Crime in AnarchoCapitalist + Libertarian Societies

[Amusing Scrotum]

Now for quite a while I have been debating with quincunx5 on the Hurricane Katrina thread. It has been a constructive debate and if I am honest, I have learnt a lot more about the logic and working of Anarcho Capitalist, Libertarian etc. Government-less societies.

However, I was in the bath thinking and a question came to mind regarding these societies, to which I could find no logical answer.
It was the issue of serious crime. Murder, Rape, Child abuse etc. Now as these societies would be Government-less, there would obviously be no Police Force. Nor would there be any law making bodies and there would also be no prisons. As obviously funding these institutions requires taxation, which is market interference. Therefore not allowed.

So my question is what would happen to criminals. Private security may be able to protect private land, but they would not be able to police society. This would require taxation. It would also require some form of Government mandate. The police can't just arrest you. There have to be laws made, in order for someone to break them. Now laws have to be made by either a Government or a democratic vote of the people. Been as both are absent from these societies, how would any laws be made?
Therefore no one would ever be guilty of rape for instance. They may have done it, but they could never be punished. Except by vigilantes of course. Arrests could never be made, as if someone were to hire a private company to arrest someone, this would constitute an infringement on freedom. Also, should an arrest be made. There would be nowhere to imprison these people and even if there were prisons. It would be the victims duty to pay to keep the criminal in jail.
Add to this that there would have to be some form of judicial hearing. Which is impossible, as courts are funded by the Government. Which is no longer there. Even if there were courts, who would pay for them. Victim or Criminal. Also, what if neither the victim or criminal had any money to pay for a court hearing. Who would pay for it then? And as well if only one of the parties was paying, this would surely impede the independence of the court.

Now, if someone says this would all be payed for by benefactors wanting to keep public order, then I will scream hypocrite. As if people have an obligation to fund an institution, they therefore are paying a tax. Which is not allowed under Anarcho Capitalism or Libertarianism.
Plus if someone says there will be no crime. I will laugh, mock and flame. Whilst there may be a reduction in crime. You will always have some people with poor mental health or faulty wiring, to put it bluntly, that will commit atrocious crimes.

This is a serious question and therefore I would like serious answers from the Anarcho Capitalists and Libertarians who are here.

[allixpeeke]

It was the issue of serious crime. Murder, Rape, Child abuse etc.I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, but rather a Minarcho-Capitalist. So, I think the government has the authority to prosecute these criminals. Rape, murder, theft, fraud, assault, and environmental destruction are crimes I feel the government has just authority to prosecute against. This is commonly referred to as a "Night-Watchman State".

However, I believe Anarcho-Capitalism would be better than the Statist government we're currently living under. I believe Anarcho-Capitalists would advocate letting the community decide how to handle these people.

There are two types of Anarchist societies. The Hobbesian view, which he referred to as the State of Nature, in which murder, theft, rape, everything was permissible. (And if people want to live in such a society, I won't stop them, just as I won't stop people who want to live in an agregarian commune.) Under this system, if someone rapes you, you can kill them. (Not exactly the best of "systems".)

The other type of Anarchist society would be one in which the community would come together when a "crime" is committed and and confront the "criminal" about it. (This would be a more preferred system over Hobbes's "State of Nature".)

But the reason I'm a Minarcho-Capitalist is because I do believe it would be difficult to deal with "criminals" in this set-up. So I prefer a minimal amount of government to enforce basic laws.

I'd suggest reading Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick if you're interested in learning more about Minarchism. :)


So my question is what would happen to criminals. Private security may be able to protect private land, but they would not be able to police society. This would require taxation.Logical fallacy.

Although I don't support abolishing all taxation, I fully admit that taxes are detrimental. What you ignore is the possibility that taxation could be voluntary. Personally, I would prefer to replace the federal income tax with voluntary donations.
As if people have an obligation to fund an institution, they therefore are paying a tax.Under Anarcho-Capitalism, they would not be obligated. Under Minarcho-Capitalism, they may be obligated to pay some.
Which is not allowed under Anarcho Capitalism or Libertarianism.Libertarianism is broken into two groups: Anarcho-Capitalists and Minarcho-Capitalists. (I would further argue that Capitalism only comes in two forms: Anarchism and Minarchism, and that Capitalism cannot exist under Big Government.)

[Freedom Works]

Murder, Rape, Child abuse etc. Now as these societies would be Government-less, there would obviously be no Police Force.
!?! No "government" police force, but private insurance agencies for sure.


Nor would there be any law making bodies and there would also be no prisons. As obviously funding these institutions requires taxation, which is market interference.
You seem to think that justice requires putting someone in jail. Justice is making the victim as whole as possible.


Arrests could never be made, as if someone were to hire a private company to arrest someone, this would constitute an infringement on freedom.
It's not about the infringement of freedom, it's about stopping the initiation of force.


Add to this that there would have to be some form of judicial hearing. Which is impossible, as courts are funded by the Government.
Lawless, not courtless. Arbitration is necessary everywhere.


Even if there were courts, who would pay for them.
The victim's insurance agency.


You will always have some people with poor mental health or faulty wiring, to put it bluntly, that will commit atrocious crimes.
So this justifies coercion by a State?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Thanks for the reply allixpeeke, I had never heard of Minarcho-Capitalist before. I will not answer all of your points, because that may lead to the thread being derailed into a wider debate regarding Capitalist ideologies. When really, I only want to address this issue.


I believe Anarcho-Capitalists would advocate letting the community decide how to handle these people.

Surely this would involve some kind of democratic process. Which as quincunx5 has explained to me, would not exist in Anarcho Capitalism.


Although I don't support abolishing all taxation, I fully admit that taxes are detrimental. What you ignore is the possibility that taxation could be voluntary. Personally, I would prefer to replace the federal income tax with voluntary donations.


Under Anarcho-Capitalism, they would not be obligated. Under Minarcho-Capitalism, they may be obligated to pay some.

Surely under a system of voluntary taxation. People who did not contribute would suffer a social exclusion of sorts. A stigma would be attached to them, which would only be removed if they paid tax. No paying tax because of that, does not seem very voluntary to me.

Also voluntary taxation is still taxation. Something as I understand it, that would be abolished under Anarcho Capitalism.


No "government" police force, but private insurance agencies for sure.


Okay, but who regulates these insurance agencies? Who would decide what is illegal?


You seem to think that justice requires putting someone in jail. Justice is making the victim as whole as possible.


I would rather see a child molester stuck in jail, where he can no longer harm children. Than the child molester being free to do as he pleases, so long as his victims receive compensation.


It's not about the infringement of freedom, it's about stopping the initiation of force.

But without a regulating body, who decides what constitutes an "initiation of force".


Lawless, not courtless. Arbitration is necessary everywhere.

Who would pay for these courts? If people had to pay insurance costs for courts. Then the insurance premiums replace tax. Therefore society would not be taxless, its just tax would be called something else. Same process different name.
Plus, without a governing body, who would decide what the laws of the courts would be?


The victim's insurance agency.

So the insurance replaces tax. A huge contradiction in your ideology, me thinks. :lol:


So this justifies coercion by a State?

As I said earlier in my post. I don't want this topic to be about anything other than a question about a single issue, "Crime in AnarchoCapitalist + Libertarian Societies".
Please don't derail the topic, just yet anyway.

[Publius]

Try this: http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&lr=&ie...ism&btnG=Search (http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=anarcho-capitalism&btnG=Search)

[Freedom Works]

Okay, but who regulates these insurance agencies? Who would decide what is illegal?
The market regulates them (things that work last).
There is not need for laws, just courts. Laws simply tell the courts what exactly is an offense and what the 'justice' in that situation should be, but this is unnecessary.


I would rather see a child molester stuck in jail, where he can no longer harm children. Than the child molester being free to do as he pleases, so long as his victims receive compensation.
http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/block/block10.mp3
(a lecture on reperations)


But without a regulating body, who decides what constitutes an "initiation of force".
Courts. The initiation of force is pretty simple to understand anyway, though.


Who would pay for these courts? If people had to pay insurance costs for courts. Then the insurance premiums replace tax. Therefore society would not be taxless, its just tax would be called something else. Same process different name.
People wouldn't HAVE to pay for insurance though. It would be a voluntary choice if they felt the benefits outweighed the costs.


Plus, without a governing body, who would decide what the laws of the courts would be?
Laws are unneeded, protection(in the form of private police) is not.


So the insurance replaces tax.
Yes, but they have a choice to get insurance, and the insurance companies are competing - so the price is lower, and the protection is better than a State.

[quincunx5]

Surely this would involve some kind of democratic process. Which as quincunx5 has explained to me, would not exist in Anarcho Capitalism.


The process is a market democracy. You don't pick the policies you don't like.
Same way you go to a store and vote for your favorite soft drink (at the moment).



Surely under a system of voluntary taxation. People who did not contribute would suffer a social exclusion of sorts. A stigma would be attached to them, which would only be removed if they paid tax. No paying tax because of that, does not seem very voluntary to me.


Anarcho-communism preaches exactly the same thing. Those who don't contribute voluntarily are stigmatized, shunned, and excluded.



Okay, but who regulates these insurance agencies? Who would decide what is illegal?


People. The people will approve of the private insurance companies who they feel bring justice.



I would rather see a child molester stuck in jail, where he can no longer harm children. Than the child molester being free to do as he pleases, so long as his victims receive compensation.


Judges, Juries, Guards, and Prisons are all on the market. A child molester, if found guilty, will be put in jail to WORK. The WORK needed to compensate for molestation will be determined ahead of time.



But without a regulating body, who decides what constitutes an "initiation of force".


The people in the market are the regulating body. The Judge and Jury will decide by evidence.
And the people in the market will vote if the Judge and Jury made the correct decision in their eyes. Judges and Juries, should they decide to go into the business will have ratings controlled by the public.



Who would pay for these courts? If people had to pay insurance costs for courts. Then the insurance premiums replace tax. Therefore society would not be taxless, its just tax would be called something else. Same process different name.


It's voluntary. If you think you can defend yourself, then you don't need insurance from physical force.

Unlike today, where the cost of protection is increasing while the quality is decresing - the very opposite will occur. Competition will bring prices down low enough to still be able to maintain good protection (in the eyes of the voting market public, ie People).

---

Some text:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_3.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_3.pdf

And for your listening pleasure:

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Radica...ip/SS-Hoppe.mp3 (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/RadicalScholarship/SS-Hoppe.mp3)

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/PWD2003/PWD-Hoppe.mp3

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/Radica...ip/SS-Hoppe.mp3 (http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/RadicalScholarship/SS-Hoppe.mp3)

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2005/mu05-Hoppe3.mp3

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2004/Hoppe3.mp3

[Amusing Scrotum]

Thanks for the links Publius. I will mainly concentrate my questions on this link (http://66.102.9.104/u/Mises?q=cache:CdtolnW_ufoJ:www.mises.org/journals/jls/2_3/2_3_5.pdf+anarcho-capitalism&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).

I accept that this link does a good job of explaining how the court system would work. However I feel there are a few glaring flaws.

Firstly, if judges are picked on their record by the complainant. As stated here -


Murray N. Rothbardf'' and other libertarian writers have found that actual free-market courts which existed in the past competed with each other, not on the basis of their respective susceptibilities to bias, but on the basis of their respective fairness and impartiality.

Now this establishes the obvious principle that the injured party will choose the best. But, obviously not everyone can have the best. For a start, it would be impossible for the top 10% of courts to handle all the caseload of the world. This means some people will have to settle for second, third or even fourth best. Something which will definitely undermine the judgement given by the court.
Add to this, the best courts will likely charge more because they will be giving the customer value for money. This will leave some sections of society unable to attain top notch legal decisions. Basically making good courts a privilege of the wealthy. By the way this is not Socialist rhetoric before you all start moaning, it is, in my humble opinion, the logical conclusion.

Now I have established that good judicial proceedings will be impossible for all to have. So next I will move on to the issue brought up in the article of constant arbitration.


But, one must remember that there are disadvantages associa- ted with the initiation of personal judicial actions -to wit, Locke's infinite aggression- overcompensation cycle. This disadvantage provides an incentive for all parties to show good faith in having their disputes decided impartially. This incentive is especially strong for an alleged injurer who wishes to establish his innocence.

Now I accept people will be willing to show good faith and adhere to the courts decision in many cases. But, in cases when the stakes are high, so to speak, where tremendous amounts of compensation and damages are the possible outcome of a case. Then why would the party found guilty accept it. If one large company was suing another large company. Lets not worry about the charges, as they are irrelevant.
Now lets call the injured company A and the defendant company B. Now A, if successful with its case would win enough money to put B out of business. The first court they attend finds B guilty and orders the payment of damages to A. Why would B, a company making a profit, with a big customer base which will in all probability be disinterested with the court proceedings, wish to honour the courts decision and pay A damages. Surely it would wish to find a court which would rule in its favour.
Now if this kind of situation happened often enough, then surely Victims' courts and Defendants' courts would start to spring up. These courts would not need good records to make money, instead they would need obvious bias. This would be a legitimate business opportunity for people to exploit.
Rather than leading to people settling on the decision of one good court. We will find people will be reluctant to bring cases to court. They will just let things go. Yes there would be no punished crime, but there would also be, pardon the pun, Anarchy.

Now I will move into a specific area, that of rape. Now we all now that many men are still sexist pigs. They blame the raped woman and not the rapist. Now should there be a rape and the victim knows the raper and takes them to court. Now if the court rules in favour of the woman, the suspected rapist would dispute the decision and claim the court was biased and sexist. If the court found the suspected rapist innocent, then surely the woman would dispute the decision on the same grounds. Now in matters of such importance, surely endless arbitration would be inevitable. Until finally, no one would report being raped. Great no one is being raped, there is no record of it happening in society. So obviously rape would be a thing of the past. Nonsense. Cases of rape would become more widespread and women would report it less and less, because of the hassle involved when you do report it.

Now my next gripe revolves around having to pay for your hearing. Say a person, on a moderate salary, not poor, not rich. Gets assaulted badly. Stabbed for instance.
Now this person had looked at the crime statistics for their area and seen that they were very low, so in the interest of saving money decided no to take out crime insurance. Now after the attack, they realise they cannot possibly afford to pay for the detective work needed to find their attacker or for the court hearing. Is this person just left alone to suffer, with neither justice or compensation. Add to this if their injuries meant they would be of work for a substantial time. They would not be able to get any compensation and therefore would face the very real possibility of poverty.

Is this how the victims of crime should be treated?

Now I have discussed the problems I feel there will be with the court procedure, I will turn to punishment.

Lets say that the court system has worked perfectly, unlikely but lets say it anyway. Now the defendant has pleaded guilty. However unlike most cases where compensation could be paid to the victim. There are fears the perpetrator will re offend. He could for example be a child molester. Now obviously the perpetrator will have to be imprisoned, but who will pay? The guilty party will obviously not want to pay for his own imprisonment, neither will his family. The victim or the victims insurance company will not pay, neither should they pay.

So I will ask again, who will pay?

Now I will discuss another of my perceived flaws. Cases of murder.

Say a single person with no family be murdered and the murderer known. Who will prosecute the murderer?
If the victim did have insurance, the company will not wish to pursue the case out of fear of losing money. The murderer will not want to try themselves. The community cannot act as a Government and prosecute the murderer. So who will prosecute him?

The answer to these problems seems to be that fear of vigilante actions would make the people adhere to the system. If this is not a form of State suppression, then I don't know what is.
Also as I have pointed out, I believe the system would fall apart, repeatedly. This would lead to a world of vigilantes, dishing out their own punishment. I suggest that silly ideas like Free Market Courts, gives the impression to people that Anarchist ideologies will lead to Anarchy. Something left wing Anarchists have worked hard to combat, only for Anarcho Capitalism to spring up and actually promote Anarchy. Thus seriously damaging what is essentially a sound ideology, Anarchism.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Freedom Works -



The market regulates them (things that work last).
There is not need for laws, just courts. Laws simply tell the courts what exactly is an offence and what the 'justice' in that situation should be, but this is unnecessary.

What, so if enough people pay for courts that think murder is wrong, it will become wrong?

What kind of basis is that to form a society.


People wouldn't HAVE to pay for insurance though. It would be a voluntary choice if they felt the benefits outweighed the costs.

So its a choice between going on holiday or protecting yourself from the possibility of getting attacked. Anyone who could afford it would insure themselves, making it mandatory.


Laws are unneeded, protection(in the form of private police) is not.


But what would stop the private police from becoming a private army, serving one wealthy person?

quincunx5 -


The process is a market democracy. You don't pick the policies you don't like.
Same way you go to a store and vote for your favourite soft drink (at the moment).


So whether something is illegal, is directly correlated with how much you pay to make it illegal.


Anarcho-communism preaches exactly the same thing. Those who don't contribute voluntarily are stigmatized, shunned, and excluded.


So much for your ultimate freedom, you are treated like shit if you try to abstain. This is not voluntary, it is mandatory.


People. The people will approve of the private insurance companies who they feel bring justice.


Fair trials would go out the window then. As people would only pay for a guilty verdict.


Judges, Juries, Guards, and Prisons are all on the market. A child molester, if found guilty, will be put in jail to WORK. The WORK needed to compensate for molestation will be determined ahead of time.

So your advocating the return of slavery now?


The people in the market are the regulating body. The Judge and Jury will decide by evidence.
And the people in the market will vote if the Judge and Jury made the correct decision in their eyes. Judges and Juries, should they decide to go into the business will have ratings controlled by the public.


So the more judges advocate very reactionary judgements to serious crimes. Which appease the angry public. The more extreme punishment would become. Tell me, how long before they start chopping the hands of people for stealing?

Fuck me, this is a return to the dark ages.


It's voluntary. If you think you can defend yourself, then you don't need insurance from physical force.

Unlike today, where the cost of protection is increasing while the quality is decresing - the very opposite will occur. Competition will bring prices down low enough to still be able to maintain good protection (in the eyes of the voting market public, ie People).

So what is to stop me going round to my neighbours and clubbing them to death, because they came on my property. I would face no repercussions as I would only be defending myself and my property.

And the market won't regulate private firms. People will pay for the more brutal firms to ensure their protection. Until we reach the point where we would have a private police state. Where people would be killed for looking at someone else's property.

[Freedom Works]

What, so if enough people pay for courts that think murder is wrong, it will become wrong?
No, the point is that laws are not the necessary function - arbitration is.


So its a choice between going on holiday or protecting yourself from the possibility of getting attacked.
That would be if the insurance company was a monopoly, but there cannot be lasting monopolies in free markets.


Anyone who could afford it would insure themselves, making it mandatory.
If you break your arm, it is not mandatory that you must fix it. The benefits outweigh the costs.


But what would stop the private police from becoming a private army, serving one wealthy person?
The free-market. http://www.mises.org/story/1855

[Amusing Scrotum]

No, the point is that laws are not the necessary function - arbitration is.


Okay, that seems reasonable enough.


That would be if the insurance company was a monopoly, but there cannot be lasting monopolies in free markets.

Whats the insurance company being a monopoly have to do with this -


So its a choice between going on holiday or protecting yourself from the possibility of getting attacked.

You either spend your money on a holiday company or an insurance company. What does this have to with monopolies?


If you break your arm, it is not mandatory that you must fix it. The benefits outweigh the costs.

Of course its not mandatory. But if I can't afford to fix it, it becomes mandatory that I can't fix it.

[Freedom Works]

Whats the insurance company being a monopoly have to do with this -
The State is a monopoly.


You either spend your money on a holiday company or an insurance company. What does this have to with monopolies?
Competition in free markets lowers price and increases worth, the State is a monopoly, so you cannot compare it to freedom, at least accurately.


But if I can't afford to fix it, it becomes mandatory that I can't fix it.
Oh shame on these horrible biological bodies! :P
Anyway, you don't deserve the have your arm fixed solely because you exist.

[Amusing Scrotum]

The State is a monopoly

Huh?

Ground control to Major Tom. :lol:


Competition in free markets lowers price and increases worth, the State is a monopoly, so you cannot compare it to freedom, at least accurately.


You still at some point have to make a choice, everyone can't have everything. This choice would be especially significant for the lower paid members of society.


Oh shame on these horrible biological bodies!
Anyway, you don't deserve the have your arm fixed solely because you exist

And I suppose starving African children, don't deserve to have food, just because they exist. :angry:

[Freedom Works]

You still at some point have to make a choice, everyone can't have everything. This choice would be especially significant for the lower paid members of society.
Yes, but the solution is still much better than a State.


This choice would be especially significant for the lower paid members of society.
Yes, but it would cost less and function more efficiently and well than currently.


And I suppose starving African children, don't deserve to have food, just because they exist.
You're right, they deserve it, but not to the point of using force to feed them.

[quincunx5]

So whether something is illegal, is directly correlated with how much you pay to make it illegal.


You don't pay to make laws. The laws are accepted by constant public approval.



So much for your ultimate freedom, you are treated like shit if you try to abstain. This is not voluntary, it is mandatory.


I got the impression from every anarcho-communist on this forum that those who do not participate get shabby treatment. This is not an idea exlusive to anarcho-capitalism

The difference in an-cap society is that you are still free to claim unused property and work for yourself. The an-commie does not have this freedom, he is forced into society in order to survive.



Fair trials would go out the window then. As people would only pay for a guilty verdict.


No. People pay for an impartial judge and jury. The judge and jury have ratings and reviews of their previous judgements. They will be selected for this service.

If you are talking about corruption - you have to realize how costly it would be.
One would have to pay to bribe the judges and to bribe the jury. The judge and jury have to consider if getting bribed is worth more (financially) than being honest. Their future jobs are on the line.

In the cases of non-violent crimes, two parties can easily have someone be their arbitrator. The arbitrator can even do this for free. But their judgement would still be reviewed, rated, and criticised.

Insurance companies have always had this, and continue to do so today. Every idiot who smacked into my car had their insurance company pay for damages. I had no part in the arbitration process at all. My time was not wasted, and justice was served (quickly to boot).



So your advocating the return of slavery now?


You are not a slave, you are merely repaying your debt to the victim. Unlike current laws where the victim is not only not compensated, he is even taxed to hold the criminal in a cell. The victim pays for food, cloth, shelter, as well as other conveniences of the criminal. That is justice?



So the more judges advocate very reactionary judgements to serious crimes. Which appease the angry public. The more extreme punishment would become. Tell me, how long before they start chopping the hands of people for stealing?


Don't be stupid. There is no benefit to killing a person, when they can better serve the victim by repaying his debt.

The angry public is not stupid enough to kill people before they can repay their debt.



But what would stop the private police from becoming a private army, serving one wealthy person?


Because there will not be one wealthy person. The multitude of wealthy people will never agree with each other.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yes, but the solution is still much better than a State.

Obviously, I would say that solution would be Communism, but thats another debate.


Yes, but it would cost less and function more efficiently and well than currently.

Huh? There would be the obvious problem that some people would not be privileged enough to obtain these services. Even though they may well function more efficiently for the privileged few.


You're right, they deserve it, but not to the point of using force to feed them.

What planet are you living on, if you think that by giving a starving child food. You're forcing them to eat.
For fucks sake, they're starving.

[Freedom Works]

Even though they may well function more efficiently for the privileged few.
In capitalism, it functions more efficiently for the ones who become wealthy - and freedom leads to wealth.


What planet are you living on, if you think that by giving a starving child food. You're forcing them to eat.
For fucks sake, they're starving.
Hahah, no, I was talking about stealing from the rich to give to the less-rich.

[Amusing Scrotum]

You don't pay to make laws. The laws are accepted by constant public approval.

Yes and in Anarcho Capitalism, the public have to pay money to show their approval.

Also, if in a predominantly white country enough people show approval, pay money, for a law that says all black people must be killed. Will this be allowed?


I got the impression from every anarcho-communist on this forum that those who do not participate get shabby treatment. This is not an idea exlusive to anarcho-capitalism

The difference in an-cap society is that you are still free to claim unused property and work for yourself. The an-commie does not have this freedom, he is forced into society in order to survive.

Yes in Communism you must contribute, if you are able, in order to have choices with regards the running of society. However no one should pressure you to contribute, its just you have to make your own way if you don't. If you don't work for the community, the community will not sustain you. Therefore you must get your own food, clothing etc. Which inevitably makes you a worker.
However I do not advocate Communism as the ultimate freedom, in the way you advocate Anarcho Capitalism. I advocate as the absolute workers' freedom. There is a difference.


No. People pay for an impartial judge and jury. The judge and jury have ratings and reviews of their previous judgements. They will be selected for this service.

If you are talking about corruption - you have to realize how costly it would be.
One would have to pay to bribe the judges and to bribe the jury. The judge and jury have to consider if getting bribed is worth more (financially) than being honest. Their future jobs are on the line.

In the cases of non-violent crimes, two parties can easily have someone be their arbitrator. The arbitrator can even do this for free. But their judgement would still be reviewed, rated, and criticised.

Insurance companies have always had this, and continue to do so today. Every idiot who smacked into my car had their insurance company pay for damages. I had no part in the arbitration process at all. My time was not wasted, and justice was served (quickly to boot).

I have already discussed this in my two long threads, therefore it is somewhat pointless for me to restate opinions, that I already posted in this thread.


You are not a slave, you are merely repaying your debt to the victim. Unlike current laws where the victim is not only not compensated, he is even taxed to hold the criminal in a cell. The victim pays for food, cloth, shelter, as well as other conveniences of the criminal. That is justice?


If you have to work without a choice. You are by definition a slave. Also doesn't this open the system up to abuse, with fake victims getting people imprison in order to profit off their slave labour.


Don't be stupid. There is no benefit to killing a person, when they can better serve the victim by repaying his debt.

The angry public is not stupid enough to kill people before they can repay their debt.


Right so someone has molested countless children and the public are given two options. Let him repay his debt through work or have him killed. Most people would choose a bullet in the skull.


Because there will not be one wealthy person. The multitude of wealthy people will never agree with each other

They would agree that they didn't want to be poor. Quite a unifying cause.

[Amusing Scrotum]

In capitalism, it functions more efficiently for the ones who become wealthy - and freedom leads to wealth.

It can't lead for wealth for everyone. The Capitalist system requires winners and losers, for it to prosper.

Also "freedom leads to wealth", did you borrow that off George Bush.


Hahah, no, I was talking about stealing from the rich to give to the less-rich.

That still doesn't mean it is, in any sense, a coherent or logical thought on your part.

[Freedom Works]

It can't lead for wealth for everyone.
*sigh* Yes, it does. Voluntary wealth trade increases the wealth of everyone. If I trade you my tie for your pen, that must mean I value your pen more than my tie, and if you go through with it, then you must value my tie more than your pen. This is all in the ex ante sense of course, but the wealth is still increased.


The Capitalist system requires winners and losers, for it to prosper.
Socialist propaganda, and false.


Also "freedom leads to wealth", did you borrow that off George Bush.
No, it has to do with logic.


That still doesn't mean it is, in any sense, a coherent or logical thought on your part.
Rephrased: You're right, they deserve it, but not to the point of using force to get food to feed them.

[Amusing Scrotum]

*sigh* Yes, it does. Voluntary wealth trade increases the wealth of everyone. If I trade you my tie for your pen, that must mean I value your pen more than my tie, and if you go through with it, then you must value my tie more than your pen. This is all in the ex ante sense of course, but the wealth is still increased.

Thats a very primitive way to look at it. Also trading a tie for a pen isn't a concept exclusive to Capitalism.

Also Capitalism produces unequal wealth. Not even you can deny this. Therefore some people, under Capitalism will always have less wealth.


Socialist propaganda, and false.

The company that runs at a loss, loses. The company that makes a profit, wins. Winners and losers.

It is a simple enough concept, for even you to understand.


No, it has to do with logic.

:lol:


Rephrased: You're right, they deserve it, but not to the point of using force to get food to feed them.

You would rather let people starve, than steal them some food. I wouldn't.

[Freedom Works]

Also Capitalism produces unequal wealth. Not even you can deny this. Therefore some people, under Capitalism will always have less wealth.
All wealth is unequal. There is no wealth scale.


The company that runs at a loss, loses. The company that makes a profit, wins. Winners and losers.
For the human species to progress, efficiency needs out inefficiency.


You would rather let people starve, than steal them some food. I wouldn't.
That's because deep down you care more for the society than for the individual.

[Amusing Scrotum]

All wealth is unequal. There is no wealth scale.

The inequality can be brought down or removed, if people wish to do so. And no there is no wealth scale, wealth is subjective.


For the human species to progress, efficiency needs out inefficiency.


Don't evade the question. You said there were no winners and losers and I proved you wrong. Yet you try to wriggle out of conceding the point.


That's because deep down you care more for the society than for the individual.

It can't argue with that. :)

[Freedom Works]

The inequality can be brought down or removed, if people wish to do so.
Why is inequality bad?


You said there were no winners and losers and I proved you wrong.
They aren't really losers though, they just failed.


It can't argue with that.
Except that society does not exist, while the individual does, so in effect you are enforcing stupidity.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Why is inequality bad?

The clue is in the word. It creates disadvantage for some and advantage for others. For no good reason, I may add.


They aren't really losers though, they just failed.

Oh come on, if I fail to win a race, I am the loser. Pure and simple.


Except that society does not exist, while the individual does, so in effect you are enforcing stupidity.

Is this the resurrection of Maggie. :lol:

You would do well to remind yourself of that absurd statement, the next time a complete stranger helps out you or your family.

[Freedom Works]

It creates disadvantage for some and advantage for others. For no good reason, I may add.
If 'they' achieved said advantage completely voluntarily, without violating one's rights, why should they not have it?

If a complete stranger steals to help me out, I would be insulted.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If 'they' achieved said advantage completely voluntarily, without violating one's rights, why should they not have it?

If a complete stranger steals to help me out, I would be insulted.

So if by the pure luck of being born into a Western country. I am able to have food, clothes, water etc. And by bad luck, another person is born in an African country, without food, water, clothing. Then I should just enjoy my advantage and not care that there is someone starving the other side of the world.

Out of sight, out of mind. :angry:

[Freedom Works]

So if by the pure luck of being born into a Western country. I am able to have food, clothes, water etc. And by bad luck, another person is born in an African country, without food, water, clothing. Then I should just enjoy my advantage and not care that there is someone starving the other side of the world.
Nice job dodging the question.


Out of sight, out of mind.
Same with the people you are stealing from.

[KC]

Same with the people you are stealing from.

And who are we stealing from? The people that work harder? Most people that work harder don't get paid more anyways. They're paid on an hourly basis.



If a complete stranger steals to help me out, I would be insulted.

When'd he say anything about stealing?

[Freedom Works]

And who are we stealing from? The people that work harder?
It doesn't matter who you are stealing from, it matters that you are stealing.



Most people that work harder don't get paid more anyways. They're paid on an hourly basis.
Think this might have to do with lack of competition resulting from leftist involvment such as minimum wage laws and the like?


When'd he say anything about stealing?
When he said he cared more about society than the individual. It is a simple extention of such.

[KC]

It doesn't matter who you are stealing from, it matters that you are stealing.


I asked you who we're stealing from. Answer the question. Because right now the answer is "no one". If we're stealing from nobody, then we're not stealing. So please tell me who we're stealing from.



Think this might have to do with lack of competition resulting from leftist involvment such as minimum wage laws and the like?

Oh really? So companies aren't able to pay their hard-working employees more now? Because of minimum wage laws?! You're an idiot. (And by the way, it's not leftist involvement, it's liberal involvement. Big difference, genius.)



When he said he cared more about society than the individual. It is a simple extention of such.

So if a stranger gives money to you that they earned, that's stealing? Make some fucking sense! Try again!

[Freedom Works]

First off, please follow the boards own rules and stop flaming.


Oh really? So companies aren't able to pay their hard-working employees more now? Because of minimum wage laws?! You're an idiot.
You are economicly ignorant. If a company is FORCED to pay higher than it usually would, it does not allow the people working the jobs to prove they are better than others. It also doesn't allow people to do odd jobs, and their is no way a kid is going to be able to learn some responsibility if they are not worth more than the arbitrary minimum wage.


(And by the way, it's not leftist involvement, it's liberal involvement. Big difference, genius.)
By the way, it's not liberal involvment, it's neo-liberal involvment.



So if a stranger gives money to you that they earned, that's stealing?
No, but if you steal from the rich to give to the less-rich, which Armchair.Socialism. agreed with, it is stealing.

[Amusing Scrotum]

It is quite amusing how Freedom Works deems the paying of tax as stealing. When if you were to come to most European countries and talk to the public, they would tell you that they are perfectly happy with the principle of paying back into society.

After all, if they really disliked tax so much. They would vote a party into office, that proposed scrapping tax. After all, the vote is a powerful weapon, and people vote for equality, not inequality.

[quincunx5]

If you have to work without a choice. You are by definition a slave. Also doesn't this open the system up to abuse, with fake victims getting people imprison in order to profit off their slave labour.


Yes you are temporarily a slave, this is not really debatable.

The key difference is that you work (how you wish) to pay the victim.

In fact, the slave is even given a choice as to what they want to do.
They will not be necessarily put to work at some undesirable task.
They will be asked how they want to repay their debt. They will do that which they are best at, so as to repay as quickly as possible.

Upon repayment, they are free. An eye will be kept on them, but they are still free.

The problem with debating this is coming up with a better alternative.

How do you prospose to treat criminals? Candy and flowers? Giving them money?
Forcing the victim to chip in?



The clue is in the word. It creates disadvantage for some and advantage for others. For no good reason, I may add.


So if one chooses to be a stuntman and the other chooses to be a hisorian, the stuntman is hereby disadvantaged because he chooses a risky career?

They both love what they do.
Stuntman typically do earn more than historians, rightly so.



Oh come on, if I fail to win a race, I am the loser. Pure and simple.


I hate stupid analogies like this. The proper analogy is this:
A bunch of people are running away from a tiger. They all cross a no-tiger line, the last person is still a winner because he's alive.



It is quite amusing how Freedom Works deems the paying of tax as stealing. When if you were to come to most European countries and talk to the public, they would tell you that they are perfectly happy with the principle of paying back into society.


It's amazing how you are so omniscient. Wow! You have the amazing power to describe how 100% of the population in some countries will respond.

What about the people that receive more than they give? They like to pay back to society?

How about the politicians who clearly only take? or the protected industries? or the people working for both the former and the latter?



After all, if they really disliked tax so much. They would vote a party into office, that proposed scrapping tax. After all, the vote is a powerful weapon, and people vote for equality, not inequality.


Who the hell would vote to remove their income?
The state controls popular media. In fact it would fear losing itself.

There is no reason to vote someone into an institution, when the question itself is the institution in the first place.

The only way the third economic revolution can take place is when the state fucks up big time. The central bank will typically be suspect.



Oh really? So companies aren't able to pay their hard-working employees more now? Because of minimum wage laws?! You're an idiot.


Employees can easily get paid $50 2005USD/hr assuming prices are not adjusted But then we'd just have 90%+ unemployment. This is what you want?

You are either for 'unemployment and high wages' or 'employment and lower wages' - you can't be for both.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yes you are temporarily a slave, this is not really debatable.

The key difference is that you work (how you wish) to pay the victim.

In fact, the slave is even given a choice as to what they want to do.
They will not be necessarily put to work at some undesirable task.
They will be asked how they want to repay their debt. They will do that which they are best at, so as to repay as quickly as possible.

Upon repayment, they are free. An eye will be kept on them, but they are still free.

The problem with debating this is coming up with a better alternative.

How do you prospose to treat criminals? Candy and flowers? Giving them money?
Forcing the victim to chip in?


What happens if you choose not to work. Or what would happen if two men both committed the same crime. These men were both ordered by the court to pay the same amount of compensation. However one of these mens job, produced a product which was worth more money than the other mans job. So one of the men was able to pay back his debt in a year, while the other man was paying it back for two years. Basically the market would be deciding how long someone is imprisoned, how is this either fair or just?

Also who will be keeping an eye on these men when they are released? Will there be some kind of Private Police infringing on the lives of people.

As for what I propose, I propose the victimised community choosing how the guilty party is treated. There should be an underlying constitution protecting basic rights, but other than that the choice of punishment rests directly with the injured parties.


So if one chooses to be a stuntman and the other chooses to be a hisorian, the stuntman is hereby disadvantaged because he chooses a risky career?

They both love what they do.
Stuntman typically do earn more than historians, rightly so.


Why rightly so. They are both doing valuable jobs. Both of these jobs add something to the society. Whether one of these jobs earns the worker more respect or adoration. Is not a reason for one of these jobs to be better paid.


I hate stupid analogies like this. The proper analogy is this:
A bunch of people are running away from a tiger. They all cross a no-tiger line, the last person is still a winner because he's alive.


Yes but under Capitalism, some people don't cross the no tiger line. They go out of business, meaning they are no longer a winner, as they have been eaten by the tiger.


It's amazing how you are so omniscient. Wow! You have the amazing power to describe how 100% of the population in some countries will respond.

What about the people that receive more than they give? They like to pay back to society?

How about the politicians who clearly only take? or the protected industries? or the people working for both the former and the latter?


Its is not my amazing foresight that allows me to make a statement like that. It is the fact, that just about every European country has a strong Social Democratic Party. These Social Democratic Parties follow the principle that if someone earns alot of money, they should pay some back. And as these Social Democratic Parties regularly get into office, I would say the majority of the European public agree with that principle.


Who the hell would vote to remove their income?
The state controls popular media. In fact it would fear losing itself.

There is no reason to vote someone into an institution, when the question itself is the institution in the first place.

The only way the third economic revolution can take place is when the state fucks up big time. The central bank will typically be suspect.


Nice line of thought there. Do nothing to promote your opinions, don't involve yourself in any of the current institutions you wish to change. Because one day, magically, the whole world is going to decide to scrap them and choose a little known ideology called Anarcho Capitalism. And you dare to call Communists Utopian.

[quincunx5]

What happens if you choose not to work. Or what would happen if two men both committed the same crime. These men were both ordered by the court to pay the same amount of compensation. However one of these mens job, produced a product which was worth more money than the other mans job. So one of the men was able to pay back his debt in a year, while the other man was paying it back for two years. Basically the market would be deciding how long someone is imprisoned, how is this either fair or just?


One can write a good book, and another a shitty book. Who will earn more?
It seems fair to have both writers earn his marginal productivity.



As for what I propose, I propose the victimised community choosing how the guilty party is treated. There should be an underlying constitution protecting basic rights, but other than that the choice of punishment rests directly with the injured parties.


The difference between you and me is that I predict how and why justice will work.
I'm not afraid to get into discussing slavery as a rightful punishment for violating someone. You on the other hand avoid the question completely. You are telling me you don't know - but it should be decided.

Guess what - the injured party will be completely in favor of renumeration. That is they will want a third party to enslave their violaters, and then have them work to pay them back for the damages they've cost.

The victim will respect some rights of the criminal - but only to make sure the debt is repaid as quickly as possible. And this does mean that the criminal will have some basic rights. He will not be whipped or forced to wear a high voltage buttplug because this will obviously stifle his ability to work diligently to repay the victim.



Why rightly so. They are both doing valuable jobs. Both of these jobs add something to the society. Whether one of these jobs earns the worker more respect or adoration. Is not a reason for one of these jobs to be better paid.


No, you are wrong. The stuntman should be compensated for taking on such a risky career. However the historian might publish books - and that way he can earn more.



Yes but under Capitalism, some people don't cross the no tiger line. They go out of business, meaning they are no longer a winner, as they have been eaten by the tiger.


No no no. They say to the tiger "if don't eat me now, I promise to repay (with interest) you with some other type of meat". Or they say to their fellow runners: "If you get me away from the tiger, I will perform some service that you want (like making a whip)"



Its is not my amazing foresight that allows me to make a statement like that. It is the fact, that just about every European country has a strong Social Democratic Party. These Social Democratic Parties follow the principle that if someone earns alot of money, they should pay some back. And as these Social Democratic Parties regularly get into office, I would say the majority of the European public agree with that principle.


That's a stupid conclusion. Bush was elected by 56 million voters (out 150+ million eligible), yet I haven't met anyone in real life that likes his politics. In fact the remainder of the votes, and including some that did vote for him do not like his politics or his type of Socialism.

Why do you only focus on the productive sector? Why do you ignore the less-productive sector (majority)?

People will always be in favor of getting handouts if their ability to engage in freedom is stifled by the state itself.

I prefer to work. But if someone arbitrarily prevents me from working - I would expect a compensation for this. This is exactly what happens. I lose all interest in work and continue to lobby for continual compensation.



Nice line of thought there. Do nothing to promote your opinions, don't involve yourself in any of the current institutions you wish to change. Because one day, magically, the whole world is going to decide to scrap them and choose a little known ideology called Anarcho Capitalism. And you dare to call Communists Utopian.


Ha ha. That's not what's going to happen. Some geographic areas will decide to get rid of government - then they will stick to the economic theories that make sense. There is no utopia other than whatever comes about through individual acting humans.

You see, communism is a utopia based on non-working economics. That is actually the reason why many people here complain of communist countries that were never really communist. It was not from lack of theory or effort in putting it into practice - it was from a lack of a workable economic theory to begin with.

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference
between theory and practice, in practice there is.

[Amusing Scrotum]

One can write a good book, and another a shitty book. Who will earn more?
It seems fair to have both writers earn his marginal productivity.


Because Harry Potter sells more copies than Oliver Twist. Does that make Harry Potter a better book? Of course not. Does that mean that if Dicken's was still alive, he should earn less money than the corporate slut that is JK Rowling? Definitely not.


The difference between you and me is that I predict how and why justice will work.
I'm not afraid to get into discussing slavery as a rightful punishment for violating someone. You on the other hand avoid the question completely. You are telling me you don't know - but it should be decided.

Guess what - the injured party will be completely in favor of renumeration. That is they will want a third party to enslave their violaters, and then have them work to pay them back for the damages they've cost.

The victim will respect some rights of the criminal - but only to make sure the debt is repaid as quickly as possible. And this does mean that the criminal will have some basic rights. He will not be whipped or forced to wear a high voltage buttplug because this will obviously stifle his ability to work diligently to repay the victim.


No, the difference between you and I, is that you think you can predict how every victim will react and how they wish to see justice brought about. I realise that not every victim has the same view of their attacker and that each victim will like to see justice brought about in a different way.
I want the victims involvement, where as you think everything will be solved by the victim making a profit and the perpetrator becoming a slave. I wish to look at the cause and effect of crime. While you wish just to look at the possible monetary benefit of crime.


No, you are wrong. The stuntman should be compensated for taking on such a risky career. However the historian might publish books - and that way he can earn more.


What? The stuntman chooses to take those risks, the same way the historian chooses to study history. Both careers present risks and benefits to the worker.


No no no. They say to the tiger "if don't eat me now, I promise to repay (with interest) you with some other type of meat". Or they say to their fellow runners: "If you get me away from the tiger, I will perform some service that you want (like making a whip)"


:lol:

The only problem is that the tiger can't understand human compassion, so he will eat you without thinking. By the way, a tiger is a good metaphor for Capitalism. Don't you think? ;)
Plus, why would the other people running from the tiger stop and help the slow coach. For the desire to help the disadvantaged, is heavily frowned up by yourself and other Cappies. Capitalism leaves that man there for the tiger to do as he pleases, with him. Only Communism will hold out a hand of help to that man.


That's a stupid conclusion. Bush was elected by 56 million voters (out 150+ million eligible), yet I haven't met anyone in real life that likes his politics. In fact the remainder of the votes, and including some that did vote for him do not like his politics or his type of Socialism.

Why do you only focus on the productive sector? Why do you ignore the less-productive sector (majority)?

People will always be in favor of getting handouts if their ability to engage in freedom is stifled by the state itself.

I prefer to work. But if someone arbitrarily prevents me from working - I would expect a compensation for this. This is exactly what happens. I lose all interest in work and continue to lobby for continual compensation.


How the fuck is Bush a Socialist. Only a complete imbecile would think that way. In fact, you yourself have even said that Bush is a Corporatist. Which is a strand of Capitalist thought. Calling Bush a Socialist only degrades your argument and makes everyone think that you are retarded.
And the people who voted Bush in, voted for his politics. Whether it be his homophobia, war mongering or his God loving. They agree with him. Just because a lot of America has a rampant individualism running through it, does not mean the rest of the world has.
And the idea that people are too lazy to work, so they vote for safety nets. Is as absurd an opinion, as you thinking Bush is a Socialist.


Ha ha. That's not what's going to happen. Some geographic areas will decide to get rid of government - then they will stick to the economic theories that make sense. There is no utopia other than whatever comes about through individual acting humans.

You see, communism is a utopia based on non-working economics. That is actually the reason why many people here complain of communist countries that were never really communist. It was not from lack of theory or effort in putting it into practice - it was from a lack of a workable economic theory to begin with.

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory there is no difference
between theory and practice, in practice there is.

You lambaste Communism as lacking a real world application, yet you somehow believe people in certain geographic areas will just wake up one day and think "Oh, today I think we should all destroy the Government, and empower an Economic theory that has brought misery and death to billions of people. How dare you call Communism Utopian.

[quincunx5]

Because Harry Potter sells more copies than Oliver Twist. Does that make Harry Potter a better book? Of course not. Does that mean that if Dicken's was still alive, he should earn less money than the corporate slut that is JK Rowling? Definitely not.


If more people buy Harry Potter, then yes that does make it a better book, even though I personally detest it.

Dickens was quite wealthy back in his own time. He would have been wealthier if intellectual property protection was stronger. This is something he wanted himself. But he did not get as far as we have it today (unfortunately).

You can't let your own opinion decide who should make more money. That is stupid.
If more people want to spend their hard earned money on a given book - then let the author reap the benefits.



No, the difference between you and I, is that you think you can predict how every victim will react and how they wish to see justice brought about. I realise that not every victim has the same view of their attacker and that each victim will like to see justice brought about in a different way.


Yes, every justice may be different. But each victim will try to resolve their losses.
The victim killing the criminal is not going to accomplish that.



I want the victims involvement, where as you think everything will be solved by the victim making a profit and the perpetrator becoming a slave. I wish to look at the cause and effect of crime. While you wish just to look at the possible monetary benefit of crime.


Monetary benefit? You mean monetary compensation. There is no benefit to being a crime victim.

We know the causes and effects of crime. There is nothing new about it.

You more than anything want to leave the question unanswered. This is very typical of your type.



What? The stuntman chooses to take those risks, the same way the historian chooses to study history. Both careers present risks and benefits to the worker.


You can't be saying this with a serious face. No way.



The only problem is that the tiger can't understand human compassion, so he will eat you without thinking. By the way, a tiger is a good metaphor for Capitalism. Don't you think?


Not at all.



Plus, why would the other people running from the tiger stop and help the slow coach. For the desire to help the disadvantaged, is heavily frowned up by yourself and other Cappies. Capitalism leaves that man there for the tiger to do as he pleases, with him. Only Communism will hold out a hand of help to that man.


The helper would help the slow runner for his own selfish reasons.



How the fuck is Bush a Socialist. Only a complete imbecile would think that way. In fact, you yourself have even said that Bush is a Corporatist. Which is a strand of Capitalist thought. Calling Bush a Socialist only degrades your argument and makes everyone think that you are retarded.


You've just proved to me that you don't read. I never said he was a Corporatist - someone else did.

Anyone who increases government spending is a Socialist - and this is indeed what Bush has done - hence he is one.



And the people who voted Bush in, voted for his politics. Whether it be his homophobia, war mongering or his God loving. They agree with him. Just because a lot of America has a rampant individualism running through it, does not mean the rest of the world has.


So Europe has leaders that were unaninmously agreed upon? Get real.



And the idea that people are too lazy to work, so they vote for safety nets. Is as absurd an opinion, as you thinking Bush is a Socialist.


People who do not work (for whatever reason) feel that they need to eat, so they will continuosly vote for safety nets. Their social workers will also do the same, so that they get to keep their jobs.



You lambaste Communism as lacking a real world application, yet you somehow believe people in certain geographic areas will just wake up one day and think "Oh, today I think we should all destroy the Government, and empower an Economic theory that has brought misery and death to billions of people. How dare you call Communism Utopian.


Ha Ha. There will be no need to destroy the government. The government will pretty much fuck up big time and nearly destroy themselves. It will be of minor effort to completely destroy it. As has been done in the past.

And yes the economic system that works, that does enrich people will be the one to be used continuosly.

You seem to be confused. The bulk of misery and death is from lack of using the economic theories coupled with economic freedom. Notice that deaths occur where high population growth exceeds economic growth. And where central planning is rampant.

There is no objective goals - hence not a utopia.

[Amusing Scrotum]

If more people buy Harry Potter, then yes that does make it a better book, even though I personally detest it.

Dickens was quite wealthy back in his own time. He would have been wealthier if intellectual property protection was stronger. This is something he wanted himself. But he did not get as far as we have it today (unfortunately).

You can't let your own opinion decide who should make more money. That is stupid.
If more people want to spend their hard earned money on a given book - then let the author reap the benefits.


You are right about two things, the first being that Harry Potter is one of the worst pieces of literature ever written. The second being that my opinion alone should not be able to change anything.

However the relentless advocacy of things like Harry Potter and other commercial brands. Stops people from actually thinking about the world we live in. Now as you are someone who wishes to revolutionise society as well. I am sure you will agree, poop like Harry Potter, which lowers the intelligence level of everyone unfortunate enough to read it. Only serves as an instrument to keep the public in their cage. A public obsessed with material objects, will not question the actions of the ruling elites. And while I have great faith in the general public one day breaking the shackles of corrupt rulers. Crap which diverts them from their historic task, is in my opinion both pointless and counter revolutionary. As it only serves to protect the status quo.


Yes, every justice may be different. But each victim will try to resolve their losses.
The victim killing the criminal is not going to accomplish that.


Has it ever occurred to you, that some criminals are so dangerous their victims would rather see them removed from the general population, where they could do more harm, than simply receiving reimbursement for the crimes committed against them.


Monetary benefit? You mean monetary compensation. There is no benefit to being a crime victim.

We know the causes and effects of crime. There is nothing new about it.

You more than anything want to leave the question unanswered. This is very typical of your type.


If you were to receive enough money via compensation, to never have to work again. That would suggest to me, that there would definitely be some benefit in becoming a victim.

And "typical of my type" that I do not address the question of crime. I would have thought by now you would know the answers Socialists would give you, with respect crime and punishment.
For a start the removal of poverty and helplessness would go a long way to reducing the causes of violent crime. The majority of crime is committed by the oppressed and disadvantaged. Under Communism, there would be no oppressed or disadvantaged. Therefore logically, there would be a huge reduction in crime.
The only "grey area" I suppose, would be with regards psychologically deranged individuals who commit heinous crimes, and as I have said, it would be the choice of the community how these individuals are dealt with. Direct democracy comrade, means that no one person has autonomy over a whole community.


You can't be saying this with a serious face. No way.


I can, and I am. :P


Not at all.


Perhaps you're right. A tiger has some respect and compassion for the animal kingdom, where as Capitalism has absolutely none.


The helper would help the slow runner for his own selfish reasons.


Why would he? By not helping, he would be escaping from the tiger alive. By helping the stranded man, he risks everything and gains, profit wise, nothing. It wouldn't make sense economically.


You've just proved to me that you don't read. I never said he was a Corporatist - someone else did.

Anyone who increases government spending is a Socialist - and this is indeed what Bush has done - hence he is one.


I apologise for the wrong presumption on my part. All this hot air put out by you lovely Cappies, does tend to blend together in my mind, into one big heap of dung.

And increasing Government spending doesn't make you a Socialist. What an absolutely moronic statement. Do you have any idea about Socialism, or just what you saw on the telly. Socialism is about the socialisation of industries and replacing political democracies with economic ones. Bush has done neither of these things. So don't make such fucking retarded statements.


So Europe has leaders that were unaninmously agreed upon? Get real.


Oh fuck off, will you. If you can't be bothered to debate like an adult, don't bother at all.


People who do not work (for whatever reason) feel that they need to eat, so they will continuosly vote for safety nets. Their social workers will also do the same, so that they get to keep their jobs.


Well if a man with no legs wishes to have a safety net because otherwise he would starve. I feel any decent human being, would agree with helping that man. However you, couldn't give a shit. So what if he dies, at least your beautiful market would still be there. Which is an attitude that deserves to have you lined up against a wall and shot.


Ha Ha. There will be no need to destroy the government. The government will pretty much fuck up big time and nearly destroy themselves. It will be of minor effort to completely destroy it. As has been done in the past.

And yes the economic system that works, that does enrich people will be the one to be used continuosly.

You seem to be confused. The bulk of misery and death is from lack of using the economic theories coupled with economic freedom. Notice that deaths occur where high population growth exceeds economic growth. And where central planning is rampant.

There is no objective goals - hence not a utopia.


It is only this kind of delusion on your part, that allows me to rest safely in the knowledge that the shit-box society you propose. Will never, ever happen.

[quincunx5]

I am sure you will agree, poop like Harry Potter, which lowers the intelligence level of everyone unfortunate enough to read it.


It may lower their intelligence, but it does not lower their satisfaction. Which is really the only important thing in life.



A public obsessed with material objects, will not question the actions of the ruling elites. And while I have great faith in the general public one day breaking the shackles of corrupt rulers. Crap which diverts them from their historic task, is in my opinion both pointless and counter revolutionary. As it only serves to protect the status quo.


Enjoying material things is mutually exclusive to having ruling elites.

Intervention in enjoyment of material things is what the ruling elites have historically been engaged in. That is why eventually this status quo will indeed fail.



Has it ever occurred to you, that some criminals are so dangerous their victims would rather see them removed from the general population, where they could do more harm, than simply receiving reimbursement for the crimes committed against them.


I never suggested these criminals would be walking around doing their debt-repayment amidst the general public. They will be kept away with other criminals (maybe) doing the debt-repayment some place where they can not inflict more harm.



If you were to receive enough money via compensation, to never have to work again. That would suggest to me, that there would definitely be some benefit in becoming a victim.


You get compensated for your loss not your posterity.

There is no benefit to being a victim. One has to have the burden of proof to incarcerate someone else, and one needs to show that the victim did not purposefully want the crime to occur. It's exactly the same principles that we have today, only they would actually be caried out correctly.



For a start the removal of poverty and helplessness would go a long way to reducing the causes of violent crime. The majority of crime is committed by the oppressed and disadvantaged. Under Communism, there would be no oppressed or disadvantaged.


Saying that it will go away does not make it so. In fact confiscating someone else's material wealth to give to someone else is morally bankrupt and is itself a crime.

Reducing crime by commiting the biggest possible one is counterintuitive.



The only "grey area" I suppose, would be with regards psychologically deranged individuals who commit heinous crimes, and as I have said, it would be the choice of the community how these individuals are dealt with.


I agree, that "grey area" will always exist. And anarcho-capitalism will have privately managed common public laws that will state ahead of time what kind of punishment and what kind of repayment is necessary. The public laws are the creation of the community.



Direct democracy comrade, means that no one person has autonomy over a whole community.


Unless person X can convince the 51% of the community to punish 49% of the community.
In case you have not noticed people can be easily swayed.



I can, and I am.


Life is priceless, right?

Now which career has a higher chance of ending one's life prematurely?

Thats what I thought.



Perhaps you're right. A tiger has some respect and compassion for the animal kingdom, where as Capitalism has absolutely none.


You are now comparing animal species to human ideas?



Why would he? By not helping, he would be escaping from the tiger alive. By helping the stranded man, he risks everything and gains, profit wise, nothing. It wouldn't make sense economically.


He profits from the favor of the man he saved. He profits from his own heroism. Feeling satisfaction is indeed profit.



And increasing Government spending doesn't make you a Socialist. What an absolutely moronic statement. Do you have any idea about Socialism, or just what you saw on the telly.


I haven't watched the telly in 6 years.

Socialism is a grab bag of ideologies. Those nations that are considered mostly Socialistic are the ones with huge government spending. It is even the intermediate stage of Marxist revolution.

In case you did not know there are ten steps that Marx describes to obtain Socialism (later communism). I think it was in the Manifesto. Well in case you are curious the US and most of Europe has carried out 9 of them!



Socialism is about the socialisation of industries and replacing political democracies with economic ones. Bush has done neither of these things. So don't make such fucking retarded statements.


Next thing you'll tell me is that the oil business is purely free market, right?
How about the multitude of things that have price controls?
The monopolies that government created?

Bush did not start - he is just continuing the downward trend of American society. He simply accelerated the pace a bit.



Oh fuck off, will you. If you can't be bothered to debate like an adult, don't bother at all.


I debate while you flame. You make the asertion that democracy in one place works somehow better than another. While I tell you that there are unsatisfied people in both places.



Well if a man with no legs wishes to have a safety net because otherwise he would starve. I feel any decent human being, would agree with helping that man.


Yes. That's why there is private charity. I know you will tell me that it's not good enough. But the reason it isn't is precisely because governments have taken the job of doing it. They extract their money involuntarily from some people to give to those less fortunate. The person who involuntarily gave up his money will be less likely to do it voluntarily.



Which is an attitude that deserves to have you lined up against a wall and shot.


Beautiful. I was waiting for you to say this. You are showing your true Socialist colors.

Consider the debate we have on what to do with criminals. Here I have not commited any crime other than disagree with you. Convince the majority to kill me, and I indeed will be killed.

So where is free speech? This is the tyranny that Socialism creates. Every human action becomes a political one. This is not a way to live. Can't you see that?



It is only this kind of delusion on your part, that allows me to rest safely in the knowledge that the shit-box society you propose. Will never, ever happen.


Ha Ha Ha. It has already happened repeatedly - though not any scale I would consider desirable.

[Amusing Scrotum]

There is no other life than the one a person chooses to live.


What?


It may lower their intelligence, but it does not lower their satisfaction. Which is realy the only important thing in life.


You really think material satisfaction is the only important thing in life. I pity you.


Enjoying material things is mutually exclusive to having ruling elites.

Intervention in enjoyment of material things is what the ruling elites have historically been engaged in. That is why eventually this status quo will indeed fail.


Give a toddler a toy and he is less likely to moan about being smacked. The elites indeed enjoy a public occupied with material obsession, because it reduces the chance they will question the important things in life.


I never suggested these criminals would be walking around doing their debt-repayment amidst the general public. They will be kept away with other criminals (maybe) doing the debt-repayment some place where they can not inflict more harm.


Yes but once they repay their debt, they are free. A highly skilled person could commit an atrocious crime and be free within a few years. To commit another awful crime. This does not lead to a stable society, in which people will be happy.


You get compensated for your loss not your posterity.

There is no benefit to being a victim. One has to have the burden of proof to incarcerate someone else, and one needs to show that the victim did not purposefully want the crime to occur. It's exactly the same principals that we have today, only they would actually be caried out correctly. Especially in cases where the criminal is the government or agents of the government.


Believe me there is a benefit to becoming a victim. Just look at how the current Israeli State has benefited from the Holocaust.


Saying that it will go away does not make it so. In fact confiscating someone else's material wealth to give to someone else is morally bankrupt and is itself a crime.

Recuding crime by commiting the biggest possible one is counterintuitive.


You see there is no crime in removing the daft concept wealth. Why should a Foreman earn more than a Labourer. They both contribute equally to a building site. The crime is that one gets paid more than the other. Stopping the initial crime, is not a crime.


I agree, that "grey area" will always exist. And anarcho-capitalism will have privately managed common public laws that will state ahead of time what kind of punishment and what kind of repayment is necessary.

But under your system, who would be able to challenge these laws. There are no institutions that could be challenged democratically. So these laws basically become gospel and un accountable. If there was still segregation now, it would never change in your society, because the laws could not be challenged.


Unless person X can convince the 51% of the community to punish 49% of the community.
In case you have not noticed people can be easily swayed.


One person is not going to single handedly convince half of a community to act in his interests and not the communities. When people are given the vote, they overwhelmingly vote for equality.


Life is priceless, right?

Now which career has a higher chance of ending one's life prematurely?

Thats what I thought.


The historians lack of physical activity, may well make him more susceptible to illness or early death. Than the stuntman.


You are now comparing animal species to human ideas?


If the cap fits.


He profits from the favor of the man he saved. He profits from his own heroism. Feeling satisfaction is indeed profit.


But he also risks everything. A wealthy man will not logically gamble his whole personal wealth, to help a poor man. It does not make financial sense.


I haven't watched the telly in 6 years.

Socialism is a grab bag of ideologies. Those nations that are considered mostly Socialistic are the ones with huge government spending.


Yes it is a bag of ideologies. A large bag, in which you will not find Neo-Conservatism.

Also America, in comparison with other countries, does not spend huge amounts of money on social problems. Military spending, yes. Social spending, no. And in case you haven't noticed, its called Socialism, not Militarism.


Next thing you'll tell me is that the oil business is purely free market, right?
How about the multitude of things that have price controls?
The monopolies that government created?

Bush did not start - he is just contrinuing the downward trend of American society. He simply accelerated the pace a bit.


The Oil Industry is Capitalist. What particular strand of Capitalism it is, does not really concern me. Or are you going to tell me that BP is Socialist now?


I debate while you flame. You make the asertion that democracy in one place works somehow better than another. While I tell you that there are unsatisfied people in both places.


You were not debating, you were being an pedantic arse. It would be the same if I were to point out every single spelling mistake you made.


Yes. That's why there is private charity. I know you will tell me that it's not good enough. But the reason it isn't is precisely because governments have taken the job of doing it. They extract their money involuntarily from some people to give to these. The person who involuntarily gave up his money will be less likely to do it voluntarily.


Private charity is going to meet the costs of helping the disadvantaged by itself. Don't be so silly. You've admitted that your society promotes individualism. So why on earth would a society full of selfish sods, wish to help anyone?


Beautiful. I was waiting for you to say this. You are showing your true Socialist colors.

Consider the debate we have on what to do with criminals. Here I have not commited any crime other than disagree with you. Convince the majority to kill me, and I indeed will be killed.

So where is free speech? This is the tyranny that Socialism creates. Every human action becomes a political one. This is not a way to live.


The majority could not decide to kill you, even if they wanted to, because it would violate your protected rights. Notice I said "deserve to be shot", not "would be shot".

And as for free speech. When have I ever blurted on about free speech. In a Communist society, detrimental speech like this. Speech that is reactionary, unethical and down right stupid will likely be ignored, however it may be banned. I have no problem with Capitalists being told to shut up in Communism, however it will likely not be needed.


Ha Ha Ha. It has already happened repeatedly.

Like where?

[quincunx5]

You really think material satisfaction is the only important thing in life. I pity you.


Don't be stupid. The satisfaction one gets from a book is reading it. Not just holding on to it.
The satisfaction is from the ideas within not the phyiscal pages.



Give a toddler a toy and he is less likely to moan about being smacked. The elites indeed enjoy a public occupied with material obsession, because it reduces the chance they will question the important things in life.


True. The reason that the elites can get away with what they do is because capitalism produces things people enjoy despite them. They get some credit for doing nothing. That's why people need to wake up and smell the truth. It will become very obvious when the elites have managed to fuck themselves and everyone over. Then we will have the third-economic revolution.



Yes but once they repay their debt, they are free. A highly skilled person could commit an atrocious crime and be free within a few years. To commit another awful crime. This does not lead to a stable society, in which people will be happy.


And this is different today and will be different in communism how?



Believe me there is a benefit to becoming a victim. Just look at how the current Israeli State has benefited from the Holocaust.


Get out of your Collectivist thinking. I'm talking about individuals, not nations.



You see there is no crime in removing the daft concept wealth. Why should a Foreman earn more than a Labourer. They both contribute equally to a building site. The crime is that one gets paid more than the other. Stopping the initial crime, is not a crime.


Bullshit. The foreman does much more.

Getting paid more than another for producing more than another is not a crime.



But under your system, who would be able to challenge these laws. There are no institutions that could be challenged democratically. So these laws basically become gospel and un accountable. If there was still segregation now, it would never change in your society, because the laws could not be challenged.


Who said it would be static?

Think of all the techinal protocols that have evolved with the unregulated internet. It will work precisely the same way.



One person is not going to single handedly convince half of a community to act in his interests and not the communities. When people are given the vote, they overwhelmingly vote for equality.


51% of a community voting to enslave 49% of the community IS equality to the 51%. That is what X will say. Think about it: Half the people can each have a single slave all to themselves.
Look: Equality!



The historians lack of physical activity, may well make him more susceptible to illness or early death. Than the stuntman.


Now you are just getting silly. You can be even more ridiculous and tell me that the historian has cancer and the stuntman is invincible. So this way the historian is really disadvantaged compared to the stuntman and hence both still must earn the same?

Don't be stupid. Both jobs are different and both will get paid whatever the demand calls for. This demand will come from the public.



Also America, in comparison with other countries, does not spend huge amounts of money on social problems. Military spending, yes. Social spending, no. And in case you haven't noticed, its called Socialism, not Militarism.


Now look at US government budget and try to lie to me again.



You were not debating, you were being an pedantic arse. It would be the same if I were to point out every single spelling mistake you made.


No that would not be the same. We are discussing ideas, not language and grammar.
I'm surprised you haven't noticed that I'm dislexic.

How can I be the pedantic arse when you claim that Europeans are completely satisfied with their governments?



Private charity is going to meet the costs of helping the disadvantaged by itself. Don't be so silly. You've admitted that your society promotes individualism. So why on earth would a society full of selfish sods, wish to help anyone?


You don't seem to get it.

Helping someone else fulfills YOUR need to help someone else.

You get satisfaction in helping someone else. If there was no satisfaction in helping another the concept of charity would not exist.



And as for free speech. When have I ever blurted on about free speech. In a Communist society, detrimental speech like this. Speech that is reactionary, unethical and down right stupid will likely be ignored, however it may be banned. I have no problem with Capitalists being told to shut up in Communism, however it will likely not be needed.


If you ban it you will have to enforce it. So, the public will get to decide who gets to say what, how, and when?

Yeah, pardon me, but a society that disregards free speech of any type is just not going to fly with thinking people.



Like where?


Iceland c1000 and Colonial Ameria 1620-1750 just a two exmaples I can quickly think of.

History shows that governments form everywhere prosperity starts to rise. The government cripples the prosperity, and allows another society to overtake it, or have its own citizens leave in search of new prosperity. Rinse and Repeat, and we get what we have today. You'd be surprised how little people have changed.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Don't be stupid. The satisfaction one gets from a book is reading it. Not just holding on to it.
The satisfaction is from the ideas within not the phyiscal pages.

I was referring to material possessions in general, that produce material satisfaction. Which is not the most important thing in life.


True. The reason that the elites can get away with what they do is because capitalism produces things people enjoy despite them. They get some credit for doing nothing. That's why people need to wake up and smell the truth. It will become very obvious when the elites have managed to fuck themselves and everyone over. Then we will have the third-economic revolution.


Wrong. Capitalism is by definition an oppressive ideology. The material possessions people gain from Capitalism, are conducive to allowing the elites to remain in power.
Capitalism, like Feudalism before it. Is merely the tool used by the elites to oppress the people.


And this is different today and will be different in communism how?


Under Communism, someones ability to be productive will have no bearing on the punishment they receive for committing heinous crimes.


Get out of your Collectivist thinking. I'm talking about individuals, not nations.


I was giving an example of victims benefiting from crime. It is far easier to use a nation as an example, than an individual you may not even have heard of.


Bullshit. The foreman does much more.

Getting paid more than another for producing more than another is not a crime.


If the Labourer doesn't lug things around all day, then the foreman has no job on a site. As a building site without Labourers, would be like a car without wheels. Useless.


Who said it would be static?

Think of all the techinal protocols that have evolved with the unregulated internet. It will work precisely the same way.


And these protocols either change because the board members vote on them, like on this board, or because an dictatorial board owner changes them. Your society would have neither democracy nor dictatorship, therefore nothing would change.


51% of a community voting to enslave 49% of the community IS equality to the 51%. That is what X will say. Think about it: Half the people can each have a single slave all to themselves.
Look: Equality!


Enslave them with what. They would not own the means of production, they would not be able to strip the peoples voting rights. It would be impossible for them to enslave them.

Plus why would a society built on equality for all and co operation, wish to enslave people?


Now you are just getting silly. You can be even more ridiculous and tell me that the historian has cancer and the stuntman is invincible. So this way the historian is really disadvantaged compared to the stuntman and hence both still must earn the same?

Don't be stupid. Both jobs are different and both will get paid whatever the demand calls for. This demand will come from the public.

Yes both jobs are different. Yes both jobs require different skills. But that doesn't mean that both jobs are not equal and that both jobs are not valuable to society. Therefore neither job deserves to be better paid than the other.


Now look at US government budget and try to lie to me again.


I have looked round for a table that shows the percentage of a countries wealth spent on social projects. However I cannot find one. Though I will predict, somewhat confidently, that percentage wise America spends less on social projects than most of the Western world.


No that would not be the same. We are discussing ideas, not language and grammer.

How can I be the pedantic arse when you claim that Europeans are completely satisfied with their governments?


I didn't claim Europeans were completely satisfied with their Governments. If you bother to look back to the original post on this, I said -


It is quite amusing how Freedom Works deems the paying of tax as stealing. When if you were to come to most European countries and talk to the public, they would tell you that they are perfectly happy with the principle of paying back into society.

After all, if they really disliked tax so much. They would vote a party into office, that proposed scrapping tax. After all, the vote is a powerful weapon, and people vote for equality, not inequality.

You see, the post was about Europeans in general, democratically preferring to elect to give something back to society.

Then when you decided to dispute this, I referred to European countries having strong Social Democratic Parties, which get elected a lot. These Social Democratic Parties, as most sane minded people know, agree with the principle of progressive taxation.

Then you changed the topic completely and started spouting on about Bush and his Socialism. A moronic statement, by the way.

I went on to explain that Europe in general, has a slightly more advanced social conscience than America.

To which you said -


So Europe has leaders that were unaninmously agreed upon? Get real.


And I replied by saying -


Oh fuck off, will you. If you can't be bothered to debate like an adult, don't bother at all.


An opinion I stand by.

Perhaps calling you a "pedantic arse", was not quite justified. The use of the adjective pedantic, was perhaps not wise. Maybe I should have replaced it with moronic or deluded.


You don't seem to get it.

Helping someone else fulfills YOUR need to help someone else.

You get satisfaction in helping someone else. If there was no satisfaction in helping another the concept of charity would not exist.


Yes, but private charity will never meet the social costs of Capitalism. Nothing will. Communism however, chooses not to rely on Charity. Communism proposes to rid the world of the circumstances that lead to Charities being needed. Theres a massive difference.


If you ban it you will have to enforce it. So, the public will get to decide who gets to say what, how, and when?

Yeah, pardon me, but a society that disregards free speech of any type is just not going to fly with thinking people.


A society that chooses democratically whether or not it wants free speech. Is infinitely better than a society that disregards democracy completely. What good is free speech, if you do not have a vessel in which you can propel it?


Iceland c1000 and Colonial Ameria 1620-1750 just from the top of my head.

History shows that governments form everywhere prosperity starts to rise. The government cripples the prosperity, and allows another society to overtake it, or have its own citizens leave in search of new prosperity. Rinse and Repeat, and we get what we have today.

And isn't it funny how these countries chose Governance and Democracy over super Capitalism. It was obviously not that prosperous for everyone, as some people obviously chose to regulate it.

[quincunx5]

I was referring to material possessions in general, that produce material satisfaction. Which is not the most important thing in life.


Then what is the most important thing in life if not satisfaction obtained from material possession?



Wrong. Capitalism is by definition an oppressive ideology. The material possessions people gain from Capitalism, are conducive to allowing the elites to remain in power.


Not all "capitalists" are elites, and certainly most elites are not capitalists (despite what you may think. Those that stray from the free market concepts are not real capitalists. Very simple.



Capitalism, like Feudalism before it. Is merely the tool used by the elites to oppress the people.


Capitalism is nothing like that at all. I don't see anyone standing up and claiming they have the divine power to rule.



Under Communism, someones ability to be productive will have no bearing on the punishment they receive for committing heinous crimes.


OK, then there can be a base punishment time + repayment time.



I was giving an example of victims benefiting from crime. It is far easier to use a nation as an example, than an individual you may not even have heard of.


That would be intersting if 100% of people in the nation benefited. How about the dead? Where are their benefits?

I don't support reparations. Most of the Germans that had to pay up had no Nazi affiliation what so ever. In fact it was the German government that inflated it's money supply to pay for the reparations.



And these protocols either change because the board members vote on them, like on this board, or because an dictatorial board owner changes them. Your society would have neither democracy nor dictatorship, therefore nothing would change.


There will be market democracy, the same way there is today.

You should really brush up on your internet history. There is no "official" government protocol standard that is actually used. All the standards were formed by non-for-profit committees that were payed for jointly by the big tech corporations your kind generally opposes.

There were no votes, just technical compromises. In fact if democracy had prevailed we'd have one protocol and that's it. Thank goodness that is not the case and we have many where each offers it's own technical advantages.

Do I need to tell you the many ways people vote in the market?



Plus why would a society built on equality for all and co operation, wish to enslave people?


It would be equal for all none slaves, and equal for all slaves. It does not matter what the reasons are, and I don't mean it in the classical slavery sense.



Yes both jobs are different. Yes both jobs require different skills. But that doesn't mean that both jobs are not equal and that both jobs are not valuable to society. Therefore neither job deserves to be better paid than the other.


Neither one decides what they will get paid. The market decides. The people in the market decide how much a given person will make. If 95% of people value the antics of the stuntmen, while only 5% value the historian, for them to make the same amount of money (as you want), the cost of listening to a historian (to support his wage) skyrockets to point where it becomes out of reach to most people. That's why lectures are more expensive than stunt shows.

Time is still scarce. If more people want to see the stuntman, even though they pay less than the lecture the sheer number of people multiplied by the money they invested IS much higher than a smaller portion of people multiplied by their investment.

That's why the stuntman will make more because people want him to have more. You get it?

I'll reiterate: The more people you serve the richer you will be. This is a general rule.



I have looked round for a table that shows the percentage of a countries wealth spent on social projects. However I cannot find one. Though I will predict, somewhat confidently, that percentage wise America spends less on social projects than most of the Western world.


No need for charts, just look at raw data. IIRC, Military ~450Bil, Total: ~2200 Bil = 20%.
More than 50% is for social programs including education higher+lower, veterans funds, welfare, social security, health care (60% of all health care is public), etc.

No doubt here, Europe does spend more on social programs. But this was not part of our discussion.



You see, the post was about Europeans in general, democratically preferring to elect to give something back to society.


Democracy and generallity blur the lines of individual Europeans. Especially the ones that never voted for it.



These Social Democratic Parties, as most sane minded people know, agree with the principle of progressive taxation.


The parties do, but not the majority of their contituents. The majority in every European nation did not vote for whichever party now represents them.



I went on to explain that Europe in general, has a slightly more advanced social conscience than America.


You went on to explain but all you've proved is that Europeans are just taxed more.
Conluding that higher taxes leads to a higher social consciousness is ridiculous.

Numerous studies show that Americans are happier with their social structure than Europeans. Particularly the French and Danish were never completely satisfied with anything for any substantial amount of time. Now either this proves that there is something particularly wrong with these two nations (which is not the case) or that having among the most progressive taxes in the world leads to dissatisfaction among the populace. This is indeed the case.



Yes, but private charity will never meet the social costs of Capitalism. Nothing will. Communism however, chooses not to rely on Charity. Communism proposes to rid the world of the circumstances that lead to Charities being needed. Theres a massive difference.


Communism wants to rid the circumstances that lead to charities by enforcing a big charity scheme. This is hilarious.



And isn't it funny how these countries chose Governance and Democracy over super Capitalism. It was obviously not that prosperous for everyone, as some people obviously chose to regulate it.


People didn't choose democracy, it was drilled into their heads by the intellectuals.
Historically power was given to the one who claimed they have divine rights. People didn't know any better and just accepted it.



What good is free speech, if you do not have a vessel in which you can propel it?


That's what economic freedom is all about.



A society that chooses democratically whether or not it wants free speech. Is infinitely better than a society that disregards democracy completely.


You are a lunatic! I will now strip you of any dignity you have: How about voting democratically to end democracy???

There! I have justified my society by your principles. This conversation is over. Have a nice day!

[Amusing Scrotum]

Then what is the most important thing in life if not satisfaction obtained from material possession?


There is no one thing that can be the most important thing in life. A balance is needed. However holding "material satisfaction" as the most important thing in life, will do little to provide yourself with happiness, or to make a better world.


Not all "capitalists" are elites, and certainly most elites are not capitalists (despite what you may think. Those that stray from the free market concepts are not real capitalists. Very simple.


The majority of the worlds political elites, either have personal business interests or have links with big business. Therefore, using the definition of Capitalism that most of the world accepts, though apparently not yourself, they are Capitalists.

They maybe are not Capitalists in the absolute free market sense, however they are Capitalists. The fact that you call yourself an Anarcho Capitalist, proves that there are actually more forms of Capitalism, than the one form of Capitalism you propose. Otherwise you would call yourself a "Capitalist", plain and simple.
Even the name Anarcho Capitalism, shows that you mix both Capitalist and Anarchist thought. Meaning you are actually less of a "True Capitalist", than them.


Capitalism is nothing like that at all. I don't see anyone standing up and claiming they have the divine power to rule.


No it isn't like Feudalism. Feudalism used the Divine Right and slavery, where Capitalism uses Political Elites and wage slavery. However, the methods may have changed, but the goal of achieving wealth through oppression, and power through wealth. Has stayed the same.


OK, then there can be a base punishment time + repayment time.


You can't just change the rules when you get into difficulty. You never mentioned a "base punishment time" earlier, which leads me to believe you made it up now to avoid answering the question.


That would be intersting if 100% of people in the nation benefited. How about the dead? Where are their benefits?

I don't support reparations. Most of the Germans that had to pay up had no Nazi affiliation what so ever. In fact it was the German government that inflated it's money supply to pay for the reparations.


The dead obviously didn't benefit, but their relatives did.

And aren't reparations just the same as compensation? And compensation is your favourite method of delivering justice. So why oppose giving compensation?


There will be market democracy, the same way there is today.

You should really brush up on your internet history. There is no "official" government protocol standard that is actually used. All the standards were formed by non-for-profit committees that were payed for jointly by the big tech corporations your kind generally opposes.

There were no votes, just technical compromises. In fact if democracy had prevailed we'd have one protocol and that's it. Thank goodness that is not the case and we have many where each offers it's own technical advantages.

Do I need to tell you the many ways people vote in the market?

Market democracy where the more wealth you have, the more your vote counts. Where the public ever consulted as to what protocols they would like? No, and that is the way it will be under Anarcho Capitalism. Money for votes and if you haven't got any money, you haven't got a vote.


It would be equal for all none slaves, and equal for all slaves. It does not matter what the reasons are, and I don't mean it in the classical slavery sense.


How do you not mean it in "the classical slavery sense". You said -


51% of a community voting to enslave 49% of the community IS equality to the 51%. That is what X will say. Think about it: Half the people can each have a single slave all to themselves.

This seems like classical slavery to me.

However equality for all, means no one is a slave.


Neither one decides what they will get paid. The market decides. The people in the market decide how much a given person will make. If 95% of people value the antics of the stuntmen, while only 5% value the historian, for them to make the same amount of money (as you want), the cost of listening to a historian (to support his wage) skyrockets to point where it becomes out of reach to most people. That's why lectures are more expensive than stunt shows.

Time is still scarce. If more people want to see the stuntman, even though they pay less than the lecture the sheer number of people multiplied by the money they invested IS much higher than a smaller portion of people multiplied by their investment.

That's why the stuntman will make more because people want him to have more. You get it?

I'll reiterate: The more people you serve the richer you will be. This is a general rule.


You seem not to understand how this concept would work, and I can't be arsed explaining. Do a search on this site and you will find numerous threads explaining this.


No need for charts, just look at raw data. IIRC, Military ~450Bil, Total: ~2200 Bil = 20%.
More than 50% is for social programs including education higher+lower, veterans funds, welfare, social security, health care (60% of all health care is public), etc.

No doubt here, Europe does spend more on social programs. But this was not part of our discussion.


You said Bush was a Socialist, because he spent a lot of Government money. I explained that spending Government money on the military does not make you a Socialist. I even explained how spending it on social programs doesn't necessarily make you a Socialist. You just chose not to listen. Which is not really my problem.


Democracy and generallity blur the lines of individual Europeans. Especially the ones that never voted for it.


It does blur the lines, however Democracy as we know it, is like a giant poll on policies. Of these options, people choose the one they like most. I can be used as a useful indicator of the publics' beliefs.


The parties do, but not the majority of their contituents. The majority in every European nation did not vote for whichever party now represents them.


The members of the European Social Democratic Parties, tend to be to the left of the party. And anyway, the people who did not vote Social Democrat, did not vote for parties that proposed scrapping all tax. This shows Europeans and in fact the majority of the world, agrees with the principle of taxation.


You went on to explain but all you've proved is that Europeans are just taxed more.
Conluding that higher taxes leads to a higher social consciousness is ridiculous.

Numerous studies show that Americans are happier with their social structure than Europeans. Particularly the French and Danish were never completely satisfied with anything for any substantial amount of time. Now either this proves that there is something particularly wrong with these two nations (which is not the case) or that having among the most progressive taxes in the world leads to dissatisfaction among the populace. This is indeed the case.


A higher social conscience drives forward the principle of progressive taxation.

And the fact that Europeans are less happy than Americans with their social structure proves nothing. One thing is for sure though, Europeans would certainly not want Americas' social structure, even if they are unhappy with their own.


Communism wants to rid the circumstances that lead to charities by enforcing a big charity scheme. This is hilarious

You seem to forget that Communism is a workers' democracy. If you don't contribute, you don't get. Unless you are unable to contribute. However the difference between Communism and Anarcho Capitalism, is that Communism also scraps the difference in wealth that creates disadvantage. Where as Anarcho Capitalism makes the wealth disparity bigger and more destructive.


People didn't choose democracy, it was drilled into their heads by the intellectuals.
Historically power was given to the one who claimed they have divine rights. People didn't know any better and just accepted it.


That is such a load of shit. You seem to disregard every mass peoples movement of the last 500 years that demanded accountability and equality. This statement even disregards Capitalist revolutions.

This kind of nonsense is virtually impossible to debate, because it is so fucking stupid.


That's what economic freedom is all about.


Meaning the more money you have, the more "free speech" you have. That is not freedom, it is the tyranny of the rich.


I will now strip you of any dignity you have: How about voting democratically to end democracy???

There! I have justified my society by your principles.

That is a risk true democracy entails. However the risks, as ridiculous as they might seem, are far outweighed by the benefits of an Economic and Political Democracy.


You are a lunatic!

Thank you.


This conversation is over. Have a nice day!


Very well then.