Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   Totally Off Topic (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Anarcho-capitalism (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210530)

Anenome 01-30-2015 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2355437)
It still seems to me, at the meta level, a COLA is just like a HOA.

Except COLAs are not an organization and do not make law. They are amalgamations of individual property owners whom have all accepted the same law for their own property then choose to agglomerate their property together into one contiguous region, allowing all signees to the same law to roam freely from property to property without needing to sign a new agreement. No one can force anyone to accept new rules, the individual property owners must accept it for themselves.

Personally I think HOAs have way too much power in their current incarnation. A COLA structure ensures they can never get that much power, because they lack the ability to compel new rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2355437)
But wait! They could always just relocate, right?

Seasteading context--no cheaper way to move than by sea. Shipping by sea is as little as 1% the cost of trucking, for instance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2355437)
Sure, the COLA will buy their house from them for fractions of pennys on the dollar and let them cut all the ties.

They could only do that if you'd pre-agreed to it in advance when joining the COLA. Who would be so foolish as to agree to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2355437)
Are you really sure you want to quit our COLA over something minor like a rule all kids at 16 years of age have to "intern" in the mines for 2 years with no pay? Be reasonable and think about your family!

Haha, that's genuinely funny. See, COLAs aren't businesses such as in your company town analogy. They don't exist to profit on members necessarily. They are moldable structures. They could have professional administrators, for very large COLAs, but those would operate as if employed by the members, serving the members. It's hard to take advantage of people who aren't and cannot be made captive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2355437)
Lose-lose and the illusion of "make your own rules" is shattered fully within and even condoned and cheered under the Free Market and Ancap system.

I just think it's a scenario that's very unlikely to arise. Even under the actual miner-town scenario from the real world that I linked you to previously, the problem was that miners were making too much money rather than too little. They felt they couldn't leave because no one else was likely to pay them as much.

VenomUSMC 01-31-2015 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2355468)
Except COLAs are not an organization and do not make law. They are amalgamations of individual property owners whom have all accepted the same law for their own property then choose to agglomerate their property together into one contiguous region, allowing all signees to the same law to roam freely from property to property without needing to sign a new agreement. No one can force anyone to accept new rules, the individual property owners must accept it for themselves.

This is false per what you've stated earlier. You stated that a person could simply declare any contract - see: COLA - that they no longer want, at any time. If that is true, which you stated it was when it meant someone dropping a contract they voluntarily signed that you didn't find ethical/moral, then an individual can sign this COLA agreement and suddenly drop it without notice.

How does this apply to the scenario you've created here? Well, now a person cannot simply roam from property to property because unbeknownst to them the property they roamed onto no longer is part of that previous COLA agreement. Now the person roaming is an invader, intruder, whatever you want to call it, and they're subject to the laws of that private property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Personally I think HOAs have way too much power in their current incarnation. A COLA structure ensures they can never get that much power, because they lack the ability to compel new rules.

Absurd. If COLAs can declare their own laws, as you stated they can, they can become far more powerful than an HOA. Simply adding into the COLA agreement that new rules can be added within their territories at any time - we see this done in private contracts, the declaration of subject to change without notice at any time - allows them to do so.

If you think that HOAs have too much power, you're going to be in for an unhappy surprise with COLAs. HOAs can be forced into court, COLAs cannot -- that's an immediate increase in power, something you ding the state for.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Seasteading context--no cheaper way to move than by sea. Shipping by sea is as little as 1% the cost of trucking, for instance.

Seasteading does not automatically provide an easy, cheap means to simply move. In fact, some of the artist depictions of seasteading has simply been a floating city. Unless a person or family is going to cut off their portion of a floating city, which certainly wouldn't be cheap and likely not allowed for the sake of the structure in many cases, it's not going to happen.

From the Seasteading Institute:
http://seasteading.wpengine.netdna-c...ape-1-copy.jpg



Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
They could only do that if you'd pre-agreed to it in advance when joining the COLA. Who would be so foolish as to agree to that.

Plenty of people. First, people often times do not read the fine print. Secondly, there are plenty of people that sign absolutely absurd contracts in reality. Why would you believe people wouldn't agree to absurd contracts in a COLA world is a sign of how detached you are from reality.

Also, they can do whatever they want -- you've stated contracts can be nullified at any time. In fact, you stated that the SEAL that claims to have killed OBL was fine to ignore a contract he voluntarily signed because you believed the contract to be unethical. This has two points: First, it's an example of people that sign contracts that you believe to be absurd in reality. Secondly, it's opened the door to the nullification of any contract, immediately, without notification, and without any court - private or not - okaying breaking the contract, because a person no longer agrees to what they voluntarily signed.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Haha, that's genuinely funny. See, COLAs aren't businesses such as in your company town analogy. They don't exist to profit on members necessarily. They are moldable structures. They could have professional administrators, for very large COLAs, but those would operate as if employed by the members, serving the members. It's hard to take advantage of people who aren't and cannot be made captive.

They also may exist only to profit on members. Plus, under your system people are already slaves by your own definition:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Either you are for freedom or you're for the state, there is no in-between. You are either free or a slave. As long as someone in society can force laws on you against your will, you're a slave. That's what slavery means, that someone gets to impose their will on you.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venom
You've also claimed special cases for certain groups, thus removing the voluntary aspect you incorrectly claim to abide by.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
The only special case is children, which is necessitated by children's youth and inability to be responsible for themselves. This is a ridiculous attack as every society treats children as a special case. Or are you one of those freaks who believe child-sex at any age is ethical? If not, then you agree that children below a certain age are unable to guide their own affairs and unable to contract responsibly. They are only a special case because they eventually grow up.


Now we're in a situation where you've declare that you get to impose your will on the entire world, based upon your ethical and moral views, but no-one else gets to do the same. Your decree is imposed upon all without regard to if an individual consented, and is an absolute act of power in making such a declaration. You seem to have an awfully bad habit of going against what you claim to be your principles, as you seek to obtain and wield power in both from a political and military perspective, and doing it all without consent.

Anenome: "It's ethical when I do it, but not when anyone else does"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-cont...hips%20342x256

The irony in you already behaving like a dictator while saying "lets try freedom" is humorous.

SpectralThundr 01-31-2015 04:01 PM

Incoming nonsensical anenome meme in 3...2...1

Anenome 01-31-2015 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2355574)
Incoming nonsensical anenome meme in 3...2...1

More like I don't even read his posts and continue on with the purpose of this thread, an ancap aggregator.

Anenome 01-31-2015 05:21 PM

http://i.imgur.com/aBGfkkN.jpg

Anenome 01-31-2015 05:29 PM

http://i.imgur.com/HRKiJjw.png

Anenome 01-31-2015 05:37 PM

http://i.imgur.com/yIr99Rj.jpg?1
Quote:

BEWARE! Taxation is a NON-Consensual Relationship!
CONSENT IS:
  1. Active: Just because a taxpayer didn't say "no" to your preferred government program doesn't mean that they have given consent to use their money. Ask first, because only "YES" means "YES." You shouldn't assume a lesbian taxpayer wants to pay for drone striking children in Pakistan.

  2. based on Equal Power: Is the taxpayer able to say "no" in a meaningful fashion? Asking them every four years (and ignoring what they say half the time anyways) does not count. Should Wal-Mart be allowed to take your stuff if they promise to let everyone vote for their CEO every four years?

  3. a Choice: We must make sure taxpayers feel free to say "yes" or "no" without pressure. This means we cannot threaten them with prison if they decline to pay for your preferred government program. If you aren't willing to take "no" for an answer, consent cannot happen.

  4. a Process: Consent requires ongoing conversations with lots of trust. Just because a taxpayer says yes to paying for one government program doesn't mean they want to pay for other government programs. You can change your mind at any time. Black taxpayers may want to pay for roads they use, but they shouldn't be imprisoned if they don't want to fund white people to arrest them for selling cigarettes.


SpectralThundr 01-31-2015 05:40 PM

Called it. When anenome can't repute the argument put against his dictatorship, he pretends it never happened. Like clockwork.

Anenome 01-31-2015 05:40 PM

http://i.imgur.com/lEyRAXw.png

Anenome 01-31-2015 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2355592)
Called it. When anenome can't repute the argument put against his dictatorship, he pretends it never happened. Like clockwork.

There is no argument currently happening. Wtf are you talking about. Just because V posts some bullshit doesn't mean I'm obligated to respond.

SpectralThundr 01-31-2015 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2355594)
There is no argument currently happening. Wtf are you talking about. Just because V posts some bullshit doesn't mean I'm obligated to respond.

It's amazing that you believe posting YOUR quotes, that contradict things you say as "bullshit" In a way I guess it is bullshit, since you change what you believe in every other post anyways. :D

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5414017024/hFF9E16CB/

Anenome 01-31-2015 05:56 PM


Anenome 01-31-2015 05:57 PM

http://i.imgur.com/mMpAy3d.png

Anenome 01-31-2015 06:10 PM

http://i.imgur.com/r4wQQVU.jpg

Anenome 01-31-2015 06:13 PM

http://i.imgur.com/AgqBIul.jpg

Anenome 01-31-2015 11:38 PM

http://i.imgur.com/38OTQYg.png

http://i.imgur.com/csgWeXo.png

Anenome 01-31-2015 11:43 PM

Read this closely, Spectral
http://i.imgur.com/a9OPv53.jpg

VenomUSMC 02-01-2015 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2355630)
Read this closely, Spectral
http://i.imgur.com/a9OPv53.jpg

It seems that you should do some close reading of it, Anenome:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Unfortunately that article is predicated on per capita GDP. So you're fine forcing the poor into prostitution is what I'm hearing. You're a heartless bastard and I'd love to sock you in the face over such a position because it's unthinking people like you that have caused thousands to fall into the sex-slave trade.
Wake the fuck up you asshole.

Step 1: Create strawman argument.
Step 2: Attribute strawman argument to person you don't agree with.
Step 3: Issue threat of violence and insults in stereotypical "internet tough guy" talk.
Step 4: Illustrate to everyone you don't abide by your own so-called principles, and that you lack the reading comprehension to tell anyone they need to read anything closely.

If Anenome truly believed in Rothbard's criteria for when violence was justified, it'd be apparent that Anenome is the aggressor and violence is justified against him. Anenome cannot claim that his threat of violence is in the defense of the poor being forced into prostitution, because that's not an argument Terran ever came close to making or implying.

As for the "Statism: ideas so good they have to be mandatory" meme, Anenome's version of ANCAP includes mandatory rules as well. Again, it's apparent that Anenome's position is that force and violence is only wrong when he's not the one carrying out the force and violence.

Anenome 02-01-2015 11:42 AM

Masterfully twisted words once again, bravo. Idiotic, but bravo. I don't think that it's to your credit that you're a master of twisting words, but at least it's a good performance.

And no, there's nothing mandatory, you moron. You don't understand the idea if you can say that.

VenomUSMC 02-01-2015 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2355684)
Masterfully twisted words once again, bravo. Idiotic, but bravo. I don't think that it's to your credit that you're a master of twisting words, but at least it's a good performance.

And no, there's nothing mandatory, you moron. You don't understand the idea if you can say that.

You declared an exception to requiring consent, making it mandatory.

Also, way to debunk this statement of yours:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2355584)
More like I don't even read his posts and continue on with the purpose of this thread, an ancap aggregator.

You really can't seem to live up to even the simplest things you say.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 AM.