. I see you have Freedomain radio in your signature, it's a great radio show. Molyneux presents excellent arguments and he has likeable persona so I can struggle through the more boring topics.

Yeah after reading his book practical Anarchy there was no turning back!

Scofflaw

simplistic2 wrote: »

1. 2005 Welfare Budget - http://tinyurl.com/mpfnmb
2. 2 Million on Welfare - http://tinyurl.com/mkzdlo
3. Charity 85% Efficient - http://tinyurl.com/dokab

It was, and remains to be, very difficult for me to find any actual figures from the government itself on exactly how many families were on some kind of welfare for 2005.

To give an idea of what the maximum number would likely be, we can look at the poverty rate, which is roughly 13% of the population. That would be 39 million people (3M*0.13). Considering that families on average consist of 4 people, that would mean 9.75 million families are below the poverty line (39M/4). Assuming all families under the poverty level are receiving welfare, they should each have received $41,435.90 for that year alone (404B/9.75M).

Assuming the average amount of money made every year from welfare (which again is a tedious figure to find hidden in government psuedostatistics) is $11,000 a year, the government would only have been 27% efficient (11,000/41,435.90).

The very fact that the government refuses to post what their actual efficiency ratings are and force us to estimate instead causes me to think that they know exactly how horrible they are at spending money and are embarrassed to make that figure public.

Unfortunately, the claim that charities are efficient is largely irrelevant, since it doesn't answer the question of whether in the absence of a public welfare system charity would achieve the same coverage, nor whether charity would be biased in particular directions, nor whether it would be used as a coercive tool. It's not a meaningful comparison, except amongst the charitiies themselves - and even there, charities working in different areas face different issues.

Historically, charity has offered only limited cover, has been biased in particular directions, and has invariably been used as a coercive tool. To appreciate that, one can look at 'development' oriented charities, which offer patchy and frequently completely inappropriate assistance, often biased towards whatever the "issue of the day" is, and not infrequently use their help as a tool for religious conversion or the imposition of particular standards of behaviour (particularly sexual).

Worth reading.

Welfare is a system with a lot of downsides, and a lot of room for inefficiency and gaming the system. However, it's better than the alternative - essentially, having to go on bended knee to your local busybodies - which is why it exists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hazlittle

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the claim that charities are efficient is largely irrelevant, since it doesn't answer the question of whether in the absence of a public welfare system charity would achieve the same coverage, nor whether charity would be biased in particular directions, nor whether it would be used as a coercive tool. It's not a meaningful comparison, except amongst the charitiies themselves - and even there, charities working in different areas face different issues.

Historically, charity has offered only limited cover, has been biased in particular directions, and has invariably been used as a coercive tool. To appreciate that, one can look at 'development' oriented charities, which offer patchy and frequently completely inappropriate assistance, often biased towards whatever the "issue of the day" is, and not infrequently use their help as a tool for religious conversion or the imposition of particular standards of behaviour (particularly sexual).

Worth reading.

Welfare is a system with a lot of downsides, and a lot of room for inefficiency and gaming the system. However, it's better than the alternative - essentially, having to go on bended knee to your local busybodies - which is why it exists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In practical application wealth redistribution doesnt not do what it says on the tin. In theory it sounds nice but in practice it creates bubbles and ghettos.

simplistic2

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the claim that charities are efficient is largely irrelevant, since it doesn't answer the question of whether in the absence of a public welfare system charity would achieve the same coverage,

This question is clearly impossible to answer because I have no evidence as to
a. what coverage actually means? (everyone who wants money gets money??)
b. because we do not live in a beautiful free society yet.

Also remember that in free society there is no tax rates and no mindless government regulation and no centralized currency. This environment would foster businesses and create enormous amounts of wealth in society giving the poor a real chance at working for a better standard of living. How many companies would pounce on a corporation tax rate of 0%.

Scofflaw wrote: »

nor whether charity would be biased in particular directions, nor whether it would be used as a coercive tool. It's not a meaningful comparison, except amongst the charitiies themselves - and even there, charities working in different areas face different issues.

Charities will be biased in particular directions whats wrong with that its called specialization.

Coercive tool???? In comparison to what ? The fact that I would be imprisoned or murdered if I refuse to pay for government welfare.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Historically, charity has offered only limited cover, has been biased in particular directions, and has invariably been used as a coercive tool.

Yes the euphemism is social welfare.

Scofflaw wrote: »

To appreciate that, one can look at 'development' oriented charities, which offer patchy and frequently completely inappropriate assistance, often biased towards whatever the "issue of the day" is, and not infrequently use their help as a tool for religious conversion or the imposition of particular standards of behaviour (particularly sexual).

True religious charities often try to indoctrinate the people they are helping so dont give your money to charities that engage in this behavior.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Worth reading.

Americans would have to make at least 10 times the donations they currently give to charity to fully replace government social spending.

AH ha of course they would its pretty expensive to maintain a politicians private jet.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And there is no reason to believe that people who so bitterly hate paying taxes would gladly surrender an equal amount to charity. Arguments that charities can do the job better than government are naïve - most charities are small, highly localized and ill-suited to responding to national disasters or shifting economic trends. About 90 percent of charity funds are both collected and spent locally, which means that rich communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones. For this reason, only 10 percent of all charitable donations are directed to the poor. Re-allocating charity donations to the communities that need them most will incur intense political opposition from the communities that fund them.

Of course people hate paying taxes nobody likes to be stolen from and told that theyre too stupid to know how to spend their own money.
And there will be no intense political opposition in a free society.

The fundamental question is always not how a charity in a free society will operate but why should I be murdered for refusing to pay for a government one?

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

Fact-Moderators issuing threats devalues the boards.ie product.

You're contradicting yourself. You've claimed that you accept the requirement for authority in a voluntary context, such as a commercial organisation, but you're rejecting the authority in the voluntary context of this discussion forum.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself. You've claimed that you accept the requirement for authority in a voluntary context, such as a commercial organisation, but you're rejecting the authority in the voluntary context of this discussion forum.

No I'm not. The owners of the website have every right to assert any restrictions they want. But if they go against against the market they will lose.

I support business mens right to make bad decisions.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

No I'm not. The owners of the website have every right to assert any restrictions they want. But if they go against against the market they will lose.

I support business mens right to make bad decisions.

Looking at the rate of growth of this site over the years, the decisions seem to have been pretty sound.

Sure, the rules against soapboxing will keep some people away. But they're not the people we want here anyway. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looking at the rate of growth of this site over the years, the decisions seem to have been pretty sound.

Sure, the rules against soapboxing will keep some people away. But they're not the people we want here anyway. This is, after all, a discussion forum.

Are you disputing the fact that business that go against the will of the market dont do so well or are you defending the rules? I was clearly arguing that overly aggressive mods devalues the product regardless of the rules or previous growth.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

Are you disputing the fact that business that go against the will of the market dont do so well or are you defending the rules? I was clearly arguing that overly aggressive mods devalues the product regardless of the rules or previous growth.

I was pointing out that the moderation policy that has been in place for several years has seen the site grow to the point where there were as many posts made last month as there were in the first four and a half years of its existence.

You can infer from that what you wish, but the logical conclusion from my perspective is that the "market" likes a site that is run according to a set of reasonably firm rules. You may not like those rules, but I guess that means that you're not the target market.

Hazlittle

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was pointing out that the moderation policy that has been in place for several years has seen the site grow to the point where there were as many posts made last month as there were in the first four and a half years of its existence.

You can infer from that what you wish, but the logical conclusion from my perspective is that the "market" likes a site that is run according to a set of reasonably firm rules. You may not like those rules, but I guess that means that you're not the target market.

An analogy. Fianna Fail have been in power ages. People liked them then. They dont now.

oscarBravo

Hazlittle wrote: »

An analogy. Fianna Fail have been in power ages. People liked them then. They dont now.

Well, when you have evidence that people have suddenly decided that they don't like boards.ie, make sure and let me know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also if you don't like the rules you can go and post on one of the many other discussion websites. That tells me that boards.ie, rules included, is flourishing in a market environment.

Now imagine if boards.ie was a state controlled entity and the only one available to Irish citizens. Denerick and DF would have to hand over 40% of their thanks to other less-thanked members.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Now imagine if boards.ie was a state controlled entity and the only one available to Irish citizens. Denerick and DF would have to hand over 40% of their thanks to other less-thanked members.

I worked hard for my thanks, you bastard!