Page 55 of 67 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 668

Thread: It sucks being healthy!!! page 55

  1. #541
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Not everyone wants to be self-employed. I can think of a dozen people I know who have said they're not business material and prefer the security of working for someone else. To reiterate my point about true competition, employers would offer better incentives to employees and be forced to compete without the assistance of the state that enforces laws that help suppress competition. When there were wage freezes, employers started offering health care as incentive to employees to work for them.

    Once you go black (flag) you never go back! Haha. Idk, dude, do peaceful anarchists have a high turnover rate? How many go back to statism? I have an ape study to show you, but I'm on my iPad and can't get to it ATM.

    Eta: Peace Among Primates | Greater Good
    I meant "why would enough people work benevolently?" You didn't answer the second question though. Without benevolence, why would this lead to a division of labor and maintenance of complex infrastructure?

    So you admit that you don't know why a NAP would be enforced. You also don't know why, if there were enforcers (I called them rebels in the previous quote), why they would not take any of the power vacuum left by the overthrown.

    If you don't know why it would work, then you really don't have much of a proposal at all. You have some emotional desires for your various ideas, but that's about it.

  2. #542
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,086
    The essence of the state is its legal monopoly of force. But force is subhuman; in words I quote incessantly, Simone Weil defined it as “that which turns a person into a thing — either corpse or slave.” It may sometimes be a necessary evil, in self-defense or defense of the innocent, but nobody can have by right what the state claims: an exclusive privilege of using it.

    It’s entirely possible that states — organized force — will always rule this world, and that we will have at best a choice among evils. And some states are worse than others in important ways: anyone in his right mind would prefer living in the United States to life under a Stalin. But to say a thing is inevitable, or less onerous than something else, is not to say it is good.

    For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism — things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn’t disturb them. Yet it’s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can’t assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.

    “But what would you replace the state with?” The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be “replaced.” ~ Sobran
    Why would it work? Because statism has failed humanity. Bridges and public schools do not justify at least 200,000,000 murders in 100 years. There would have been far, far, far fewer murders without the grand organization of the state. So why do people fear the unlikely widespread chaos of anarchy so much when the state has proven to be so dangerous to humanity? That doesn't look good for your argument that what we have now is successful. It only reinforces my stance that it's a failure. I think when presented with the alternative, the overwhelming majority of people will agree that peaceful anarchy is infinitely better than violent statism even if we (temporarily) lost a few modern luxuries.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order
    Last edited by j3nn; 09-14-2013 at 04:36 PM.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  3. #543
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    Why would it work? Because statism has failed humanity. Bridges and public schools do not justify at least 200,000,000 murders in 100 years. There would have been far, far, far fewer murders without the grand organization of the state. So why do people fear the unlikely widespread chaos of anarchy so much when the state has proven to be so dangerous to humanity? That doesn't look good for your argument that what we have now is successful. It only reinforces my stance that it's a failure. I think when presented with the alternative, the overwhelming majority of people will agree that peaceful anarchy is infinitely better than violent statism even if we (temporarily) lost a few modern luxuries.

    Spontaneous order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Murder numbers cherry pick from the full gamut of population numbers. The world has never had more people than it does now, and this has been because of high population density supported by complex infrastructure and modern technology. In terms of population numbers, government has been a success, not a failure.

    Why would all people agree to leave a system that supported the highest levels ever of population to your system which provides almost no support except hypothetical benevolence? Why would your hypothetical system support the highest population density ever known to man?

    At least you attempted to provide a reason, but it was an incorrect reason.
    Last edited by wiltondeportes; 09-15-2013 at 01:45 AM.

  4. #544
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,086
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Murder numbers cherry pick from the full gamut of population numbers. The world has never had more people than it does now, and this has been because of high population density supported by complex infrastructure and modern technology. In terms of population numbers, government has been a success, not a failure.
    That infrastructure that you hold in such high regards is paid for with (blood) and fiat currency aka debt. The world's (over)population is largely artificial due to subsidies and advancements in healthcare and militarization -- all of which are paid for with debt that can never be paid off. Much of the world's population is living in poverty and suffering, which does not equate to success on the state's behalf. Large numbers of people do not equal success, but large numbers of murders do equal failure on many levels.

    Why would all people agree to leave a system that supported the highest levels ever of population to your system which provides almost no support except hypothetical benevolence? Why would your hypothetical system support the highest population density ever known to man?
    You are basing your argument on the assumption that the current system is infallible and will always be "successful". This is your normalcy bias. When the reality is that the system is failing and it's not sustainable. I understand that under current conditions there is little reason for the overwhelming majority to want to give up their cushy lifestyles that they have been spoiled with, but I don't think it will be an option in the near future. The system is collapsing. It's being artificially propped up by loans, money printing, politicians and media who lie, and people who are willing to live in denial. The "success" of the state you think will be sustained has only happened in the past hundred years or so. The Roman Empire spanned hundreds of years and eventually met the same fate, and I believe we are headed for collapse at a much faster speed than the Romans. You believe the US is exceptional and exempt from total collapse, but this system is on shaky ground and going to take the rest of the world with it. That is inevitable.

    When that time comes, many will want to create a new system that is modeled just like the old one that has failed time and again because people are willing to sacrifice liberty for "security", but the difference now is that the internet and global economies ala capitalism have presented the better alternative to people at rates that it never has before. Millions are waking up and realizing that the idea of the state is a failure and completely unnecessary. All throughout known history the theory of a voluntary society has never had so much popularity and exposure. For the first time in history, a voluntary society has the potential to come to fruition because communication and technology are on our side. When this system collapses, at least now people have choices: Continue with modern-primitive systems that end badly and hurt millions in the process or live freely and take self-responsibility and allow our species to thrive like it never has before. The current system is not the best humans can do. There is another level beyond this and, IMO, it's much, much greater than this rickety infrastructure you are so fond of.

    There was a time many believed slavery would always be a fact of life, but it organically became outmoded in the 20th century in most parts of the world. My prediction is years from now people will have wondered how we ever allowed ourselves to be enslaved by the state just like we wonder how we ever allowed the slave market to exist for so many years. The thought of a slave market is unfathomable now in the developed world; I think one day the idea of a gang with a monopoly on violence and currency will also be unimaginable and held in contempt by future generations. Some of us are ahead of our time and not trying to sustain a brutal and unfair system that is becoming irrelevant. Voluntary societies are the future; state violence and extortion are archaic. But alas, I know so long as there are bread and circuses it will be a struggle to convince the population otherwise. It really takes courage and determination to want a voluntary society. I suppose I'd even take a minarchist society at this point. I'm hoping things progress faster than that and the idea of peace and absolute freedom will become appealing to everyone. Yes, I am an optimist. But with technology on my side, I think what may sound like a fantasy could one day become reality. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it has to start somewhere.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  5. #545
    moluv's Avatar
    moluv is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    1,033
    Brava J3nn!

  6. #546
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,370
    Nice post, j3nn. I will add more to what you've said when I get home.
    nihil

  7. #547
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,086
    Quote Originally Posted by moluv View Post
    Brava J3nn!
    <3

    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Nice post, j3nn. I will add more to what you've said when I get home.
    Tyty. Yes, please do!
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  8. #548
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    That infrastructure that you hold in such high regards is paid for with (blood) and fiat currency aka debt. The world's (over)population is largely artificial due to subsidies and advancements in healthcare and militarization -- all of which are paid for with debt that can never be paid off. Much of the world's population is living in poverty and suffering, which does not equate to success on the state's behalf. Large numbers of people do not equal success, but large numbers of murders do equal failure on many levels.



    You are basing your argument on the assumption that the current system is infallible and will always be "successful". This is your normalcy bias. When the reality is that the system is failing and it's not sustainable. I understand that under current conditions there is little reason for the overwhelming majority to want to give up their cushy lifestyles that they have been spoiled with, but I don't think it will be an option in the near future. The system is collapsing. It's being artificially propped up by loans, money printing, politicians and media who lie, and people who are willing to live in denial. The "success" of the state you think will be sustained has only happened in the past hundred years or so. The Roman Empire spanned hundreds of years and eventually met the same fate, and I believe we are headed for collapse at a much faster speed than the Romans. You believe the US is exceptional and exempt from total collapse, but this system is on shaky ground and going to take the rest of the world with it. That is inevitable.

    When that time comes, many will want to create a new system that is modeled just like the old one that has failed time and again because people are willing to sacrifice liberty for "security", but the difference now is that the internet and global economies ala capitalism have presented the better alternative to people at rates that it never has before. Millions are waking up and realizing that the idea of the state is a failure and completely unnecessary. All throughout known history the theory of a voluntary society has never had so much popularity and exposure. For the first time in history, a voluntary society has the potential to come to fruition because communication and technology are on our side. When this system collapses, at least now people have choices: Continue with modern-primitive systems that end badly and hurt millions in the process or live freely and take self-responsibility and allow our species to thrive like it never has before. The current system is not the best humans can do. There is another level beyond this and, IMO, it's much, much greater than this rickety infrastructure you are so fond of.

    There was a time many believed slavery would always be a fact of life, but it organically became outmoded in the 20th century in most parts of the world. My prediction is years from now people will have wondered how we ever allowed ourselves to be enslaved by the state just like we wonder how we ever allowed the slave market to exist for so many years. The thought of a slave market is unfathomable now in the developed world; I think one day the idea of a gang with a monopoly on violence and currency will also be unimaginable and held in contempt by future generations. Some of us are ahead of our time and not trying to sustain a brutal and unfair system that is becoming irrelevant. Voluntary societies are the future; state violence and extortion are archaic. But alas, I know so long as there are bread and circuses it will be a struggle to convince the population otherwise. It really takes courage and determination to want a voluntary society. I suppose I'd even take a minarchist society at this point. I'm hoping things progress faster than that and the idea of peace and absolute freedom will become appealing to everyone. Yes, I am an optimist. But with technology on my side, I think what may sound like a fantasy could one day become reality. Maybe not in my lifetime, but it has to start somewhere.
    No matter how it was paid for, the infrastructure exists in the current system. I do not see how it could exist in a voluntary society. Why would it exist? Despite an extremely long post, you never even addressed that basic point.

    I never said the current system is infallible. You created this assumption out of thin air.

    Once again, pointing out weaknesses is just one of four pieces needed in a full argument. Focusing on only one shows a strong bias and lack of logic.

    Calling the infrastructure rickety leaves out the fact that it's incredibly complex.

    You wrote ALL that, and you still didn't explain why enough people would want to sustain complex infrastructure in a voluntary society. Why would they be able to spend significant time on something which affects themselves little but benefits all very much? Why would they want to? In a society that must voluntarily divide labor, why would farmers continue to produce surplus so that everyone else can not have to produce food?

    If all you can say is that lots of people will believe in it because it's a nice idea, then I say you're full of shit.

  9. #549
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,523
    Why wouldn't people want infrastructure?

    Suppose the power grid is destroyed by some super weapon in my region, and 5 years later, the survivors still live in this valley.

    Why would we not organize some kind of means of raising funds to pay some engineers that would fix it?
    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

    Jack london, "Before Adam"

  10. #550
    Mr.Perfidy's Avatar
    Mr.Perfidy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    1,523
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I imagine that you will cite some scarcity of available building materials and other such logistical concerns.

    So let me preempt that by saying that no one that has access to such equipment prefers to sit on it and let it generate them no income. Owners or controllers of such capital would literally compete to offer us what we need.
    "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

    Jack london, "Before Adam"

Page 55 of 67 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •