Quote from: Mountainshield on August 04, 2014, 09:37:13 AM
It's almost as if these anarchist want to weaken western society... Oh wait 

They hate the fact that we even have a govt.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
If you're walking down the street, and someone cuts you off and demands you pay them to pass, what do you do?

The pertinent question is who owns the street?  In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned.  Therefore the owner of the street will have various means of collecting revenue to continue running the street.  The street in a neighborhood might be owned by the residents of that neighborhood and they agree, as a condition of living in that community, to pay for its upkeep.  A highway could be privately owned and indeed there might be legitimate fees demanded to pass on such a privately owned road. 

I am assuming you are speaking of a private criminal who is merely practicing extortion and has no permission to harass people freely traveling on private property.  Then that person would be committing aggression and you have the right to defend yourself.  Your response should be proportional.  If someone is just being annoying, then you shouldn't punch them or shoot them obviously.  Getting in your personal space, not leaving you alone, constantly harassing you even if they don't physically assault you, they are still committing aggression.  There are two acts of aggression being committed.  The first is against you, the traveler.  And the second is against the property owner of the road who would clearly forbid the harassment of users that are permitted to travel on that privately owned road.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM

And you do it with a standing army, one big enough to ALWAYS WIN ANY WAR!

Why does it have to be a standing army?  You should know that many of the founders warned against the maintenance of a standing army.

James Madison said:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas Jefferson continually warned against the creation of a standing army, calling it "an engine of oppression."

In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

Even though I have no irrational worship of the Founders like some people, they clearly thought that an armed population and a well trained Militia was the best method of organizing the defense of the Union.  They feared the loss of liberty that would be inevitable if we maintained a standing army.  Clearly a private militia, like the Swiss model, is a Stateless anarchist approach to national defense.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM

LOL! So you're saying our Founders were stupid in making it the sole purpose of the Fed?

See my previous answer.  Most of the Founders would clearly not endorse your conception of national defense through a powerful standing army.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
Again, "Human Nature" is being ignored in your Utopian world.
What is it that business does, that brings in profit? They compete, the leverage buyouts, they monopolize industry, and they also sell to the highest bidder.
You're under the assumption these businesses share your ideals, they don't, they are in it for the profit!
And guess what? I'm going to buyout your defense industry, and turn it against you.
God, am I getting through to you yet?
I've been in business all my life, retired as a defense contractor, I understand the mentality of the industry, you don't have the first clue!
It's that naivete that exposes your plan as nothing less than a Utopian pipe dream.

You sound like a socialist.  Actually, you ARE a socialist.  You endlessly criticize private industry and the free market, and your solution is to have the central government nationalize and socialize the vital function of security and national defense.  And you have the audacity to criticize Barack Obama for being a socialist because he bailed out the auto industry in Detroit and passed Obamacare? 

I don't support any of those things but you should stop and think about the hypocrisy you are displaying.  If socialism is a failed ideology, and redistribution of wealth is immoral, as I keep hearing from Tea Party types and social conservatives, then why are you guys such ardent supporters of Defense socialism? 

Why do you continue to defend the State in this area?  Especially as this is the one area where the State has committed its worst atrocities.

If Obamacare is bad, then surely the perpetual war machine of the Military Industrial Complex and the standing army that the founders warned against is far, far worse.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
Answer this, can you buy your own private army? Now, can you buy a govt run army?

The answer is obvious, and if you can't see it, you're screwed. I can't believe in all the BS you've read, no one ever pointed out this tiny flaw.

People "buy" influence into the government run military all the time.  Defense contractors and warmongering special interests dictate our foreign policy to a large degree.  They socialize the costs of this bloodshed and reap only the profits of selling the government weapons systems that it doesn't need. 

I would prefer that private security agencies be forced to comply with market pressures and satisfy the needs of voluntarily paying customers.  War is VERY expensive.  Without the State that prints up the money and socializes the risk and removes any semblance of market discipline, private companies would make every effort to avoid war.  They will be forced to find the best means of providing security at the lowest cost.  And therefore, they wouldn't be warmongerers.  They wouldn't incite conflict, rather they would seek to find peaceful solutions to conflicts that exist.

If their goal is to make profits, and their entire source of revenue depends on voluntarily paying customers who can choose alternative defense agencies to represent them, then they would be subject to market discipline.  We would get precisely the amount of security and defense that the people would be willing to pay for. 

And, believe me, the one thing that NOBODY wants is to be involved in war.  War can wipe out the wealth of an economy in only a few years.  And, if an anarchist territory was actually conquered by another nation state, we would lose our independence and everything we value.  People will pay for adequate defense services with the capability to repel any existing or plausible potential threats.

If you are a founders quoting, Constitution loving, Tea Party conservative you should heed the words of Madison and Jefferson and reject the concept of a standing army. 

You should also reject socialism or at least own up to your own hypocrisy when you criticize liberals for believing in socialized medicine when you endorse socialized defense.

Quote from: Mountainshield on August 04, 2014, 09:37:13 AM
It's almost as if these anarchist want to weaken western society... Oh wait 

What do you mean "weaken western society"?  Surely you are not so naive as you equate the State with society?  I repeat myself but I cannot find any moral or logical justification for the initiation of force.  I cannot find any valid ethic that grants certain humans in a society immunity from the ethical rules that govern the rest of us peons.  Any valid moral principle must be universalizable.  I cannot logically refute the argument in favor of self ownership without contradiction.

Therefore, I must oppose the State since it violates universal moral principles, it MUST initiate coercion to fit the description of a "state", and it necessarily violates the right of self ownership of the citizens who live within its jurisdiction.

And this is to say nothing of the many utilitarian objections to the State, which are quite extensively documented in the literature. 

If you feel you can refute any of these statements, you are welcome to make the attempt. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 03:02:13 PM
The pertinent question is who owns the street?  In an anarchist society, all property is privately owned.  Therefore the owner of the street will have various means of collecting revenue to continue running the street.  The street in a neighborhood might be owned by the residents of that neighborhood and they agree, as a condition of living in that community, to pay for its upkeep.  A highway could be privately owned and indeed there might be legitimate fees demanded to pass on such a privately owned road. 

Do you still hear the term "NERD"?

QuoteI am assuming you are speaking of a private criminal who is merely practicing extortion and has no permission to harass people freely traveling on private property.  Then that person would be committing aggression and you have the right to defend yourself.  Your response should be proportional.  If someone is just being annoying, then you shouldn't punch them or shoot them obviously.  Getting in your personal space, not leaving you alone, constantly harassing you even if they don't physically assault you, they are still committing aggression.  There are two acts of aggression being committed.  The first is against you, the traveler.  And the second is against the property owner of the road who would clearly forbid the harassment of users that are permitted to travel on that privately owned road.

You're killing me here with all this obfuscation covered up with redundancies in what can only be described as verbose.

QuoteWhy does it have to be a standing army?  You should know that many of the founders warned against the maintenance of a standing army.

James Madison said:

"A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Thomas Jefferson continually warned against the creation of a standing army, calling it "an engine of oppression."

In an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

Even though I have no irrational worship of the Founders like some people, they clearly thought that an armed population and a well trained Militia was the best method of organizing the defense of the Union.  They feared the loss of liberty that would be inevitable if we maintained a standing army.  Clearly a private militia, like the Swiss model, is a Stateless anarchist approach to national defense.
See my previous answer.  Most of the Founders would clearly not endorse your conception of national defense through a powerful standing army.

And still Jefferson gave us a Navy, and you know why? Two fold, Muscums, and second, they weren't what you refer to a standing army.
By standing army, they referred to an army on US soil, and more than 90% of our army is off shore.

QuoteYou sound like a socialist.  Actually, you ARE a socialist.  You endlessly criticize private industry and the free market, and your solution is to have the central government nationalize and socialize the vital function of security and national defense.  And you have the audacity to criticize Barack Obama for being a socialist because he bailed out the auto industry in Detroit and passed Obamacare?
I don't support any of those things but you should stop and think about the hypocrisy you are displaying.  If socialism is a failed ideology, and redistribution of wealth is immoral, as I keep hearing from Tea Party types and social conservatives, then why are you guys such ardent supporters of Defense socialism? 

Why do you continue to defend the State in this area?  Especially as this is the one area where the State has committed its worst atrocities.

If Obamacare is bad, then surely the perpetual war machine of the Military Industrial Complex and the standing army that the founders warned against is far, far worse.
 

Dumb ass! Read our Founding documents. The only thing the US Govt was charged to do, was protect the states.
So now our Founders were socialists?
Oh. and learn to be more concise, this whole thing sounded like a woman trying to explain her "feelings" during pregnancy, I'm serious, you are one tedious writer!
Stop relying on how you "feel" when you write, you don't need to "feel" you've gotten your point across, I'll still get your point, even if you were to cut out 70% of what you write.

QuotePeople "buy" influence into the government run military all the time.  Defense contractors and warmongering special interests dictate our foreign policy to a large degree.  They socialize the costs of this bloodshed and reap only the profits of selling the government weapons systems that it doesn't need.

Wait! Are you saying money corrupts? This is that thing I keep hounding you about, "Human Nature"!
And you think having a nongoverment without laws is going to stop mans endeavor to influence using whatever currency you decide to use?

QuoteI would prefer that private security agencies be forced to comply with market pressures and satisfy the needs of voluntarily paying customers.  War is VERY expensive.  Without the State that prints up the money and socializes the risk and removes any semblance of market discipline, private companies would make every effort to avoid war.  They will be forced to find the best means of providing security at the lowest cost.  And therefore, they wouldn't be warmongerers.  They wouldn't incite conflict, rather they would seek to find peaceful solutions to conflicts that exist.
If their goal is to make profits, and their entire source of revenue depends on voluntarily paying customers who can choose alternative defense agencies to represent them, then they would be subject to market discipline.  We would get precisely the amount of security and defense that the people would be willing to pay for. 

Wow, are you out of touch with reality! Think about this for a moment. You own this so called security force, you really don't care one way or the other, as long as you get paid, by anyone, because you're in it for profit, (Think Mercenary)
But your employer decides they no longer need such a bloated force and demand cuts, this scares you, because you have contracts in the making and need a large force to fulfill them.
So what does the immoral man do? He finds a way to start conflict, in turn making his current force to small, so he bilks his employer for more money to grow his force.
Wait! You refuse to pay? Better think about your decision, remember, he has all the heavy weaponry and can leave your ass hanging out to dry.

QuoteAnd, believe me, the one thing that NOBODY wants is to be involved in war.  War can wipe out the wealth of an economy in only a few years.  And, if an anarchist territory was actually conquered by another nation state, we would lose our independence and everything we value.  People will pay for adequate defense services with the capability to repel any existing or plausible potential threats.

Really? Seriously? Some men live for war, and if you plan on hiring someone with experience, which you will, then he loves war, he eats sleeps and drinks war, it's what he lives for.

QuoteIf you are a founders quoting, Constitution loving, Tea Party conservative you should heed the words of Madison and Jefferson and reject the concept of a standing army. 

You should also reject socialism or at least own up to your own hypocrisy when you criticize liberals for believing in socialized medicine when you endorse socialized defense.

You really shouldn't quote the Founders, at least, not until you understand what they were saying.

Oh, and by the way, that security force of yours? I just bought them off, now get the Hell off my land!

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 03, 2014, 11:50:26 PM
I'm going to suggest a book you all should read.  It is called "The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production" by Hans Hermann Hoppe and various contributors.  It will dispel any convictions you have that the only effective way to provide adequate defense is through a nation state.

I read it already.  It doesn't dispel anything.

Quote
I don't know what you mean "how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this"?

That's my point.  You don't know what I mean.

Quote
  I don't have to "get" them to do anything.

It doesn't matter, because you couldn't.

Quote
  If they are threatening us, or are about to invade and attack, then we defend ourselves.

Who?  You're on your own.  Why would others help you defend the living area you claimed?

Quote
  Private militia, private defense agencies and mercenaries would repel the attack and destroy the enemy.

They would be concerned about their area they claim, not yours.  You need a leader in battle, with a strategy.  You are WAY out of your element, young man.

Quote
  Contrary to what Solar believes, I am NOT a pacifist.

It doesn't matter.  You would be someone's slave in your system.

Quote
  He really needs to look up the definition of that word.

I'm being serious here, so please don't take offense to this, but do you have a learning disability?  He's had more learning and experience than you and I combined.  I ask, because smart people don't just dismiss experienced, educated people.  Again, I don't mean it to be insulting, but you seem to be struggling with thinking.  It's a skill you should have learned already, if you are in your early-mid 20s.

Quote
  A pacifist is someone who rejects violence in all situations, even when they are being pushed around and threatened.  A non-interventionist or advocate of the non-aggression principle is someone who would only use violence in self defense or to come to the aid of someone who is the victim of aggression.  I know I am repeating myself but somehow this simple concept is not sinking in (for some people).

I don't doubt you would defend the plot of land you stole.

Quote
I have no idea what you mean when you say "where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?"  I'm personally not going to do anything.  I might buy a gun and become proficient in its use, but I am not personally going to run a defense agency.  Why don't you ask "where is Sony going to innovate and manufacture the next PlayStation?"  Or "where is Samsung going to innovate and manufacture the next Galaxy smartphone?"

Where are you getting these wonderful products and tools?  Do they just fall out of the sky?  How are you going to procure the resources and build these products to enjoy?

Quote
I find it odd that conservatives who are supposed to believe in and understand the free market economy are so perplexed at how it could work in the provision and distribution of defense services.

Again, we want your idea.  I am a fan of it, but you won't even discuss a very basic part of how we transition to this, maintain our capitalist system that requires land, facilities, etc.  The one problem academics like yourself have is they can't get into the details.  Karl Marx and his drones are the same way.  I want to discuss this, but you just want to throw book titles around that many of us have already read.  I understand it is new to you, but this is old news to many of us.

What I haven't done in a long time is have a discussion with someone, like yourself, about hypothetically simulating the transition to this system.  I wanted to write a book about this some years ago and title it "Who gets the river?", keyed off the premise that we have a bunch of people ready to implement this system, but we all want the nice river spot, upstream, with the shade.  Who is forced to live further away from the river, etc.

Anyway, I'm wanting to discuss this down to the details, but I'm not sure you have the intellectual chops to do so.  I think it's great you have read a lot, as many of us have, so let's put our brains to work.  And again, I want this system you speak of, so let's figure out how to get there, and protect ourselves with something other than hopes and dreams.

Solar, you are not really interested in having any sort of intellectual discussion it seems.  But I am curious.  What sort of conservative are you exactly?  It seems you have never exposed yourself to any of the anarcho capitalist or Austrian literature.  If I had to guess, I'd say you're some sort of watered down neo con, but I'm sure you'd strongly protest such a label. 

Who did you support in the last election cycle?  What functions, besides national defense, do you want the Federal Government to have?

If you believe in limited government, how do you propose we actually impose those limits?  Surely you can see that the Constitution has been a failure in that regard?  Or do you really think we can elect a majority of Ron Pauls to Congress?

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 05:37:57 PM
Solar, you are not really interested in having any sort of intellectual discussion it seems.  But I am curious.  What sort of conservative are you exactly?  It seems you have never exposed yourself to any of the anarcho capitalist or Austrian literature.  If I had to guess, I'd say you're some sort of watered down neo con, but I'm sure you'd strongly protest such a label. 

Who did you support in the last election cycle?  What functions, besides national defense, do you want the Federal Government to have?

If you believe in limited government, how do you propose we actually impose those limits?  Surely you can see that the Constitution has been a failure in that regard?  Or do you really think we can elect a majority of Ron Pauls to Congress?

Son, this is why you fail to understand Conservative Ideals.
Conservatism is not a political party, never was, ever. It's a way of life, family, the golden rule, respect for your fellow man, and defending another with your very own life, it's just who we are.
We believe in country, total independence, tiny govt, yes, we do like govt, just not the monstrosity that's grown in the last 70 years.
We want the govt the Founders planned for us.

It's the fabric of who we are, we lived in a different America than you grew up in, it's why the age group you see at TEA rallies is in their late 50s and up, though there are younger people in it that still remember the qualities Reagan exuded, we remember a better America.

The America you are experiencing, only happened in the last 30 years, so to understand what it is we're trying to accomplish, would require to study what is our yesteryear, and now your history.

Hey, I'll admit, I was giving you a really hard time, not because I wanted to fuck with you, but rather make you use your critical thinking gene.
I wanted to challenge you, think through what you are proposing and why it won't work, and hope you would rather take on the task with us in repairing the nation.
Problem with what you're proposing is a guaranteed failure, because there are way too many takers in the current society, they won't give up the gravy train willingly.

Not to mention the fact that internal conflict leaves you wide open for a dictatorship, and yes, it's human nature to do as the majority demands.

As to what "Kind" of Conservative I am? Just look around, Taxed and I started this forum to give other like minded individuals a place to speak freely.

Yes, we are the TEA, and we plan on stealing the GOP for the first time since it's inception, we are the ONLY hope this country has of stopping the communists.

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I read it already.  It doesn't dispel anything.
That's my point.  You don't know what I mean.
It doesn't matter, because you couldn't.
Who?  You're on your own.  Why would others help you defend the living area you claimed?
They would be concerned about their area they claim, not yours.  You need a leader in battle, with a strategy.  You are WAY out of your element, young man.
It doesn't matter.  You would be someone's slave in your system.
I'm being serious here, so please don't take offense to this, but do you have a learning disability?  He's had more learning and experience than you and I combined.  I ask, because smart people don't just dismiss experienced, educated people.  Again, I don't mean it to be insulting, but you seem to be struggling with thinking.  It's a skill you should have learned already, if you are in your early-mid 20s.
I don't doubt you would defend the plot of land you stole.
Where are you getting these wonderful products and tools?  Do they just fall out of the sky?  How are you going to procure the resources and build these products to enjoy?
Again, we want your idea.  I am a fan of it, but you won't even discuss a very basic part of how we transition to this, maintain our capitalist system that requires land, facilities, etc.  The one problem academics like yourself have is they can't get into the details.  Karl Marx and his drones are the same way.  I want to discuss this, but you just want to throw book titles around that many of us have already read.  I understand it is new to you, but this is old news to many of us.

What I haven't done in a long time is have a discussion with someone, like yourself, about hypothetically simulating the transition to this system.  I wanted to write a book about this some years ago and title it "Who gets the river?", keyed off the premise that we have a bunch of people ready to implement this system, but we all want the nice river spot, upstream, with the shade.  Who is forced to live further away from the river, etc.

Anyway, I'm wanting to discuss this down to the details, but I'm not sure you have the intellectual chops to do so.  I think it's great you have read a lot, as many of us have, so let's put our brains to work.  And again, I want this system you speak of, so let's figure out how to get there, and protect ourselves with something other than hopes and dreams.

I'm up for that, if I can play Devil's advocate.

Seriously though, if this is to be successful, scrutiny needs to be applied in heavy doses.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 06:19:18 PM
I'm up for that, if I can play Devil's advocate.

Seriously though, if this is to be successful, scrutiny needs to be applied in heavy doses.

Two devil's advocates are better than one!  My intent with this excersize it so show him it isn't quite what he envisions.  Something as basic as finding a plot of land to call your own is a huge endeavor.  Forget about the luxuries and technology.

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Two devil's advocates are better than one!  My intent with this excersize it so show him it isn't quite what he envisions.  Something as basic as finding a plot of land to call your own is a huge endeavor.  Forget about the luxuries and technology.

Yeah, that's futile as Hell, just ask the Taiwanese when they tried to buy a piece of Australia.

Though, like so many of his ilk, they envision a new America, so I think we have to work off the premise that the country is on the verge of Civil war.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 06:42:43 PM
Yeah, that's futile as Hell, just ask the Taiwanese when they tried to buy a piece of Australia.

Though, like so many of his ilk, they envision a new America, so I think we have to work off the premise that the country is on the verge of Civil war.

  Sorry but I don't think he would make it make it through a Civil war. 

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I read it already.  It doesn't dispel anything.

I don't know if that is meant as sarcasm, I can be pretty bad at interpreting tone and intent over the internet.  I would say the likelihood that you have read this rather obscure collection of Anarcho-Capitalist essays on the market production of defense services is very low, or you are confusing it with another book.

Kudos to you if you actually have read this book but I suspect you wouldn't be asking some of these questions if you had.

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
That's my point.  You don't know what I mean.
It doesn't matter, because you couldn't.
Who?  You're on your own.  Why would others help you defend the living area you claimed?
They would be concerned about their area they claim, not yours.  You need a leader in battle, with a strategy.  You are WAY out of your element, young man.

Why would you make that assumption?  You think that community would simply vanish without a State?  Unity and comradery would still exist.  Why would we all be content to sit back and watch as our neighbors homes are destroyed by an invading army?  In my mind, there is nothing wrong with collectivism, "national" purpose, and cooperation in working toward common goals.  Provided such agreements and collective purpose are voluntary, there is nothing to object to.

Let's propose a hypothetical.  Let's say we kept the Articles of Confederation and we stayed as a collection of multiple independent colonies or states instead of as one Union.  Let's suppose New York was getting invaded by Russia.  Why would Maine or Pennsylvania or West Virginia care about what was happening in New York?  It wasn't happening to THEIR property after all.  The answer obviously is that if New York was taken over by an invading army, then every other independent state would be at much greater risk.  Furthermore, the commonality of culture and of peoples who live in New York and in the other States would mean that people would care about the survival of all the independent States. 

If you are the first large example of an anarchist, free society in the modern world, you would have a tremendous emotional investment into the collective survival of free, independent people.

When Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death" do you think he really meant "I prefer liberty for myself, but if my colleagues who also prefer liberty are being slaughtered by an invading army, hey tough shit.  At least they aren't yet touching my property!"

The fact that a society would be more decentralized would not automatically mean they would be more vulnerable.  You seem to be making that leap and it is irrational.  The anarchist society is merely a few steps more decentralized than a Confederacy of States.  I would suspect that the competing defense agencies would quite easily deal with internal threats of street crime and normal policing activities.  The actual threat of attack and invasion by another Nation state would be an extremely unlikely scenario, especially as such an anarchist society would be minding its own business and not triggering blowback and resentment throughout the world.

But what would prevent the various defense agencies, the various independent communities and voluntary militias from forming legal contracts and agreements that in the event of a large scale invasion or major threat from another nation state, they would work together in a coordinated fashion according to a previously agreed upon blueprint designating a chain of command, various duties for different security agencies and so forth?

Surely it is in everyone's mutual benefit that we don't get taken over by another government? 

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
It doesn't matter.  You would be someone's slave in your system.

I'm confused.  On the one hand you display genuine curiosity and a willingness to be convinced of the merits of an anarchist, free market society and on the other, you make statements such as this. 

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I'm being serious here, so please don't take offense to this, but do you have a learning disability?  He's had more learning and experience than you and I combined.  I ask, because smart people don't just dismiss experienced, educated people.  Again, I don't mean it to be insulting, but you seem to be struggling with thinking.  It's a skill you should have learned already, if you are in your early-mid 20s.

Solar might be the most brilliant man living, but all I have to go by in my assessment are the handful of posts he has contributed to this thread.  It seems odd that you would criticize my ability to think, and postulate that I have a learning disability, all because you think I am being unjustly dismissive .  I don't know the extent of his learning or experience nor do you of me.  What I have heard here seems to be standard conservative talking points.  If I have judged hastily and in error, I apologize.

I don't think that approach of ad hominems is useful.  I know you said "don't take offense" and I don't, but simply saying I am having trouble with "thinking" is a poor way of debating.  If I have made an erroneous argument, then show me how I am in error.  Saying "you probably have a learning disorder" and "you have problems thinking" is a distraction.  Whether or not I have trouble "thinking" or have a learning disorder, that has no bearing on the validity of the arguments I have offered.

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
I don't doubt you would defend the plot of land you stole.

What plot of land have I stolen?  That is a rather ridiculous and incendiary statement to just toss off in a casual fashion. 

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
Where are you getting these wonderful products and tools?  Do they just fall out of the sky?  How are you going to procure the resources and build these products to enjoy?

The division of labor.  People homestead previously unowned and unused natural resources and transform them through their labor.  Each specializes in what they do best and then they trade the excess of their production with someone else for other needed goods and services.  This is how every primitive economy starts.  It shouldn't have to be said that this division of labor and mutual trade predates the existence of any State. 

Money develops on the market because barter is inefficient.  Some people are able to save up a store of money and resources because they abstain from consumption.  From these savings, investments can take place.  These savers become known as the capitalists.  They invest in the creation of a factory or grant a loan to an entrepreneur to start a business.  That entrepreneur or capitalist can then trade wages for labor services. 

I don't really think I have to continue and describe the entire workings of the market economy, do I?  But suffice to say, the market economy emerged prior to the existence of any formal State and will continue to function in much the same way if the State was dissolved. 

Quote from: taxed on August 04, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
Again, we want your idea.  I am a fan of it, but you won't even discuss a very basic part of how we transition to this, maintain our capitalist system that requires land, facilities, etc.  The one problem academics like yourself have is they can't get into the details.  Karl Marx and his drones are the same way.  I want to discuss this, but you just want to throw book titles around that many of us have already read.  I understand it is new to you, but this is old news to many of us.

What I haven't done in a long time is have a discussion with someone, like yourself, about hypothetically simulating the transition to this system.  I wanted to write a book about this some years ago and title it "Who gets the river?", keyed off the premise that we have a bunch of people ready to implement this system, but we all want the nice river spot, upstream, with the shade.  Who is forced to live further away from the river, etc.

Anyway, I'm wanting to discuss this down to the details, but I'm not sure you have the intellectual chops to do so.  I think it's great you have read a lot, as many of us have, so let's put our brains to work.  And again, I want this system you speak of, so let's figure out how to get there, and protect ourselves with something other than hopes and dreams.

The transition to a Stateless society is a tricky proposition I concede.  I think it is a good discussion to have, but I believe that first we need to resolve whether or not the State can be morally justified, or rather whether aggression can be morally justified.  If aggression is immoral, then it must be opposed. 

Let us suppose I was an abolitionist in 1850 and you were a defender of slavery.  I would be making the moral argument against slavery, that it is a great evil, that a human being's self ownership is being trashed, that his or her labor is being stolen, etc.  And being a great atrocity, it must be ended as quickly as humanly possible.  You might protest and say "wait a minute.  Most of our economy runs on slave labor.  I can't support the abolitionist movement until I can be convinced that we can easily transition to an economy without slave labor."  This would be an erroneous argument.  The "transition", if you could call it that, from a nation that tolerated slavery was indeed a difficult one.  But there is no question that it had to be done for moral reasons.  I think the same is true in the effort to oppose the initiation of force.

But the question of how to get from here to there is a valid one, so I will indulge you. 

The anarchist society would require that all land be privately owned.  But how can we ensure that property titles are justly acquired?  The theoretical libertarian view of legitimate property rights are those that are homesteaded.  Otherwise known as original appropriation, this theory states that since individuals own themselves, then once they mix their labor with previously unowned natural land and resources, that which they transformed becomes their just property.  The first user of some scarce resource has a better claim to ownership than anyone else.  He or she has the right to determine its use until the scarce resource is either sold to another, given as a gift, or merely abandoned.

That is the principle.  Stolen property is obviously not legitimate property.  However, the person who feels that a property was stolen from him or her whether recently or generations ago (land stolen from ancestors) would have to provide proof in a court of law.  If such proof can be provided, then that property must be taken away from the current user and returned to its rightful owner. 

Then there exists the issue of so-called "public" land.  Since the State can never legitimately own property and it can be usually impossible to determine who owned the land before the State stole it, another solution has to be devised.  Hans Hoppe suggests we use the principle of syndicalism to transfer the "public" property to private ownership.  Syndicalism means that those who work on the land have a better claim to just ownership than anyone else.  They have "homesteaded" the land in other words.  Therefore, the farm to the farmers, the factory to the factory workers, the lakes to the fisherman who fish there, etc.  This would only apply to public land. 

Land that is not currently owned by anyone, remote mountain peaks, some dense forest areas, etc would simply remain unowned but under libertarian law any person is free to homestead that land.

Now how do we abolish the State?  The first recourse in my mind is secession.  We need to work to break up large centralized political units, into smaller and more decentralized political units.  More local government and more competing jurisdictions of authority would be a great improvement.  Over time we need to keep pushing this decentralization until we reach the level of the individual. 

Second, we need to change legal tender laws and permit competing currencies, and people should be encouraged to opt out of the paper money system and use private currencies for their transactions.  To bring down a government, you must bring down their currency and financial support.  Rather than wait for hyperinflation or some catastrophic event, we should preemptively opt out of the system and create economic transactions outside of the purview of the State as much as possible.

Finally, the practice of Agorism is helpful.  Agorism is a means where you work to make the State as irrelevant as possible within your own life.  That means not voting, avoiding taxes as much as possible, keeping your kids out of public schools, working peacefully to undermine the legitimacy of the State in your local community as much as you possibly can.  If the State loses legitimacy and popular support, it will simply be superseded by private alternatives.  It will be rendered obsolete.

These are my initial thoughts on how to transition to a market anarchist society.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 07:12:53 PM
I don't know if that is meant as sarcasm, I can be pretty bad at interpreting tone and intent over the internet.  I would say the likelihood that you have read this rather obscure collection of Anarcho-Capitalist essays on the market production of defense services is very low, or you are confusing it with another book.

Kudos to you if you actually have read this book but I suspect you wouldn't be asking some of these questions if you had.

Why would you make that assumption?  You think that community would simply vanish without a State?  Unity and comradery would still exist.  Why would we all be content to sit back and watch as our neighbors homes are destroyed by an invading army?  In my mind, there is nothing wrong with collectivism, "national" purpose, and cooperation in working toward common goals.  Provided such agreements and collective purpose are voluntary, there is nothing to object to.

Let's propose a hypothetical.  Let's say we kept the Articles of Confederation and we stayed as a collection of multiple independent colonies or states instead of as one Union.  Let's suppose New York was getting invaded by Russia.  Why would Maine or Pennsylvania or West Virginia care about what was happening in New York?  It wasn't happening to THEIR property after all.  The answer obviously is that if New York was taken over by an invading army, then every other independent state would be at much greater risk.  Furthermore, the commonality of culture and of peoples who live in New York and in the other States would mean that people would care about the survival of all the independent States. 

If you are the first large example of an anarchist, free society in the modern world, you would have a tremendous emotional investment into the collective survival of free, independent people.

When Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death" do you think he really meant "I prefer liberty for myself, but if my colleagues who also prefer liberty are being slaughtered by an invading army, hey tough shit.  At least they aren't yet touching my property!"

The fact that a society would be more decentralized would not automatically mean they would be more vulnerable.  You seem to be making that leap and it is irrational.  The anarchist society is merely a few steps more decentralized than a Confederacy of States.  I would suspect that the competing defense agencies would quite easily deal with internal threats of street crime and normal policing activities.  The actual threat of attack and invasion by another Nation state would be an extremely unlikely scenario, especially as such an anarchist society would be minding its own business and not triggering blowback and resentment throughout the world.

But what would prevent the various defense agencies, the various independent communities and voluntary militias from forming legal contracts and agreements that in the event of a large scale invasion or major threat from another nation state, they would work together in a coordinated fashion according to a previously agreed upon blueprint designating a chain of command, various duties for different security agencies and so forth?

Surely it is in everyone's mutual benefit that we don't get taken over by another government? 

I'm confused.  On the one hand you display genuine curiosity and a willingness to be convinced of the merits of an anarchist, free market society and on the other, you make statements such as this. 

Solar might be the most brilliant man living, but all I have to go by in my assessment are the handful of posts he has contributed to this thread.  It seems odd that you would criticize my ability to think, and postulate that I have a learning disability, all because you think I am being unjustly dismissive .  I don't know the extent of his learning or experience nor do you of me.  What I have heard here seems to be standard conservative talking points.  If I have judged hastily and in error, I apologize.

I don't think that approach of ad hominems is useful.  I know you said "don't take offense" and I don't, but simply saying I am having trouble with "thinking" is a poor way of debating.  If I have made an erroneous argument, then show me how I am in error.  Saying "you probably have a learning disorder" and "you have problems thinking" is a distraction.  Whether or not I have trouble "thinking" or have a learning disorder, that has no bearing on the validity of the arguments I have offered.

What plot of land have I stolen?  That is a rather ridiculous and incendiary statement to just toss off in a casual fashion. 

The division of labor.  People homestead previously unowned and unused natural resources and transform them through their labor.  Each specializes in what they do best and then they trade the excess of their production with someone else for other needed goods and services.  This is how every primitive economy starts.  It shouldn't have to be said that this division of labor and mutual trade predates the existence of any State. 

Money develops on the market because barter is inefficient.  Some people are able to save up a store of money and resources because they abstain from consumption.  From these savings, investments can take place.  These savers become known as the capitalists.  They invest in the creation of a factory or grant a loan to an entrepreneur to start a business.  That entrepreneur or capitalist can then trade wages for labor services. 

I don't really think I have to continue and describe the entire workings of the market economy, do I?  But suffice to say, the market economy emerged prior to the existence of any formal State and will continue to function in much the same way if the State was dissolved. 

The transition to a Stateless society is a tricky proposition I concede.  I think it is a good discussion to have, but I believe that first we need to resolve whether or not the State can be morally justified, or rather whether aggression can be morally justified.  If aggression is immoral, then it must be opposed. 

Let us suppose I was an abolitionist in 1850 and you were a defender of slavery.  I would be making the moral argument against slavery, that it is a great evil, that a human being's self ownership is being trashed, that his or her labor is being stolen, etc.  And being a great atrocity, it must be ended as quickly as humanly possible.  You might protest and say "wait a minute.  Most of our economy runs on slave labor.  I can't support the abolitionist movement until I can be convinced that we can easily transition to an economy without slave labor."  This would be an erroneous argument.  The "transition", if you could call it that, from a nation that tolerated slavery was indeed a difficult one.  But there is no question that it had to be done for moral reasons.  I think the same is true in the effort to oppose the initiation of force.

But the question of how to get from here to there is a valid one, so I will indulge you. 

The anarchist society would require that all land be privately owned.  But how can we ensure that property titles are justly acquired?  The theoretical libertarian view of legitimate property rights are those that are homesteaded.  Otherwise known as original appropriation, this theory states that since individuals own themselves, then once they mix their labor with previously unowned natural land and resources, that which they transformed becomes their just property.  The first user of some scarce resource has a better claim to ownership than anyone else.  He or she has the right to determine its use until the scarce resource is either sold to another, given as a gift, or merely abandoned.

That is the principle.  Stolen property is obviously not legitimate property.  However, the person who feels that a property was stolen from him or her whether recently or generations ago (land stolen from ancestors) would have to provide proof in a court of law.  If such proof can be provided, then that property must be taken away from the current user and returned to its rightful owner. 

Then there exists the issue of so-called "public" land.  Since the State can never legitimately own property and it can be usually impossible to determine who owned the land before the State stole it, another solution has to be devised.  Hans Hoppe suggests we use the principle of syndicalism to transfer the "public" property to private ownership.  Syndicalism means that those who work on the land have a better claim to just ownership than anyone else.  They have "homesteaded" the land in other words.  Therefore, the farm to the farmers, the factory to the factory workers, the lakes to the fisherman who fish there, etc.  This would only apply to public land. 

Land that is not currently owned by anyone, remote mountain peaks, some dense forest areas, etc would simply remain unowned but under libertarian law any person is free to homestead that land.

Now how do we abolish the State?  The first recourse in my mind is secession.  We need to work to break up large centralized political units, into smaller and more decentralized political units.  More local government and more competing jurisdictions of authority would be a great improvement.  Over time we need to keep pushing this decentralization until we reach the level of the individual. 

Second, we need to change legal tender laws and permit competing currencies, and people should be encouraged to opt out of the paper money system and use private currencies for their transactions.  To bring down a government, you must bring down their currency and financial support.  Rather than wait for hyperinflation or some catastrophic event, we should preemptively opt out of the system and create economic transactions outside of the purview of the State as much as possible.

Finally, the practice of Agorism is helpful.  Agorism is a means where you work to make the State as irrelevant as possible within your own life.  That means not voting, avoiding taxes as much as possible, keeping your kids out of public schools, working peacefully to undermine the legitimacy of the State in your local community as much as you possibly can.  If the State loses legitimacy and popular support, it will simply be superseded by private alternatives.  It will be rendered obsolete.

These are my initial thoughts on how to transition to a market anarchist society.

Way way to windy J, try and not repeat your ideas every other paragraph.
I'll admit, I'm not about to read your book here, but based on your past posts, you tend to explain your position to the point of redundancy.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 07:12:53 PM
I don't know if that is meant as sarcasm, I can be pretty bad at interpreting tone and intent over the internet.  I would say the likelihood that you have read this rather obscure collection of Anarcho-Capitalist essays on the market production of defense services is very low, or you are confusing it with another book.

I was a radical libertarian before you were, and you're not the only one who reads Mises.

Quote
Kudos to you if you actually have read this book but I suspect you wouldn't be asking some of these questions if you had.

I read and think.  I don't just accept what I read as gospel.  Someday you will learn that skill.

Quote
Why would you make that assumption?  You think that community would simply vanish without a State?

No.  I didn't say that.  I said in battle, you need a leader and strategy.  I believe very much a community would live and flourish just fine under your system.  Battle, to repeat myself, requires strategy and leadership.

Quote
Unity and comradery would still exist.

I agree.

Quote
  Why would we all be content to sit back and watch as our neighbors homes are destroyed by an invading army?

What do you mean by "neighbors"?  And how were these homes built?

Quote
  In my mind, there is nothing wrong with collectivism, "national" purpose, and cooperation in working toward common goals.

I agree.

Quote
  Provided such agreements and collective purpose are voluntary, there is nothing to object to.

I agree.

Quote
Let's propose a hypothetical.  Let's say we kept the Articles of Confederation and we stayed as a collection of multiple independent colonies or states instead of as one Union.  Let's suppose New York was getting invaded by Russia.  Why would Maine or Pennsylvania or West Virginia care about what was happening in New York?  It wasn't happening to THEIR property after all.  The answer obviously is that if New York was taken over by an invading army, then every other independent state would be at much greater risk.  Furthermore, the commonality of culture and of peoples who live in New York and in the other States would mean that people would care about the survival of all the independent States.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  In my mind, I'd be concerned about them invading my state.  In my voluntary mind, I'm not going to get killed and have my fellow brothers and soldiers killed because another state is getting invaded.  I'll wait until they invade my area.  Battle is not pretty, and getting stabbed with a bayonet hurts.  Also, the elements.  Marching for miles and miles in the cold, hungry, isn't a lot of fun.  Conversely, you are correct, if I had the ability to stop them before they invaded, I would.  Or, maybe I wouldn't.  Maybe I'd want them to invade, so I can attack them and take New York.  Who knows.  I don't have any loyalty to them.  I have loyalty to my state and community.  I just don't know.

Quote
If you are the first large example of an anarchist, free society in the modern world, you would have a tremendous emotional investment into the collective survival of free, independent people.

Maybe, maybe not.  I wouldn't impose my beliefs on others.

Quote
When Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death" do you think he really meant "I prefer liberty for myself, but if my colleagues who also prefer liberty are being slaughtered by an invading army, hey tough shit.  At least they aren't yet touching my property!"

Maybe his slaves would help fight. Who knows.  But I'm not saying one wouldn't help fight for another's property.  I'm saying it depends on the individual.  Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.  Maybe it depends on how bloody it could be, and what's in it for me.

Quote
The fact that a society would be more decentralized would not automatically mean they would be more vulnerable.  You seem to be making that leap and it is irrational.  The anarchist society is merely a few steps more decentralized than a Confederacy of States.  I would suspect that the competing defense agencies would quite easily deal with internal threats of street crime and normal policing activities.

Who would be the leader?  Who would be in charge?

Quote
  The actual threat of attack and invasion by another Nation state would be an extremely unlikely scenario,

You hope, but that is not relevant.  Would you spend time manufacturing tanks, 50 cals, fighter jets, etc.?  Yes or no?

Quote
especially as such an anarchist society would be minding its own business and not triggering blowback and resentment throughout the world.

Sounds like someone gots some Ron Paul on the brain.  There are bad people who want to attack us.  If we're resented around the world, why do people want to come here so bad?  We're the best, and if some country disagrees, then let me see their space program.  Otherwise, they need to crawl back in their hut, or go back to the coffee shop, smoking cigarettes, preaching about our downfall.

Quote
But what would prevent the various defense agencies, the various independent communities and voluntary militias from forming legal contracts and agreements that in the event of a large scale invasion or major threat from another nation state,

Currently, we say "don't attack us, or we'll blow you up".  That part is actually pretty effective.  Back to my original question when you said "why would we have to get them to go along", how would we get others on board with our system?  You did concede it wouldn't be an easy task, but how do we get there?  Marx had no strategy with his system.  Don't be like Marx.  How do we do it?

Quote
they would work together in a coordinated fashion according to a previously agreed upon blueprint designating a chain of command, various duties for different security agencies and so forth?

Over who?  Volunteers?  Who is this now army made up of, and who is now in charge of them?

Quote
Surely it is in everyone's mutual benefit that we don't get taken over by another government?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I don't pretend to know.  Maybe it's one I like.

Quote
I'm confused.  On the one hand you display genuine curiosity and a willingness to be convinced of the merits of an anarchist, free market society and on the other, you make statements such as this. 

I'm curious how we get there and make all this happen.  Yes, once Putin hears about us, he'll come over and wipe us all out with his tanks and missiles, while we are running and hiding.

Quote
Solar might be the most brilliant man living, but all I have to go by in my assessment are the handful of posts he has contributed to this thread.  It seems odd that you would criticize my ability to think, and postulate that I have a learning disability, all because you think I am being unjustly dismissive .

It's not that, and I appreciate you not taking offense towards it.  You just have a lot of faith in a system to be upheld by men, the same men who warped the state.

Quote
  I don't know the extent of his learning or experience nor do you of me.

I do.  You are young and inexperienced.  It's OK.

Quote
  What I have heard here seems to be standard conservative talking points.  If I have judged hastily and in error, I apologize.

You're trying.  No worries.

Quote
I don't think that approach of ad hominems is useful.  I know you said "don't take offense" and I don't, but simply saying I am having trouble with "thinking" is a poor way of debating.  If I have made an erroneous argument, then show me how I am in error.  Saying "you probably have a learning disorder" and "you have problems thinking" is a distraction.  Whether or not I have trouble "thinking" or have a learning disorder, that has no bearing on the validity of the arguments I have offered.

When you repeat talking points like "blowback", it shows you're at a particular learning level.  Again, not insulting, but I saw through all that stuff when I was your age.  I had idiot libertarians telling me the wonders of legalization, telling me it would be great because the state could tax it.  Sorry, that is stupid, and my simple, basic thinking allowed me to evolve past their group-think.

Quote
What plot of land have I stolen?  That is a rather ridiculous and incendiary statement to just toss off in a casual fashion.

Who says that's yours?  Maybe I want it.

Quote
The division of labor.  People homestead previously unowned and unused natural resources and transform them through their labor.  Each specializes in what they do best and then they trade the excess of their production with someone else for other needed goods and services.  This is how every primitive economy starts.  It shouldn't have to be said that this division of labor and mutual trade predates the existence of any State.

You are 100% correct.  Now, how to we accelerate this so we can catch up to Putin?

Quote
Money develops on the market because barter is inefficient.  Some people are able to save up a store of money and resources because they abstain from consumption.  From these savings, investments can take place.  These savers become known as the capitalists.  They invest in the creation of a factory or grant a loan to an entrepreneur to start a business.  That entrepreneur or capitalist can then trade wages for labor services.

You are right.  What currency are we going to use among all us individuals?

Quote
I don't really think I have to continue and describe the entire workings of the market economy, do I?  But suffice to say, the market economy emerged prior to the existence of any formal State and will continue to function in much the same way if the State was dissolved. 

You are correct.  That isn't in question.

Quote
The transition to a Stateless society is a tricky proposition I concede.  I think it is a good discussion to have, but I believe that first we need to resolve whether or not the State can be morally justified, or rather whether aggression can be morally justified.  If aggression is immoral, then it must be opposed.

Now think, what aggression is the state bringing out?  I know what a few of your answers will be, and I will agree with them, so let's eliminate them.  Now, what aggression does the state bring out?  I'll start - tax system, gone.  We now have a voluntary tax system.  We now won't mess with other countries and will only defend and pre-preemptively defend ourselves.

Quote
Let us suppose I was an abolitionist in 1850 and you were a defender of slavery.  I would be making the moral argument against slavery, that it is a great evil, that a human being's self ownership is being trashed, that his or her labor is being stolen, etc.  And being a great atrocity, it must be ended as quickly as humanly possible.  You might protest and say "wait a minute.  Most of our economy runs on slave labor.  I can't support the abolitionist movement until I can be convinced that we can easily transition to an economy without slave labor."  This would be an erroneous argument.  The "transition", if you could call it that, from a nation that tolerated slavery was indeed a difficult one.  But there is no question that it had to be done for moral reasons.  I think the same is true in the effort to oppose the initiation of force.

You make a great point.  One I've heard a million times, but a great point nonetheless.  And I agree.  However, we're not getting lashes and being forced to work in the fields with bloody fingers.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Quote
But the question of how to get from here to there is a valid one, so I will indulge you. 

The anarchist society would require that all land be privately owned.  But how can we ensure that property titles are justly acquired?  The theoretical libertarian view of legitimate property rights are those that are homesteaded.  Otherwise known as original appropriation, this theory states that since individuals own themselves, then once they mix their labor with previously unowned natural land and resources, that which they transformed becomes their just property.  The first user of some scarce resource has a better claim to ownership than anyone else.  He or she has the right to determine its use until the scarce resource is either sold to another, given as a gift, or merely abandoned.

That is the principle.  Stolen property is obviously not legitimate property.  However, the person who feels that a property was stolen from him or her whether recently or generations ago (land stolen from ancestors) would have to provide proof in a court of law.  If such proof can be provided, then that property must be taken away from the current user and returned to its rightful owner. 

Then there exists the issue of so-called "public" land.  Since the State can never legitimately own property and it can be usually impossible to determine who owned the land before the State stole it, another solution has to be devised.  Hans Hoppe suggests we use the principle of syndicalism to transfer the "public" property to private ownership.  Syndicalism means that those who work on the land have a better claim to just ownership than anyone else.  They have "homesteaded" the land in other words.  Therefore, the farm to the farmers, the factory to the factory workers, the lakes to the fisherman who fish there, etc.  This would only apply to public land. 

Land that is not currently owned by anyone, remote mountain peaks, some dense forest areas, etc would simply remain unowned but under libertarian law any person is free to homestead that land.

Now how do we abolish the State?  The first recourse in my mind is secession.  We need to work to break up large centralized political units, into smaller and more decentralized political units.  More local government and more competing jurisdictions of authority would be a great improvement.  Over time we need to keep pushing this decentralization until we reach the level of the individual. 

Second, we need to change legal tender laws and permit competing currencies, and people should be encouraged to opt out of the paper money system and use private currencies for their transactions.  To bring down a government, you must bring down their currency and financial support.  Rather than wait for hyperinflation or some catastrophic event, we should preemptively opt out of the system and create economic transactions outside of the purview of the State as much as possible.

Finally, the practice of Agorism is helpful.  Agorism is a means where you work to make the State as irrelevant as possible within your own life.  That means not voting, avoiding taxes as much as possible, keeping your kids out of public schools, working peacefully to undermine the legitimacy of the State in your local community as much as you possibly can.  If the State loses legitimacy and popular support, it will simply be superseded by private alternatives.  It will be rendered obsolete.

These are my initial thoughts on how to transition to a market anarchist society.

Your heart is in the right place.  You're coming from a perspective of liberty, which I always appreciate.  I need to know how we do this without laws.  Contemporarily, maybe we can keep up with defense technology of other countries as they grow.  I'm wondering how we do this with the Putins of the world, while we take a huge technology and defense hit.

I'll ask a question in parting, that I asked above: are you going to spend time manufacturing weapons, tanks, and missiles during this non-state world we want?

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 06:15:54 PM
Son, this is why you fail to understand Conservative Ideals.
Conservatism is not a political party, never was, ever. It's a way of life, family, the golden rule, respect for your fellow man, and defending another with your very own life, it's just who we are.
We believe in country, total independence, tiny govt, yes, we do like govt, just not the monstrosity that's grown in the last 70 years.
We want the govt the Founders planned for us.

It's the fabric of who we are, we lived in a different America than you grew up in, it's why the age group you see at TEA rallies is in their late 50s and up, though there are younger people in it that still remember the qualities Reagan exuded, we remember a better America.

The America you are experiencing, only happened in the last 30 years, so to understand what it is we're trying to accomplish, would require to study what is our yesteryear, and now your history.

Hey, I'll admit, I was giving you a really hard time, not because I wanted to fuck with you, but rather make you use your critical thinking gene.
I wanted to challenge you, think through what you are proposing and why it won't work, and hope you would rather take on the task with us in repairing the nation.
Problem with what you're proposing is a guaranteed failure, because there are way too many takers in the current society, they won't give up the gravy train willingly.

Not to mention the fact that internal conflict leaves you wide open for a dictatorship, and yes, it's human nature to do as the majority demands.

As to what "Kind" of Conservative I am? Just look around, Taxed and I started this forum to give other like minded individuals a place to speak freely.

Yes, we are the TEA, and we plan on stealing the GOP for the first time since it's inception, we are the ONLY hope this country has of stopping the communists.

Okay, I get it.  Small government, founding fathers, Constitutionalist, and tea party.  I admit that I was thinking primarily of politics when assessing your values, but I concede that there is indeed a lot more to conservatism.  Believe me, I greatly sympathize with you and I can imagine what it is like to remember better days in this country, when the cost of living was far lower, and the government was relatively restrained.  Look at the cost of education now vs fifty years ago.  The cost of healthcare now vs fifty years ago.  Believe me I understand how the growth of the State, expansionary monetary policy leading to currency debasement, and an increasingly aggressive and interventionist Federal Government has destroyed the wealth and living standards we once enjoyed.

But still, I am curious who you supported in the last election cycle.  I ask because I noticed something interesting.  I represent the younger millennial who are increasingly libertarian and radical.  Most of us supported Ron Paul, if we chose to be involved in politics at all.  But the Tea Party people didn't seem to support him.  There is some thought that Ron Paul's movement essentially started what eventually became the Tea Party movement back in 2007, but it clearly changed by 2009 and 2010 away from libertarianism and towards social conservatism and GOP orthodoxy. 

The tea party crowds were simply far different than the sorts of people that were attracted to Ron Paul's campaign.  Ron Paul's rallies were far more diverse, much younger, and held more appeal to people of diverse ideological backgrounds. 

If you were one of the Tea Party people who rejected Ron Paul's movement, I am curious as to why.  Because Ron Paul does not claim to be an anarchist, though from his writings, and his close friendship with Murray Rothbard, it is clear he is sympathetic to that belief.  He called himself a Constitutionalist so I would assume he would have some appeal to you.  But, from your remarks, it would seem you would reject his foreign policy as "appeasement" or "isolationism".  But I am merely speculating.  I would like you to clarify.

Do you have a position on the more "controversial" libertarian positions?  For example, I believe we should immediately legalize all drugs and release all non violent drug offenders.  I support the legalization of prostitution and gambling.  I am fine with gay marriage. 

Are you okay with this stuff or are you more of a social conservative?

It's not that I don't agree with you on a number of very important issues.  As a younger, far more radical libertarian, I want no State and you want a Constitutional government.  Hey, I'm cool working to push back against the State with anyone.  Though unlike you, I could care less about the Republican Party.  I am not a conservative, I don't share those social values.  I travel in more liberal circles but I care about the substance of the issues.

And finally, what are your opinions of Rand Paul?  I am not a huge fan, I think he is compromising the libertarianism of his father to pander to the GOP leadership.  But he is clearly the best potential GOP candidate in my view, but that doesn't mean I will end up voting for him.  I am undecided.  But I would expect that he would be appealing to a Tea Party crowd.