The Philosophy of Liberty

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
A state does not operate by market rules. …[/quote]
I disagree

All human interactions operate by market rules

If/when an individual perceives the marginal benefit to exceed the marginal cost of revolting - that is the exact nanosecond that said individual does so
K
Can it anarchy or whatever, that’s just how it goes[/quote]

That’s a good point. The state has better marketing at this time. When states decided to offer schooling in exchange for robbery, they hit on the best advertising technique yet devised. I’m not sure how to combat that on a large enough scale to make a difference.

182

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And anyways Nick, consider this: What we have right now is exactly what you’ve described.

An entity gained favor and established itself, and now exerts its will. And if you hate it enough, you can make war upon it. Isn’t this exactly what you’re arguing for? How is this not the government of the United States of America?[/quote]

We have no property rights, I did not consent to be ruled. In a perverse sense you can claim all states to be anarchistic. That’s fine. It’s then up to those who desire freedom to convince others that freedom is worth the cost of rebellion.

And before anyone says, “Why don’t you go ahead and rebel?” The cost is too great. At this time, I don’t think a certain loss of my life is worth attempting a rebellion with a 0% chance of success. Hopefully, in the future, many more people will decide they would like to be free and those probabilities will start to balance or tilt toward freedom.

183

[quote]NickViar wrote:

We have no property rights, I did not consent to be ruled. In a perverse sense you can claim all states to be anarchistic. That’s fine. It’s then up to those who desire freedom to convince others that freedom is worth the cost of rebellion.
[/quote]

Exactly, all states are anarchistic in a sense. What you described earlier is what is, and what will be so long as there is more than one human being living on this planet: A coalition of people who want X and are powerful enough to realize X, even if other people don’t want it. Fortunately, X is pretty good in the United States of American in the 21st century, and, if enough people can make their argument convincingly, they get to try to change X to fix whatever flaw they perceive in it. So it’s not perfect, but it’s pretty damn good.

If we scrambled everything up, there’s a fantastic chance that the next group of people who became powerful enough to universalize their wants and desires would want not X but instead Y, Y being something significantly less pleasant than X.

And, for the record, I know why you don’t rebel. I don’t, however, know why you don’t move. If you honestly believe yourself a slave, I’d say you’re doing yourself immense disservice in sticking around in your chains.

184

P[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

We have no property rights, I did not consent to be ruled. In a perverse sense you can claim all states to be anarchistic. That’s fine. It’s then up to those who desire freedom to convince others that freedom is worth the cost of rebellion.
[/quote]

Exactly, all states are anarchistic in a sense. What you described earlier is what is, and what will be so long as there is more than one human being living on this planet: A coalition of people who want X and are powerful enough to realize X, even if other people don’t want it. Fortunately, X is pretty good in the United States of American in the 21st century, and, if enough people can make their argument convincingly, they get to try to change X to fix whatever flaw they perceive in it. So it’s not perfect, but it’s pretty damn good.

If we scrambled everything up, there’s a fantastic chance that the next group of people who became powerful enough to universalize their wants and desires would want not X but instead Y, Y being something significantly less pleasant than X.

And, for the record, I know why you don’t rebel. I don’t, however, know why you don’t move. If you honestly believe yourself a slave, I’d say you’re doing yourself immense disservice in sticking around in your chains.[/quote]

Do you know of anywhere my existence will not automatically brand me “Taxpayer?” Is there somewhere I will truly own my property? I research it all the time and have not yet found that place.

No state is a true example of anarchy(though I understand what you and the other guy were saying) precisely because, “even if other people don’t want it.” That makes it a state. For exactly that reason, anarchy can’t be forced(not talking about defense here). There would have to be an intellectual transition. This country started on the right track, but those who wanted to rule jumped at the chance to change it by adopting the Constitution(To any anti-Obama/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/whoever people: The Constitution didn’t save us from that guy, did it? We had no legal ability to withdraw our property from the U.S. when the government infringed on our right to keep and bear ams, did we?).

185

If by freedom you mean freedom from all restraint then you espouse lawlessness. Freedom from law is not liberty but anarchy. Nor is it approved by “the God of Nature’s law,” Who is Himself the Great Lawgiver. What Cicero intended was along the lines of saying we are a nation of laws. Not to say we are bound by myriad regulation (though we may be) nor yet that we should be self-disciplined (though truly we ought to be) but that our liberty is guaranteed by a just system of laws that apply equally to all. All are bound to obey, regardless of race, birth, or title. Cicero was protesting the ascension to power of the triumvirate, Julius Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey. - John Anderson

186

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not consent to be ruled. [/quote]

“We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be free.” - Cicero

187

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not consent to be ruled. [/quote]

“We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be free.” - Cicero[/quote]

Said the man who was assassinated in his house and his hand nailed to the Senate door.

188

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not consent to be ruled. [/quote]

“We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be free.” - Cicero[/quote]

Said the man who was assassinated in his house and his hand nailed to the Senate door. [/quote]

In the proscription set in motion by Caesar’s supporters who Cicero had spoken against in his Philippics.

189

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I did not consent to be ruled. [/quote]

“We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be free.” - Cicero[/quote]

Is that “The god of Nature’s” law? If so, I fully agree. We can’t have freedom if we attempt to ignore the laws of nature(especially the laws of economics), which we do with pretty much every law we pass.

At this time we are nowhere close to being a nation of law. We are a nation of people.

190

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Do you know of anywhere my existence will not automatically brand me “Taxpayer?” Is there somewhere I will truly own my property? I research it all the time and have not yet found that place.
[/quote]

Monaco, Kuwait, Brunei, The United Arab Emirates, Bermuda, Andorra, Qatar, the British Virgins, the Bahamas, the Caymans, Oman, Anguilla, the Maldives, Turks and Caicos, and Vanuatu have no income taxes whatsoever.

Owning land in some of these places may be sticky for foreigners, but that’s why you would set up a corporation or trust in one of these jurisdictions that would own the land for you. Choose a location where there is also no corporate tax and you are home free. While you’re at it, keep your personal income under $97,600 per year and you won’t pay a penny in US income tax, either.

191

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Do you know of anywhere my existence will not automatically brand me “Taxpayer?” Is there somewhere I will truly own my property? I research it all the time and have not yet found that place.
[/quote]

Monaco, Kuwait, Brunei, The United Arab Emirates, Bermuda, Andorra, Qatar, the British Virgins, the Bahamas, the Caymans, Oman, Anguilla, the Maldives, Turks and Caicos, and Vanuatu have no income taxes whatsoever.

Owning land in some of these places may be sticky for foreigners, but that’s why you would set up a corporation or trust in one of these jurisdictions that would own the land for you. Choose a location where there is also no corporate tax and you are home free. While you’re at it, keep your personal income under $97,600 per year and you won’t pay a penny in US income tax, either. [/quote]

Will I truly own my property in any of those places-must the surrounding state leave me the hell alone if I’m on my property?

192

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Do you know of anywhere my existence will not automatically brand me “Taxpayer?” Is there somewhere I will truly own my property? I research it all the time and have not yet found that place.
[/quote]

Monaco, Kuwait, Brunei, The United Arab Emirates, Bermuda, Andorra, Qatar, the British Virgins, the Bahamas, the Caymans, Oman, Anguilla, the Maldives, Turks and Caicos, and Vanuatu have no income taxes whatsoever.

Owning land in some of these places may be sticky for foreigners, but that’s why you would set up a corporation or trust in one of these jurisdictions that would own the land for you. Choose a location where there is also no corporate tax and you are home free. While you’re at it, keep your personal income under $97,600 per year and you won’t pay a penny in US income tax, either. [/quote]

Will I truly own my property in any of those places-must the surrounding state leave me the hell alone if I’m on my property?
[/quote]

Your mileage may vary. Income taxes are avoidable. Land taxes not so much. Obviously the less developed the country the less onerous the land taxes, but the greater the possibility of government corruption. One of the counterintuitively puzzling features of the rich Muslim mini-kingdoms (UAE, Qatar, Brunei) is that unless you go out of your way to make trouble, you really will be left the fuck alone.

193

[quote]NickViar wrote:
You may need to define “batshit crazy,” because in my world, that’s a perfectly acceptable response to a home invasion.
[/quote]

Batshit crazy is shooting a man the moment you see him in your home, even if he may not be posing a threat. No, I do not really buy the argument that anyone who breaks into your house poses a lethal threat and needs to be responded to with lethal force. Unfortunately, my instincts tell me otherwise. But, my instinct also tells me a whole bunch of things that society says is really bad, so I don’t trust it all that much unless I’m literally in a life or death situation.

Defending is clearly telling him to gtfo, and then defending yourself the moment he actually turns hostile, or you see that he has a weapon on him that can be deadly.

Batshit crazy is the person who shot that young black lady, in the back at that iirc, who came to the person’s doorstep in early dawn because her car broke down and she needed assistance.

Defending is the guy in Memento (Sorry for putting up fiction, but most reasonable cases of home defense don’t really show up in the news and I can’t remember any off the top of my head) shooting the guy who’s trying to rape his wife on sight.

195

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Andorra[/quote]

Pretty decent Skiing here, too.

196

I am very sympathetic to some libertarian principles, but the problem is, just as libertarians say socialism can not work because of human nature, the same goes for capitalism. Adam smith argued that free markets would lead to perfect liberty, but that is reliant upon people not manipulating the system, not creating monopolies and not using wealth to gain political influence to keep their monopoly.

Imperialist enterprise, such as say cocacola or Nestle, they have immense power, they can buy out competition, out price them and shut down any competition. Even if we got rid of the state there would still be a state, but one soley controlled by the ruling class with all the reforms working people have won over the years abolished.

And if you are a libertarian, you also have to be pro unrestricted immigration, pro child labour, anti LLC and anti minimum wage.

You can not choose what government intervention in the market is ok if you are a libertarian. So the reality is in the inner cities millions of children would be working. Production would come back to the first world but because immigration would be so constant global prices would level out, meaning your new wage would be around 2 dollars an hour for the highest and as little as 50 cents a day like in india and china.

With the removal of LLC’s that would mean opening a business would be extremely hard and seldom done, as you would be responsible for the debt of a failed enterprise, which means lengthy prison time and debtors jail, aswell as serfdom for the rest of your life or until you can pay off the debt.

If you couldn’t your next of kin would then owe it.

So now we have stateless prisons, where you could be locked up for as long as the people who make profit from it wish, which will be as long as possible, you will have zero real effective recourse and no state investigations or unbiased intervention, as if it is mere business from a market perspective, the people who control if you can go free and extremely biased to keep you in.

Add onto that the fact wealthy people will be able to pay judges huge amounts for bad convictions as there again will be no way to stop such corruption in an unfettered capitalist free market.

I think human nature is more of a roadblock to capitalism than any other system, because wealth creates influence and influence protects power. Power crushed competition with corruption and wealth, it has never not corrupted the markets. Not once, in any capitalist system.

197

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is something you have the luxury of when you are filming a movie. Real life is not one that is full of that luxury.
[/quote]

Sure.

Still doesn’t mean that you should shoot someone on sight.

198

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
This is something you have the luxury of when you are filming a movie. Real life is not one that is full of that luxury.
[/quote]

Sure.

Still doesn’t mean that you should shoot someone on sight.[/quote]

I’ve accidentally wandered into an apartment or two. Hell, one time I stumbled into a Lincoln Navigator limo full of puzzled black guys in Detroit after having one too many. Nobody responded with deadly force, thankfully.

If you lock your doors, you eliminate the drunk or accidental entry. If someone forces their way into your home when you have measures in place to keep honest people out, then you can reasonably conclude their intentions are not in your best interest. I would make contact with extreme prejudice in this situation.

199

[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
I am very sympathetic to some libertarian principles, but the problem is, just as libertarians say socialism can not work because of human nature, the same goes for capitalism. Adam smith argued that free markets would lead to perfect liberty, but that is reliant upon people not manipulating the system, not creating monopolies and not using wealth to gain political influence to keep their monopoly.

Imperialist enterprise, such as say cocacola or Nestle, they have immense power, they can buy out competition, out price them and shut down any competition. Even if we got rid of the state there would still be a state, but one soley controlled by the ruling class with all the reforms working people have won over the years abolished.

And if you are a libertarian, you also have to be pro unrestricted immigration, pro child labour, anti LLC and anti minimum wage.

You can not choose what government intervention in the market is ok if you are a libertarian. So the reality is in the inner cities millions of children would be working. Production would come back to the first world but because immigration would be so constant global prices would level out, meaning your new wage would be around 2 dollars an hour for the highest and as little as 50 cents a day like in india and china.

With the removal of LLC’s that would mean opening a business would be extremely hard and seldom done, as you would be responsible for the debt of a failed enterprise, which means lengthy prison time and debtors jail, aswell as serfdom for the rest of your life or until you can pay off the debt.

If you couldn’t your next of kin would then owe it.

So now we have stateless prisons, where you could be locked up for as long as the people who make profit from it wish, which will be as long as possible, you will have zero real effective recourse and no state investigations or unbiased intervention, as if it is mere business from a market perspective, the people who control if you can go free and extremely biased to keep you in.

Add onto that the fact wealthy people will be able to pay judges huge amounts for bad convictions as there again will be no way to stop such corruption in an unfettered capitalist free market.

I think human nature is more of a roadblock to capitalism than any other system, because wealth creates influence and influence protects power. Power crushed competition with corruption and wealth, it has never not corrupted the markets. Not once, in any capitalist system.

[/quote]

I can tell you won’t fit in here , you are just too reasonable :slight_smile:

200

[quote]WN76 wrote:
I’ve accidentally wandered into an apartment or two. Hell, one time I stumbled into a Lincoln Navigator limo full of puzzled black guys in Detroit after having one too many. Nobody responded with deadly force, thankfully.

If you lock your doors, you eliminate the drunk or accidental entry. If someone forces their way into your home when you have measures in place to keep honest people out, then you can reasonably conclude their intentions are not in your best interest. I would make contact with extreme prejudice in this situation. [/quote]

Simple thieves are not executed in modern society.

Why should you shoot someone on sight merely because they’ve broken into your house?

Like I said, it’s a whole different story entirely if you see that they have a weapon on them. Then you respond with whatever you got.

But attacking someone with lethal force, merely on the basis that they’ve broken into your home, doesn’t sit well with me.

See, you have to consider this. You said that you’ve accidentally wandered into random houses before. What if the owner forgot that he/she didn’t lock the door? I’m sorry to say, but this kind of behavior does seem to become more and more common as one gets older. My dad used to be really good with locking doors and remembering where his keys are and shit. Now, he regularly forgets to close the bloody garage door.

The only thing that “prevents” the owner from shooting you is the, imo at least, reasonable belief that people don’t pose a threat until they show themselves to be a threat.