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 06-04-2014 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307609)
Your position isn't one of strength - it is one of weakness. That is why you're attempting to flee the United States.

Is that really how you see it? It has nothing to do with fleeing. I seek to leave the US rather than engage politically here purely because commitment to the non-aggression principle (NAP) prevents any sort of political solution.

Any victory of political power would necessitate forcing my political preferences on others, which is exactly what I say I am upset about the US doing to me.

Thus, I remain consistent in my philosophy only by seeking change through means others than political engagement. This is not a position of weakness, in fact the political soils have never been riper for libertarian ideology.

We simply don't believe in forcing our beliefs on others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307609)
Usually the winners of a conflict don't have to run to escape what they're fighting against.

The classical liberals of the day did not put the Constitution in place, it was the statists of the day who did. They successfully replaced the Articles of Confederation, a far more libertarian document.

They did so by exploiting their communication and wealth advantages. But with the internet those advantages are or have disappeared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307609)
The more humorous part: You're not even ready to give up your citizenship even if your seasteading works :eek:

That's not exactly what I said or intend. If seasteading took off so quickly and in such a big way that a seasteader nation with political autonomy sprung up let's say within the next decade. I would naturally be there, as per my stated intentions to move to a seastead, and seeing things to the point that they're self-sustaining and permanent I would have no reservations in dropping citizenship.

You don't want to find yourself a man without a country in a world still tyranized by nation states.

Only after the victory of libertarian seasteaders will it be safe to go citizenship-free on the world stage. I simply don't know how far the effort will go in my own lifetime.

And even if it went rather far, if dropping it meant I couldn't visit the US anymore and do speaking engagements and conferences about seasteading then it might be worth it to me to keep it.

Purely because the US is being a little bitch. We shall see.

I expect at the least that I will renounce before I die. Yes, that I will surely do. I don't want to die a US citizen no matter what.

---

In any case history is inescapable. The philosophy of liberty has changed the world. I exist in that vein, a partisan of true freedom. For everyone saying the ideas I espouse are utopic or impossible or unlikely--they said the same about the classical liberals, about the democratic republican experiment too. And they faced a far greater challenge than me, for before them there had been virtually no major political-structural change for thousands of years.

They broke the mold. I only intend to refine it.

You guys are comfortable in the society you grew up in. I get that.

One thing I've learned, if people aren't telling you that an idea is impossible and too radical, then it has no chance in the first place. That conservatives, my former allies, are also my strongest opponents in this thread is not something I would've called but I guess it makes sense. My existence attacks your world-view of yourselves the most, having once been one of you, and far more conservative than any of you can claim to be too. Not only do you have the left beating you horrendously in the game of politics, but now you have defections to libertarianism.

Well get ready, because the worst of it has not yet hit. Just wait till you lose 2016. There may not be another republican president for a good long while the way things are going, and you know it. Because I knew it back then too. I'm honestly going to laugh if it's Hillary who wins.

Thank god my prospects for political change no longer rely on winning elections.

Anenome 06-04-2014 10:37 PM

http://i.imgur.com/Dg0MOYD.png

SpectralThundr 06-05-2014 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2307643)
Thank god my prospects for political change no longer rely on winning elections.

Instead they rely on building a houseboat while still retaining your US citizenship and not much else. Yeah you sure showed everyone! :rolleyes:

Anenome 06-05-2014 12:47 AM

It's not about "showing" anyone, it's about actual freedom in my lifetime.

SpectralThundr 06-05-2014 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2307664)
It's not about "showing" anyone, it's about actual freedom in my lifetime.

While still being subject to taxes and everything else. Yep you're free alright. You're a joke Anenome nothing more.

VenomUSMC 06-05-2014 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2307643)
Is that really how you see it? It has nothing to do with fleeing. I seek to leave the US rather than engage politically here purely because commitment to the non-aggression principle (NAP) prevents any sort of political solution.

Except you're more than willing to quickly jump to aggression if you have the means. This is seen with you openly stating your intent to "liberate" people from other countries... Quite willing to kick people out of communities due to nothing more than suspicion and without due process... restricting people's freedom of movement and evening exiting one's COLA to intercept those outside their borders in an act of aggression.

Yes. Your position is a position based upon weakness. You've openly shown that you're more than willing to push people around if you had the power to do so, and did this all on these boards where you've consistently tried to pretend everything will go down as you hope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Any victory of political power would necessitate forcing my political preferences on others, which is exactly what I say I am upset about the US doing to me.

Which you've shown you're more than happy to do on the high seas. You just want to be the one forcing your ways on people as you attack other countries, kick people out of communities without due process, and more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Thus, I remain consistent in my philosophy only by seeking change through means others than political engagement. This is not a position of weakness, in fact the political soils have never been riper for libertarian ideology.

You and consistent don't go together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
We simply don't believe in forcing our beliefs on others.

Except the numerous cases where you do... even ideally, COLA communities do exactly that to people that visit.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
The classical liberals of the day did not put the Constitution in place, it was the statists of the day who did. They successfully replaced the Articles of Confederation, a far more libertarian document.

Classical liberals did not believe in no government, they believed in the smallest one possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
They did so by exploiting their communication and wealth advantages. But with the internet those advantages are or have disappeared.

.... This is woefully ignorant. Look no further than Google to see the power of wealth and exploiting communication.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
That's not exactly what I said or intend. If seasteading took off so quickly and in such a big way that a seasteader nation with political autonomy sprung up let's say within the next decade. I would naturally be there, as per my stated intentions to move to a seastead, and seeing things to the point that they're self-sustaining and permanent I would have no reservations in dropping citizenship.

You don't want to find yourself a man without a country in a world still tyranized by nation states.

Only after the victory of libertarian seasteaders will it be safe to go citizenship-free on the world stage. I simply don't know how far the effort will go in my own lifetime.

And even if it went rather far, if dropping it meant I couldn't visit the US anymore and do speaking engagements and conferences about seasteading then it might be worth it to me to keep it.

Purely because the US is being a little bitch. We shall see.

I expect at the least that I will renounce before I die. Yes, that I will surely do. I don't want to die a US citizen no matter what.

---

In any case history is inescapable. The philosophy of liberty has changed the world. I exist in that vein, a partisan of true freedom. For everyone saying the ideas I espouse are utopic or impossible or unlikely--they said the same about the classical liberals, about the democratic republican experiment too. And they faced a far greater challenge than me, for before them there had been virtually no major political-structural change for thousands of years.

They broke the mold. I only intend to refine it.

You guys are comfortable in the society you grew up in. I get that.

One thing I've learned, if people aren't telling you that an idea is impossible and too radical, then it has no chance in the first place. That conservatives, my former allies, are also my strongest opponents in this thread is not something I would've called but I guess it makes sense. My existence attacks your world-view of yourselves the most, having once been one of you, and far more conservative than any of you can claim to be too. Not only do you have the left beating you horrendously in the game of politics, but now you have defections to libertarianism.

Well get ready, because the worst of it has not yet hit. Just wait till you lose 2016. There may not be another republican president for a good long while the way things are going, and you know it. Because I knew it back then too. I'm honestly going to laugh if it's Hillary who wins.

Thank god my prospects for political change no longer rely on winning elections.

Actually it is. You stated you weren't giving it up.

You're right, history is inescapable. However, you keep trying to escape it. Kind of like how you're trying to pretend classical liberals were ancaps, or how you attempted to portray G Washington as against professional standing armies.

Anemone 06-05-2014 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307710)
Except you're more than willing to quickly jump to aggression if you have the means. This is seen with you openly stating your intent to "liberate" people from other countries...

Do you even comprehend what you're writing? In what twisted world is saving someone from being oppressed an aggression. Are you so ignorant of the NAP that you don't know that it holds the only legitimate use of force to be defensive use of force, and that liberating oppressed peoples is prima facie a defensive use of force? In your world, stopping a woman from being raped is an aggression? Ending a condition of slavery is an aggression?

This is what it's hard to take you seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307710)
You've openly shown that you're more than willing to push people around if you had the power to do so

Baseless accusation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307710)
Which you've shown you're more than happy to do on the high seas. You just want to be the one forcing your ways on people as you attack other countries, kick people out of communities without due process, and more.

Lol, troll harder, bro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307710)
Quote:

We simply don't believe in forcing our beliefs on others.
Except the numerous cases where you do... even ideally, COLA communities do exactly that to people that visit.

Lol, do you even hear yourself? So did we force them to visit? Did we force them to agree to the COLA agreement? If they don't agree and want to walk away, do we force them to sign? Nope. My god, man, you really, really don't understand the COLA concept, or more likely you're willing to say anything to troll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307710)
Classical liberals did not believe in no government, they believed in the smallest one possible.

The smallest possible government is government of, by, and for the individual, over themself. They never realized that back then. In time however, we have. COLA law is the realization of that concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307710)
.... This is woefully ignorant. Look no further than Google to see the power of wealth and exploiting communication.

No matter how rich you are, you can't break a simple encrypted communication, and it costs literally nothing to send an encrypted message anywhere in the world instantly--all open source and available. Wealth's communication advantage is broken.

SpectralThundr 06-05-2014 11:19 AM

Anenome, he's just repeating things YOU HAVE SAID. Repeatedly at that. About the only thing you're consistent in, is contradicting yourself time and time again. You're a joke.

Anemone 06-05-2014 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2307754)
Anenome, he's just repeating things YOU HAVE SAID. Repeatedly at that. About the only thing you're consistent in, is contradicting yourself time and time again. You're a joke.

He's never once asked for clarification or if I misspoke. For instance, I genuinely did misspeak when writing about economics and incentives, I was not clear in my allusion to praxeology. That's one of the few times he's actually quoted me too in these "gotcha" games. And when I do explain an apparent gotcha or offer clarification, he refuses to accept them and then repeats them ad nausea. His intent is obviously only to troll me.

Anemone 06-05-2014 12:23 PM

WHY I AM AN ANARCHIST. -- by BENJAMIN R. TUCKER

Quote:

Why am I an Anarchist? That is the question which the editor of the Twentieth Century has requested me to answer for his readers. I comply; but, to be frank, I find it a difficult task. If the editor or one of his contributors had only suggested a reason why I should be anything other than an Anarchist, I am sure I should have no difficulty in disputing the argument. And does not this very fact, after all, furnish in itself the best of all reasons why I should be an Anarchist – namely, the impossibility of discovering any good reason for being anything else? To show the invalidity of the claims of State Socialism, Nationalism, Communism, Single-taxism, the prevailing capitalism, and all the numerous forms of Archism existing or proposed, is at the same blow to show the validity of the claims of Anarchism. Archism once denied, only Anarchism can be affirmed. That is a matter of logic.

But evidently the present demand upon me is not to be met satisfactorily in this way. The error and puerility of State Socialism and all the despotisms to which it is akin have been repeatedly and effectively shown in many ways and in many places. There is no reason why I should traverse this ground with the readers of the Twentieth Century, even though it is all sufficient for proof of Anarchism. Something positive is wanted, I suppose.

Well, then, to start with the broadest generalization. I am an Anarchist because Anarchism and the philosophy of Anarchism are conducive to my own happiness. “Oh, yes, if that were the case, of course we should all be Anarchists,” the Archists will shout with one voice – at least all that are emancipated from religious and ethical superstitions – “but you beg the question; we deny that Anarchism is conducive to our happiness.”

Do you, my friends? Really, I don’t believe you when you say so; or, to put it more courteously, I don’t believe you will say so when you once understand Anarchism.

For what are the conditions of happiness? Of perfect happiness, many. But the primal and main conditions are few and simple. Are they not liberty and material prosperity? Is it not essential to the happiness of every developed being that he and those around him should be free, and that he and those around him should know no anxiety regarding the satisfaction of their material needs? It seems idle to deny it, and, in the event of denial, it would seem equally idle to argue it. No amount of evidence that human happiness has increased with human liberty would convince a man incapable of appreciating the value of liberty without reinforcement by induction. And to all but such a man it is also self-evident that of these two conditions – liberty and wealth – the former takes precedence as a factor in the production of happiness. It would be but a poor apology for happiness that either factor alone could give, if it could not produce nor be accompanied by the other; but, on the whole, much liberty and little wealth would be preferable to much wealth and little liberty. The complaint of Archistic Socialists that the Anarchists are bourgeois is true to this extent and no further – that, great as is their detestation for a bourgeois society, they prefer its partial liberty to the complete slavery of State Socialism. For one, I certainly can look with more pleasure – no, les pain – upon the present seething, surging struggle, in which some are up and some are down, some falling and some rising, some rich and many poor, but none completely fettered or altogether hopeless of as better future, than I could upon Mr. Thaddeus Wakeman’s ideal, uniform, and miserable community of teamy, placid, and slavish oxen...

VenomUSMC 06-05-2014 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2307778)
He's never once asked for clarification or if I misspoke. For instance, I genuinely did misspeak when writing about economics and incentives, I was not clear in my allusion to praxeology. That's one of the few times he's actually quoted me too in these "gotcha" games. And when I do explain an apparent gotcha or offer clarification, he refuses to accept them and then repeats them ad nausea. His intent is obviously only to troll me.

You are simply ad nausea incarnate.

One of your many contradictions:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Economics is not merely about financial incentives but all incentives

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Economics is about purely financial incentives.

Your response to this being pointed out:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It's slightly unclear, sure.

For the lulz I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Do you even comprehend what you're writing? In what twisted world is saving someone from being oppressed an aggression. Are you so ignorant of the NAP that you don't know that it holds the only legitimate use of force to be defensive use of force, and that liberating oppressed peoples is prima facie a defensive use of force? In your world, stopping a woman from being raped is an aggression? Ending a condition of slavery is an aggression?

This is what it's hard to take you seriously.

You clearly don't about what you write. You promoted the idea of your ancap society "liberating" people. In a very hawkish manner, of course. Even here, you talk about legitimate use of force, which is still force. Which is basically just an out to saying that you follow the non aggression principle until it suits you. You believe in aggression, just only under your terms. That's no different than many other groups, especially states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Baseless accusation.

I provided the evidence. You declared that you were more than okay to force people out of communities based upon suspicion and not allowing them due process. Your claim of being a believer in NAP is not only baseless, but a complete lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Lol, troll harder, bro.

Reality is simply trolling to you. Sad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Lol, do you even hear yourself? So did we force them to visit? Did we force them to agree to the COLA agreement? If they don't agree and want to walk away, do we force them to sign? Nope. My god, man, you really, really don't understand the COLA concept, or more likely you're willing to say anything to troll.

I don't read this out loud to myself, if that's what you're asking. ;)

You've already stated that communities were able to leave their boundaries to intercept people outside of their territory. That's projecting force. Are you forced to stay in Commiefornia? No. Are you forced to stay in the United States? No. You'll claim necessity forces you to accept rules you deem unethical, etc... that will be the case in waterworld. You refuse to live by your own standards. You're simply trolling yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
The smallest possible government is government of, by, and for the individual, over themself. They never realized that back then. In time however, we have. COLA law is the realization of that concept.

No. They clearly believed in a state. They just wanted the state to be as limited as possible. You're simply attempting to rewrite history to support your views. It doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
No matter how rich you are, you can't break a simple encrypted communication, and it costs literally nothing to send an encrypted message anywhere in the world instantly--all open source and available. Wealth's communication advantage is broken.

That's why it has been reported that there are back doors into some of this stuff. It also is incorrect that it costs nothing. People, like yourself, that hand over their information give metadata to these companies by getting on their networks. Wealth also allows people to communicate with more people, in more ways, and faster. Yup, wealth still has quite the communication advantage.

Anemone 06-05-2014 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2307803)
Your response to this being pointed out:
Quote:

It's slightly unclear, sure.

No my response was that I misspoke, was unclear, and this was allusion to praxeology. Yet another instance of another selective-memory from Venom. And once again you fail to provide links so no one can check.

Quote:

Even here, you talk about legitimate use of force, which is still force. Which is basically just an out to saying that you follow the non aggression principle until it suits you.
Haha, so you admit you don't understand the first thing about the NAP. Awesome. Thanks for that. The NAP isn't pacifist, bro.

VenomUSMC 06-05-2014 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2307814)
No my response was that I misspoke, was unclear, and this was allusion to praxeology. Yet another instance of another selective-memory from Venom. And once again you fail to provide links so no one can check.

That's a direct quote of what you said... so now you're saying you didn't say something which I quoted you from this very thread.

Says the guy trying to rewrite classical liberals as anarchists. Remember, Blueseed 2014 doesn't mean you're moving to it despite saying just that. ;)

Provide a link? It's from this very thread...



Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Haha, so you admit you don't understand the first thing about the NAP. Awesome. Thanks for that. The NAP isn't pacifist, bro.

It's not hawkish, brolo. You've already made it clear you're hawkish if you ever had the power. You don't subscribe to NAP. Otherwise I can claim NAP for any action that I can tie to self-defense, or defending someone else to a near endless amount if I wish. In fact, the United States can declare any of our meddling to be self-defense and therefore part of NAP.

It's also funny that you're speaking of understanding really anything. Between flip flopping more than a fish out of water, you were just declaring "reality" to be concept art just yesterday.

Additionally, you're still living in commiefornia, declaring that your ideology has "won" as you simultaneously try to flee the United States. Which is, of course, not an act of strength. In fact, you attempt to "shame" Terran for telling you to move out. You stated that people should have to leave, but should be able to pick to live by only the laws in which they want to live by. Recognizing that isn't going to happen, you're running away. Which is due to the weakness of your position, not strength.

Here is a picture of your position:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/shot-...et-7660191.jpg

Anenome 06-05-2014 09:49 PM

Gee, you've really got me there. You and your strawman army. W/e bro.

http://i.imgur.com/ZGtmwe1.jpg

Were you by chance a sniper in the Marines? Is that where your love for straw began?

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

Better head to the emerald city, bra, get you some brains.

http://i.imgur.com/KN2LyBX.jpg

SpectralThundr 06-06-2014 01:58 AM

Quoting your direct quotes of multiple contradictions OVER AND OVER again is a strawman? I don't think the term strawman means what you think it does. You're a joke.

Anemone 06-06-2014 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2307939)
Quoting your direct quotes of multiple contradictions OVER AND OVER again is a strawman? I don't think the term strawman means what you think it does. You're a joke.

Paraphrasing, without direct quotes, out of context, is a strawman, yeah. And then when context is actually shown, ignoring it and continuing to pretend its a "contradiction" is trolling.

VenomUSMC 06-06-2014 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2307902)
Gee, you've really got me there. You and your strawman army. W/e bro.



Were you by chance a sniper in the Marines? Is that where your love for straw began?



Better head to the emerald city, bra, get you some brains.

Translation: "I'm making shit up as I go, please don't point out my constant contradictions" - Anenome.



At least you'll have message boards to live out your fantasy and claim principles that you clearly do not live by. Remember, you're living in the United States voluntarily. Therefore they are not forcing you to do anything. You could leave, renounce your citizenship, and no longer have to pay taxes. Which is oddly like your dream COLAs of merely leaving communities where you do not like the laws, and exiting contracts at will. Means of fleeing and sustaining yourself are irrelevant just as you've deemed them in your seaworld, because the possibility to leave is there.

You can't even work up the courage to leave California. By all means, keep telling us how brave and principled you are on a message board. Then you predictably cry foul when someone tells you to move and live by what you preach.

Even your crusade to flee the United States is a parody as you live in one of the most restrictive states in the Nation. You try and cite two incredibly small parts of history that have not withstood time as you *proof* that ANCAP has some storied history. You incorrectly tried to portray G Washington as being against standing armies for your own purposes, and then take the stance that others are cherry picking history when it doesn't suit your needs. Your latest, that classic liberals were ancaps that just didn't know there could be no government, is equally as off the mark.

Then you did largely what supporters of draconian gun laws do - pounced on a crazed shooter (who happened to kill equally as many with a knife, and used his vehicle as a weapon as well). Declaring that magically the laws of COLA will stop the insane, unlike laws of the state. Then you fumbled your way through trying to pretend that you could simply ban a person because your apparent vision of a future is chalk full of checkpoints with the TSA sticking a finger up your poop shoot. Of course you managed to ignore that the shooter was a member of the community he shot up, but you needed to ignore facts and mold this, like other situations, under a false narrative to pretend your fantasy could stop it. Which is especially dumb since you've declared that markets will meet demand, and buying actual items such as RPGs would be quite legal.

Then we have Somalia when it was in a state of anarchy with no government. What happened? Warlords forced their will on people. Imagine that, even without government people were using force. It didn't count as anarchy because people didn't play the way you wished they would. Just like how Communists declare that nations that were communist weren't really communism because it didn't turn out how they had promised.

This has apparently escaped you as you try to bend in every direction to play off anything as a positive for your fantasy, but people are far from predictable. What we know is that people will exploit laws to their advantage, but we certainly don't always know how they will do so. We know that more people (as a %) vote for the President than do local elections in which their vote is much more likely to matter. That's irrational. History has shown that the strong will very often exploit the weak. We don't always know how this will come to be, however. This is seen throughout history and forces those that are not aggressive into communities because of those who are.

The bottom line continues to be your own life is simply a parody of the principles and dreams that you post on this board. It's simply another case of "for thee, but not for me". You're not holding yourself to the same principles, beliefs, and expectations that you push onto others.

VenomUSMC 06-06-2014 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2308054)
Paraphrasing, without direct quotes, out of context, is a strawman, yeah. And then when context is actually shown, ignoring it and continuing to pretend its a "contradiction" is trolling.

Here is some context:
You live in California the #3 most burdensome state as far as taxes. You refuse to move to Nevada the #3 least burdensome state. You're voluntarily paying taxes, living by the laws of California - additionally the United States - by not leaving since you could. You choose not too.

You're simply living a lie. :eek:

Anemone 06-06-2014 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308058)
Here is some context:
You live in California the #3 most burdensome state as far as taxes. You refuse to move to Nevada the #3 least burdensome state. You're voluntarily paying taxes, living by the laws of California - additionally the United States - by not leaving since you could. You choose not too.

You're simply living a lie. :eek:

So what? I said I'm going to create a place without taxation and live there. Such a place does not currently exist. So what's your point. I am not interesting in merely minimizing taxation, I want to end it. Your claim is meaningless to me. I will move to a place with zero taxation, with zero government, and not any other. You cannot name such a place. It was you who raised the issue of taxation and California, not me. There is no lie. The amount of taxation is largely immaterial. It's existence at all is.

Anemone 06-06-2014 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
You're living in the United States voluntarily.

Not so, there is nothing voluntary about it. US law has been forced upon me since birth. If it was voluntary I could opt out and remain in place--such as a COLA allows you to do. I could start my own sovereign jurisdiction without leaving my property--such as COLA law allows you to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Therefore they are not forcing you to do anything.

Quite the opposite. Only the consent of the governed legitimates political power. The US has never obtained my consent to rule me or enforce laws on me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
You could leave, renounce your citizenship, and no longer have to pay taxes.

Not entirely true. Even after dropping citizenship the US unethically claims the right to continue taxing your earnings for an additional 10 years, and to conscript you into the military at any future point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Which is oddly like your dream COLAs of merely leaving communities where you do not like the laws, and exiting contracts at will.

Actually it's completely opposite, since in a COLA no law can be forced on you and must obtain your prior consent before being enforced regardless. You continue to fundamentally misunderstand the very core of the COLA law concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Means of fleeing and sustaining yourself are irrelevant just as you've deemed them in your seaworld, because the possibility to leave is there.

Leave and go where? If you leave the US you can at best go to another statist society. Thus, there is nowhere to leave to.

That's the entire point of pursuin seasteading. How can you not know this after all this time and discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
You can't even work up the courage to leave California.

I will leave California when there's a non-state to leave to. I've said this many times. I am exactly where I need to be to pursue seasteading, in pursuit of that kind of leaving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
By all means, keep telling us how brave and principled you are on a message board.

I have never said either of these things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Then you predictably cry foul when someone tells you to move and live by what you preach.

Name a non-state to go to. You cannot. They don't exist. My intention is to build them. How exactly are you missing that fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Even your crusade to flee the United States is a parody as you live in one of the most restrictive states in the Nation.

For a reason. Because seasteading is best pursued here. Duh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
You try and cite two incredibly small parts of history that have not withstood time as you *proof* that ANCAP has some storied history.

Such is undeniable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
You incorrectly tried to portray G Washington as being against standing armies for your own purposes

I still have no idea what you're talking about here, and you've never produced an actual quote. The closest I can think is that Jefferson was against standing armies and either I misspoke, or you misread, misrecall, or are outright lying.

Jefferson is the main proto-libertarian of those among the so-called Founders of the republic, not Washington.

For this reason he called for civilian oversight of the military as a compromise.

Quote:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154
Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
and then take the stance that others are cherry picking history

I just gave you direct quotes from Jefferson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Your latest, that classic liberals were ancaps that just didn't know there could be no government, is equally as off the mark.

Haha, you don't know the first thing you're talking about. Classical liberals are the same thing as libertarians today--we had to give up that word because it was corrupted by left socialist liberals. So we took the term 'libertarian.' This combined with far better economic and political theory, developed from the original classical liberals like Spooner and Spencer and the others, is the intellectual heritage of modern ancap. You're just denying that because it's convenient for you, but you can't back up your statement even remotely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Declaring that magically the laws of COLA will stop the insane, unlike laws of the state.

I said that COLA law can keep people out of its borders whom are merely suspected of being violent or dangerous and that our modern society cannot do that. If you think that's untrue then let's discuss it directly. But I can assure you, you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Then you fumbled your way through trying to pretend that you could simply ban a person because your apparent vision of a future is chalk full of checkpoints with the TSA sticking a finger up your poop shoot.

All COLAs are private property. How hard is it for you to keep people off your own property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Of course you managed to ignore that the shooter was a member of the community he shot up

I ignore nothing. As I told you before, there were obvious signs he might be violent. If he's a member of the community in our current society then there is no way to ban him, is there. He has a right to be there because of public roads.

But in a COLA law environment, someone suspected of being dangerous can be proactively banned. Because it's all private property.

You have never actually understood that point, you have only derided it and willfully misunderstood it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Then we have Somalia when it was in a state of anarchy with no government.

A "state of anarchy" is not the same thing as an 'anarchic-legal system.'

You fail also to understand anarcho-capitalism's political theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
What happened? Warlords forced their will on people.

Yep, thus becoming archons, or rulers. An anarchy means "against all archons" which means that when warlords showed up it ceased being an anarchic condition and became a primitive statist one.

This is because the people of Somalia didn't have the ideas to put in place an ancap polycentric legal system. And power voids get filled, either by this legal system or the default one. Warlordism is a default.

But it's not anarchy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Imagine that, even without government people were using force.

Default. Anarchy is not a default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
It didn't count as anarchy because people didn't play the way you wished they would.

It didn't count as anarchy because there was no anarchic political theory in play there at all. You're guilty of applying the term 'anarchy' in its general sense, not its specific political one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
Just like how Communists declare that nations that were communist weren't really communism because it didn't turn out how they had promised.

Those nations at least first had actual communists running them. Your analogy is laughable on its face :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
This has apparently escaped you

Lol, I can't even list how many things continue to escape you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
as you try to bend in every direction

As I explain over and over again what you willfully ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
What we know is that people will exploit laws to their advantage

Which is why it's important that all law be at will, and not forced on people. And only a polycentric law system creates that environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
History has shown that the strong will very often exploit the weak. We don't always know how this will come to be, however. This is seen throughout history and forces those that are not aggressive into communities because of those who are.

I submit that this exploitation is only possible in a society that accepts the principle that someone in society must force laws on everyone else in society. This gives that person, or that group of people, a license to exploit the rest of society.

COLA law therefore ends that avenue of exploitation by dispensing with centralized centers of law production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
The bottom line continues to be your own life is simply a parody of the principles and dreams that you post on this board.

Sure, sure, whatever you say, bucko.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2308056)
It's simply another case of "for thee, but not for me". You're not holding yourself to the same principles, beliefs, and expectations that you push onto others.

Oh but I am. What you and Terran call hypocrisy is actually me being willing to suffer for what I believe in so that I can achieve a state of true freedom. Sure I could go live in Antarctica or in the woods or something, but it wouldn't satisfy me, it would be fleeing rather than fighting for what I believe in.

You really don't know who I am yet, do you. I am a partisan. I've been a political partisan since I was 13. And anarcho-capitalism is the rock I've been looking for all those years.

You seem to take me for a fool or someone easily riled into doing something rash, but I am not. I've always been quite coolheaded. Haven't you learned by now that you're just a toy for me to play with, that all of your opposition has done nothing but help me think through every possible objection and sharpen my answers for them.

The book I'm planning on COLA law thanks you for your opposition :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 PM.