Why The Stranger Is Wrong About Everything

1. so young. enjoy the congo.

2. So go there, asshole.

3. Hi Intern–I do care about the “force” of government, mostly because the alternatives to the “force” of health codes is Typhoid Mary. You also don’t have to drive, especially in Seattle–see, not forced to license yourself for that if you don’t want to do so.

   But hey, I hear mountaintops in Tibet are pretty cheap these days…

4. How do you expect a society to advance without reasonable taxation?

   I’d love to take the time to break down how you have benefited from taxation (your education, the road you took to work today, etc. etc.), but I can’t tell if you’re joking or not so I don’t really care.

   If you aren’t joking, KTHANKSBAI.

5. This is awesome. I look forward to future posts, anonymous though I may be.

6. is this the same child that wadn’t interested in the chilean miner rescue ? or the brutal gang assault/torture in new york ?…
   figures.. i guess it takes all kinds

7. @2, while I completely disagree with him on most of his points, he said them well enough and didn’t come across as an asshole.

   And he’s not voting, so let him go be crazy in the woods. Doesn’t affect us at all.

   And I’m guessing he’s in the 18-21 bracket. I was pretty radical then. Moreso than now at least, at 27.

8. How do we get roads and running water without taxes?

9. Dude, you’re an idiot.

10. ah youth.

11. Enjoying having the fire dept watch your house burn down over a missed $75 fee, young man.

12. @7

    “I didn’t sign any constitution, I didn’t consent to any of these laws, I was just born here.”

    This is in no way ‘radical’. It’s pure solipsism. And that’s just a fancy word for ‘asshole’.

13. @2,7,9 i feel same
    Matt mirrors The Stranger, but rather than asshole, i’d say a narcissist. it’s probably difficult to stand out as an exemplary ego-maniac when there’s such stiff competition.

    –I’m done for the day, I have to go get lost in the gaze of my nonchalant hairdo.

14. “If I don’t get a driver’s license, again there’s that jail thing.”

    Well, this isn’t the first time Canada is run differently from the way the States are run, but really? Why? How?

15. btw, what happened to the french intern

16. Young people who know everything are so cute.

17. Anarchists are entertaining.

18. #14 If you don’t get a license *AND* insist on driving. Eventually a judge we’ll give you some jail time. I’m sure it’s the same in Canada.

19. The government gets its power from The People. Each person gets one vote. So exercise that, your one input into what the government does or does not do, into how much power the government has or doesn’t have over you, or shut the fuck up.

    Dumbass.

20. Comedy gold. I tip my hat to you, young Ron Swanson.

    I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks. Everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swing set. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.

21. @16..well he would be cute if he didn’t talk so damn much.

22. The Onion: Area teenager reads Ayn Rand.

23. Let me say this: ultra-all-aspects libertarianism works if you don’t mind the prospect of anyone in society being screwed at any point in time. I had a pointless conversation with someone a couple of years ago that truly believed all that–ALL of it–to the extreme.

    Taxes for roads, clean water, schools (even though he has kids), the military, police, fire, medical — any of it because he didn’t opt in was wrong, and if he could he would opt out of every last one to keep 100% of his income. What would you do if your house caught fire, I asked? I’d have to put it out or hire someone to do that he said. Where would your kids learn? We’d teach them what we feel they need, he said. How would you drive? I’d get a vehicle not bound to paved roads. How would you get water? I’d dig a well.

    He had zero interest or concern for anyone but his and his own and 100% believed that, and felt that this was just since our time here temporary at best.

    It was the most horrific and nihilistic mindset I’d ever seen. I’d seriously rather be a homophobic black hating bigot than be the way this person was; that mindset is a step removed from villain-of-the-story moment as it devalues even human life. That conversation was the tipping point to where mentally I began to see people of the Tea ilk as culturally diseased and incompatible with modern society. I truly believe this ultra-amplification of these beliefs are a direct response to the constant decay and decline of conservatism since the too-late departure from the White House of Ronald Reagan, who I wish had bit it when he was shot. He truly was a despicable, evil cunt and figurehead of a cult. Note: the Soviet way of doing things was equally shit.

    I’m sure you’re a nice guy, and I have several conservative friends that I love debating with, but I’m honest in this belief: the time and place in this world of this sort of “I got mine” mindset is expiring from terminal illness. I’m not saying liberal this or that will take it’s place (or ultimately is the best solution, but the time for your way having a cultural foothold is inexorably dying from it’s own entropic mess in a red state redshift where your side loses the manpower to ever have control of the White House, Senate, or Congress ever again.

    That final death of modern conservatism will be about 2-3 generations or about 30-45 years from now. It will be increasingly nasty politics until then.

24. It’s a shame when a young mind is destroyed by that great intergenerational cradle robber Ayn Rand and her proto-Russian mobster followers.

25. If law enforcement didn’t exist, who would protect your property from theft? Doesn’t any system of property require a threat of violence to maintain? Show me one that doesn’t.

    You just prefer for the violence that supports your way of life to be invisible to you. Which isn’t too difficult, since apparently you can’t see beyond the tip of your nose.

    Thanks for stating your silly views politely, though.

26. So you’re a hippy, welcome to the Northwest.

    Also these crazies don’t have the option of “opting out” of society and country. I mean, dude could go live in the woods but all the woods are owned by SOMEBODY.

    So tough titties dude, you were born into the game and you have one life, might as well play for a bit.

27. And Elenchos nails it.

28. drop a token, post on slog… love it

    damit, i’m out of tokens

29. by the way, how come the intern hasn’t signed up for two tours of duty in Afghanistan yet?

30. Haiti awaits.

31. Not wanting to be “coerced” into paying taxes is all well-and-good.

    Just remember to NEVER make use of ANY of the services the rest of us who DO pay taxes get in return for our contributions.

    I give you roughly 12 minutes before you find this to be impossible for all practical purposes.

32. There’s a word for his condition: Sociopath.

33. He presented his views cleanly and calmly, without anger and vitriol, and doesn’t care that you think differently from him, yet he’s still getting shit on.

    I may disagree with his views, but I’d rather spend my time with a pleasant extremist than asshole moderate.

34. @18: Thanks. I guess the wording was just incomplete for me. There are plenty of bureaucratic/government instances where I know a driver’s license is pretty useful, so I was confused.

35. Clearly The Stranger needs a stiff tax on news interns.

36. Can him. He doesn’t reflect The Stranger, it’s readers or the community. In fact, he doesn’t fit anywhere except his mirror as it is obviously just about him. Hopefully, he will grow up some day and realize he lives in a society with both responsibilities and privleges.

37. I’m sure there’s more basic anarchy theory to his position, but in this post it seems to come down to this premise:

    “These things are only made possible by using government’s “legitimate” monopoly on violence to initiate force against non-compliers.”

    In a world without this implied threat of violence from a gov’t authority, what’s to stop anyone else from filling that void?

    Shorter: do you own any weapons? and if not, are you bigger and stronger than me? no? then give me all of your shit and fuck off.

38. Matt, New Hampshire isn’t the place for you. It has laws and government. I’d suggest heading out to the true paradise for those who don’t want to participate in an organized society — Somalia.

    On second thought, that won’t work for you either. You’d need a government-issued passport. And to get there, you’d need some government-issued money.

39. @31 is right.

    Get the heck off my roads, stop using my bridges, and don’t you ever dare set foot at an airport.

    Hippie.

40. @33 – No matter how politely he put it, his views–if he truly believes everything he said–are sociopathically solipsistic.

    So enjoy your time with him, but don’t be surprised if he accuses you of violently stealing his oxygen or space.

41. “I shouldn’t have to get a driver’s license.” Who do you think built the road?

    And actually, you are a threat to me, because you will drive unsafely (having not passed a driver’s test) and poison me with your hamburgers (having not passed a food safety class).

42. I’ve never had a driver’s license and somehow have managed to avoid prison. Should I be worried, or should I expect an edit on this post?

43. 36 for the win.

    How long does his internship last? In light of this, I think it is really inappropriate to have him in the newsroom.

    As valuable as differing opinions are, this goes way too far.

44. #36,

    Your comment reads like any of the small amount of dissenting commentators that can be read on hard-right-wing blogs.

    How does it feel to parody the same people you despise?

45. So how hot is this guy? What worth was he born with?

46. @41: Ok, thank you, I feel less like an idiot now. Or we’re idiots together.

47. Oh boy, where to start?

    @1 — This is bullshit. How can I leave this country if every country on earth is part of the same passports-and-visas racket of UN-endorsed nation-states?

    @4 — This is a shitty argument. “Just because something has always been this way means it always has to be this way.” How can I point to a counter-example when I am prohibited from creating the sort of community I want?

    @5, 33 — You guys are awesome.

    @11 — You mean the government-run fire department of South Fulton, Tenn.? Nice try.

    @19 — “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” So original. It’s the other way around, buddy.

    @23 — I appreciate the long response, patronizing though it might be. This isn’t about me and mine. It’s not that I don’t care about other people. Maybe my way isn’t the most efficient. But it’s the most philosophically consistent and the only thing I can support that would let me sleep comfortably at night. Violence, no matter how “noble” the end, is still violence.

    @25 — Private policing. Security guards. Wackenhut.

    @22, 24, 27 — Get your facts straight. Ayn Rand endorsed minarchism. She loves force only a bit less than the most repugnant statists.

    @30 — I like this guy.

48. this post will net 114-plus comments. you watch.

49. “have them in your own community and leave my community the fuck alone”

    You don’t HAVE a community, young man. You’re a Rugged Individualist, remember? And you shouldn’t be writing for Slog; the electricity that powers your computer comes from The Government, you know. Seattle has public power.

50. @40 He can accuse me of whatever he wants. I could give less then two shits what he thinks of me or my views.

    I don’t care what he thinks, and he shouldn’t care what I think. Every man, woman, and child should be entitled to their views, regardless of how extreme they are. This kid’s only real mistake was posting his stuff here, where he was bound to catch flak for his opinion.

51. Matt, New Hampshire isn’t the place for you. It has laws and government. I’d suggest heading out to the true paradise for those who don’t want to participate in an organized society — Somalia.

    On second thought, that won’t work for you either. You’d need a government-issued passport. And to get there, you’d need some government-issued money.

52. think about it…

    …to live your whole life on the kindness of others

53. @36, 43 — At least you guys are consistent. You love the initiation of force both in government AND personal affairs. So open-minded, you are.

    @38 — This is actually pretty funny.

    @41 — I’m totally fine with private licensing. If you believe hamburger vendors should be licensed, create a private licensing board and then only buy from people who pass it. If you believe drivers should have licenses, create a private licensing company.

54. Silly.

55. “who rape my life with regulations”

    What are you, twelve? That’s the stupidest thing in the world. Leaving aside the fact that regulations make your life possible, the obvious point here is that you don’t know a goddamn thing about regulations and their affects good or bad. Your philosophy is infantile.

56. @49 — Who said I don’t believe in communities? I love communities. I like people. I have always been a city guy. I just don’t like when people use violence against me.

    @50 — You’re assuming that I don’t want to catch flak for my opinions. I love this stuff.

57. @15, I remember hearing that the french intern (if he really exists *laughs* Actually, I entirely believe in his existence) was only doing a one month gig. Although it seems sad that he’s gone home without much fanfare.

58. @48: perhaps i should have wished you luck in finding a libertarian/anarchist paradise with the borders of the US, which, given the fucking shit-ton of firearms in this nuthouse, i believe would quickly devolve into a congo-like dystopia of warring militias and mass rape. so, good luck.

59. Sorry, I didn’t mean to come off as patronizing. Even the whiff of a hint of a particle of Rand in the air gets me hot and bothered.

    Also, I demand that Frizzelle or Savage or whoever decides these things lets guest Pacific Northwest/regional Conservatives post here for a guest column at least every 2nd Thursday of a month that is even numbered on the condition they engage their readers here in comments like this. Post that inflammatory Fox stuff at 9am, bump it at lunch and you’ll bust 300 comments.

    Try to get Eyman, Sharkansky, or Pudge from Sound Politics next (the Pudge in particular, if he told me it was night, I’d have to check to make sure since we’re so far apart, but is very eloquent and a nice guy to just chat with online).

60. @48.. so adrian.. you’ve met him , right ? what’s the skinny ? is he cute or not?..and does he always talk this much ?

61. @57 French intern ate so much French food during his foodie tour that he’s too fat to write any more Seattle french food reviews.

62. @ Fnarf — So regulations make me breath? They make my heart beat? But then I’m the infantile one.

63. “mouth-breathers ?”

    Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve just been shocked out of my bougeois complacency. Thank you, young American, for removing the blinder from my now-shattered monocle.

64. @56, what I meant was, obviously, that you may “love” communities, but you’re not part of one. You’re a solipsist. You don’t even really believe that other people exist. If you did, you might notice that no one in this imaginary community of yours agrees with you. You say “leave my community alone”, but every single other person in it wants these things you abhor. You want to live in a vacuum.

    It’s not an uncommon failing amongst emotionally immature young men who read too much bad philosophy. You’ll grow out of it.

65. Libertarians are stupid children.

    That is the title of this post I wrote a while ago:

    http://streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog…

66. @60 — You can find out at Slog Happy tonight!

67. I prefer to live in cities, the kind with nice parks and maintained roads. I don’t see taxation as theft, but rather a fee for services. Is it worth money not to trip over the starving elderly as I walk down the street? Yes – I’ll pay for that.

    Life as a hermit – or living with a bunch of yahoos on a compound – doesn’t appeal to me, and that’s the only way I could have your views and not be a hypocrite. It’s certainly the only way I’d ever view taxation as theft.

68. C’mon dude, New Hampshire? Where they have a functioning government you’ll still continue to reap benefits from on an hourly basis? Apply to a paper in Somalia (or start your own if there aren’t any left) if you actually believe this stuff as much as you say you do.

69. The emotion in some of these responses make me wonder if people are all that sure of themselves. There’s always been people with opinions like Unpaid Intern, and they’ll always be idealistic college kids, no reason to take it all that seriously.

    Also, get your driver’s license UI. Your opinions will hold a little more weight when people know you’re not a slacker.

70. And what #67 said.

71. @51: Man I type slow.

72. @51: Man I type slow.

73. To be fair to The Stranger‘s staff, Matt, it’s not like you snuck anything past us: The Ron Paul bumper sticker on your laptop was kind of a dead giveaway on day one.

    But you’re articulate and smart and I’m all for both those things in an intern. I think the office (and Slog) is big enough for plenty of political views. But I’m not going to stop talking about my beloved Evil Socialist Big Government just because I know there’s a differing opinion in the room.

    (And I do think your misuse of the word “rape” is something you’re going to sorely regret one day.)

74. “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” So original. It’s the other way around, buddy.

    So if I do vote, I can complain? YES!!!

    99.999999999 percent of the people are perfectly happy being born under a Constitution they didn’t choose and blah, blah, blah, all the other stupid shit you said. If you can’t handle living among other people who have consented to be governed, too fucking bad for you.

75. Unlike some of the harder core Randians, U.I. seems sort of sweet. Someone told him nonviolence is good, and he thinks he’s found a way to maximize goodness on this earth. I’m guessing he’s about 19, and that means there’s plenty of time for him to grow up. In the next four or five years he’ll be in turn a fundamentalist Christian, a Hare Krishna, a Scientologist and who knows what else. Each time he’ll know he’s found the real system. But maybe by age 25 he’ll see that life is complicated, and simple ideologies, although really cool to think about, don’t actually apply to real life. There’s still time for him to get wise, and who knows, maybe still be sort of sweet. People who still hold his ideas at age 30 are pretty much irredeemable.

76. Bless your heart, unpaid intern. You don’t have to consent to a traffic light at the end of the street either, you just won’t turn into road paint as often that way.

    But hey, you didn’t consent to any of these laws, you were just born here.

77. I really really wish I could send you to the reality you are asking for. You’d last about 24 hours.

78. I was a libertarian when I was 18. It makes sense on the surface, but the truth is that limited government just creates a power vacuum that is filled by those even harder to hold accountable than politicians, like organized crime and/or multinationals. You’ll be far less free.

    And btw, drive without a license, hit and kill me or someone I know because you don’t know how to drive, and it’s becomes my problem. Using free market forces to control unhealthy food distribution (your burger kitchen) is fine if you are ok deciding where not to eat by where your friends and family get sick and die.

79. Taxes are the price you pay for Civilization, if you can’t or wont try to understand that you should move to Darfur or Afghanistan where you can learn real lessons of true self reliance.

80. For the sake of argument, I’ll concede our overbroad definition of “violence.”

    What society or government does not use violence? Is there any alternative government you would accept?

81. @53 (re:41)
    What if people begin forging those licenses? Who enforces their validity?

    What if a ‘private licensing company’ merely sells to the highest bidder?

    How can I choose who to drive next to on the road? What’s to guarantee merit based licensing?

    What if I choose to start a private licensing company to hunt that most elusive of game: man.

    Who defends morality? Who defines morality? Institutionalized or not, violence will happen. It always happens. Look at any period in history anywhere, any culture, any race any government or lack thereof. There has NEVER been less governmental “violence” or more accountability of the law-makers than there is now under a democratic system. Is it perfect? Of fucking course not! But don’t be stupid and think that we live under anything approaching a totalitarian police state. Government invasions of privacy, renditions, abductions or even normal arrests are scary things, but we can work to minimize this as a society of laws. When you’re living in your free state paradise and someone breaks into your hovel in the middle the night to rape, steal or whatever, who will give a shit about you then?

    Well…I will, but I won’t be able to help you because I will also be trying to protect my family from the night.

82. wow! the gang’s all here

83. @76 — I’m 25 now, am I doing it wrong?

84. If you want to live free of governments, free of taxes, free of the protections and services they offer, there are places you can do it. Afghanistan, Somalia, The Congo, Mexico all have broad swaths of land where there is essentially no government. Even here in the US, you can drop right off the grid and live by your own wits, make your own clothes, trap your own game, gather nuts and berries, and gods help you if you fall down and break a leg. But that’s the price you pay for self-sufficiency.

85. So… in rural Maine, where my parents live now, there is an extended family that has these sort of views. They don’t want the government in their business. They live on a compound in the woods, home-school their kids, and generally try to remove themselves from society as much as possible. Okay, fine, if they are self-sufficient, good for them. But… then, one of the adults apparently was molesting one of the children.

    So, what to do about this if there is no government, police force, etc.? They have opted out of government and would likely opt out of any private law enforcement situation that could be created in a government-free society. Private citizens could “enforce”, I suppose, by killing the guy, or… imprisoning him (where?) or…? I guess someone could take the child away from them, but who gets to decide that? And what’s to stop him from taking the kid back (by force)? I suspect that the resolution of this situation would come down to whoever is the most well-armed (or, you know “coercive violence”). The joke about Somalia is funny, yes, but it’s also what I see when I think about what a “society” who implemented your philosophy would look like.

    The alternative I guess, is that we do nothing. Everybody gets to do whatever they want with no government to interfere — molest children, beat their wives, own slaves….

86. Ah yes, the blissful ignorance of a 19 year old having read far too much Ayn Rand. One day you too will discover that externalities are not a myth created by collectivist parasites to enslave your soul and that you can pay taxes and live a happy and meaningful existence despite the taint of collectivist thugs taking your money. You may also find that you get laid a lot more in the absence of Objectivist or any other form of fundamentalism.

87. @71 (and 72)

    So nice, you said it twice! 🙂

    Repetition brings emphasis. Like minds…

88. @84: Hmmm. Maybe you just went through my list of ideologies in a different order. Does it make you wince a little, now, thinking back to that year when you thought all the answers were in the I Ching?

89. “So regulations make me breath?”

    Ever tried walking around for an extended period of time in Beijing or Mexico City?

90. It’s cool to have opinions. Just don’t fly any planes in buildings.

91. Wow, y’all be tripping. He has harmless views that he isn’t trying to push on other people (because that’s against his philosophy). He is better than you other people.

    AND, just because he doesn’t like being forced to pay taxes or get a drivers license doesn’t mean that he doesn’t actually pay taxes or have a drivers license.

    Also, why would not having a drivers license mean he would automatically not know how to drive or get into accidents?

    Y’all got trolled.

    And finally, all this hate is sad and pathetic. Seriously, save this invective for people that deserve it (like Fnarf and John Calipari).

92. Furthermore, why are you working unpaid for The Stranger? You should not let these collectivist parasites live off of the fruit of your labor. This goes against the nature of man qua man.

93. @87 – I know I know, but I hoped most people would just kinda think “oh that’s cute”, and shrug it off. I don’t know why I hoped that when Slog is so fun to play.

94. I’m mostly just offended by the term quarter-chub. No one’s going to want to put it in their mouth if you call it that, okay?

95. Private policing? Doesn’t that mean you are paying for violence? I thought that was your primary objection to taxes. I think your real objection to taxes is this: you are selfish.

    That aside, the problem with privatizing being the answer to everything is this: I don’t want to pay the road bill, and the police bill, and the fireman bill, and the get-the-homeless-off-the-street bill, and the sewer-maintenance bill, and the parks bill, and the reservoir bill, and the pollution-regulation bill, and the interstate-highway bill, etc., etc. I’d rather pay just one bill.

    But even then, I don’t see much of a difference between paying tax or paying all of the fees above. Tomayto, tomahto.

96. I disagree with those of you calling him an asshole. He seems like a perfectly nice kid. He didn’t try to force his views on anyone and even made an effort not to pass them on.

    As for his views they’re narrow minded and idiotic. Without regulation you get robber barons working their employees to death, literally, and destroying the country while getting rich. Without the military we get someone else in charge, who will also tax us. Without police we get vigilantes and people without weapons, or who can’t draw them fast enough, being dominated by those who are faster or better armed.

    I think he should take his perfectly nice and respectful anti-tax anti-government argument to Somalia or the Congo or any of the many nice places without any working central government for a few years and if he survives he can come back and tell us how wonderful it was.

97. @94:

    Furthermore, why are you working unpaid for The Stranger? You should not let these collectivist parasites live off of the fruit of your labor. This goes against the nature of man qua man.

    If there’s no government to issue money, how could he possibly be paid? Sounds like Matt is being quite consistent with his principles in that regard.

    Though I do wonder what he possesses that he can barter for food, clothing, and shelter. Assuming, that is, that he’d accept something that’s been reviewed by the USDA or the ICC or HUD (to say nothing of their state, county, and city analogues).

98. @66 At this rate, by the time Slog Happy starts we’ll be toasting the record-breaking number of comments on this post.

99. @93, you just wait til I sic my private police force on you.

100. You go Unpaid Intern Matt Luby. If you’re going to go for the most commented, who better to unseat than Dan Awesome Savage.

     Good luck there kiddo, I’m rooting for you!

101. “because they think the state needs more money to pay for the mouth-breathers who rape my life with regulations to have nice pensions.”

     And some folks here patted him on the back for clarity and civility. Oy.

     I had a lead role in Rand’s “The Night of January 16th” at Matt’s age. The jury gimmick made it a lot of fun to perform, but the ideas it espoused were infantile.

102. More than anything, this society based on force has given him the leisure time to imagine that a world without governments would be free and morally superior. In a “free” world, you have to supply your own force and that’s a full time job. Human beings aren’t mean and nasty because we have laws and the means of enforcement, we have laws and the means of enforcement because human beings are mean and nasty. Not all of us, but enough of us to make you sit up and take notice.

     Sorry, young man, that all the land was already taken before you were born. Bad planning on your part. You don’t expect anyone to give you a piece of land just for being here do you? It’s not our fault you’re here. But if you insist on staying on this land that isn’t yours, you’ll need to abide by our rules. Our house, our rules. If you don’t want to opt in to the social contract you can’t claim the protections guaranteed in it. You’ll have to enforce your philosophy without our help. We don’t owe you any more than you owe us. There is still plenty of space available out in the oceans. I’m sure an ingenious young man such as yourself can scratch out a living there.

103. @96–I loved the quarter-chub comment. A total classic. I can’t wait to tell my husband so we can start using it. But the reality of quarter-chub? I love to start with quarter-chub and bring it up to full chub. That’s one of the thrills in oral sex.

104. *sigh*

     This is almost a better troll than the ones about loud babies in restaurants, or rabid pit bulls, or Critical fucking Mass. Almost.

     And here am I, also feeding the beast…

     but libertarians are so cute. Aww, wookit the widdle thing, all self-reliant and stuff! Isn’t that adorable? Kind of like seeing a toddler drool.

105. @84 you could have already served three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

     Slacker.

106. @99 – “Though I do wonder what he possesses that he can barter for food, clothing, and shelter.”

     Well, there’s always his quarter-chub.

107. @84 – yes, you are doing it wrong. By 25 you should have moved beyond these views (unless the folks have a lot of cash, then you can continue on for a few more years)

     @87 – the word you are searching for is “Glenn Beck”

108. @87 trolling?

109. Come on SLOGgers, post again. Remember when David Schmader did this with his Courtney Love Pitbull post to unseat Dan?

     Give the kid a break and post again. He’ll be flying so high at SLOG happy he won’t need to drink or smoke anything!

110. Reading this whole thing, post and comments, has been my most exciting half-hour all day. Thanks!

111. So, I know my comment @86 is only one of 100+, but I’d really like to see it answered by UI. This is a real-life situation (not a hypothetical) of people who are trying to live by something similar to his philosophy (in fairness, I doubt they’ve thought about it as much as him, they seem more the plain-old “government = bad” types). Then they go and do something objectionable according to most people’s moral standards (and our current government’s laws).

     How would this be handled, in your ideal world? Let the girl be molested/abused? Private law enforcement (Who gets to decide whether the abuse is really happening? How does this law enforcement org. get its funding? How do these people get their authority if not by violence? What is his punishment? If jail, who built/operates the jail and how do they get funding? If not jail, what?)?

112. @74: 99.999999999%?

     So out of one hundred billion people, only one is unhappy being born under a Constitution the didn’t choose and blah blah blah? That’s a pretty amazing rate.

113. Humans are hive animals. Resistance is futile.

114. Given the large number of comments, I cannot help but marvel at the invisible hamburger helper hand at work as each commenter generates a hit for the advertisements and therefore adds money to the coffers of The Stranger. You have a bright future. Juxtaposed with Charles you can help bring balance to The Schwartz.

115. @47
     I asked you to provide an example of a system of property that didn’t rely on threat of violence, and you offered me the names of private security companies. So I guess you didn’t understand the question?

     Again, thanks for stating your silly views in a polite tone.

116. I’m still waiting for Mr. Luby to describe how, in a “world without force” he’s going to prevent a bigger dick from down the street from using HIS private security force to convert Mr. Luby into a slave on his farm. Or food.

117. does anyone know the record of hits on slog, and what was the post.

118. @119: Well, he can’t prevent that. But he’ll be against it!

119. Go Paul Constant for calling out this dude’s outta line use of the word “rape”. Practically jumped off the screen at me. For someone who is so against violence, that’s a pretty loaded word to flippantly fling around. Puke.

     Also, re: violence. UI is against all kinds of violence but then suggests private policing. Hmm…seems to me the only outcome of his philosophy, if put into real-life play, would end up where others have pointed to: Somalia, Rep. of Congo, Afghanistan, etc.

     Practical applications? Also, UI, how did you come to hold these beliefs? UI, what happened back in the Midwest?

120. Man… seriously, the ad hominem attacks here are depressing me. It’s not like he came into your kitchen and tried to liberate you, guys; learn how to disagree without being rude and pompous.

     Kid, I like your moxie. Shine on, you crazy diamond. If nothing else, unpopular opinions help us better define our own standpoints on issues, giving us something to be against and better illuminating what we’re for. I wish more people commenting here could appreciate that without vitriol and patronizing zingers.

121. Hey everyone, I brought us some cake andOHGOD!

122. With that mentality, don’t live in a city. Go live off the grid somewhere. The infrastructure that does everything from powering your laptop to allowing food to arrive here is based on taxes.

123. Man… seriously, the ad hominem attacks here are depressing me. It’s not like he came into your kitchen and tried to liberate you, guys; learn how to disagree without being rude and pompous.

     Kid, I like your moxie. Shine on, you crazy diamond. If nothing else, unpopular opinions help us better define our own standpoints on issues, giving us something to be against and better illuminating what we’re for. I wish more people commenting here could appreciate that without vitriol and patronizing zingers.

124. good post. cajones, amigo.

     isnt there a political discourse dedicated to the clash of civilizations now? like culture vs culture? the fantasy is that we can form cultural bubbles based on how we want to live. i want to live with you, anarchist friend (or down the road)! the problem is, as you know, you cant tell anybody this because, esp in america, you are surrounded by pragmatist compromisers if not just crazy ideologues. and i dont beleive you are a crazy ideologue (am i mistaken anyone?). but political pragmatism invites all the kinds of uses of force you abhor for the sake of.. civility.

     there is something to be said about living between the cracks in any civilization. i agree that civilization is partly about force masquerading as justice and accountability, and that most likely you will face some abuse like the feminazi that lives in fear of uncaged boners, but the anarchist’s culture is in the cracks of civilization, hoepfully one with bigger, deeper cracks.

125. dude we got a long way to go before anarchy outposts rape.

     sorry i wont be at the slog happy but i live in eugene //

126. Where to start, again?

     @73 — Paul and Cienna both confirmed noticing my Ron Paul sticker on day one. So I guess there was no Trojan horse. Damn.

     @79 — Your point about multinationals is wrong, I think. The whole idea of the limited liability corporation only exists because government created it.

     @ 80 — I just don’t think it’s very “civilized” to force me to pay. Make it voluntary, then I have no problem with it.

     @81 — No and no, unfortunately. There’s no real “society” that has ever existed this way, though there used to be frontiers beyond which people like me could escape and do things as they wished.

     @82 — Licenses are enforced by the private licensing companies, who are themselves enforced by robust consumer advocacy groups of an Angie’s List-type thing.

     You could choose to drive on roads that only permit drivers who hold a license from a certain company/agency. That should solve your problem. And hunting man is clearly impermissible in a nonviolent society.

     @86 — What you’re talking about is a violation of consent. I am talking about a voluntary society. Voluntary societies do not look kindly upon people who violate rules of consent. Yes, a private law enforcement agency could intercede against this man to protect the rights of his child. The difference is in how his punishment might be handled. Maybe rather than sitting in a jail cell he could reach a settlement with the victim’s family and then agree to be shunned from society? I don’t know.

     @88 — I do pay taxes and I am happy. I’d just be happier if I wasn’t paying them.

     @90 — For sure, but it’s been a fun journey.

     @92 — I am 100% non-violent. Nothing to worry about here.

     @93 — This guy is awesome. I don’t think he endorses what I said, but he understands that my position is nonviolent, non-coercive and poses no threat to the conventional statists in this thread.

     @97 — I appreciate your honesty. You are lazy and you assume I must be lazy, too, so you’d like me to be coerced in a way that’s convenient for you. No thanks.

     @99 — You do realize there used to be regional currencies right here in the U.S., right? People are pretty resourceful. We like to trade. We will find a medium of exchange with or without government’s intervention.

     @102 — I thought the last Slog Happy revealed that Lindy West actually had the most commented post of all-time?

     @104 — Sorry, not a racist bone in my body.

     @ Will — I don’t understand your fascination with Afghanistan. Why would a pacifist like me who has been screaming against the war for ages want anything to do with that place?

     @118 — I guess I misunderstood your question. I view self-defense as the only legitimate form of violence and a true last resort. I would hope people in my voluntary community would feel the same way.

127. the modus of any organized criminal is to navigate the subterranean paths in civilization, trying to blend in as much as possible while not being discovered. being an anarchist is very much the same thing, though the crime might not be the same.

128. your appropriation of the word–the VERB–“rape” is reprehensible. shame on you.

129. Remember when (former Stranger staffer) would bitch about all the cripples slowing down her bus? Those were the days.

     But fuck it, if these asinine Randian views had a molecule validity, then why are the countries following this philosophy (Haiti, Somalia, etc.) horrifying Mad Max hellholes, while nations that embrace the opposite (Norway, Sweden, etc.) have the best quality of life on the planet by every objective measurement?

     Case closed.

130. You do realize, I hope, that nobody actually advocates for Big Government, right? If you want to take it on you’re going to have to get more specific than that.

131. Also, all social life is violence. Pick your poison: government taxation, or private-sector exploitation. You don’t get to live in a world without any.

132. 131 pronoun minus caps?

133. @129, maybe someday you’ll read some actual history and find out what really went on beyond those “frontiers”, and why it was like that. You sound like you’ve been watching some movies. If you think think “frontier” doesn’t imply violence or force, you’re just misinformed, and if you think there was ever a time when you could find “communities” out there, you’re off your rocker.

     What I think is, you’ve always been fairly bright, and it made you intellectually lazy. You think you’ve got it all figured out, based on ten minutes of pondering, but in truth you know nothing, literally nothing, about anything real. You’ve got some work to do. Unless you want to be a crank all your life, hanging around the food bank muttering into your beard about Hollywood and the CIA.

134. @ Fnarf — Simple. Pay a user fee to a private security company you think can protect you. See, a user fee. These things are voluntary.

     @122 — A lot of reading, debating, and arguing. I’d say Tolstoy, von Mises, Rothbard, John Stuart Mill, and a couple of podcasts have all been very influential. It’s not like Cincinnati is a hotbed of voluntaryism.

     @123 — Thank you! I don’t argue just to argue. I actually like responding to you guys. It makes me polish my own logic. And it’s all peaceful, consensual and voluntary.

     @127, 128 — This guy is my friend. We can be communards together!

135. I’m going to start with this: Interesting viewpoint. Weird, but interesting.

     But now I am going to take a stab at guessing more about this Matt fellow:

     1. Middle Class (not the middle of the middle class, the lower end)
     2. White
     3. Age: under 22 (not just gleaned from the internship status, but his worldview)
     4. Grew up in the suburbs

     Here are my recommendations for ya, Matt: Travel more. Build houses in 3rd world countries, go to different continents, meet more people.

     You are young, and while you have many reasons for your belief structure, I think you’ll find yourself and your views will change over time. But honestly, traveling outside the USA is the best advice I can give you.

     Even if your opinion doesn’t change from exposure to other cultures/ideas/people, you’ll ideals will be more concrete. /shrug

     But good luck here on Slog, cause you’re going to need it.

136. What a silly little twit, even for an intern.

     Listen up, midwestern boy: Your entire life, up until moving to the coast, has been subsidized by the government. You have benefited greatly from the taxes you pay, and got quite a bargain.

     Midwesterners are a drain, just like the southerners. If we were a smart society we’d just clear the center of the country out and replace it with robotic farmers.

137. You seem very nice but very young dear. Have you ever spent time in 3rd world countries? I have. They are horrible places. You cannot have civil societies without taxation to support civil laws. Want clean drinking water in a desert, well you had better be rich or the rich had better like you. And you are free to not be taxed. You can live off the grid in the Amazon or join some corporation’s police force and do horrible or good things to people in uncivil societies. That would be your choice as you would be the one who is armed. However, you cannot expect to be welcomed back to civil society where you have not paid your dues. Paying ones dues is not oppression or theft and no one owes it to you, personally, to provide you with a civil society. You have to pay for it to in a public sector not private sector way.

138. Damn, just saw the comment that Matt is 25. Shit!

139. @132 — Really? That’s the best you’ve got? After I’ve openly said in this thread how bad Rand sucks and how she sucks, you group me in with her small state-endorsing views. You’re just being lazy.

     Oh, and Haiti? Haiti is not an anarchist paradise. Haiti is run by a criminal gang that just doesn’t care about people so long as they skim money from international aid organizations. Somalia’s transitional government is the same way.

     @ Fnarf — Your only line of argumentation is this stupid age-ist bullshit. Do you really think this is anything new? Do you think I haven’t heard it before? You don’t actually engage my ideas at all. You just pooh-pooh them because you’re older. I’ve spent more time reading and thinking about this issue than you’ve spent posting comments on blogs, which is saying a lot.

140. @ 138 — Want to compare passports? Or talk about second language fluency? Thanks for the wishes of good luck, but you’re basically selling the same brand as Fnarf in a nicer manner.

     @139 — Hello, troll. How is it under the bridge?

     @140 — It’s interesting how your polite society still hasn’t managed to move beyond using coercive violence to achieve its ends.

141. @137, UI…

     Thought exercise: I’m 7… my father is sexually abusing me. I’d really like to pay a “user fee” to a private security firm to go after my dad, but imagine that, my allowance won’t quite cover it.

     Sure, it’s easy to tell the white male adult he can pay for private security to protect himself… and if he can’t afford it, that’s his own problem. But the child? I kinda like having government try to guarantee that whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” thing to everyone else, too.

142. It’s not surprising that many people assume you are young, because you don’t appear to have thought very far down the chain of consequences that come with your “privatize everything” approach. So, you have private security guards to guard your shit. That helps guard against random vandals, fine, but what happens when your neighbor, who has twice as much stuff as you with twice as many guards, decides he wants your stuff?

     You very quickly end up with a feudal system of warring landowners and serfs who don’t own anything and owe everything to their bosses. We had this before in human history; it’s a problem that representative government was invented to solve, and it’s done a damn fine – if imperfect – job of improving things.

143. @143 So I can assume you’re not going to retract “quarter chub,” huh?

144. I didn’t sign any constitution, I didn’t consent to any of these laws, I was just born here.

     Until the age of 18, this argument makes the barest sliver of sense. But at age 18, you could have left the country and renounced your citizenship.

     As you are 25 now, you chose not to leave. That’s your consent to the laws.

145. @142 Actually, he did engage your idea. He challenged the accuracy of your impression of lawless and frontier societies. He did so in a Fnarfian way, but c’est la vie.

     I notice that you have so-far ignored the question of why, both now and throughout history, ungoverned regions are ruled by violence, poverty and suffering, while modern nations such as Sweden, with the “largest” governments have reasonably strong economies, and reportedly the highest quality of life measurements.

146. @ Unpaid Intern,

     I can point to a dozen countries that successfully implement a high-service, high-tax model which produces longer lifespans, lower incidence of disease, greater educational attainment, satisfactory quality of life, and on and on and on.

     I challenge you to name one–one!–that reflects your beliefs and provides anything resembling a decent quality of life. The user fee model has never and will never work due to the free-loader factor.

     You cannot name a country because it does not exist. Your anti-sanity beliefs are a fraud–a narcissistic and sociopathic cop-out.

147. @148, he wants Sweden but with spurs and chaps and all.

148. Matt, it’s put up or shut up time. The opportunity for you to start the society you dream of is available. How hard are you willing to work for it? Are you willing to put in the labor to make it happen? Willing to start from nothing? Without any handouts or piggybacking on existing societies based on government coercion? Or are you just a utopian philosopher without the courage of your convictions more interested in the debate than your ideals? Roughly 70% of the planet’s surface is available to you. Yes, resources are few, but if you are able to devise a way to use those resources to create goods that other people will trade for, you can live in your coercion-free, self-reliant society. So, are you willing to live your beliefs?

149. And let me add to myself at @147, your passport and your need for a second language is totally irrelevant. You could have, if you’d wanted to at all, gotten into Canada without a passport or the need for a second language. There’s plenty of space into which to vanish in Canada. Why didn’t you? Seriously, why didn’t you do this? And in what way is that active exercise of free will not an implicit consenting to the laws of the country you chose to stay in?

     Also, I’d like to hear your specific answers to @144 and @145.

150. Might makes right is not the society in which I choose to live, personally.

151. No one is obligated to follow the orders of private security officers. They “protect” you. What if my firm does not like you and your firm and has bigger guns? If you want societal laws then society must collectively enforce them. Otherwise laws are just suggestions. And when children are molested they are entitled to justice. Payment to the family and shunning is measly and to suggest that is enough is immoral. No prisons. Ok, when a molested kid is strong enough they get to take revenge even if it means taking out a few employees of the molester’s private security firm. That’s reasonable.

152. would it be better to have 2 or 3 world governments, or thousands of sovereign, differing micro states in the present future? seattle as one nation, bellevue as another?

153. @151, of course he’s not willing to live his beliefs. If he were, he would have already left this country for – for example – the Canadian north, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation (over an internet developed largely with money from the government).

154. The reason for people saying “it’s an age thing” is because, well, your viewpoint is generally held by young people. I am close in age to you, and I held many of your viewpoints (not to your extreme, but damn close) when I was 17-24. After living (not just vacationing) abroad for 4 years, paying for services (both private and public) my viewpoints have changed. We could compare passports, I guess, but many people who travel go to nice places and only stay for a week or 2. I am talking about living abroad, or at least staying abroad for a while. And at the very least visiting a very, very poor country with limited government. Maybe you have done this, I was postulating that you had not.

     And If you read at the end, I say that maybe your viewpoints won’t change, but in my experience (and I would argue most people here on Slog have a similar one), as you get older these extreme viewpoints change/mellow.

     Also, since you did not address them, I am going to assume I was correct about 1, 2, and 4 of my original post.

155. @129: I can only conclude that you’re pretending to misunderstand my question. I asked for an example of a system of property that worked without force. You offered no such example.

     Initially you claimed that your opposition to government sprang from a dislike of violence. Now you seem to be saying you’re all in favor of violence to defend your property, provided it is committed by your paid employees (presumably paying agents to commit violence by proxy on your behalf falls under your rather loose definition of “self defense?”) How is this any different from saying that whoever has the resources to employ the most dangerous thugs gets to make the rules?

     When you say you are opposed to violence it creates the impression that you are adopting a moral position, but then you abandon this opposition the moment it threatens the rest of your ideology. I can only conclude that the elements of your ideology that you do not drop like a hot potato at the first sign of cognitive dissonance is what you truly believe, and these can be summed up as follows: “Keep your hands off my stuff. It’s mine and you can’t have it!”

156. @127, 128 — This guy is my friend. We can be communards together!

     Yes, you two run off and rape women together.

     @139 — Hello, troll. How is it under the bridge?

     Catalina has exhibited more sense and reasonableness in YEARS of commenting on Slog than you have in all your inane ramblings here. And you claim to have put more thought into this? You don’t even recognize longstanding commenters. You are a fucking liar.

157. I appreciate your views, UI. I never said I wanted you to live like me (back at 67 and 97). I just said how I wanted to live.

     And yes, I am lazy. I don’t want to sweep the streets in my neighborhood or pick up everyone’s litter. I don’t want to feed the homeless or change their diapers. I don’t want to pay 100 bills a month. (Count the services the government gives you in return for stealing your money – you’ll end up paying more bills than that, just on the services you’d sorely miss. Assuming you live in a city. Which, um, you do.)

     So it’s cool if you don’t want to live like me. But then, it begs the question, why are you?

158. I’m curious what you think – what you apparently wish – would become of the orphaned, infirm, mentally ill, and otherwise, through no fault of their own, badly disadvantaged in a government-free libertarian paradise.

     Because as far as I call tell you either haven’t thought that far – perhaps you can’t see over your towering, gleaming walls of entitlement? – or you have a positively psychopathic lack of empathy and social responsibility.

     If this has already come up in the thread, well… hell, “tl;dr” was invented for just such situations.

     But at least you were well-spoken and didn’t once make an objectionable pun out of “Barack Obama.” That’s worth points in your favor.

159. @143, What percentage of your parents’ dime filled your passport? I assume that an unpaid internship at The Stranger is probably not going to be sufficient to fund such excursions.

     @158, Proudhon put forth the proposition that “all private property is theft.” While I may not share the sentiment of a good chunk of his work, he does hit the nail on the head with the notion that private property by definition necessitates coercion.

160. @142: Yeah, Haiti is run by a criminal gang that doesn’t care about people. But because humans are humans, you get to choose between “coercive violence” in the form of a system that allows you to go about living your life to the extent that you are free to work to change the entire system itself, or criminal gangs that don’t care about people.

     Pining for some imagined anarchist paradise is about as effective as wishing for powers of flight and invisibility. It’s just not possible given human nature.

161. Idiologues always have no sense of irony paired nicely with a lack of critical thinking skills.

162. I like this post very very much. The logic is deeply flawed, but the argument is smart and passionate, and I am damn glad to see a view point represented here that is nowhere near the mainstream of anything, INCLUDING the liberal group-think of the Stranger.

     Personally I think anarchist ideas are well worth exploring, and I only wish they worked as well in the real world one iota as well as they work in our imaginations. I’m not of the libertarian bent myself – my ideal anarchist society would be something along the lines of the Spanish experiments in the 1930’s which strongly emphasized collective responsibility. Electricity and other utilities were run through worker committees, farms became communes, factories were collectivized and managed by their workers, etc. It wasn’t a tax-free state (people paid into a central pool of funds by region), and it wasn’t a pacifist state (there were MANY enemies of that state and lots of arms) but it was a basically free and well coordinated anarchist effort governed by a principle of solidarity.

     Of course, it all went to hell in about three years for various reasons, some internal and some external. But that doesn’t mean that the ideas are uninteresting, or that the experiment wasn’t worth trying. I want to read more of Mr. Luby’s ideas, and I hope he doesn’t get discouraged too quickly by either the Slog curmudgeons or by the real world.

163. Stop being such a whining hypocrite and move to Alaska already. Did you know that one could homestead in Alaska up until the mid-eighties? So go to Alaska, the last frontier, and make your living in the utter wilderness — with luck you can find a nice corner of some privately owned land where no one will bother you. You’ll keep sounding like a buzzing refrigerator until you do so.

     Alternatively, perhaps isolated parts of the Amazon basin would be more to your liking? You can sail a home-made boat there and then hike your way in.

164. whatever happened to i hate Keshmeshi club USA? guess a revival is in order

165. i can see where a lot of UI’s frustration comes from. i also respect his own personal beliefs on what the most appropriate conditions are for human happiness and peace, even if i dont’ agree with them. everyone has their opinion on this, and i think it’s worth continuing to explore our opinions and possibly modifying them from experience and further research. definitely better than setting things in stone, other than your core values – what comes from the heart. my suggestion to UI (and i have no idea what his circumstances are) is to practice more of what he’s saying. a lot of people are pissed off by his post because they assume he isn’t doing this, and frankly, if he’s living in seattle, he’s not really. get out of seattle. you didn’t get to chose where you were born, but you do have the choice of where you will spend your life, especially now that you are an adult. you could go live off grid (and there are some beautiful places in this country off grid). it IS possible to have a comfortable lifestyle off grid, my aunt and uncle do. see what happens and learn from it. maybe you’re already doing the best you can, but try to go 100%, don’t get stuck in a place whose system disgusts you, and a system you simply can’t avoid by staying here. live by example, i think you have a lot of heart and only want positive things for humankind.

166. @159, that’s a good point – Catalina has kindly schooled the rest of us many times on just what it was like growing up in the midwest, where she’s said everybody just loves to hate the very government without whose immense benefits and subsidies they’d long ago have been forced to flee for the coasts.

167. @142, I have repeatedly engaged your so-called ideas here, one by one as they dribble out, but you aren’t listening — can’t listen, by the sound of it. That’s not ageist, it’s just the truth. Your argument is mush. It’s stupid. It’s uninformed. You can’t just say words like “community” and “frontier” and wave your hand. Just because you’ve addressed a couple of words to a question doesn’t mean you’ve answered it.

     But here, I’ll try again.

     So, it’s your perfect world, and state coercion has gone away, but the guy down the street has been stockpiling weapons and he comes over and takes your family prisoner. Makes you all slaves. He’s got thousands of them. Your answer is “pay a user fee to a private security firm”. OK, great. But the bad guy shoots your private security guards in the head on his way over, because he’s a bigger badass and more heavily armed than they are. Because they don’t exist; all the private security firms already work for the bad guys. You’re a slave, OK? If you try to explain to him that he shouldn’t be using force like that, he just shoots you too without a second thought and finds some more pliable slaves.

     This is a fact. This is what happens. The bad guy always has more firepower than you and zero compunction about using it. In a world free of state coercion, Mexican drug lords gather heads with impunity. Think about that word “impunity” for a minute, and what it implies.

     This was actually the standard operating procedure out beyond the edge of that “frontier” (and for most people within it) for large portions of history.

     Ah, but you think history is stupid.

     These social constructs you wave away so airily were developed over many hundreds of years specifically to address this problem. The government’s primary function is, in fact, to PROTECT you from violence. Governments exist to secure you your rights. All the rest of it, the taxes and regulations and roads and drivers’ licenses and libraries and even state liquor stores are part of that imperfect process.

     And for chrissakes, Rothbard, are you fucking kidding me? Von Mises? There is nothing so tiresome in all the world as a fool who’s read a little bit about The Austrian School. That’s WORSE than Ayn Rand, and equally divorced from the real world. There are legitimate arguments around the notions of personal freedom, state power, and so on, but the Austrian School is not really part of the discussion — and Rothbard and von Mises in particular are just beyond the pale, associated almost entirely today in the intellectual sphere with their neo-Confederate “institute” in Alabama. “Not a racist bone in your body”, eh? That Ron Paul sticker says otherwise.

     John Stuart Mill on the other hand, he’s hugely relevant to college dorm bull sessions. Tolstoy, writer of Adventure Stories for Boys. You’re not being very persuasive here.

     Come back when you’ve read some REAL history. And skip the philosophy entirely; bringing Rothbard into the discussion is taking you further away, not closer.

168. But to engage your viewpoints: no matter how much “thought and reading” you have done on this idealism, it can’t and won’t ever happen. Ever.

     I think that is why people are mocking you. You are focused on an ideal that is so intangible, it is absurd. You fail to grasp simple basic known facts about humans, their behaviors, and how that shapes societies. These concepts have been played out and well documented since humans have been around. You are side-stepping these issues, creating a version of humanity that DOES NOT EXIST. You can’t be that ignorant to think your ideas could work with how human nature is?

     But youth is all about ideals, and pretending that maybe one day you’ll buy an island and make all your own rules, yadda yadda yadda. A more mature viewpoint is taking the best part your ideals, and trying to find ways they can actually be implemented. This is the difference between youth and maturity. Rather than tear down a system in your mind, find an ACTUAL way to fix the system around you.

     Have you read up on/visited this place? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Ch…

     But I digress, I have real work to get done.

169. By the way, I should add that it would be relatively easy to walk to the Alaskan frontier from Seattle while entirely avoiding public roadways. You might have to walk through publicly owned wildlands (since they’re publicly owned, you will most likely be astounded by their beauty, but I digress), but most of the way you could probably use private logging roads.

170. UI, I didn’t know Lindy West was the most commented ever (I’ve never been to SLOG Happy, I wish I could but I don’t live in Seattle or even WA) (and sorry I don’t remember reading about that) but Dan pretty consistently has the most commented posts here. Afterall he is an Internationally Known World Renowned Celebu-gay so it would still be a coup to unseat him even if it’s only momemtarily.

171. Unpaid Intern, do you have Asperger’s Syndrome? I don’t know what else could possibly explain such a twisted view of society combined with cold mechanical indifference to other humans (at least at the age of 25).

     …my Libertarian phase was well over by age 25, though, sadly, the Asperger’s isn’t a “phase”. I think I’m a “big government socialist” now.

172. Crap, that would be momentarily.

173. For the people that have a poor command of the English language:

     RAPE
     1. a. trans. and intr. To take or seize (something) by force (cf. RAPE n.3 1). In early use occas. of an animal: to seize or devour prey (obs.) (cf. RAPING adj. 2).

     UI’s use of the word is completely appropriate.

174. @ 135 aardvark: what in the hell are you talking about? the word “rape” is being used in UPI’s sentence as a verb, a VERB. caps intended.

175. @140 — It’s interesting how your polite society still hasn’t managed to move beyond using coercive violence to achieve its ends.

     There is nothing interesting about it. We are a nation of laws. There is nothing wrong with a level of coercive “violence” to enforce them. If we don’t we will have violent anarchy. In a completely privatized society security firms would also use coercive violence to enforce the laws of polite society on behalf of everyone who is willing or able to pay them, no one else. And private firms like Blackwater would use excessive violence on law breakers and innocents alike, depending on the mood of the hired thug, with no recourse for those who cannot afford to hold the hired thugs accountable, unless of course the violated are well armed, then they can just shoot their way to justice. One follows the laws here and puts into the community pot to have them enforced or they are thrown in jail. But those who don’t like it can escape such oppression needed to prevent much harsher oppression for everyone else around them. They are free to leave. There is no law against that and there are plenty of places to go.

176. Since there is relatively clean air in modern cities thanks purely to gubmint coercion, I respectfully request that Unpaid Intern stops breathing.

177. @172, but on those private logging roads you wouldn’t get far before their private security firms picked you up. Since we live in a society of laws, they wouldn’t just shoot him and hang his body in a tree for the eagles to eat; they’d probably escort him safely to the local authorities.

178. @176: You’re dictionary-correct, but you’re not context-correct. Certain words gain a certain type of weight over time (off the top of my head, see: queer, holocaust, gay, boner) that change the word’s meaning. Rape is definitely one of those words.

179. @ Balderdash @ 161,

     Thank you, thank you, for stating that far more eloquently than I could have.

     I’m especially thinking of children in the state’s foster care system whose parents cannot or will not care for them, how frightening that is for them, and how the state’s social workers and foster families have stepped in and given them a home and, most importantly, hope.

     The total disregard for the less fortunate is why I find UI’s and his ilk’s views so nauseating and utterly appalling.

     And fuck that youth excuse. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but by 25, a person has had more than enough life experience to not be a pathological asshole.

180. @142

     Oh, and Haiti? Haiti is not an anarchist paradise. Haiti is run by a criminal gang that just doesn’t care about people so long as they skim money from international aid organizations. Somalia’s transitional government is the same way.

     uh….anybody out there?

181. @86: people out in the woods abusing their children is certainly awful, but anecdotes don’t make that situation more true than the 15 year old who got raped by a juvenile counselor in a Manhattan Family Court.

     Other countries do have pay for service where we have public service and it works really well. I lived in South Korea for a year and had to buy special trash bags, the cost of the bag was a per use fee on disposing of garbage. They also pay for many of their roads with tolls and swipe cards, a lot fewer potholes than we have in LA (except the 73 a private toll road which is smooth as butter).

     Somalia is an interesting example because a few years ago the World Bank rated the areas that were outside of formal government control as better off in some respects (particularly infrastructure) than those that were controlled by bad government. (Not that I have any interest in living in ungoverned Somalia)

     Afghanistan is another. They have extremely high rates of cell phone penetration, and a semi-formal, opt-in judicial system is being developed where people would conference call in when they can’t reach an actual judge.

     During the Spanish Civil War, Syndicalists controlled Barcelona and had some of the only functioning infrastructure in the country.

     My main problem with the anarchist ideal is as a professor once put it “everything’s great with the anarchists until the communists form a police force, build jails and throw them all in.”

     I’m always late to the flame wars. This one looks like it would’ve been fun. Good luck with the internship!

182. This is my last post before Slog Happy. Meet the man behind the mask at Highline!

     @ 144 — This is a serious question and I don’t have a great answer for it. I’ll have to read up and get back to you. I would say that there’s plenty of instances in which our current coercive society isn’t doing a great job of protecting kids, either.

     @146 — It was a quarter chub kind of day. That stays.

     @147 — I can still renounce my citizenship, but I need to have an alternative. What’s the alternative?

     @148 — I’d say there’s a lot more to Sweden’s success than it’s model of government. It’s a socially homogeneous country with a history of wealth. Social democracy in fact put the country in the doldrums in the 1970s and the Social Democrats are now at their lowest ebb since the turn of the last century in Sweden. So let’s not get too hyped up about that example.

     @149 — “It doesn’t exist, therefore you are not right!! HAHAHAHA!!” How many republican democracies existed when the United States was founded?

     @151 — There are actually some folks trying what you’re pitching–it’s called seasteading. I’d rather stay here and try to win hearts and minds than rough it out on an oil platform.

     @155 — Exactly! Let governments compete for people. Throw open the borders and watch what happens.

     @156 — The internet developed with money from the government that was stolen from private citizens who might have invested in creating their own version of the internet. That was the rest of your sentence.

     @158 — I don’t know how thugs making rules has anything to do with self defense. It’s quite simple. If people attack you or your property, you can defend it. This does not mean you have the right to attack the property of other people–the thug example you propose. Basically, chill the hell out and leave people alone.

     @161 — It’s called private charity. There’s been infirm and disabled people throughout history. For most of it, they haven’t just been thrown to the wolves.

     @Gurldoggie — Great post! I would love for you to go for your worker-run socialist commune. My voluntaryist commune would be happy to trade with you guys and encourage you to do things your own way.

     @168 — This is heartfelt advice and I appreciate it. I’m not ready to make that step yet. I like being around people too much. I do see myself running a subsistence farm deep in the backwoods in my old age, though.

     @171 — Believing in these ideals and striving for them is the only way I can feel morally consistent and satisfied with myself. Maybe they’re not attainable. I’d rather think that they are work for something noble and moral than compromise with something that’s not. And yes, I have heard of Christiania, though I have not yet been there. I think there’s been some crackdown on it, actually.

     @173 — Trust me, I got that answer wrong at Slog Happy trivia. I guessed Dan, too. He is, after all, the guy who told me about The Stranger.

     @174 — I don’t have an indifference towards other humans at all. I love humanity. It fills me with anger to see people hurt, imprisoned, aggressed against, tortured, killed, etc. I just don’t want to realize my beliefs through violence or coercion.

183. I hate Capitalism,
     I resent my comfy home,
     I hate my public education,
     My cash, my car, my phone.

     So when it comes to revolution,
     And social paradise,
     Of course I’ll give up all of these,
     But until then, they’re quite nice.

184. Ah, Unpaid Intern, so you’re OK with vulnerable people being hurt or killed by your inaction (see @161), but collecting taxes to pay for orphanages would be “violence or coercion”. That seems like indifference toward humans to me.

     Also, you didn’t answer my question about Asperger’s. If you don’t know if you have it, you should read up on it. My guess is that you’ve got it, so you might as well understand how it affects you. The more you learn about it, the less you’ll feel like everything that goes wrong for you is because you didn’t “try hard enough” or “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” or whatever. Then eventually you’ll learn it’s that way with other people too.

185. @185, “chill the hell out” is laughably dim advice to thugs.

186. @167 i dont know what the hell im talking about. no harm intended.

     im skipping reading all the threads but im sayin- the problem with the lack of education argument is that, while it may be the only thing missing, there are plenty of highly educated peeps that take the same position as the intern. i know chomsky is a joke among the uh urbane sophisticated, but hes an example. equally fascinating are people on the other end of the political spectrum who are very well educated and can argue point for point. but i dont know what those points are as my points only go so far.

     political viewpoints are often based on personal bias anyway, its very rare someone can be persuaded, except when very young. which apparently is what people are saying.. lala

     i dont know why people are so pissed i guess.

187. quel choc! un anarchiste chez l’etrangere?

     are you a, like, anti-industrialist black block dude? anyways. you’ll grow out of it and that will kinda suck. but not entirely. the key will be when you realize that logically consistent ideology has a terrible track record. Your belief system (whatever it is) is right, logically coherent, indubitably how things should be. But anarchosocialist, Zerzanesquista, or Randian, it’s analysis over experience. Someday, you will dominate someone and force them to your will. It probably won’t even be for a bad reason. I bet you’ll even like it. Welcome to the monkeys, young ‘un. We suck.

188. Oh, and by the way, I’ve been to Christiania. It’s a shithole, full of stinky hippies living in mostly grossly inadequate housing. The place is supported by the semi-legal drug supermarket they run there, which has predictably attracted all sorts of unwanted attention from murderous drug gangs. That, and the fact that a good number of the residents are just scroungers looking for cheap rent, who have cars and outside jobs. Not a pretty sight. I’d predict its imminent failure if it didn’t look like it was somehow going to hold on forever. The authorities want to turn it into condos. They should.

     If that’s what your von Mises Institute gets you, I’ll pass. Man.

189. @185

     I don’t know how thugs making rules has anything to do with self defense. It’s quite simple. If people attack you or your property, you can defend it. This does not mean you have the right to attack the property of other people–the thug example you propose. Basically, chill the hell out and leave people alone.

     Because, when directly asked to give an example of a system of property that didn’t involve violence, you offered up paid security forces as your answer. As Fnarf so eloquently illustrates, this “system” amounts to mercenary armies charged with protecting property, which invariably means the biggest, meanest thugs get to make the rules. There is no system of property where “your” stuff can be protected purely through your own efforts. Nor is there a system where those who restrict their efforts to personal self defense can triumph over armies. It’s not for lack of trying — people have been at this governance stuff for a long time.

     Since violence is a necessary component of any system wherein you get to keep “your” stuff, you are signing off on violence of one sort or another. The case you have failed to make is why your violence-for-hire solution is more humane than a government police force.

     Again: you are not taking a moral stance against violence. You are taking a stance against parting with any of the property you think of as “yours.” It is not, in point of fact, a moral stance at all.

190. So, I grant that within a “voluntary society” such as the Free State Project, child abuse/molestation might be less likely to happen. And payment/shunning might be an effective punishment in that type of society. But you know what? The family clan I’m talking about was also a “voluntary society”. The adults chose to life that kind of life (the kids not so much). The example I gave is not a thought exercise. It happened. And if it weren’t for the government, it might still be happening. As @144, @161 and @182 point out, your utopian ideal doesn’t do such a good job of protecting the powerless and the weak. This is a serious problem with your worldview.

     Your utopian ideal really only works if all people act in an inherently moral way. I probably don’t need to say this, but… that isn’t always the case in the real world. This is why people keep pointing to examples like Somalia — we have real world examples of what people act like with no government. Are there problems with the way things currently work in this country? Of course. But I prefer living here to living in lawless chaos.

191. @185:
     Re Sweden’s history of wealth:
     “Through most of the recent history up to the middle of the twentieth century Sweden was a poor agricultural country.”
     http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/swed…

     Re thugs: So your solution to the threat of warlordism is just to hope people leave you alone? Cause violence and stealing is not cool. OK, good luck with that.

     Re private charity:
     Ye gods, even Dickensian workhouses were taxpayer-funded! And they were an improvement on “free market” charitable “responses”.

     Re backwoods solution:
     I bought the land next to yours for my gang of uranium-mining, meth-abusing cannibals. So, yeah, sorry about that.

192. Poor Anarcho-Libertarians. There be nothing you can do. You won’t be able to leave the country with out the stamp of the beast on you. And god, how will you be able to stay and suffer all these indignities? If only you could convince enough people you’d be able to have like-minded utopia where there is no taxation, and everybody will work for trade… or something… one day after the collapse of this civilization you finally have your chance!

     Look.

     What you have here is the classic fantasies found in the cognitive conflict zone between how the world works and how you’d want it to —IF ONLY— the entire world would change (or have the good graces to collapse) for you.

     It’s Sci-fi, man. It’s a fantasy. What you want won’t ever happen. And deep down you know that. I’d love for a fusion reactor and a matter transporter to be a reality. But our collective Star Trek fantasies are essentially cognitive dissonant derails. The more you feed the fantasy the more you will need it. Out here in the world we have to compromise. Out here in the world the fog of life is filled spectrum of gray areas an no one perspective or way is right all of the time. So we have to navigate the best we can.

     Your entire life you have benefited from everything you decry. And not like most young people you have hit on that one mind blowing idea that lets you point fingers at the man and fianlly play like a victim. A victim in your own head. You want this anacrho-libertarian life. Go live it. Have the strength of your convictions. Quit whining. Find a way and do it. People that do… and there have been a few… I respect. But they don’t bitch with such petulance. That’s how you can tell the real deal from the poseurs,

     But you never will. You stay here and whine till you give in and be another privileged white guy who may occasionally blog about the injustice of the man.

     Basically your entire life philosophy will be to bitch at the the rest of us who will be doing all societies heavy lifting for you.

     Your welcome.

193. This post is actually some of the best writing to be found on Slog; although I can’t say I agree with most (actually, any) of what you’ve written, the fact it is it was a good read. Post more, please.

194. This has been most entertaining.

     And also, and no offense to UI, it’s been, uh, very nostalgic for me.

     Dude, your heart is in the right place (“It fills me with anger to see people hurt, imprisoned, aggressed against, tortured, killed, etc. I just don’t want to realize my beliefs through violence or coercion”). Your head will eventually catch up, trust me. Life has a way of grounding our ideals in reality.

195. Q: How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division?

     A: None, obviously market forces will take care of it if there’s a need.

196. Has Unpaid Intern met Charles yet?

197. I love this unpaid intern. I feel exactly the same way. I can only be emphatic with my Seattle friends about police brutality and drug laws. Raising taxes, etc,etc I need to pretend to agree. If I disagree, I get more backlash than I feel is appropriate for an interesting conversation (point in case, these comments). I think the only time people from the PNW are full-on aggressive is when they’re discussing politics. And the fact that group mentality stresses this rude backlash is part of the problem because it’s a group problem and it needs to be solved by the group (not the corrupt group representatives/decision makers). The government, an unaccountable entity, gets to take people’s money and distribute it how they see fit. I don’t remember ever agreeing to anything. He’s right, the only reason I follow the laws isn’t because I choose to, it’s because I have to. And I have to because I was born in this society. Not because I believe in it. The ideas he discusses can’t be discounted as they’ve never been attempted in a non-half-assed manner.

198. Re: Renouncing your citizenship; I hear Costa Rica is nice and friendly to NorteAmericos fleeing the Federal Government. There are plenty of former Soviet bloc republics that won’t care about your past either. Or Somalia, which doesn’t actually have anything approaching functional government. Or you could pull a Bobby Fischer and hide out in the South Pacific. Parts of Mexico have no functioning government right now. There are plenty of places to be anonymous from the local government if you just had the stones to go there and try to survive. If you actually had the courage of your convictions instead of the unfocused hormonal rage of youth you would be gone by now.

     Don’t pin your hopes on New Hampshire; even if it goes totally teabag you wouldn’t escape the consequences of the Constitution.

     Libertarianism is politics for sociopaths, but you have to go where the sociopaths rule to truly live it.

199. ha,
     ya gotta “love” how this guys douche factor is presented as slightly less than equal measure to his lack of understanding and basic decency .

200. On Ayn Rand: only people who don’t have a fucking clue what Objectivism is about would draw the comparison between this guy’s views and Rand’s.

201. Sorry, I got through maybe the first 70 comments before I tl;dr’d. So forgive me if this has already been said.

     Like many people who hold extreme and unreasonable opinions, Matt Luby seems agreeable and reasonable because there is no situation he is ever likely to encounter in which his extreme and unreasonable beliefs will be put to the test. This enables not only his genial interactions with those fellow citizens whose tax-enabled positive freedoms he despises, but his ability to be the “trojan horse” figure in social situations that he so prides himself upon.

     Matt, when you can learn to live without the respect or support of those whose work makes your own work and livelihood possible, only then will you have earned the right to scorn that respect and support.

     Back at 47, you said: “How can I point to a counter-example when I am prohibited from creating the sort of community I want?” You’re missing the point. People are pointing out that the sort of “community” you want violates the most basic laws of reality, and has no way of dealing fairly with competing interests or of using surplus resources in a way that actually enriches either the community or the individual. Whining that you don’t have any examples because of The Man or whatever is making everyone else’s point for them, for free.

     Anyway, you seem nice.

202. UI said, “@147 — I can still renounce my citizenship, but I need to have an alternative. What’s the alternative?”

     I suppose it’s possible that you meant, “what’s my alternative citizenship?” But that’s a ludicrous and irrelevant question; so much so that it amounts to a troll. Renouncing your citizenship is completely beside the point of my post, which was asking – you can leave the US, so why don’t you leave? Three paragraphs down you answered this question directly:

     “@151 — There are actually some folks trying what you’re pitching–it’s called seasteading. I’d rather stay here and try to win hearts and minds than rough it out on an oil platform.”

     Of course, there are a hundred places ON LAND around the globe that you could drop off grid and do whatever you want. But apparently those places are also too hard to live in.

     So to review: by your own admission, you could leave, but you’re choosing to stay here. You haven’t disputed the simple statement that when you choose to live in this country, you have unambiguously consented to its laws. Your statements to the contrary are trolling, whining, and selfishness.

203. @Repunzel

     “The government, an unaccountable entity, gets to take people’s money and distribute it how they see fit.”

     What’s your alternative? Be specific, explaining how your alternative will be different in practice than “government” (or “corporation” – good luck with that) and how it will protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority – the same protection that allows you the freedom of speech to spout nonsense like this.

     “I don’t remember ever agreeing to anything. He’s right, the only reason I follow the laws isn’t because I choose to, it’s because I have to. And I have to because I was born in this society. Not because I believe in it.”

     Like UI, you can leave the country. You are, every day, choosing not to leave the country; this is an unambiguous consent to the laws of the country. That’s the simple fact of it. If you’re not okay with the simple fact that you HAVE consented to the laws of the country – if you don’t “believe in it”, that is, in the society of laws as a whole – you should leave the country.

     It’s really just not that hard to understand. If you’re still here tomorrow, then you have admitted that you are following the laws because you choose to.

204. @ Unpaid Intern,

     I’m still waiting for you to name one country that follows libertarian principles and actually functions.

     Tick frickin’ tock.

     P.S. You got served.

205. UI seems your debut has been nothing short of a big hoopla.
     the gang’s all here slogging away, nice family unit I’d have to say.
     seems though the sorties they have run at your words has left them no real ammo to shoot at your real message presented of less government, less, police, less life interferences.
     guess the mice just like running along on Life’s the Little Wheel.
     anyway, i for one pay lots of taxes and can certainly operate a motor vehicle without a license in my pocket. so, i too would embrace a tax break (so i could decide how to invest the money) and, a few less regulations and police states.

     Why don’t you have a SLOG OFF with all who dare to out slog the new UI.

     do say there are a good few smart fellars in here.
     GAME ON, Go UI !!

206. Because no vulnerable population has ever been left unsupported by private charity. It’s not like there are ever entire segments of humanity – be they races, genders, religions – who are ever unpopular with the part of the populace that have all the resources, right? It’s not as if any needy groups who weren’t trendy or charismatic were ever ignored instead of succoured, right? Not as if, without a certain amount of obligation or even coercion, there is an almost universal human tendency to turn away from any need that isn’t immediate and personal and pretend someone else will take care of it? Right?

     It’s not like “scary” mentally ill people are ignored on the streets right now because the Reagan administration shut down state aid for them, right?

     You’re overprivileged and underexperienced (and I’m not being “ageist” because you’re not much younger than I). That’s not really your fault, but the resultant blind spots have still led you into an ethically untenable position and a host of logical fallacies.

207. Okay, I too read the first 70 or so, then skipped ahead to the end.

     UI’s basic position, that all laws are predicated on violence, isn’t really libertarian. Or it’s not exclusively libertarian. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman basically believed the same thing. As far as that goes, the model he’s implicitly proposing is closer to pure theoretical anarchism than it is to libertarianism. I suppose the place where his model breaks down — and the place where libertarianism always runs into trouble — is the question of private property.

     If he believes that the only valid laws are laws he consents to, there can be no private property because it will inevitably occur that two people who have consented to different legal systems will end up laying claim to the same property under their separate regimes. This leads, ultimately, to the conclusion that private property is unworkable and, therefore, that all property is theft. In which case UI is firmly in the anarchist camp. If, on the other hand, he believes that private property should be the only universal legal constant, he is applying a double standard, insofar as the laws defining and protecting private property, like the tax laws he’s so offended by, are necessarily predicated on violence. In that case, he’s in the libertarian camp.

     The only real problem I have with libertarianism is that, taken to its logical conclusion, it ultimately leads to feudalism; once all the land is owned, those born into the new totally-privately-owned world are effectively serfs who can be forced to pay everything they have just for the privilege of taking up space. From there, it’s really just a matter of time until someone starts consolidating holdings, and then things are silly and bad.

     Anarchism, of course, has other problems.

     Ultimately, he’s wrong about the United States. It is a voluntary society, and one way you can tell that is that people who don’t want to participate in it are in the process of dismantling it. They’re turning off the taxes and cutting back on programs and, if they don’t loose their nerve, eventually they’ll have pretty much eliminated all levels of government.

     I actually had a lot of the same thoughts as UI, a very long time ago. The thing that got me going in another direction was to ask what kind of society I would want to create, if I could build the whole things from scratch. And I realized that I’d want one that had freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. I’d want one where everyone got to vote. I’d want one with leaders elected from among the people. And so on. The one we have is pretty much the one I’d want, just with fewer stupid assholes in it. So I’m working on that.

     As to UI… well. Good luck to him, I suppose.

208. what a bunch of dickhead knowitalls

209. FIRST!!!

210. Unpaid intern possesses much in the way of “bad taste.” People like him much like the idea of living within a community, minus the whole community portion of the deal; would he hunt for his own food? I’d much like to see a bear eat his ignorant ass when all sense of community is dead with the rise of libertarian politics. Much as I am an antisocial man, I must nevertheless acknowledge the importance of communities, and in some ways–the bigger the better. If humans do not pool their resources (and taxes are one method of doing that), civilization might as well not exist, and we should return to a pre-stone-age state of existence.

211. 213!!!

212. Oh crap, missed it by 1.

213. Judah – This is pretty awesome: “The one we have is pretty much the one I’d want, just with fewer stupid assholes in it.”

     Isn’t that really the problem with any society (real or hypothetical)? I mean, I think that so many of us reacted to this post because we thought “there is zero chance that this system would work in our country” because of the violent or immoral or unethical assholes. Now, if he had said, this isn’t likely to work on a large scale, but I would like to create a community of like-minded people who have the same philosophy, where we are free from government intervention. I would say, fine, great. I still think that for the type of system he’s talking about, you’d have to screen the people you invite into the community fairly rigorously to eliminate (or cut down on) the assholes. But, yeah, on a small scale, with a good screening process, you could probably create a functioning community with this philosophy.

214. Unpaid intern, have you ever had a partner? If so, you would know that as soon as two people live together a government is formed, complete with laws, taxation, and even some coercive violence, and, most likely, you won’t approve of all those items but you’ll accept them as the price you pay to enjoy the other aspects of the relationship.

     Of course, in a relationship, most of this is probably not written down (unless you are married and there is a prenup) or even formalized. When LOTS of people live together (like, 350 million people, for example), that informal governance model doesn’t work so well, so we come up with imperfect agreements that give us as much freedom as possible while enabling us all to live together in a relatively peaceful manner that lets us keep the things that belong to us.

     You’ll probably never change your outlook, as I actually don’t share the opinion that others have that age moderates beliefs – people are as likely to entrench themselves in their ideas as not. But you can rest quietly at night with the knowledge that the existing system of laws, government, and taxation will all provide the safety and freedom you need to hold and espouse your ideas.

215. 210?! You people are silly. It’s like critiquing a Freshman’s Op-Ed, or first poli-sci paper.

     UI, I love the purity of this exercise. It’s rather green, and one needs to write about the world filtered through a more anarchic set of glasses.

     I find this post adorable, and your responses sweet. I want you to check in in five years.

216. Oh-so-tolerant Seattle’s groupthink summed up ever so nicely with this:
     “As valuable as differing opinions are, this goes way too far.”

217. Seattle’s oh-so-tolerant groupthinky attitude is well expressed with this:

     “As valuable as differing opinions are, this goes way too far.”

218. Someday, you will look back at the tripe you scribbled on this page, and you will feel the urge to slam your head through a wall in the depths of mortification and despair that viewing it will evoke. On that day, I hope you will be kind to yourself, and merely lol at your own stupidity.

219. I have some questions:

     1) There are three houses on a block, which are houses A, B, and C. A and C have private security firms patrolling and protecting their property. Say these patrols are active and frequent, and visible. These security patrols would obviously reduce the risk of theft for all homes on a given block, meaning that A and C convey a positive externality to B. That is, B benefits from security without paying for it, and if B were to pay the costs would be lower for A and C. Have you given serious thought to this problem, and do you understand why it is a problem?

     2) You say that the government has a monopoly on “legitimate” violence, wish is probably true. Is a free market of violence a superior outcome? Should property rights be determined by whomever controls the most violence? That is the most obvious outcome when property rights are privatized, and is exactly what happens in areas where government is weak.

     3) Say someone takes robs you at gunpoint and takes your laptop away. Replacing the laptop would cost $300. Investing the theft and arresting the man would cost $2,000. Would you pay for the investigation, and why? (I would assume it’s unlikely the same man would rob you again.)

     4) What method do you see for enforcement of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights or patents?

     5) You really cannot provide a great answer for what happens when someone molests a child. He is shunned by the community… by whom? By a contract? But contracts cannot be enforced without violence

     6) Would you expect a society like yours to have superior or inferior economic growth compared to a society governed by the rule of law? I would expect vastly inferior because of the serious property rights and contractual problems,

     7) What would be the consequences for me simply murdering a child molester? Who would pay for my detention if everyone thought I was a hero? Oh, and what if the accused molester was innocent?

     8) What prevents your free society from being run by violent gangs?

     9) Why do you think people have historically organized themselves by governments?

220. @184 — “people out in the woods abusing their children is certainly awful, but anecdotes don’t make that situation more true than the 15 year old who got raped by a juvenile counselor in a Manhattan Family Court.” Rock on, sir!

     @187 — I don’t have Asperger’s. I do know a couple of Aspies, though. Good people.

     @192 — This is getting tiresome. Ideally, the knowledge that violating your neighbor’s property would come at the expense of you meeting his private security company, you would rely on either morals or cost-benefit analysis to decide against it. There is some threat of violence in this system, so maybe you’re right about property. I’ll concede that.

     @195 — God, this is a stupid comment. Clearly five-year-old me should have made a principled opt-out of the public school system due to my voluntaryist principles. Hell, one-year-old me should have refused to travel on public roads. WHOA THERE, BUDDY–YOU BENEFITED FROM SERVICES!! NOW STFU!!! This is good argumentation?

     @ 196 — Awesome person spotted!

     @ 197 — Somewhat patronizing but still awesome person spotted!

     @ 199 — I have said hi to him once or twice in the hallway. I would like to meet him some day, though. I rather enjoyed “Zoo.” I also read that he led a Marxist thinktank at some point.

     @ 200 — I like this guy!

     @ 201 — I don’t know what former Soviet bloc countries you’re talking about. I do have an area studies degree for that area, so tossup goes to me. The Costa Rica thing is more interesting. The thing I find most entertaining about you and all the other love-it-or-leave-it people is that you assume that I have to leave because I don’t agree with you. You’re the one telling me to leave. Couldn’t I just as easily tell you to leave?

     @ 203 — This is one of the BEST comments in the thread. Thank you.

     @ 205 — If I could be in Switzerland right now, believe me, I would be. You sound like someone who has never tried to emigrate abroad and actually have long term residency and labor rights in your destination country.

     @ 207 — I still can’t tell if you’re kidding or not. Maybe it’s in part BECAUSE I can’t cite a single country that follows voluntaryist principles that I believe strongly in advocating for these ideas.

     @ 210 — I like that this commenter realizes I am not much of a libertarian and much more of an anarchist. I would rather hang out with Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin or any number of left-anarchists before some libertarian suckass like Milton Friedman. What I don’t like is your idea that the United States is presently any sort of voluntary society. Yeah, right. Cutting back on programs? Really? Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic, buddy. Cutting back on programs would have to mean the wholesale scrapping of federal agencies before I even blinked.

     @ 213 — Remember the part where I said I enjoy community life? It was probably in the first 50 comments or so. But nice straw man.

     @ 216 — One of the most encouraging posts I’ve read in this thread. Hey commenters, look at this person–she approached things with an honest and open mind and tried to actually understand what I was saying and didn’t just obsess over straw men and conflation. I like you, Julie in Eugene.

     @ 219 — Funny!

221. @ 222 — 1. This is the free rider problem. Yeah, it sucks. Not much you can do about it except bug the guy to stop being a deadbeat.
     2. I don’t like violence, government or market-based. The difference is that violence does a whole host of awful things right now and we think it’s legitimate because government did it. In a market of violence, none of the violence would be seen as legitimate, which hopefully would eliminate some of it.
     3. Definitely just buy the replacement.
     4. I’m 100% opposed to patents and 99.9% opposed to IP. The 0.1% of doubt only exists because I haven’t finished reading up on that issue enough to be completely certain.
     5. The community says get out and refuses to trade with him. It’s quite simple. There was an article on shunning in Bali in the New York Times just this week.
     6. Doesn’t matter to me. I just want moral economic growth.
     7. If the accused molester was innocent, I guess you would have to settle up with his heirs. As far as killing him vigilante-style, we’re talking about a voluntary society, so I don’t think that would happen. If it did, I trust people would have to follow their private legal standards at expense to themselves. And even if things went totally haywire, it’s not like the present criminal justice system is awesome by any stretch.
     8. Mutual defense, secession, morality.
     9. Governments are convenient. They are like an idiot’s guide to life. People seek imperfect security over perfect security, I guess.

222. 225

     I rule!

     oh, i should say something snarky and profound…uh….oh yeah!

     There is a form of government that doesn’t use taxes to fund services. It is called Communism.
     Doesn’t really work that well though.

223. It amazes me just how much vitriol and nastiness spouts from Stranger commentators sometimes when someone fails to march in the lockstep of everyone else’s opinion here. Flame wars must be a hobby.

     UI, I think the person who suggested that you travel around the world some (wish I could remember the commentor but I’m not sifting back through 200+ to find it) building houses and learning the world a bit was probably right. Dont’ know if you have the resources to do it but it will do a great deal for your world view.

     And to all you “oh you’ll grow out of it” folks in this thread, maybe if you’d formed pretty much all of your understanding of politics and political systems in the last twelve years, you might very well have a “wash my hands of it” attitude such as this. Context. Good thing not to ignore.

224. @223

     In a way, it’s kind of more depressing that you’re an anarchist. A commitment to doctrinal anarchism is one of those things that can really only be maintained if you’re very young, slightly stupid, or at least a little crazy. I know that’s condescending, and I wish there were a better way to put it. I probably spent about four years taking the idea of anarchism really seriously when I was both young and stupid. I don’t want to say that it’s romantic or impracticable, because that’s not really the problem. The problem is sort of the thing I alluded to when I talked about the government I’d want if I were starting from scratch.

     I mean, I see where you’re going here. A critic of Emma Goldman’s once said that, in a way, Emma Goldman was the most religious person he’d ever met because she believed in the fundamental goodness of humankind. Her assumption, that a society without any sort of coercion would or could function in a way that would be moral in any meaningful sense of the word was, necessarily, an article of faith.

     And again, I don’t want to say that she was wrong. Not because it’s not true, but because that’s not really the point. The point is that most people like rules. As you say, governments are easier — though I disagree with your dismissive estimate of why governments are easier. My observation is that collective action creates a bargaining surplus that makes it attractive. Once collective action is part of the economy, people like to have rules in place to govern it so that they can make decisions about the costs and benefits of the collective action without having to account for interpersonal variables. But once you go down that path, government and coercion, of one sort or another, are not far behind.

     I mean, look what’s happened to Burning Man over the last 20 years. And those people consider themselves raging anarchists.

     So then the question is just, what rules do you want in place. And that’s the part you’re just going to have to learn on your own. You can’t really understand how good the U.S. Constitution is until you follow a number of other ideas to their ultimate conclusions, and my impression, based on what you’ve written here, is that you haven’t had time to do that yet.

     PS – I think you misunderstood my comment about cutting back services. I wasn’t suggesting that the cutting of services was corrective. I was suggesting that it was indicative of a desire to sink the boat. The Tea Party constituency basically wants to dismantle all levels of government in the United States, one statute at a time. And they’re having some success at that (at least in part, ironically, because of the efforts of George W. Bush). As I said — if they don’t lose their nerve, I think you’ll be looking a much less cohesive nation 20 years from now, and possibly devolution in 50 years. But I think they’ll probably flinch before that.

225. @224, re: 5

     I don’t get the impression that shunning in Bali has been successful… The article emphasized how a weak national government enables mob rule locally. The man’s grandchildren don’t receive medical attention because he ‘slighted’ the village years ago.

     Regarding your response to 201… people are telling you to leave because you say you disagree with the constitution. If you disagree with a law, work to change it. Every American should be pro dissent and pro progress, but if you disagree with the principles the country was founded upon?

     “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (The good old Declaration of Independence)

     …I think you’re wasting your breath by proselytizing. I thank you for not voting or amassing large amounts of wealth (I presume, unpaid intern at 25), because it means you’re not making a concerted effort to change our system to the one you desire. You have every right to be here, but if you want something completely different then you should go seek it out.

     Feel free to dream about Utopias… but so long as you can’t demonstrate that your system would better protect the minorities from the whims of the majority, don’t tell us we’re wrong for believing in this system.

226. Taxation is theft because it isn’t voluntary, it’s coercive. The coercive nature of an entity with a monopoly on force is the elephant in the room most of you seem to have missed. In a voluntary society, people might well decide to pay for roads, water service, or fund museums … but on a voluntary basis. If you don’t think people would fund such projects voluntarily, then you are acknowledging that government funds these projects under the threat of force.

     Just so that you have a chance to get the ad hominem attacks somewhere near the mark:
     -I’m 39
     -I’m married and have two children
     -I run a business that contributes to the income of several people
     -I don’t believe that anybody but me is responsible for my safety or well-being
     -I think that people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they harm no others in doing so

     🙂

     KM

227. When you get tired of the abuse from all of the (un)freethinkers on the Left Coast, we’ll be waiting for you here in NH… all of the above comments are perfect examples of how ‘diversity’ isn’t really respected, how ‘independence’ isn’t really respected, etc…

     If any of you are of like minds, NH is the place to be. Be a free state porcupine!

228. 1st!

229. Libertarians and Conservstives are so touchy: Whenever you question their peculiar philosophies, they start acting like sullen teenagers calling their parents out on what they see as “hypocrisy”. They seem to think that life is one big 70’s era After School Special, where we are all supposed to fawn over them and their Terribly New Message.

     I’m tolerant of everyone, even cheapskate freeloaders who act like they are “self made”, and present themselves as victims as an excuse for not paying their societal dues, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call them on it.

     And really, unpaid intern, the best you can do is call me a troll? What do you think this is, R Place on a Saturday night? If you are from the Midwest, you are from subsidy land. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you don’t try to claim your from pioneer stock. That boat sailed years ago.

230. The state will be obsolete.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTN…

231. UI, your response @223 to my comment in @205 was so perfectly irrelevant that it is now entirely clear that you are not interested in an honest discussion.

     Whether that’s because you are a troll, because you are blinded by your ideology, or because you are dumb as a rock, I can’t say. But it is certainly one of those things. If you can’t understand that you were being non-responsive, then it’s the last.

232. Keep up the good work, Matt. Let’s sum up these awesome statist arguments:

     1. You are so young and cute. When you finally grow up and experience life, you’ll discover the benevolence of government. This argument really engaged your ideas.
     2. Since you object to the coercive nature of government run roads, public education, public utilities, etc., you clearly don’t want roads, education, water, etc. And you clearly want to live off the grid in Alaska, Maine, or some other backwoods area. A good logical argument.
     3. You have Asperger’s. This may be the most convincing.
     4. The government driver’s license keeps unsafe drivers off the road. This argument is true because the licensing test is very difficult and I’ve never seen any car accidents.
     5. Because you advocate for a society in which individuals interact on a consensual, voluntary basis and no individual is robbed or coerced by a violent monopolistic gang calling themselves government, you are a selfish asshole. If this is coming from someone in the gang, then you have to agree, it is very selfish of you to not hand over your property to said gang.
     6. You are an extremist, therefore I will dismiss your beliefs. Another solid argument.

     I could do more but these are all so convincing. I look forward to your next article entitled “Why the Stranger is right about everything.” Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, Mr. Luby.

233. too bad the brain trust here doesn’t like you. You really make some excellent points that are clear to anyone who chooses to believe that life shouldn’t include using force on others. Most people believe this, then they turn around and claim that they own the roads, the airports, the schools. Seems to me that if you own something, you can do as you wish on them. That simply isn’t possible here.

     Your article was great, except for the ridiculous editors note at the beginning. If you ever decide to move to NH you would be welcomed with open arms. Some people say they’re free and some people (like those who are a part of the FSP) really mean it.

     To be free, you must allow others to be free. There you go peanut gallery.

234. Caught up in his own importance. “I didn’t sign a constitution. I was just born here.” How old do you have to be before you realize some circumstances just *are*, and you don’t get a say in it?
     Tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmills, and anarchy is doomed to fail. Always.

235. I feel you, Unpaid Intern. I know where you are coming from and the frustration you must feel with the comments from people who don’t understand what your view of a society would look like.

     “Show me where freedom has ever worked! Move to Somalia if you want freedom. Don’t use our services then!”

     The idea isn’t to take our communities backwards to modern-day Somalia. The idea is to advance our current society (where we already live with water, roads, and resources) by making strides towards reducing force.

     UI, your vision of a voluntary society is a much more noble viewpoint than wanting all humans to be equals by creating rules that force us to be so.

236. The comments here say more about the ignorance in society, than any supposed ignorance of the points made by the author.

     As far as I know, most libertarians or anarchists do not advocate forcing their worldview on anyone. Most libertarians and anarchists obey laws, pay taxes, yield for police, maintain their property, and help their fellow man. They do so because they are decent human beings, because they choose to, not because they are forced to.

     The only flaw that I can see is, the libertarians and anarchists are eternally optimistic about human potential, and human interactions, both social and economic. They truly seem to believe that people, if given the free choice, will always make the most moral choice. This does not seem to be supported by the empirical evidence of everyday life, however.

     I do not see any negative effects or harm to society at large by anyone who expouses these beliefs. How are they harming anyone? I would believe that they are making society a little better for all of us by being steadfast to the ideals of freedom and liberty, however naive.

237. “Couldn’t I just as easily tell you to leave?”

     You’d have to enforce it with violence, and I have the Constitution on my side. Since you want to eschew its protection, you have to get out of its house. That’s the simple, logical conclusion of your views.

     As for which former Soviet countries I’m talking about, they tend to end with -stan.

238. this fuckin guy

239. wow! 242 comments. this must be the new record

     its good to see that the unpaid intern didn’t get lynched and burned at the stake at slog happy

240. People’s comments here are hilarious. Accusing the peaceful intern of being a sociopath when the true sociopaths are the politicians that think it’s perfectly normal to rule other people’s lives? That’s rich!

241. Boxcar, sadly it’s not even the record this week. Dan’s SLLOTD on Tuesday is up over 400 comments. I’m not sure if it counts though since about 100 of them are from the same person saying the same thing over and over again and dissing everyone else on the thread for being so narrow minded for not agreeing with their opinions. I quit reading that post at about comment 200.

     But come on now, anyone have anything snarky they need to get off their chest? Anything at all? Come on now, just toss it out there and we’ll see if it flies or just plops on the floor and sticks.

242. To everyone that says “if you don’t like the violence inherent in the system then leave”, I have a short story:

     You are a woman and throw a party. Late that night, a man at the party tries to rape you. You scream at him to stop, but as he pins you down he whispers in your ear, “if you don’t want to get raped then you should just leave.”

     “But this is my house” you respond.

     Strangely, most of your fellow party goers side with the rapist.

243. @219/20 “As valuable as differing opinions are, this goes way too far.”

     Differing opinions are not inherently valuable. The value of contrary ideas comes from either the idea’s actual value or the value of a fresh perspective on existing ideas. Thomas Robb’s white supremicist viewpoint, for example, is utterly valueless.

     A number of people have engaged directly with UI’s idea, considered its merits, and rejected it. To the extent that a pure, theoretical anarchist viewpoint is valuable, I believe its value has been largely exhausted in the above comments.

244. Oh crap, here we go again.

245. If weed isn’t legalized, and soon, more and more of this country’s young people will turn to free market economics.

246. Unpaid Intern…Free State…New Hampshire…may not be as free as you think
     here’s an article for you to read.
     http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/201…

247. @246

     I refuse to engage you on the rape metaphor. It’s got to be some violation of a Godwin’s Law corrollary.

     Instead, let me tell you a short story.

     You and three strangers rent a house together. After a month, the guy handling the bills asks you for $45 for your share of the cable bill.

     “But I don’t watch TV,” you say.

     “Yeah, well I don’t run my heater all morning, but I pay a share of the gas bill,” he responds. “Splitting all the costs is the easiest way, and everyone else seems cool with that. If you don’t like that, move out.”

     “But I like most of the stuff in here. I just don’t like the damned idiot box.”

     “Well then, find some roommates that agree with you.”

     “But most people think I’m crazy! I can’t find enough people that agree with me to afford a house!”

     “Yeah, that sucks. $45, or there’s the door.”

248. And this is why you won’t get DADT overturned before 2025.

     Because you keep adding people like this intern.

249. a bit late to say it, but … @78 ftw.

     (ducks)

250. @239 – I think you give him too much credit, really. If he had espoused his philosophy and then said, look, I know this is unrealistic, but here are some specific examples of how we can apply this philosophy today to make our country a better place to live, then maybe people would have been more receptive (if his examples were logical). But he didn’t do that. Nor did he say what I suggested @216 (i.e., won’t work on a large scale, but I want to start something on a small scale). He may think that way, but his post comes across as espousing only an extreme “no government ever” viewpoint.

     You know… 252 comments and not one use of the words sheep or sheeple and and no mention of Hitler (though 198 flirts with it – totally stealing that joke, BTW). I feel like we’re all growed up…. sniff.

251. Right on, Matt. There’s nothing progressive about using the force of the state to dictate how peaceful people should live their lives.

252. @224 “People seek imperfect security over perfect security”

     I would argue that people seek the best available security, believing that perfect security is impossible.

     Your ideas are certainly noble and Utopian. But they hinge on the idea of all (or at least the /vast/ majority of) people being pacifists with only the politest of ambitions.

     You are accused of being young or immature because such broad idealism rarely survives direct experience that contradicts it. Most people are self-serving to some degree, many are willing to capitalize on “weaker” individuals, and a fair number have no compunctions with using legitimate, physical violence to amass personal power and wealth.

     When you are confronted with the question of how your society would deal with this issue, you have used a string of “I hopes” that violence would be reduced because people would recognize the obvious benefits of voluntary society. Your “I hopes” have fallen largely on deaf ears, because we’ve all had experiences that directly contradict your hopes. Until you can share a concrete method for converting the hearts and minds of the aggressively ambitious, I expect your perspective will continue to be dismissed at best, mocked at worst.

     Personally, I think it would be awesome to live in a castle built on a cloud. But until I can figure out how to make people fly, and for clouds to be solid, I see no reason for the people around me to treat that idea as anything more than idealistic, juvenile fantasy.

253. @ 226 — This is what a fair and reasoned comment looks like, guys.

     @ 227 — I like Judah. Quite a thoughtful fellow. Like Goldman, I do have some sort of belief in the goodness of humankind, but I’m too deeply skeptical to call it faith. As far as the Tea Party goes, I think you’re dead wrong. It began as a libertarian movement. It’s now a more populist brand of the same old GOP. Listen to them–they don’t actually want to cut any of the sacred cows like Medicare, Social Security or defense. They just want to “eliminate waste.” Nothing is changing with them around.

     @ 228 — Again, I’m not really trying to change the country. If you like the deal you’re getting, I want you to have it. But just have it in your community and let me and the people like me have our own community that you don’t mess with.

     @ 229 — Great comment! Hey guys, look–not everyone grows out of voluntaryism and some of us even have paying jobs.

     @ 230, 237 — The Free State cavalry arrives.

     @ 232 — Touchy? Maybe I got touchy after you basically suggested genociding the whole Midwest and South. Plus you’re assumptions are just wrong. I’m from Cincinnati. I’ve never been anywhere near a farm subsidy.

     @ 234 — Darn.

     @ 235 — Funniest comment in the thread? All the people who hate me should read it. This guy just distilled your arguments down to six points.

     @ 238 — This was a useless comment. You think you are much smarter than you really are.

     @ 239 — Debunking the move to Somalia trope. Awesome.

     @ 241 — As for former Soviet countries ending in -stan, I speak a decent amount of Uzbek and know plenty about Central Asia. I think you’ve got the wrong idea. Most of them are repressive dictatorships, though I do have an old professor who always invites me to come live in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

     @ 243 — On the contrary, Slog Happy was fun. I met Will in Seattle, Hernandez, Michael, and a girl called Angelina, don’t know her Slog name. Good times. Will and I had a long discussion about British Columbia. Strongbows were consumed.

     @ 246 — Read this one, guys. Nailed it!

     @ 252 — It’s my pal Will! You think I like DADT, Will? You must have missed this whole thread, then. Although I don’t really understand why anyone would want to be in the military in the first place.

254. unpaid fucks a person up. get paid bitches.

255. @48 — Adrian Ryan called it: “this post will net 114-plus comments. you watch.” Only too conservatively!

     @53 — As an anarchist myself, you had my sympathies until you started saying “create a private licensing board” and “Wackenhut”. That private security firm is implicated in some serious brutality, and little public scrutiny — the scenario where everyone has their own private security would results in (a) frequent mini-wars between the rich, (b) the rise of local warlords, and (c) the security-less poor being tromped on constantly. I’m not all hot for the state’s monopoly on violence either, but the likely alternate sounds like a worse-off situation than we have at present.

     One major difference with the USA (& Canada, NZ, Aus) is that we don’t have a single cultural ethic or the extended family structures which historically create bonds of rules, reputation and responsbility, ensuring social harmony (more or less). As a state where the citizens are bound not by culture but by the “rule of law”, we (apparently) require a publically-accountable group of rule enforcers. Could we universalize violence to every citizen? Teach everyone effective martial arts so that everyone could be their own police person and any thief would think twice before attacking someone in the street? Well, some people cannot perform martial arts, or carry weapons. How do you get around that problem?

     As to “private licensing board” – Private agencies being responsible for the public good have classically run into trouble when they have no public oversight… taking bribes for favors, operating with slack standards, etc. When Michigan privatized their road maintenance to “save money” in the budget, they ended up paying more to the private firms doing the work, and getting crappier roads as well. Look also at the massive privitization of prisons in the USA — what do we have? Prisons run with their eye to the financial bottom line: low-pay for guards, crap conditions, abiding interest in keeping the jails as full as possibly (justice, what?). Ultimately resulting in the “gladiator battles” that were set up at the Corcoran SuperMax facility in California in the 90’s – where guards would set up a fight between rivals, and then shoot the winner from the observation tower. Yay privitization.

     Mutual Aid and Voluntary Cooperation, yes. But as Fenrox @26 said: “tough titties dude, you were born into the game and you have one life, might as well play for a bit.”

     By the way, you have read TAZ, right?

256. @257

     You didn’t respond to @251, and I think that person did a good job both of refuting @246, who you seem to think “nailed it”, and addressing a lot of the other reasons you’ve given for your choice to enjoy the benefits of a coercive society while simultaneously attempting to opt out of it. And it actually alarms me a little that you think @246 nailed anything; the analogy is totally irrelevant to every model you’ve suggested. For example: you haven’t thrown the party. You were born at the party and you grew up drinking the beer and eating the pizza, and now you don’t want to chip in to pay for any of it.

     My observation is that most people who espouse your general philosophy say that they’d live as individuals if all the resources weren’t claimed by the larger coercive system. So, you’d go to a state park and homestead it and live off the fruits of your own labors, but the coercive government keeps you from doing that. This is one of the problems with anarchism as individualism; the implicit notion that access to a frontier is a natural right. But one way or another, all resources will eventually be claimed. When that happens, we’ll have to have rules for how to allocate those resources, and those rules will, as a practical matter, almost certainly have to be enforced by violence of one form or another.

     You can’t address the problem thus created by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming Mary Had a Little Lamb when someone comes to collect taxes from you. If you can’t get enough resources and/or people together to create your own nation, that doesn’t give you a moral right to live in someone else’s collective — the United States — and just pretend you live in your own nation while simultaneously being a free rider on all the positive externalities created by the larger society that you exist within. You can’t be charged for something you didn’t order unless you accept delivery. But every time you use taxpayer-funded resources, you accept delivery.

     As to the Tea Party and them not wanting to cut those programs you mention, they’re actually going to get there by going around to the back door — they won’t cut the programs directly, but if they continue to push a legislative agenda that destroys government’s ability to raise taxes, they’ll end up repealing those programs by implication.

257. You rock, Matt.

     I don’t know how you have the heart to reason so hard with what mostly amounts to an enthusiastic mob of statist morons. When you write your answers, they read “Mwaaa mwah mwah…” LMAO! Well, maybe some of the lurkers can learn something from you instead. On that assumption, carry on.

     One other comment: As you suggested in one of your response posts, we have unfortunate 7 year olds today, even with our paternalistic state to supposedly oversee their welfare. It is only because fathers are generally not predisposed to violate their children, that such crimes are rare, and certainly not because the state is so adept at discovering and rectifying such horrific injustices. It is far more likely that it will be the 17 year old who will be regularly subjected to rape from strangers in the state’s institutionalized rape rooms we call state prisons, because he committed the non-crime of engaging in some aspect of the cannabis industry. But some of our fine socialists will find it easy to overlook these piddling facts, in preference to their rare scenarios they concoct in a vain attempt to justify the aggression of the state.

     Whatever. You and I are involuntary inductees into a Blockian “Murder Park”. These statists enthusiastically justify their own participation, only to eventually complain about the consequences of the game they so heartily advocate. For them, justice has no meaning, and their complaints against state injustice are as meaningful as the rustling of leaves in the wind. In the meantime, justice loving anarchists are forced to endure this criminal system. All there is for us, is to explain why the system is unjust. But they have no interest in this, and they have already won – they should be quite happy and content with things. But they even bristle at the prospect of anyone disturbing their ignorant and delusional bliss. Mob mentality: What a circus.

     BTW, I was thinking it would be cool to meet in person, sometime. Maybe we will. Heh!

     Paul

258. @224 — Clearly you are a young man, and sadly your replies are very short. On the face they are inconsistent.

     To wit: #8
     Q: 8) What prevents your free society from being run by violent gangs?
     A: 8. Mutual defense,…

     …which leads to either a violent gang, or government.

259. UI, which part of the Constitution do you disagree with, beyond the implied threat of violence? I’m genuinely intrigued.

     On the other hand, don’t get me started about Switzerland OR New Hampshire. Both equally reprehensible, in my eyes.

260. @259 – Regarding private security organizations. See Roderick Long’s #4 at http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.h…

     “private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, “I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!” But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, “I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence.” Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can.”

261. @264 – What’s interesting is that in today’s world, more and more people actually do “have the option to switch to a different agency” (well, people in developed countries anyways). People aren’t necessarily “captive customers” of their governments anymore. I could easily choose to go and live in another country that more closely aligns with my views of how government should be run. But I don’t (because being close to family/friends, my current job, etc., etc. matter more to me right now than purity of political ideology).

     You actually could think of the world’s governments as a giant free market – right now, we live in a time in history where you get to choose which government you want to live under (after you turn 18, of course). It would even be possible to choose no government (though, I grant that you might have to live somewhere difficult to do so – the ocean, northern Canada, etc.). The people saying “leave” are really saying, “just like in a free market, you have freedom of choice, why aren’t you using it?”

262. Intern dear, you must try not to be so literal. And you should brush up on the definition of genocide. In any event, I merely suggested clearing the center of the country out -the climate, after all, is horrible and the sprawl keeps taking up the farmland – you’re the one who got all death panelly on us.

     As far as Cincinnati goes, it’s in Ohio, which is one of the many inland states that get back more in government services than it it paid in in taxes. Therefore, you have been subsidized.

     And while you may never have heard of a farm subsidy, the companies you buy your food from certainly have. That’s part of the reason why our food is so cheap in this country. Plus, Ohio is an agricultural state. Those subsidies have a direct financial impact on everyone who resides there.

263. @264 — Interesting point, but I’m not sure I totally buy it. That’s pretty theoretical, so I’d like to see some evidence of that occuring. Whereas in the absence of govenment we do see the rise of warlords and neo-feudal systems of control. In places where govenment is absent, weak, or simply unjust, we find that there is a lot more shooting, and less safety. Lack of safety is also poorly distributed, affecting those without wealth, women, and children to a greater degree than men and the wealthy.

     In this “market place of violence”, physically weaker persons lose out. They get controlled. Or they band together for mutual defence. And then we get another loose army of irregulars, citizen militia, or organized gang/army, or government.

     Now, don’t get me wrong, I think it’s possible to work towards a free society that can band together for it’s own defence and mutual aid in all respects. The Paris Commune came close, but it was not allowed to be a long-term trial, since the state decided to oppress it violently again.

     Another example are the anarchists in eastern Spain who fought Franco’s facism, and remain today running worker-controlled co-operative industry, housing, etc. (cf. Mondragon).

     The main problem is: It’s unlikely that we’re ever going to be able to set up a situation where people can live without govenment, except where governments fail, which (I think) generally tend to be scarier, more violent places for all. Is there a benefit to living in a place with less violence?

     The offensive adventures –and (essentially) fascist protection of corporate power and interests– undertaken by government militaries is hardly desireable. I say we start from where we are, and work to change that. Reduce corporate influence, reign them in, prevent the military from being used for anything except what their public-relations name states they should be for — Defense.

     We can be righteous and pissed about the state of the world as we discover it, growing up into it without having a say. But sadly, it’s not going to evaporate because we think it’s unjust. We have to start from what is, and work towards what seems to be better.

     Isn’t that what people have been doing for centuries? Trying to make things better?

     (That’s what got us into this mess in the first[?] place.)

     One thing I would suggest to Mr. Luby is to look very closely at the instrument of money (specifically positive-interest currency) and how it supports and maintains these forms of injustice he rails against. It may or may not be the “root” of all evil, but it does very specifically encourage abuse and the rape of resources, as well as the state’s use of violence against various citizenry. May I suggest Bernard Lietaer’s book, “The Future of Money”.

264. @251 You are creating a straw man argument by creating a completely different metaphor and then tearing down the new metaphor. The difference between my story about the rape, and your story about the disagreement about the cable bill is VIOLENCE. If you have a roommate and kick him out because he does not abide by AGREED UPON rules (i.e. we all split all the bills equally), that is not violent. I’m talking about being in a situation where violence is used against you, and you say “well, you should just leave”. That is blaming the victim. It’s like saying the woman got raped because she didn’t try to get away. Maybe she could have tried to get away, but that does not make raping someone a moral action. It’s besides the point.

265. @265 — “we live in a time in history where you get to choose which government you want to live under”, if you are a Westerner, perhaps. I guarantee you that its no small matter for someone from, say, Ecuador to get a visa –or harder still, a citizenship– and move to the United States. Or how about the state of Mexican immigration? How difficult is it for someone in China to move anywhere else? Saudia Arabians? Iraqis? It’s not like govenments have opened up immigration to be a total free-for-all. That sh!t is tightly controlled.
     I think your argument is fundamentally unsupportable. Or only applies to a tiny, rather wealthy elite.

266. @265 Yes, people can move from one country to another, but that isn’t much of a choice because it only gives one the option to move from an area where there’s a gang that has monopoly on legal violence to another area where there’s a gang with a monopoly on legal violence. Think of it on a smaller scale. You live on a tiny planet that has two towns. One town is dominated by the Bloods and the other is dominated by the Crypts (sorry for the cliche gang references). One day you say “hey, these violent gangs run just about everything around here. We should try to move toward a more voluntary and peaceful society and get rid of the gangs”, but your fellow neighbors say “stop complaining, you can always move to the other town!” Do you see the problem? That “choice” is really a non-choice. Why would you want to rationalize and legitimize the gangs like that?

267. @268

     I said very clearly that I /would not/ engage on the topic of rape, which I believe is a complete association fallacy to this argument.

     I didn’t tear down any metaphor at all. I provided what I believe to be a much more appropriate one. There are obvious problems, most particularly the fact that nobody in the house expressly chose to live there at the start. I think it still fairly well describes the situation of a now-adult’s options with regard to being subject to US law. As many people above have explained, there /are/ options for leaving. They just all suck way worse than paying a Federal Income Tax.

     I absolutely agree with you that the difference between 251 and 246 is violence. That difference is exactly why I think 246, and its parent, the initial post, are fucking ridiculous to draw a parallel between government taxation and rape.

     Last year, I paid about $5,000 to my 300,000,000 countrymates for various services that the government provided me. Last year, I paid about $800 to my 1 housemate for cable television. Frankly, the latter seems more violent…to my bank balance, anyway.

     If my man is made of straw, at least we’ve got a good dance number planned out.

268. @33- Hang out with whomever you choose, just don’t give him any authority.

269. @271 Taxation is not voluntary, therefore it is necessarily violent. If one does not pay their taxes, men with guns will eventually show up at your door and drag you away. If one were to resist this use of force, one would very likely be murdered by the men with costumes and guns. Try not paying your taxes and you will see the hidden violence blossom forth before your very eyes. All the talk about paying ones “fair share” to an abstract concept like “society” is all a big psychological self deception to pretend that the whole system is not based on violence. I’m here to point out that it is. I’m well aware that most of the people here will fight this fact with every bit of rationalization they can muster to convince themselves that they are not a tool being used and abused for other people’s purposes. Hopefully a few people will wake up and open their eyes because of it.

     How many bullets and bombs do you think your $5000 bought?
     As a side note, the fact that you spend $800 a year on cable for someone else does not lend to your credibility.

270. Ooh, I wish for you that a new rock would boil out from the sea onto which you might perform your government-free experiment. It would be a fun project to watch, and fun to watch as you refine (or reject?) your philosophy (you must at least admit that there would be complications). I might like to vacation there sometime, presumably in an armored car that wanders through this utopia like a safari in the African savannah. I kid, UI, although I would expect the air of fear and desperation to be the driving forces in your “community”, and — like the savannah — I would expect your weaker, your elderly and the young of the needy to be similarly culled from your sight. Private charity — ha!

     You seem thoughtful and smart. I do wish you were younger, though. Your age and the tone of your replies (thanks, btw! You’re a rare slogger, in that, and it makes for a more interesting thread) suggest that your philosophies may have calcified into an hard crust. Those who think you’ll “evolve” are more optimistic than I, my brother (of 35) also sporting a Ron Paul sticker on his laptop. He’ll never change, I fear. Oh god, that sounds patronizing? Sorry. I’m typing this with my thumbs on my little phone, so I’m not gonna take the time to edit.

     Oh, really, good luck on your society, but please don’t build any unregulated oil platforms in waters that share my shores. Thanks.

271. Wow, congrats to UI for provoking a glorious comment thread. Let me say that I didn’t consent to this form of government either. In fact, if you ask me, the government is continually proving its illegitimacy by the actions it’s taking. But I am not denying my current causes and conditions that bring me here. Those conditions bind me to act with certain constraints. For example, I popped up here, I must now deal with the causes and conditions that bring me here. I can leave the system completely and become a criminal, I can move to change the system (from throw it out as a radical to accept it and reform it), or I can not give a shit and go about my day. That last option is harder for Americans to endorse nowadays, I think.

     I’ve been down that road and engaged in the aforementioned stereotypical teen Rand-fetish for a couple of months. Don’t knock people calling your ideas Randian you sound like an Objectivist (and with your rejection of her politics, Anarchist).

     Interesting: you’re denouncing Rand while:
     a) espousing her spurious Statist vs. non-“violent” Individualist, non-Statist dichotomy premise
     b) you’re using her very strange argument that all government actions, no matter context or social contract, constitutes use of force — I’d like to see the epistemological dots connected here to show me how your definition of force is really not a total misappropriation of the term. Also, of course you equate “regulations” with “rape” so I am sure the logic may actually be consistent in that case. Since you used a somewhat troll-ish statement: prove to us that candy tax, regulations and pensions for state workers (no, the lot of them are not filthy rich) constitutes a true violation of you (rape).

     As a side note a heavy reliance on Individualism ignores years of psychology, cognitive science, sociology, and cybernetics research that says social feedback is essential to learning and survival. Also that altruism on the collective scale is what allows rugged individualists to arise and function.

     Interesting thing about so-called frontiers is that “force” and real physical violence become the de facto standard of mediation between actors in that frontier society, unless we’re talking about true leisure societies of certain indigenous peoples that are at root collectivist (and definitely not free of “government”) at least in view from your paradigm. Another question I had while reading and re-reading this: you almost intimated disagreement with the anti-war and police brutality movements? I thought you would have genuine solidarity with them if you’re truly non-violent at heart. [Also, the frontier in the US was plagued with violence, murder, genocide–and so it has been in other places as well.]

     The society that you dream of where everybody is a volunteer and “doesn’t look kindly on [certain behaviors]”–how do they enFORCE their collective dislike of those behaviors in a volunteer society? Private police forces that can be continually sold to the highest bidder? Well, since there is no central government, can anyone really agree on what they don’t take kindly to in your kibbutz?

272. “Oh, really, good luck on your society, but please don’t build any unregulated oil platforms in waters that share my shores. Thanks.”

     Some statist arguments just won’t die…

     http://mises.org/daily/4488?Id=4488

     http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block16…

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quk0tb2qU…

273. Unpaid:
     Interesting ideas. I’ve never thought through your society before, so I have a couple questions. And please forgive/ignore me if they’ve been addressed (I’ll read through all the rest later). I only really read your posts after after post 50 and skimmed others.

     1.) What happens to the poor? Do they get no protection from crime/opportunity to educate themselves/etc?

     2.) If a sick person shows up at the hospital, is he turned away if he has no money/user-chosen insurance/whatever.

     I realize we are not the epitome of success on these issues now, but how are they handled in your society?

     3.) You are against patents and copyrights. How do companies and individuals return their investment on R&D, and justify it in the first place? There are many things that cost millions to research and perfect beforehand (drugs, engines, software) but are super-cheap to replicate, and other items that cost only time. How do authors make money if one copy of his book gets pirated a zillion times? How do they justify writing as a career in the first place?

274. @273

     Please reread 251. The money collection was not agreed upon in advance. The (taxman) came around with a hand out for $45. The other two roommates did not complain, they thought it was perfectly fair. When (you) balked, the (taxman) posed your choice. You can agree after the fact, or you can leave. Presumably, if you both refuse to pay and refuse to leave, the (society) would band together and force you out.

     Again, it’s not a perfect parallel. No metaphor is. But I remain comfortable with it. It certainly feels a hell of a lot more appropriate than comparing the US government to a party full of people cheering on a violent rape.

     If you and UI genuinely believe that this is a moral issue…if you truly believe in your heart that to support the US government or its military is /evil/, is /violent/, is /rape/ then you have a moral obligation to not do so.

     Your $x in tax money bought guns and bombs too. Paying it and remaining a part of the system makes you complicit in the system. I’m not arguing “shut up or get out.” I’m arguing that regardless of whether you shut up, if you remain and support a system that you believe is evil, then you are evil.

     I personally believe that our system does considerably more good than evil, and I do so with open eyes and a solid understanding of the system. I recognize many of the ills present in our society, and I support working within the system to fix it. I have made a reasoned, rational choice, and give my full consent to taxation. If that makes me an evil statist, then so be it. I’ve been called worse by better.

     And regardless of what you think about my financial management skills, those decisions are also made with full consent and awareness of the facts.

275. we’re all fucked! cynicism is the next phase for a real anarchist that gives in. alot of em in seattle of course. its not a liberal city, its a cynics city.

     im not reading most of these threads but most seem to think anarchism is like an alternative to a nation state, which of course cant exist. anarchism can exist in very small pockets with the right people and circumstances. i wish you all the best and immunity from cynicism, UI!

276. @223.

     Bad argument? More like one you have yet to address.

     You have the invisible privilege backpack on. And you want to keep it on… and only complain. Live your principles, take off the back back, or, absolutely, shut the fuck up. STFU until you can contribute something productive and cogent. Or at least original.

     Hey. I’m open minded. You know I don’t care what “ism” will make the world better. Socialism. Capitalism. Anarchism. Whatever. If it means I can happy, mostly moral,self-actualized life then I’m for it. I’d LOVE for you to be right. You prove yourself right (altoether different than saying everybody else is wrong) and I’ll be right there with you on the all voluteer militia, fire department, taxless utopia.

     But all your doing is whining. Judging by all your excuses and pitiful arguments how are we not left to feel that you won’t ever enact a single base principle into action because, in your mind, some evil force will always prevent it? We’ve seen it all before.

     You realize you are hardly the first kid whose mind has been blown by Anarcho-libertarian theory? I read Atlas-Shrugged too. And when I was 12 IT BLEW MY MIND, MAN!

     This theory of yours you will never have to test becuase here you sit in a working, if deeply flawed society, that has done everything for you. Including helping get your ass a cushy internship from witch you can spew on these gubmint tax built InterTubes all your well-worn, well refuted, ideas.

     And, BTW, FYI the forefathers of Anarcho-liberalism movement (if it can be called such) have almost uniformly been privileged, white-supremacist, kooks. So you have to understand having endured this same shit from people (some better and smarter than you) — and watched them ALL fail—if most of us have little patience for upstart theoreticians.

     Get back to us when you’ve actually DONE something. Something not exclusively confined to an internet soap box. I’d love to hear from you when you’ve actually attempted to put your theories into practice for real. That would be interesting. Quit making excuses.

277. @ 259 — You raise an interesting point about the cultural heterogeneity of the U.S. and how this complicates things to some extent. As for the privatization you’re talking about, you’re just talking about privatizing certain levers in the state machine. I don’t think that’s a fair example. I don’t want the whole machine. And as has been said to a lot of these anecdotal cases before, it’s not like the state alternative is doing anything close to a perfect job right now either. Haven’t read TAZ yet–my coverage of the left-anarchists is not yet where it should be. All in good time.

     @ 260 — I pay my taxes, carry my driver’s license, etc. I just don’t like it. This whole argument about me being a hypocrite because I benefit from government services is bullshit, though. Where is the private Seattle bus system? Where are the unlicensed gypsy cabs? Where is the Lysander Spooner letter delivery system? These things don’t exist, oftentimes because the state makes it impossible for them to exist. This is not hypocrisy.

     @ 261 — Paul, if you’re anything like your comment makes me think you are, I’d definitely meet up with you some time. Voluntaryists drink coffee, too.

     @ 263 — How about the idea that it creates a government of implied consent? How about the fact that not all of the states had even ratified it yet when it went into effect? How about the fact that ratification took place in state legislatures and not by plebiscite? How about the fact that 300+ million people who had no part in drafting it and not a chance to sign it are still bound by its terms today?

     @ 264 — This is a post worth reading for anyone confused about private security companies. FWIW, that was one of the hardest concepts for me to get in my journey towards voluntaryism/market anarchism.

     @ 265 — Actually, this is bullshit. People think you can just move to some other country, get a job, and be happy. Nope. More often than not, you have to compete as a noncitizen in a labor market stacked against you to secure a job before you even arrive. Then there’s temporary versus permanent residency. It’s hard. I would have been in Switzerland since 2008 if your fantasyland really existed.

     @ 266 — You’re right, infant me should have made a principled opt-out of any positive externalities derived from northwest Ohio soybean farmers getting subsidies from the U.S. government. I don’t know why people protect you in this thread. Your comments are consistently among the dullest and most worthless I’ve read here.

     @ 267 — Book recommendation added on Goodreads. Money is a convenient medium of exchange. I don’t worship it or hate it.

     @ 273 — Great post. Deadly serious, yet also made me laugh.

     @ 274 — I raise my glass to you, Michael of the Green. You understand me and my fundamentally non-threatening nature well.

     @ 275 — First thing’s first: I have no disagreement with the anti-war or police brutality movements at all. To the contrary, I’m on the far left edge of both. Don’t even get me started on the John T. Williams shooting.

     I still think you’re penciling me into this objectivist camp unfairly. Show me where I’ve done all this praising of individualism, please. If you read the thread, you’ll see me talking about the values of communities time and again. I like being part of a community. I just want it to be a community of people who don’t use violence and force against me.

     Oh, and your “facts” on the “Wild West” are just wrong. It was safer than the New York City of its day. Put down the OK Corral stories and pick up any number of research papers floating online that show that.

278. @ 277 — What a nice, respectful person. I would love to answer your polite questions.

     1. Service providers would find it in their business interest to provide services the poor could afford. Failing that, there are tons of examples, even in our current world, of charitable organizations providing those services for free: Catholic schoolkids on scholarships, charity hospitals, any number of NGOs. None of that would have to stop. In fact, it would probably expand

     2. So here come the charity hospitals again. I know that Catholic hospitals today take very seriously their mission to provide indigent. Even if it was a for-profit market hospital, I think they would probably find it in their interest to provide care now and settle the bill later…dead people don’t become repeate customers.

     3. The cost on R&D for things like pharma was driven sky-high by the FDA. Check out any of Dr. Mary Ruwart’s books for more info on this. The pipeline would not necessitate such a large investment if they got out. Now, as far as authors and artists go, that’s a trickier question. I do know that they didn’t have copyright laws in 19th century Germany and they were publishing like mad. I also know that the Grateful Dead encouraged people to pirate their music and it worked out pretty smashingly for them. As it stands now, the overwhelming majority of musicians, even those signed to labels, are not making tons of money.

     @ 279 — No worries. I’m a pretty optimistic person. I have a great life. Just last night I was walking back from “Enter the Void” at Northwest Film Forum thinking how awesome this city is.

     @ 280 –You really love ad hominems and straw men, don’t you? First of all, just drop the Ayn Rand thing. For the billionth time, she was not an anarchist. She was a minarchist. Get it straight or take your own advice on STFU. Now as for this bullshit about market anarchists being privileged white supremacist kooks, do you really want to tell me that Ludwig von Mises, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Europe and a man who never really had a tenured faculty job, was a privileged white supremacist? Or that Murray Rothbard, a working class Jew who spent most of his life at intellectual backwaters like UNLV, was a privileged white supremacist kook? If you’re going to make a ridiculous ad hominem, at least get your facts straight.

279. @275 – Also, the frontier in the US was plagued with violence

     The violence was perpetrated by your government. Here’s how the frontiers people would deal with it:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEwADbas7…

     Nothing seems to have changed much since then, except that people are more willing to let these armed, costumed, tax feeding thugs get away with it:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_IQDOvp…

280. @281, you’re still at this? Christ.

     YOUR “facts” about the Wild West are wrong, because you don’t count the Indians. The entire West, which wasn’t very wild at all, was a project of cooperation and enforcement between the railroads and the US Army. Not too “voluntarist” there. The entire US west of the Mississippi is built on a foundation of the threat of violence. The actual work on the ground was done by ordinary people in small communities, who, counter to your idiot notions, built governmental structures as quickly as they could. And the Army was always just over the hill.

     And you and your buddies need to be careful about quoting fucking Lew Rockwell. Most of the people commenting on this thread don’t know who he is, but I do. Among other things, he’s the jackass who wrote all the racist claptrap in Ron Paul’s newsletter while Paul himself was drooling into his soup. FUCK YOU PEOPLE.

281. Taller Than You: “How do you expect a society to advance without reasonable taxation?”

     Simple, give people a choice in the matter of whether or not they want to pay for a good. See below…

     Taller Than You: “I’d love to take the time to break down how you have benefited from taxation (your education, the road you took to work today, etc. etc.), but I can’t tell if you’re joking or not so I don’t really care.”

     Benefited from taxation? “Benefited” is kind of a misrepresentation of how those things really came to be and how they operate today…

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aio…

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexMYBkfC…

     http://reason.tv/video/show/gridlock

     http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?…

     http://mises.org/daily/3416

     So how exactly are things like education and roads so radically different from any other goods that they must be funded at the point of a gun?

     reverend dr dj riz: “is this the same child that wadn’t interested in the chilean miner rescue ?”

     http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_lan…

     How government can be given credit for the equipment used in that rescue is beyond me…

     Joe Szilagyi: “How do we get roads and running water without taxes?”

     The same way they were provided before they were produced by force – see the above links on how private toll roads operated, or read the following:

     lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/PdfPapers/Cal…

     http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ratioi/0030…

     http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Road…

     With respect to water, see the following steps New Jersey made after the failure of the public sector to keep things on track:

     http://www.waterindustry.org/NJ-reg.htm

     Green Eyed Beer Slut: “Enjoying having the fire dept watch your house burn down over a missed $75 fee, young man.”

     It’s really stupid to use a government-operated, union-owned provider of a service to get any clear sense whatsoever of what private emergency services would look like. Here’s a better look:

     http://www.mackinac.org/3361

     http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/26/how-…

     http://reason.org/news/show/122159.html

     If you ran any kind of business in which profit depended on minimizing as much damage as possible to your clients house I’m sure you would behave a LOT more efficiently than the system we live under.

     levide: “This is in no way ‘radical’. It’s pure solipsism. And that’s just a fancy word for ‘asshole’.”

     By your standards, people who lived under slavery or in gulags and objected to it must have been assholes too. They too had just as much a right to disagree with conditions imposed upon them as anyone else does in the present day.

     dwight moody: “Anarchists are entertaining.”

     Anarchists are informative – it’s the criticisms this guy is being given that I find entertaining.

     gloomy gus: “I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks. Everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swing set. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.”

     Actually in real life it would probably operate more like any private park works today: pay at the entrance, and the rest will follow. I should also note that private recreation centers such as various theme parks seem to do a much better job at putting a cape on rapists, thieves, and murderers.

     There’s more ignorance to counter momentarily…

282. 281 – peer reviewed links (that aren’t endorsed by some Ludwig von Mises front)? I guess the burden of proof is on you.

     Ok. I’ll bite on the violence thing: was the Native American genocide safer than New York City of its day? 😉 I mean that is the ultimate wild west type thing right? I am sure there are peer reviewed articles and books on that type of interaction. Here’s one, albeit about the problems in Australia and definitely not a direct corollary. I am sure there were made-up/exaggerated American villains (like Wild Bill) to justify certain actions of the state or society but for every myth deconstruction, there’s still plenty accounts of criminality out there.

     Still, would really like to know the equivalence factor between taxation, pensions for those who did their jobs as state workers and rape.

283. Where is the private Seattle bus system? Where are the unlicensed gypsy cabs? Where is the Lysander Spooner letter delivery system? These things don’t exist, oftentimes because the state makes it impossible for them to exist. This is not hypocrisy.

     Sure it is. I mean how, exactly, does the state make a private bus system impossible in Seattle? Answer — it doesn’t, except that it runs a competitive taxpayer funded system that people use instead.

     The mistake is to assume that such a system wouldn’t exist if the state didn’t exist. If you got rid of the state apparatus, who’s to say that the people of Seattle wouldn’t pool their money and recreate it. And if they did that, hey, guess what — it’d still be more popular than the private one. The notion that “the system” sucks all the oxygen out of the room, and that’s the reason you can’t start a fire is just lazy. Using it as a justification for taking advantage of the things the system provides is, in fact, hypocritical.

284. Taller Than You: “How do you expect a society to advance without reasonable taxation?”

     Simple, give people a choice in the matter of whether or not they want to pay for a good. See below…

     Taller Than You: “I’d love to take the time to break down how you have benefited from taxation (your education, the road you took to work today, etc. etc.), but I can’t tell if you’re joking or not so I don’t really care.”

     Benefited from taxation? “Benefited” is kind of a misrepresentation of how those things really came to be and how they operate today…

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aio…

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexMYBkfC…

     http://reason.tv/video/show/gridlock

     http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?…

     http://mises.org/daily/3416

     So how exactly are things like education and roads so radically different from any other goods that they must be funded at the point of a gun?

285. reverend dr dj riz: “is this the same child that wadn’t interested in the chilean miner rescue ?”

     http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_lan…

     How government can be given credit for the equipment used in that rescue is beyond me…

     Joe Szilagyi: “How do we get roads and running water without taxes?”

     The same way they were provided before they were produced by force – see the above links on how private toll roads operated, or read the following:

     lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/PdfPapers/Cal…

     http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ratioi/0030…

     http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Road…

286. With respect to water, see the following steps New Jersey made after the failure of the public sector to keep things on track:

     http://www.waterindustry.org/NJ-reg.htm

     And for nations that don’t have running water, it appears the private sector has begun working on some pretty ingenious devices for those kinds of conditions:

     http://www.ecoloblue.com/technology

     Green Eyed Beer Slut: “Enjoying having the fire dept watch your house burn down over a missed $75 fee, young man.”

     It’s really stupid to use a government-operated, union-owned provider of a service to get any clear sense whatsoever of what private emergency services would look like. Here’s a better look:

     http://www.mackinac.org/3361

     http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/26/how-…

     http://reason.org/news/show/122159.html

     If you ran any kind of business in which profit depended on minimizing as much damage as possible to your clients house I’m sure you would behave a LOT more efficiently than the system we live under.

     levide: “This is in no way ‘radical’. It’s pure solipsism. And that’s just a fancy word for ‘asshole’.”

     By your standards, people who lived under slavery or in gulags and objected to it must have been assholes too. They too had just as much a right to disagree with conditions imposed upon them as anyone else does in the present day.

     dwight moody: “Anarchists are entertaining.”

     Anarchists are informative – it’s the criticisms this guy is being given that I find entertaining.

     gloomy gus: “I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks. Everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swing set. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.”

     Actually in real life it would probably operate more like any private park works today: pay at the entrance, and the rest will follow. I should also note that private recreation centers such as various theme parks seem to do a much better job at putting a cape on rapists, thieves, and murderers.

     There’s more ignorance to counter momentarily…

287. Ayn Rand’s family was hunted by socialists seeking to impose “equality” on the masses.

     Luckily, they didn’t turn out to be one of the 7 million the commies killed while collectivizing Soviet agriculture.

     Socialism, at its very core, requires the use of violence. It is a system of enslavement. Those with the most votes get to enslave the productive for their own desires.

     Socialism, at its very core, is about unbounded greed. It is not the free-market capitalists who are greedy, they work for their money. It is the violent looters of socialism and the fascist “crony capitalists” who are real greedy bastards.

     Not only are socialists greedy, as history shows us, they have no qualms about using violent force to expropriate the wealth of the productive.

288. Ayn Rand’s family was hunted by socialists seeking to impose “equality” on the masses.

     Luckily, they didn’t turn out to be one of the 7 million the commies killed while collectivizing Soviet agriculture.

     Socialism, at its very core, requires the use of violence. It is a system of enslavement. Those with the most votes get to enslave the productive for their own desires.

     Socialism, at its very core, is about unbounded greed. It is not the free-market capitalists who are greedy, they work for their money. It is the violent looters of socialism and the fascist “crony capitalists” who are real greedy bastards.

     Not only are socialists greedy, as history shows us, they have no qualms about using violent force to expropriate the wealth of the productive.

289. Joe Szilagyi: “Let me say this: ultra-all-aspects libertarianism works if you don’t mind the prospect of anyone in society being screwed at any point in time.”

     Open your eyes! Every society will have at least one person being screwed to an extent in some way. Unless Utopia is feasible, the real question is what system screws people the least.

     “He had zero interest or concern for anyone but his and his own and 100% believed that, and felt that this was just since our time here temporary at best.”

     Joe, I’m going to ask a question about this sentence alone because it pretty much summarizes your entire emotional appeal to rejecting what you call the “I got mine” mentality.

     Which is more selfish – the guy who keeps what he earns and lets others do the same, or the guy who refuses to carry a full load and would rather make other people give him what he feels he is entitled to?

290. @Unpaid 282:
     Thanks. I was going to respond with how cheaper protection would be worse in poor areas, but that’s no change from now…

     As far as pharma, you may be right, but it still costs a lot to pay PhDs to mess around with bio or chem for years on end for one product, and once it’s made, most of that stuff is cheap to produce, and easy to reverse-engineer. Software takes thousands of hours to make and a few to hack open and pirate. Who wants to make software, then. Sure you can open-source a lot, but everything? Is that realistic? Research into anything isn’t cheap, and people’s investment has to be protected to make it worth it.

     Or am I missing something?

     I did think of two more in the shower:

     4.) What about public beaches and the environment? I realize I could pay to use that area, but who ever owns it could be selfish and sell it to a developer, or pollute the shit out of it, or kill all the brown-striped flying newts, or whatever, and then it’s either gone forever or the price of clean-up/repair would be prohibitive. All it would take is one lapse for whoever owns it, and then *poof.* Right? I may pay to keep things nice, and purchase from companies that act ethically and responsibly, but I don’t trust the rest of the populace to do so. I think they’ll buy what’s cheap and be myopic.

     I forgot the other one. I’ll come back on that.

291. Unpaid Intern, I appreciate you answering my questions in @224.

     First of all, loudly applauding people for being respectful — and lecturing the rest of the commenters — is getting old. If you say ill-conceived things on a soapbox, sometimes you will face harsh sarcasm and questions about your judgment.

     The free rider problem is a gaping hole that I’d expect you to have a real answer for.

     Gangs certainly ensure the “mutual defense” for those who can afford it (and, I suppose, free riders), but they are still gangs. Sure, the violence of gangs wouldn’t be accepted as legitimate, but if gangs put little value on being thought of as legitimate then that effects their personal incentives not at all. The criminal justice system we have is far better than the alternative of rule of man. It is not perfect, but the system you propose is arbitrary.

     And you’re a writer who doesn’t believe in copyright or intellectual property? You feel that one should hire private security to prevent people from stealing an old pair of shoes from one’s home, but nothing at all should be instituted to prevent someone from stealing the four years I spent writing a novel, or the weeks spent for writers to put together The Stranger? It is inconsistent to talk about strong property rights (i.e., taxation is theft) while ignoring intellectual property. Then again, nothing prevents IP “rights” from being enforced in anarchy. If The Stranger can hire a hitman, I suppose it can prevent me from publishing. And who’s going to hire the army to banish The Stranger staff?

     And you miss the point that no one has a strong incentive to determine whether a murdered child molester was innocent or not.

     The major economics problems I see are 1) transaction costs not at all being addressed by you, and you often assume them to be free or nonexistent, 2) free riders, and 3) property rights enforcement. In terms of general quality of life, the main problems I see are 4) the lack of consistent rule of law, 5) arbitrary applications of violence, 6) the poverty that would come from the dissolution of property rights, 7) the inability to make and enforce agreements without high transaction costs to cover the possibility of having to fund violence, and 8) purchased justice (an oxymoron).

     I don’t think you have compelling answers for any of these issues. I think it is likely that one day you will look back and laugh at the ideas you now have, but it is also plausible that you instead are consistent over the coming years are never truly understand that the seriousness of the problems I outlined in the previous paragraph make your philosophy very intellectually shallow. Certainly you enjoy being roundly criticized and engaging in debate, even though most the challenging questions receive a reply along the lines of “yes, that is a serious problem but the current world isn’t perfect either.”

     I don’t want to abuse the word stupid, because you are clearly not stupid. But it is stupid to feel that you offer a serious alternative to how we organize society or to believe that your extensive reading has given you any ability to even actually believe that an ungoverned society would not give all the power to the most violent, and not even the most rich because no riches at all will exist in a place without property rights.

292. @281

     Well, that’s twice now that you’ve ignored my posts while commending Cubbybear’s utter misreading/misrepresentation of my words.

     Time to cut my losses, put some government-subsidized gas into my privately purchased car, drive home along the government built roads, see if the government-run postal company left me any mail, and enjoy some privately-purchased cable television.

     Good day, sir. I hope one day you get your cloud castle.

293. Proteus: “If law enforcement didn’t exist, who would protect your property from theft? Doesn’t any system of property require a threat of violence to maintain? Show me one that doesn’t.”

     There is none – the threat of violence is as necessary to deter crime in a market anarchist society as any other social system – what we argue however is that a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (e.g. government) is not necessary to maintain an orderly society. If anything government has done far more harm than good over the course of history:

     A. There are at least two different government agencies in the U.S. (Customs and DEA) each of which annually seizes about as much property as is taken in all private robberies (at least as measured by the FBI statistics).

     B. If we include taxation in property seizures, the U.S. government annually takes about two orders of magnitude more than all private criminals.

     C. Governments in general in this century (although not the U.S. government) have killed many more of their own citizens than private murderers. At least 100 million to be exact:

     http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

294. @ Fnarf — It’s nice how you guys changed the parameter of the debate once it started. This little Wild West sidebar began when someone was talking about how a bunch of gun owners were shooting each other up in every little boomtown. Once that became inconvenient for you, you turned it into a question of government-orchestrated genocide against Native Americans. Wait, did you catch that: government-orchestrated genocide. Jesus Christ, you aren’t even making sense anymore.

     And please show me where I quoted Lew Rockwell. I’m aware of his involvement in the Ron Paul newsletters scandal. That’s why I don’t propagate his work.

     @ 285 — Here’s two books for you: http://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Violence-…
     and http://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-E…

     The rape thing….yes, maybe it was an unfortunate word choice. It’s one damn word, though. You are never hyperbolic?

     @ 286 — Are you sure? I know the state shuts down gypsy cabs in New York City. I would guess that the city or county granted a monopoly to King County Metro or Sound Transit or whatever. Oh, and if the citizens pooled their money and recreated the system…well, that sounds voluntary to me.

     @ Will2Power and michael.suede — Whoo, more of the cavalry arrives!

295. boxcar: “drop a token, post on slog… love it damit, i’m out of tokens”

     Then get your own slog. Or find somebody who doesn’t care if you use there slog. If that sounds problematic then just imaging if your whole community block what entitle to use your shit at will.

     Okay so maybe I took your comment a little too seriously… ;D

     Will in Seattle: “by the way, how come the intern hasn’t signed up for two tours of duty in Afghanistan yet?”

     Why would anyone want to subject themselves to involuntary servitude? Especially if it wasn’t necessary to protect his life, liberty, property, etc?

     COMTE: “Just remember to NEVER make use of ANY of the services the rest of us who DO pay taxes get in return for our contributions. I give you roughly 12 minutes before you find this to be impossible for all practical purposes.”

     That’s an expose on why the government is far larger than it needs to be rather than how necessary it actually is. Any service it provides which cannot be provided through free market means?

     Fifty-Two-Eighty: “There’s a word for his condition: Sociopath.”

     Has it really become “sociopathic” to say that people should not be allowed to initiate force against anyone else? I hope that kind of view isn’t commonplace…

     onthequest4peace: “Hopefully, he will grow up some day and realize he lives in a society with both responsibilities and privleges.”

     He already has – it’s the rest of society that needs to realize that they shouldn’t have someone else get what they want for them at the point of a gun – which pretty much sums up how government always operates.

     Will in Seattle: “Get the heck off my roads, stop using my bridges, and don’t you ever dare set foot at an airport.”

     Your roads? Unfortunately none of those things belong to anyone in particular, and I think that’s a big contributor to their mediocrity. But I wouldn’t object to your demand nearly as much if it were legal to privately purchase those things from the state.

296. “You’re right, infant me should have made a principled opt-out of any positive externalities derived from northwest Ohio soybean farmers getting subsidies from the U.S. government.”

     No, of course not. Don’t be obtuse. But you can’t deny that you have benefited greatly from government. Well, you can deny, but you’d be a big old storyteller then, wouldn’t you?

     “I don’t know why people protect you in this thread. Your comments are consistently among the dullest and most worthless I’ve read here.”

     Come now, don’t be bitter. You’re too young for that sort of thing. Besides, if I’m as awful as you say, why do you keep replying to me?

     If you are some sort of Randian, may I suggest another romance novelist? Jacqueline Sussan, or maybe Barbara Cartwright? Both of them had much better editors, and told much more interesting stories. Poor Ayn needed someone to get out the red pencil everytime she started one of her boring characters on one of their fifty page speeches.

297. TValley: “Who do you think built the road?”

     The same people that starting the whole biz in the first place:

     http://reason.tv/video/show/gridlock

     “And actually, you are a threat to me, because you will drive unsafely (having not passed a driver’s test)…”

     That’s debatable – many people I know started driving long before they could even legally do so – but at any rate if you’re so concerned there is always the good route of private training and certification which is already used in a wide variety of driving professions. You won’t expect that kind of service from the DMV.

     “…and poison me with your hamburgers (having not passed a food safety class).”

     Or you can choose to buy burgers who have passed a food safety class from a system similar to the Better Business Bureau’s way of telling good companies from bad ones.

     And besides, millions of people have cooked all sorts of meals without taking a “safety course” and we sure as hell don’t see a new black plague coming our way.

     DowntownTaylor: “I’ve never had a driver’s license and somehow have managed to avoid prison. Should I be worried, or should I expect an edit on this post?”

     I was just about to ask the same thing…

298. Taller Than You: “As valuable as differing opinions are, this goes way too far.”

     http://www.bartleby.com/130/2.html

     Fnarf: “And you shouldn’t be writing for Slog; the electricity that powers your computer comes from The Government, you know. Seattle has public power.”

     Once again, the fact that it’s impossible to opt out of government provisions shows just how over-excessive it really is…

     If someone living in the soviet union had no choice but to use a government-provided telephone to communicate plans to overthrow the regime there, would that make them hypocrites? Is Noam Chomsky a hypocrite for making profit off of book royalties? What about Michael Moore cashing in on anti-capitalist films?

299. N in Seattle: “Matt, New Hampshire isn’t the place for you. It has laws and government. I’d suggest heading out to the true paradise for those who don’t want to participate in an organized society — Somalia.”

     Actually…

     http://mises.org/daily/1855

     And besides…

     http://mises.org/daily/2066

     http://www.cfr.org/publication/10120/bet…

     http://www.independent.org/publications/…

     http://www.fr33agents.com/2837/2837/

300. Max Solomon: “perhaps i should have wished you luck in finding a libertarian/anarchist paradise with the borders of the US, which, given the fucking shit-ton of firearms in this nuthouse, i believe would quickly devolve into a congo-like dystopia of warring militias and mass rape. so, good luck.”

     Like I said before:

     http://mises.org/daily/1855

     Not only that but…

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAW…

     Fnarf: “what I meant was, obviously, that you may “love” communities, but you’re not part of one. You’re a solipsist. You don’t even really believe that other people exist.”

     We believe others exist and should all abide by the same rules as everyone else, hence the opposition to government. And he’s writing for this paper, which clearly makes him part of something. 😀

     “If you did, you might notice that no one in this imaginary community of yours agrees with you.”

     Looks like that changed overnight…

     Free Lunch: “I prefer to live in cities, the kind with nice parks and maintained roads. I don’t see taxation as theft, but rather a fee for services.”

     If they were a fee for services you would have a choice on whether or not to use them and wouldn’t have to worry about getting thrown in prison if you refused to use and pay for them.

     “Is it worth money not to trip over the starving elderly as I walk down the street? Yes – I’ll pay for that.”

     Then why not support toll roads which cater to just that?

     “Life as a hermit – or living with a bunch of yahoos on a compound – doesn’t appeal to me, and that’s the only way I could have your views and not be a hypocrite.”

     Why would opposition to compulsory taxation mean that you must either be a hermit or live with a bunch of people on a compound?

301. “Apply to a paper in Somalia (or start your own if there aren’t any left) if you actually believe this stuff as much as you say you do.”

     I already gave a plethora of other links on this issue but here’s a couple more…

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_…

     http://www.mises.org/story/2701

     http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/aug…

     It was a basket-case to begin with when it was under the socialist control it once had and since the collapse of that regime it has slowly started to improve – at least when the transitional government and the African Union aren’t meddling in their affairs.

302. keshmeshi: “If you can’t handle living among other people who have consented to be governed, too fucking bad for you.”

     So you feel perfectly fine imposing something on other people but object to them wanting to opt their way out? Who are the selfish ones here, I keep forgetting…

     Eric from Boulder: “People who still hold his ideas at age 30 are pretty much irredeemable.”

     If that’s true, then it looks like it best for those of us stuck in the real world to make our case to the less indoctrinated – that’s how I managed to see the light. ;D

303. seandr: “I really really wish I could send you to the reality you are asking for. You’d last about 24 hours.”

     Actually it’s a little more peaceful than that:

     http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/…

     But I have a better idea: Send two people to Somalia – one wants to impose a government on the area and the other thinks things are improving just the way they are – and then we’ll see who gets their head blown off first. 😀

304. DJSauvage: “It makes sense on the surface, but the truth is that limited government just creates a power vacuum that is filled by those even harder to hold accountable than politicians, like organized crime and/or multinationals.”

     No it doesn’t:

     http://mises.org/daily/1855

     http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/not-so-wi…

     And besides, governments seem to not only be less accountable but more damaging as well:

     http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

     “And btw, drive without a license, hit and kill me or someone I know because you don’t know how to drive, and it’s becomes my problem.”

     No shit, we oppose that sort of thing for the same reason we oppose rape, theft, and murder.

     “Using free market forces to control unhealthy food distribution (your burger kitchen) is fine if you are ok deciding where not to eat by where your friends and family get sick and die.”

     Pretty sure market forces work just fine when people cook at home. You don’t actually expect restaurants to kill their own customers do you?

     Jeffrey: “Taxes are the price you pay for Civilization, if you can’t or wont try to understand that you should move to Darfur or Afghanistan where you can learn real lessons of true self reliance.”

     Or we could be given the choice of who and how to pay for protection against coercion – here’s a little intro on the subject that I found interesting:

     http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

     This one is next on my list, I already own it and have found the first chapter pretty engrossing:

     http://mises.org/store/Enterprise-of-Law…

305. “What if people begin forging those licenses? Who enforces their validity?”

     The same people who issue them out – no different from current government licenses except this time there is an added incentive to make sure they are valid since the ease of forging leads to people no longer trusting anyone with the license.

     “What if a ‘private licensing company’ merely sells to the highest bidder?”

     That clearly hasn’t happened with the following groups that already privately test and license things:

     http://www.ul.com/

     http://www.verisign.com/

     http://www.bbb.org/

     …I could go on listing companies that do what you claim is impossible, but I guess you’re convinced that if we just give one institution a monopoly on licensing, that will somehow lead to better service.

     “When you’re living in your free state paradise and someone breaks into your hovel in the middle the night to rape, steal or whatever, who will give a shit about you then?”

     Something resembling the following:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_def…

306. @281:

     “This whole argument about me being a hypocrite because I benefit from government services is bullshit, though. Where is the private Seattle bus system? Where are the unlicensed gypsy cabs? “

     It’s only bullshit to you, the hypocrite, because cannot refute it except with ridiculous straw men and excuses.

     No private bus? Sure there is. They are called rental vans. Go rent one and start a private bus fleet. Oh. Noes. You have to have the mark of the beast WSDL!

     So? Ok. Walk. My god your legs will touch the taxed-through-coercive-blood strewn sidewalks! But walking is not convenient enough for you? Pity all of societies conveniences have been built for you by collective action. Jesus. You’re the supposed ‘rugged individual’ you figure it out.

     The fact is you won’t live your principles not becuase you can’t, but becuase you don’t want to – it’s inconvenient.

     Anarcho-libertarians are the inert gas of politics. They will never do anything except glow colors when they get excited and the second the power goes off they go dark and quiet.

     To me it’s less about your rampant hypocrisy than it’s the sense of entitlement and undeserved privilege. This canard about being so against the violence of the state is the latest twist on the libertarian theme. It’s pure unadulterated selfishness that is at the root of these movements. That and racism, usually.

     Just mention desegregation and immigration to Ron Paul. Yeah! Sure. It’s all about the State forcing it’s might upon you and making your kids go to school with black kids or letting brown people in the borders. So. This: “hey, we’re against the coercion of state” thing is just the latest flavor to get the kiddies who wanna smoke some weed on board with the same old racist-corporatist agenda. Libertarians have ALWAYS been defacto Republican voters and always will be. They are the kook Trekkie wingnuts of the right— led along by their fears of a brown planet.

     This agenda will never lead to any kind of pacifist utopia but rather simply strip taxes from the rich white people so they can be even more lazy and entitled, like Unpaid Intern, and the poor will take up even more slack until the entire system decays into a worse version of our current Gilded Age of Robber Barons.

     And us, the servant class, picking up the tab, fighting the wars, and cleaning up the pollution.

307. @277:
     Q: What happens to the poor? Do they get no protection from crime/opportunity to educate themselves/etc?

     A: The assumption behind the question is that men are uncharitable and greedy when free to be so, but the state reminds them of the need to be charitable and generous via taxation. The answers come on many fronts.

     First, the above assumption is false. Most men are charitable, if only they were to understand that charity depends on their own voluntary charity, instead of the coerced and false “charity” derived from taxation. There is no shortage of people concerned for the poor. The problem is we’ve been taught to depend on confiscation from our neighbors to deal with them, instead of depending on our own voluntary charity.

     Second, we know the poor are not well taken care of by the state. Some of us are aware that the state often even clearly creates poverty, rather than addresses it. So it is not as if we are comparing a free market that may not perfectly address the poor, with socialism that does. The market will generate more general affluence and therefore deal better with the poor by eliminating them, than any socialism is capable of doing.

     Third, we simply cannot justify theft through the false pretext of generosity. The reason we as private individuals will not steal to give to the poor, is because we inherently recognize the criminal and hypocritical nature of the proposal. Adopting the concept of democracy to provide intellectual cover for the same fundamental action via the use of state agents and thugs on our behalf does not avoid these problems. It just helps us to remain muddled about what our true motives and purposes are. And self-deception is not a good thing.

     Q: If a sick person shows up at the hospital, is he turned away if he has no money/user-chosen insurance/whatever.

     I realize we are not the epitome of success on these issues now, but how are they handled in your society?

     A: In a free society, hospitals would be privately owned with policies decided by private owners. People who wished to provide care for free could influence the boards of hospitals to adopt this policy. Donors could stipulate such policies. There are many ways in which people could show voluntary charity in such situations. It would not depend on the loaded end of a gun, but would rather be true charity.

     Q: You are against patents and copyrights. How do companies and individuals return their investment on R&D, and justify it in the first place? There are many things that cost millions to research and perfect beforehand (drugs, engines, software) but are super-cheap to replicate, and other items that cost only time. How do authors make money if one copy of his book gets pirated a zillion times? How do they justify writing as a career in the first place?

     A: There is a ton of literature emerging to address these questions. But tell me this: if you could not morally justify IP from an ethical perspective, would you still wish to support it on pragmatic grounds?

308. I’ll go after you later tkc, but tomorrow I have to start from #86.

     But for now I will let the hypocrisy of another comment of yours speak for itself:

     “The problem with these discussions is that people end up talking past each other.”

     QED

309. UI: No doubt the govt was involved in exterminating the Natives. But why did governmenst become involved? Perhaps because of the edge case that is the Frontier? I don’t consider it irrelevant especially when your assertIng that pioneers had it better than somebody in an urban area.

310. Matt,

     I’m a fellow voluntarist. This was an awesome post. It’s cool that they let you write this on here. They were probably so confident in the stodgy close-mindedness of their core readership that they didn’t have to worry about losing anyone to the good side.

     All of the statists are on here making stilted self-contradicting arguments full of newspeak, that you and I have surely already heard a million times before. But when the warfare state that they so enthusiastically worship ceases to exist, and voluntary interaction/freedom of exchange become the norm, they will look back and say “Damn, that guy was right, and I was one hell of an asshole!”.

     Don’t worry, we peace-loving folks will have our day in the sun soon enough. In the mean time, keep spreading the reason and logic of freedom.

311. @314: Newspeak, huh? How’s this: You are a fucking moron.

312. @294
     Q. What about public beaches and the environment? I realize I could pay to use that area, but who ever owns it could be selfish and sell it to a developer, or pollute the shit out of it, or kill all the brown-striped flying newts, or whatever, and then it’s either gone forever or the price of clean-up/repair would be prohibitive. All it would take is one lapse for whoever owns it, and then *poof.* Right? I may pay to keep things nice, and purchase from companies that act ethically and responsibly, but I don’t trust the rest of the populace to do so. I think they’ll buy what’s cheap and be myopic.

     A: The assumption behind the question is that men are selfish, unethical, irresponsible and short-sighted, when free to be so, but the state reminds them of the need to be honorable, ethical, responsible and far-sighted through regulation and confiscation. Again, the answers come on many fronts.

     First, the above assumption is false. Most men are honorable, ethical, responsible and far-sighted. At least, they tend to be so when it is their own private capital values and property at stake. Just look at the front yards of most middle and upper class – clean and tidy, well maintained. But look at the locations owned or heavily subsidized by the state – a mess. Why! Lack of private ownership. There is no shortage of people concerned for their own privately owned environment, and maintaining the beauty and capital values of their private property. The problem is we’ve been taught that anonymous bureaucrats and conniving politicians will care for community property put in their care better. All false.

     Second, we know the environment is not well taken care of by the state. Some of us are aware that the state often even clearly creates environmental disasters (not to mention war zones), rather than addresses them. So, again, it is not as if we are comparing a free market that may not perfectly address the environmental concerns, with socialism that does. The market will generate more general environmental results that people want, and therefore deal better with the environment by privately owning and caring for their environment, than any socialism is capable of doing. Agents of the state simply do not have as strong an incentive to preserve the capital values of resources they do not own, and cannot benefit from in the long run.

     Third, again, we simply cannot justify theft through the false pretext of looking after the environment. When one must advocate criminal action to “attain the greater good”, one must realize they are engaged in a deception. Possibly a self-deception.

313. Some of you tax lovers don’t really think for yourselves. “How do we?” questions are getting old coming from people who think using the threat violence is how we solve problems as simple as laying asphalt.

     Society had a huge problem just over a century ago trying to figure out how to work plantations without slaves. Even then there were the “But, how do we do all this work without slaves?” question being thrown around and people who said slavery was wrong were being called immature and anti-progressive. Well, guess what: we figured that out didn’t we?

     Statist need to stop being so lazy when it comes to figuring out problems. Don’t stop at the “how do we pave roads without taxes?” and start actually thinking of possible solutions. Continuing to rely on a failing state is social and intellectual laziness.

314. I find it ironic that this one writer is doing the best thing for this publication; bringing people’s attention to its existence by the droves.

     This is a great platform to demonstrate the intellectual destitution of the opposition of this piece. I feel the pain for people that have honesty in pursuit for understanding that have not yet understood this writer’s point and try to present honest objections in the midst of the demagoguery of trolling ignoramuses.

     I had to throw in my voice to let the statists know that we are not a fringe of basement dwelling shut-ins. We (at least myself and those that I know that share the writers philosophy) actually have jobs of professional and often vital in nature. I find it especially ridiculous that they try to put an accusation of young naivete to try to escape addressing the issues brought forward. I was naive once to believe the state was something other than institutionalized violence, anyone coming from a monopolized regimentation camp and child sitting service (aka public education) has good excuse to be.

     Who really are the naive ones?

     When intellectual honesty fails to support one’s dogma, try attacking the character, maybe try a straw-man argument, anything to prevent creating an independent thought and intelligent conversation.

315. Well, I’ll be off. Interesting thread, to be sure. A few parting points:

     It’s true that it’s often hard to imagine a society other than the one a person currently knows, or has learned about from history. So arguments reifying what is believed to be known about societal organization, versus what potentially could be can be short-sighted and fall back on unquestioned assumptions.

     That said, organizing the type of totally “free-market” (and I question whether there actually ever can be such a thing) society would require a pretty widespread agreement on how to go about doing so. Any recent look across what people actually believe and debate in the USA alone shows that people are not even using the same words in the same ways in current “national” debate. We’re not successfully communicating right now, so there’s a high probability that we’re not going to reach any sort of anarcho-market arrangement soon. But who knows, things could evolve that way in the future. I suspect though that doing so would require a fairly highly-educated population, not prone to the dramatic emotionalism as we see today (“Terrorists!” “Murder!” “Bombs!” “Moques!” etc.).

     Again, we’ve moved very far from the sort of cultural regulation of people’s behaviours that exists in longer-established land-based societies — and by this I mean the clan and tribe style organization. Clans & tribes enforce the rules around which the society runs via blood-ties, honor, reputation, etc. We don’t have those ties any more, the “nuclear” family –while a complete abberation in terms of historical family structures, and arguably destabilizing to society in general– doesn’t extend familial control and morality very effectively. Even the neo-tribes that we are seeing arise in modern society, groups choosing to be associated based on commonalities in believe structure, are still more loosely arranged and cannot (I think) invoke strong moral adherence to a system of society. Shaming and shunning are the only real methods, and while they are effective for group membership, individuals cut loose from the group are able to do whatever they please with few repercussions (+/-).

     Living in a free-market society (I would think) would require MUCH more rational engagement and agreement in how to organize things if it were to avoid the sort of social/emotional controls of previous & current societies… unless there is no problem with such controls in the viewpoint taken by UI and others here. In any case, there is no culturally normative agreement on how to arrange a culturally diverse society at this point, save for a publically-accountable set of rules and laws. Perhaps we can evolve past that, I dunno.

     That said, it does appear that from an anthropological perspective that people do tend to organize into groups, and organizations, and communities, etc. and do so for mutual benefit. Traditionally because one was born into them, currently it is largely if one chooses to join and is accepted. In these groups there is division of labor, as people have different abilities and interests. Hierarchies seem to naturally develop too (although not always), often based on level of skill and ability, but as often as not, based on charisma too.

     So all that said, if we were, hypothetically, to loose the USA from governmental oversight/control/violence, (and we managed to negotiate through the myriad details of property protection, useful services, skills & goods exchange, etc.), I would suspect that people would spontanously associate with the people who shared similar beliefs and lifestyles. Self-organize into groups and communities.

     As different communities form and develop they will likely generate vastly different viewpoints, mutually incompatible viewpoints, with differing systems of justice and behaviour. These communities would naturally have the desire and tendancy for self-preservation in the face of an outside invader (either militant or intellectual invader..), and also from a certain amount of internal dissent. Force and some forms of violence will be employed to maintain the commonality in those cases.

     Friction between incompatible groups living relatively near each other would involve serious violence… slavery, war, genocide.

     It’s really hard to imagine this type of society based purely on rational arrangements. I keep imagining what I know of First Nations societies in the North American continent. Each tribe working to ensure it’s own survival, with cooperative social rules and gift economies, suddenly encountering another tribe who’s mores and interests were different, and aggressive. But these tribes were again based on blood and mutual survival. This anarcho-free-market stuff is highly rational, and people are not rational creatures.

     Another major issue is that we’re all talking from a point of a post-modern society that has become familiar and comfortable with all the goods and services that have come along with the statist-capitalist adventure our foreforefore(etc)fathers and mothers engaged upon. Tap water, cars & roads, cellphones, cat litter, satellites, grocery stores all came to be under a clearly identifiable lineage of feudal-to-national control/security systems. It’s hard to imagine how these would be simply transferred over to a “free” system, or evolve under a “free” system.

     We’re also talking about international communication and interactions. What is occuring now has no precident in the ancient world. I walk down the street in Seattle and I can personally identify people of Ethiopian, Chinese, Indonesian, Nigerian, Nordic, Mexican, Guatemalan, Argentinian, and Indian (subcontinental and NA First Nations) decent. Each coming from very different perspectives on life. This was never true in the past. Each of these people prefers to associate with others who share experiences and lifestyles, cultural norms, food.

     I believe it’s true that humans on planet Earth will never been unified in one homogenous cultural group. Even if we form a One World unity somehow, you will always prefer your friends and neighbors to the person who just jetted in from New Delhi, or Cairo, or Beijing. The bigger unaddressed question in this whole debate is: Can we, as humans, find a way to assume peaceful intentions with any other human on Earth?

     With the move/evolution to nation-states and global interactions, we have witnessed the destruction of literally thousands of unique ethnicies, cultures, and languages. But with the blanket of assurable (statist) rules we have been able to open our personal worlds to people and ideas from all over the entire Earth. How does this anarcho-market deal with international politics and interactions? It really seems to me that these ideas ignore cultural differences,… which implies that the ideas are a very euro-american-centric, a culturally-specific set of ideas based on assumptions that are in no way universally true.

     If we have a one-world homogenous rational culture that can engage in anarcho-free-market agreements, isn’t that an incredible loss for humanity? Can we maintain international (and cultural) communications if we forego the relatively reliable rules of the state? Would the internet (which is a military development, I’m sorry to say.. RAND Corp. suggested, DARPA constructed) be maintainable in a non-state anarcho-free-market environment? Without international communications, can we engage in successful cross-cultural engagement with peoples foreign to us without re-inventing the fucking wheel? If groups and communities develope their own realities/norms/customs/behaviours … then every group will have to develop negotiated arrangements with every other group. Assuming we manage to maintain international travel under this society. If we don’t, then different continents will evolve culturally very, VERY differently, and we’ll be back 1000 years in terms of global evolution.

     If we dispense with nation-state violence and allow people to re-form into local bands and tribes… concommittant with the inevitable diversification of language, mores, customs, foods, and behaviours… where will that actually put us?

     As a humanity, on the Earth?

316. Three untaxed and unregulated cheers for the Unpaid Intern!

     For the record, there are lots (though certainly not enough) people who share your views.

     Smash the state; see what happens.

317. This “institutionalized violence” stuff…

     Yes, folks, we see the violence inherent in the system. What the realists understand, however, and what the anarchists don’t, is that all order and peace is accomplished via the threat of violence. Force is at the heart of all human relationships, and anarchists simply have never even postulated a society which is untainted by the idea that the group with the most potential to exercise force will dominate those with less potential force.

     No, all the anarchists do is propose a society that does away with one particular solution to the problem of the violence at the heart of human relationships. It’s like saying that juries don’t always reach the right conclusion, so let’s get rid of the judicial system and see what happens.

     The democratic state IS violent at its heart, but only because it is an intelligent and relatively successful historical attempt at managing the much more unruly violence that accompanies human relationships in general. Democracy spreads not only the responsibility for violence, but the benefits of being able to exercise force against those who would disrupt your life and livelihood.

     Again, the lack of historical examples of this idealized stateless co-op is telling: as a point of fact, no such entity could survive without the sponsorship or protection of a powerful state. The point being: survival itself requires the threat of violence and force. There is no point in human history where the request to be left in peace to do one’s own thing replaces the power to enforce that request against the will of those who do not wish to honor it.

318. @Pauled 311, 316: I do not doubt the goodness of many, but what I also do not doubt is the capacity for stupidity and short-sightedness of a significant enough population to screw it for the rest of us.

     Let’s say a beach is owned by a nice guy who rents it out/ allows free use/whatever for pubic use. He passes it onto his heir who passes it onto his, etc. Eventually, one of them takes a developer up on an offer because he’s greedy/blew all his money gambling/didn’t have the insurance he thought he did and got sick. Now it’s gone, at least as far as we are concerned.

     Same situation could apply to a wilderness area, except it is sold to a oil company, who doesn’t care about protecting the environment, because it knows it can sell to a crowd who only wants cheap gasoline. So, they fuck up the land, kill all the nature, and kiss good-bye a chance at having a public area there in the future. These people exist. They exist now, they always will.

     The state doesn’t remind people to be honorable, it merely forces the protection of some of these assets for the public good.

     As far as charity, I wish your argument were the case, and for some donors it is, but right now there are plenty who donate for tax purposes, and many who simply don’t donate anything material. There is a significant population who depend on the state for support because current charitable alms do not meet the needs of the poor. You expect me to believe that presented with your proposal, charitable donations will magically increase?

     I don’t understand your question on intellectual property. Pragmatism and ethics are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They interact–but beyond that, on what ethical grounds should I denounce IP? It seems to me perfectly reasonable and ethical that a person who puts forth his time, effort, and money into a project deserve the fruits of that labor and shouldn’t have that work stolen by someone who figures it out ex post.

319. For those saying privatization will not work, look up Sandy Springs, GA! They have privatized. They are now SAVING money, and the residents gave a 90% approval rating to their local government. How many of the non-privatized towns can say that?

     The problem is, too many people think there are things only the government can do, simply because the government is currently the only one doing it.

320. @323: What services do these folks get from their county government? How about the state? What federal programs affect its inhabitants? Like most southern states, Georgia gets more in federal expenditures than it pays out in federal taxes.

     I’ll buy the idea that a small town might be able to privatize its police department and the sky won’t necessarily fall. And yes, in some cases private charter schools (which, ahem, use public grants to operate, but nevermind) are much more efficient than some of the more decrepit public school districts.

     Efficiency is not the point. Popularity isn’t always the issue either. What government provides that private industry cannot is an accountability that is egalitarian, in principle. A democratic state is beholden to the poor and the subsistence workers just as much as it is to those who can buy private castles and security guards. That’s what the anti-statists hate about it, I guess, because it provides for these people by cutting into the security guard budget of the wealthy. Or the freedom to live in fear of highwaymen, I suppose. Nonetheless, we have managed to create a society in which the wealthy have access to riches and luxuries far beyond the wildest dreams of millennia of feudal lords. The idea that our society’s tax policies stifle the dreams of the innovators and entrepreneurs just seems absurd. The wealthy benefit SO MUCH more from the social programs that prevent unrest and create consumers than they ever would from an anarchy in which their private militias were battling the hordes of beggars.

     Stupid, stupid, stupid.

321. I just want to voice my appreciation for UI posting his original, er, post and then being willing to wade into these quite extensive comments to address the supporters and the detractors (and the detractors of both the respectful and the hateful flavors).

     I’m an anarchist, I’m in my mid 20s, I’ve been to third world countries (and actually been in the local communities, not just in vacation areas, building houses and working with NGOs and so forth), and I work for a living, pay my taxes, etc. I’ve actually worked in government, writing legislation and pushing policy. Not only seeing how the proverbial sausage is made, but actually helping to make it, and that actually helped bring me to anarchism. I think I’ve had a fairly rich and diverse world experience so far.

     There are many, many different threads of thought going on here but I wanted to throw my two cents in on a couple of more basic ones. The “hypocrite” train of thought seems to have been raised a few times and I’m always reminded of this little axiom: “do not blame the man whose legs are broken for accepting crutches.” The state breaks our legs and then gives us crutches – and we’re told that we should just be grateful for the crutches. I mean, yeah, I’d rather have the crutches than not have them but what I’d really like is for my legs not to be broken in the first place. It’s not hypocrisy to use the crutches given to you by the state which first breaks your legs.

     I’m also mildly intrigued by how statists in this comment thread are engaging with social contract theory. The majority actually just seem to basically reject it – there seems to be a tacit admission running through a lot of these comments that, no, no one actually REALLY consents to give up their sovereignty to a government authority in order to receive the benefits of the rule of law. Many comments seem to be in the vein of “it happens against our will to all of us, just get over it.” Which, okay sure, but you’re ceding the argument of legitimacy to the anarchists by going that route and – I guess – just postulating that arguments of legitimacy are basically pointless. I dunno, I think it’s an important issue.

     The other way people engage with the social contract theory issue is a two-fold approach to suggesting that – at some point – yes, we do actually cede our sovereignty to the state willingly. Usually, this is formulated by suggesting that at some point we choose to “love or leave it” (which, as an aside, is not only a great catchphrase but was turned into a wonderfully snotty punk song called “My America” by the F.U.’s – not anarchists at all, but I love ’em) and by NOT leaving the country we’re willingly ceding your sovereignty. This is, by any common sense appraisal, completely and utterly absurd. Besides the fact that most statists assume you’re not a rational actor until the age of 18 – and thus not really capable of being responsible for whatever conditions you find yourself in when you reach 18 (most 18 year olds do not have sufficient resources to just pack up and leave the country) – it ignores the fact that in order to leave this country you have to engage in a system designed by states to simply transfer you from state to state. No matter what, you have to cede your sovereignty to SOME state or another, one cannot simply go without.

     Here’s a thought experiment for people who actually believe in social contract theory: imagine what would happen if you opted out of the state. You say “you know what? I won’t ask for any services, you can disconnect all utilities and services going to my piece of property. Electricity, water, fire protection, etc, etc. I won’t ask for any services from the state, ever. I’ll let the state keep what I’ve paid into social security and medicare so far. I won’t ask any refunds for the wars I’ve helped finance against my will or the police force I don’t believe in (or anything else). You, the state, will never have to answer my calls for police or hospital service, or anything else. I have my own well, my own garden and farm animals, my own power generator and my own stockpile of guns. You can totally ignore me, as long as I stay on my own land, and I’ll just ignore you. As long as no one sets foot on my property I won’t set foot on any state-controlled land.” That sounds… pretty fair, to me. This hypothetical citizens refuses to give up their sovereignty and makes clear that they won’t ever “leech” off the state or anyone else.

     This citizen will be allowed to terminate their social contract. right? Of course not. If a citizen of the USA (or any other country) tried this, they would be arrested. And if they resisted, they would be killed. Any “social contract” you enter with the state is entered into through coercion and, as the state itself actually recognizes, contracts entered into through coercion are not valid.

     Thirdly, I’ve seen anarchists called “extremists” regularly in these comments. What is the more extremist position to take, that society can only exist under one particular model of organization (and anyone who disagrees is a “sociopath”), or that there may be a multitude of ways for people to live and organize and interact with each other? I don’t know about you, but the former seems the markedly more rigid, dogmatic and, yes, extremist position to take.

     As I said, lots of issues worth discussing here. Those criticisms just raised my eyebrows in particular because they seem so obviously wrong.

     My only real criticism of UI – other than that he probably prefers a different flavor of anarchism than the one I would endorse (which is more critique than criticism, and I’m not much for internecine anarchist debate anyhow) – is the use of the term “rape”. Yeah, I’ve heard the arguments for why it’s appropriate in that but I still don’t agree with them – there’s just too much social baggage for it to be an effective word to use in this instance. So, just something to think about for anyone trying to present anarchist positions in a way that will engage non-anarchists.

     Peace.

322. How would we have roads, schools, or water without the government?
     The same way we have shoes and toothbrushes even though there are no government shoe or toothbrush factories!
     Using violence (all government action) against peaceful people is wrong.

323. Matt I never thought I’d see the day that voluntaryist principles would emerge in such a far flung region as this. I salute your courage, strength, and resilience amongst all these attacks: you have my unflagging support. Contrary to what some folks here accuse, and as you already know, you have a community.

     It pains me to read a lot of these comments; they’re everything I’ve ever encountered and more. I am constantly afraid to speak the truth for I have been attacked so much. Thanks to you and many other outstanding people I’ve come to know recently, (some present here) I feel a little bit stronger.

     A few thoughts come to mind in response to some of the comments here, which I bet have been made a dozen times over, but i’m not going to read all the comments heretofore.

     1.
     Argument: “You’re opposed to taxes? then don’t drive on roads or go to school.”

     Response: This is just plain obsurd. Its actually a catch 22. We can’t leave our homes without stepping onto a sidewalk or street or flying into “restricted airspace” Its like telling someone to try and leave their house when you’ve built a solid steel dome several feet thick around it and left the key on the opposite side of the door. Also think of it on a smaller scale. Say my neighbor sends me a letter in the mail saying “if you don’t surrender half your income to me I will come over and take it and if you still resist i will lock you in my basement and 51% of the neighborhood says its ok for me to do this.” So what do i do? I surrender the money prefering to live with fewer resources than none at all. So after i’ve done this, my neighbor decides to buy me a bus pass to get to work, which will help guarantee the source of income a little bit more. Am I a hypocrit for accepting it? Hell no. If I can get back anything that was taken from me I’m damn well gonna take it and use it. People are ignoring the fact that I still pay taxes. So if I’m still paying for it, why the hell shouldn’t I be able to use it? I’m not a priviledged un-taxed individual living off your taxes. Nor am I someone who seeks a system where all others are taxed but me where I get to reap the “benefits” provided by those taxes. I get the sense that people are confusing voluntaryism with dictatorship.

     2.
     Argument: “But how can we get roads and schools and protection?”

     Response: This is like a plantation owner in the south asking “how will we grow food without slaves?” or a renaissance italian “how will we have children without arranged marriage?” The answer is people. People do things. Governement is not a supernatural phantasm with magical powers sent from outerspace to gift bliss upon the masses. Government is people, but with guns. People can build things and provide services without guns. There are a lot of us who work in the private sector (including statists) who work and provide goods and services to people who want and need them.

     Closing thoughts: Lets try to steer clear of this foggy language of “belief and opinion”
     The whole point of arguing is to get to the truth. We are not all here with opinions. There are people here who are wrong and people here who are right. This isn’t a poll to determine how many like vanilla and how many like chocolate. There is no objective measure for which tastes better and majority doesn’t = objectivity. We are here to examine arguments for logical consistentcy and consistency with material reality.

     Matt, again, thank you so much. I look forward to meeting you.

324. I am posting this again because for some reason it didn’t post me as “registered”

     Matt I never thought I’d see the day that voluntaryist principles would emerge in such a far flung region as this. I salute your courage, strength, and resilience amongst all these attacks: you have my unflagging support. Contrary to what some folks here accuse, and as you already know, you have a community.

     It pains me to read a lot of these comments; they’re everything I’ve ever encountered and more. I am constantly afraid to speak the truth for I have been attacked so much. Thanks to you and many other outstanding people I’ve come to know recently, (some present here) I feel a little bit stronger.

     A few thoughts come to mind in response to some of the comments here, which I bet have been made a dozen times over, but i’m not going to read all the comments heretofore.

     1.
     Argument: “You’re opposed to taxes? then don’t drive on roads or go to school.”

     Response: This is just plain obsurd. Its actually a catch 22. We can’t leave our homes without stepping onto a sidewalk or street or flying into “restricted airspace” Its like telling someone to try and leave their house when you’ve built a solid steel dome several feet thick around it and left the key on the opposite side of the door. Also think of it on a smaller scale. Say my neighbor sends me a letter in the mail saying “if you don’t surrender half your income to me I will come over and take it and if you still resist i will lock you in my basement and 51% of the neighborhood says its ok for me to do this.” So what do i do? I surrender the money prefering to live with fewer resources than none at all. So after i’ve done this, my neighbor decides to buy me a bus pass to get to work, which will help guarantee the source of income a little bit more. Am I a hypocrit for accepting it? Hell no. If I can get back anything that was taken from me I’m damn well gonna take it and use it. People are ignoring the fact that I still pay taxes. So if I’m still paying for it, why the hell shouldn’t I be able to use it? I’m not a priviledged un-taxed individual living off your taxes. Nor am I someone who seeks a system where all others are taxed but me where I get to reap the “benefits” provided by those taxes. I get the sense that people are confusing voluntaryism with dictatorship.

     2.
     Argument: “But how can we get roads and schools and protection?”

     Response: This is like a plantation owner in the south asking “how will we grow food without slaves?” or a renaissance italian “how will we have children without arranged marriage?” The answer is people. People do things. Governement is not a supernatural phantasm with magical powers sent from outerspace to gift bliss upon the masses. Government is people, but with guns. People can build things and provide services without guns. There are a lot of us who work in the private sector (including statists) who work and provide goods and services to people who want and need them.

     Closing thoughts: Lets try to steer clear of this foggy language of “belief and opinion”
     The whole point of arguing is to get to the truth. We are not all here with opinions. There are people here who are wrong and people here who are right. This isn’t a poll to determine how many like vanilla and how many like chocolate. There is no objective measure for which tastes better and majority doesn’t = objectivity. We are here to examine arguments for logical consistentcy and consistency with material reality.

     Matt, again, thank you so much. I look forward to meeting you.

325. When you’re done “learning” what you probably already know about writing, we’ll see you in New Hampshire. Come on over when you’re ready.

326. oops, looks like that issue has cleared up after hitting the refresh button… sorry for the doubleshot there.

327. The Seattle Times may be his next career step…

328. This is my last comment before I head north of the border for fun times in Vancouver. Maybe tomorrow will be the third time I get stopped for a secondary inspection by border thugs in my last four trips to Canada, whoo! You can imagine how well those experiences go down with someone like me. Anyways, it’s been a helluva thread. I’d love to come back and find it still going.

     @ 300 — Regarding this subsidy issue, you really need to read @ 325. He said it perfectly. I don’t know why I’m engaging you any longer, but let me just say: a. there’s something incredibly rich about someone who called for depopulating the vast majority of the country calling me bitter; and b. if you still think I’m a Randian, you are just ignoring this thread.

     @ 310 — I would love to go buy a van and drive some of the same bus routes the city uses. I found the Russian marshrutka system that works in this manner to be incredibly effective during my time there. But I’m telling you, it will get shut down. Gypsy cabs don’t last. The license holders hate competition.

     The rest of your post is pure drivel. Can’t debate someone’s ideas? Project racism on them. Oh gee, how original, how impressive, how intelligent.

     @ 313 — Oh, you mean like maybe government and corrupt business interests realized they had a convergence of interests in colonizing the West? This happens all the time. Who do you think writes regulations? Big business, because it gets rid of the little guys. I don’t know what you think you’re proving.

     I also wasn’t trying to say life on the frontier was better than it was in New York City, just that the “Wild West” appellation is undeserved in comparison.

     @ 314 — You raise a good point in saying that it was awesome of The Stranger staff to let me make this post. They’re great people. We may not agree politically, but no one has tried to convert me and no one has mocked my ideas. And they’re amazing writers. I’m learning stuff every day.

     @ 317 — Awesome.

     @ 318 — “When intellectual honesty fails to support one’s dogma, try attacking the character, maybe try a straw-man argument, anything to prevent creating an independent thought and intelligent conversation.” Yes, this captures much of the thread. But I don’t mind, it was fun.

     @ 319 — Quite a thoughtful post. I think you’re a bit too pessimistic on humanity, though. You seem to think that: a. people from certain ethnic backgrounds will naturally prefer to hang out with people of the same background when in fact humans seem to be the only animal species that really enjoy diversity at all; and b. assuming that people stick to these “tribes,” they won’t find it in their mutual interest to trade with people of other tribes. Don’t agree.

     @ 325 — Amazing post. The crutches-broken legs things…well, usually I don’t like sayings, but damn if that one isn’t effective. I loved your discussion of social contract theory. It’s the one contract you didn’t sign and can’t break.

     @ 327 — Quite a sincere post, I like it. I’m going to quote my favorite part of your post: “Argument: ‘But how can we get roads and schools and protection?’

     Response: This is like a plantation owner in the south asking ‘how will we grow food without slaves?’ or a renaissance italian ‘how will we have children without arranged marriage?’ The answer is people. People do things.”

     Hell yeah, humanity.

     @ 317, 320, 323, 326, 329 — Anyone saying anarchists, voluntaryists, and the like do not believe in community, do not prize community, and do not understand community should read these posts. I didn’t ask these guys to come here. I don’t know them. They came here to offer their support because they believe in this idea and they seek some sort of similar community.

329. @treacle (@319)
     To start I’ll sympathize with the doubt of ever actually having true free market. History has shown few and very brief examples of this being sustained and I will propose the assertion why: Plunder is just too damn lucrative. When there is free trade, there is wealth, and soon to follow those that parasite off of wealth through the imposition of violence to expropriate for their (zero sum) gain. I personally believe that general humanity has been domesticated over centuries of tyranny. Those that refute violence killed, those that submit survive to serve their overlord of the current regime. It is often through moral abstractions and analysis that we get around our impulsive initial assumptions that we see the whole edifice of statism (any state) is flawed in its foundation. (I can discuss later that not only is statism a moral failure but a pragmatic one as well)

     Regarding your concern for increased rational arrangement of a society, I would invite you to look at the cost of our current society. One may bring up such arguments against the free market cost similar to Ronald Coase’s work (re: transaction costs) but I would argue that even he was somehow blinded to imagine simple scenarios that would render his objection moot. I’m going to give a scenario that COULD exist in the free market and given the potential infinite permutations services can take, could very well (allowed to be) superseded by a superior process. Like a managed stock account, a service could exist to find the satisfactory deals (given desired quality/cost/locality) and those that promote unsatisfactory results drop out of the system (hell we already have this in many areas thanks to ‘da toobs innovations!). This could apply to schools, fire protection co-ops, police protection etc or even packages of these. But to matriculate over specifics of potential solutions I would argue would be like conjecturing over what complex life forms could arise given the knowledge of a single healthy cell (the biologic type).

     I think you confuse “groups of people” with what a state or dictator would influence a group of people to do either by direct threat (see Soviet communist army) or by reward from the plundered (see US of A military). I’m not sure what incompatibility you speak of that would justify genocide. Genocide and war are usually (bring me some counter examples here) a long term side effect of immoral subjugation and rule by threat of violence. My bottom line argument: Violence begets violence (usually amplified); any society founded on immorality can only advance immorality.

     A point that you could have been trying to make when mentioning “social incompatibilities” is cultural differences and varying standards of property. I think you are hinting at that this could be the seed to violence that could escalate towards these scenarios of deflating the human population. Anarcho-capitalism is founded one axiom; property rights (some argue 2 axioms with non-aggression being the other; I argue that self ownership/property to be assumed and covers that one). Humanity will naturally have disputes over ambiguous property rights and varying traditions in arbitration. Under these concerns there are several instances in history of “anarchistic” and voluntary court systems, first off hand are the merchant courts that operated since the middle ages (also see book The Enterprise of Law). We have doubts currently of operating court systems because we assume the model will be similar to our inept unadaptive court monopoly we currently have. Again we can propose services that could address these demands of varying property rights but in a market this would naturally vary to demand depending on cultural constitution (diverse or homogeneous). The bottom line: in the market for just arbitration, those that are just succeed, those that are not fail.

     I cannot begin to understand any point that would try to claim that through statism there would be more cultural diversity. Through respecting of the most fundamental right (property rights) gives the freedom of interaction with or isolation/preservation of any culture. We could look at the civil unrest imposed by the governmental forcing of racial integration in the southern states. I would compare this to forcing two pissed off bullies (not saying all fell within this category) nose to nose and told to make up and being surprised that this caused a fight. Economics is racially blind and promotes cooperation within all cultures and races. To be bigoted is to limit your options (buyers/sellers) and is economic suicide to those that are not.

     All in all a free system is an infinitely complex continuous feedback system that promotes success and weeds out the resource wasters in their respective fields of service. State run monopolies lock in a model of operation that can only get less efficient without the threat of being out performed by someone using less resources (yes, the dreaded evil word PROFIT).

330. congratulations on your internship, dude. i hope you are considering this to be an educational experience – as is the point of an internship. i think you’ve landed yourself in just the right place. PLEASE try to keep an open mind during your time there.

     [i’m noticing as i read the thread – ive only read a little – that the unregistered comments are almost invariably in your favor. please tell me you’re not pulling a sock-puppet situation, here, puppy; i know you’re capable of better than that. I also notice a populous of stupid-thinking opponents. they’re not your own creations, are they?]

     there is an army of van mises shills who populate the blogosphere. they have probably contacted you, influenced you or given you comfort. take a look at who funds the organizations that influence them (and you?).

     critical thinking, mister.

     as a person who is against government (you), should i assume that you are against the civil rights laws of 1964 and their kin? you’ve already shown that you’re a fan of ron paul, so should i assume that his son, rand, is even more in your favor? oh, i know… you dislike all politicians. what you should understand (and will) is that you cannot be neutral on a moving train (i’m plagiarizing). (… no man is an island…. please stop me!)

     stopping here, since i’m a little drunk with birthday wine, but i hope there is some substance for you to glean from this blathering.

     [disclaimer: it would be a very different world for me today, if 1964 had not happened. i’ll go back to botswana tomorrow if rand paul comes to power]

331. @322

     Q: Let’s say a beach is owned by a nice guy who rents it out/ allows free use/whatever for pubic use. He passes it onto his heir who passes it onto his, etc. Eventually, one of them takes a developer up on an offer because he’s greedy/blew all his money gambling/didn’t have the insurance he thought he did and got sick. Now it’s gone, at least as far as we are concerned.

     Same situation could apply to a wilderness area, except it is sold to a oil company, who doesn’t care about protecting the environment, because it knows it can sell to a crowd who only wants cheap gasoline. So, they fuck up the land, kill all the nature, and kiss good-bye a chance at having a public area there in the future. These people exist. They exist now, they always will.

     The state doesn’t remind people to be honorable, it merely forces the protection of some of these assets for the public good.

     A: Ok, let us again return to the assumptions behind the question.

     First assumption is, that what you happen to value most for the use of land or property which you do not own, is somehow relevant to the question of what the most justified use is for that property is. It is not. It is the owner’s right in property that gives him the right to decide what is to be done with it. Whether he allows free access to his beach, charges a fee, or disallows access entirely, it is his business. This is the only principle that is accordance with justice.

     The second assumption is that what an owner chooses to do with his property may somehow not be the optimal choice. This is mistaken. Let’s say you want a martini, or a big mac, or you want to watch a movie with foul language and rude behavior. And let’s say I claim you are wrong to want a martini, eat a big mac, or watch a foul and rude movie, for all of these things may not be optimal for you in one or several ways. Who is to decide what is optimal for you? You or I? There are certain principles that apply. These principles are those of private property, and non-aggression. These same principles are what apply to the decision of what is to be done in respect to any other sorts of property.

     Q: As far as charity, I wish your argument were the case, and for some donors it is, but right now there are plenty who donate for tax purposes, and many who simply don’t donate anything material. There is a significant population who depend on the state for support because current charitable alms do not meet the needs of the poor. You expect me to believe that presented with your proposal, charitable donations will magically increase?

     A: The principles that I am trying to emphasize to you, is that not you, nor anyone else is qualified to dictate, what is the right amount of charity for any other particular individual to “donate”. No one, not a powerful group of privileged, pretentious, dishonest and hypocritical do-gooders, nor the poor, has a right to another’s property unless it is contracted for, or voluntarily given away. This is in accordance with the principles of justice. No society that is willing to pretend to do good at the expense of performing criminal theft and confiscation, can expect justice to prevail. No rationalizations for theft succeed at justifying it. We must choose.

     Q: I don’t understand your question on intellectual property. Pragmatism and ethics are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

     A: This is absolutely true. It is in fact the case that those actions which are contrary to justice are also contrary to the laws of economics. But this is not clear to everyone. This is why I asked in that way. However, since you know these two are not exclusive, but rather bound together, you will better understand my answer. It is mere illusion to envision that aggressively restricting what people do with their own property, which is what IP effectively, does, can possibly result in a net economic benefit to society. IP is unethical, and uneconomic.

     Q: They interact–but beyond that, on what ethical grounds should I denounce IP? It seems to me perfectly reasonable and ethical that a person who puts forth his time, effort, and money into a project deserve the fruits of that labor and shouldn’t have that work stolen by someone who figures it out ex post.

     A: The short answer is that IP gives late-comers – holders of patents and copyrights – a partial claim against the property of early owners of scarce goods. Because you patented the idea of the log cabin, I am barred from using my property to build my own log cabin. My logs, my saw, my land, my sweat, ergo, my log cabin. But no. IP says it is your idea, so I may not build it. IP is a fraudulent and unjustifiable concept. It doesn’t matter how long it took you to come up with the log cabin idea. Either figure out how to keep the idea a secret, contract with me in advance not to use your idea, or forget about it. You do not miraculously gain partial ownership of my property by me having caught a glimpse of your idea in some way.

332. Well, i must hand it to the intern: He has generated almost 350 posts, which is even better than something Savage could do, so even i – a bitter, genocidal troll who is fixated on clearing out the midwest in favor of robot farmers – must give him credit,

     But I think I liked the public intern better. At least he had a sense of humor.

     Mother was right: Never engage an ideologue. Or was it never get engaged to an ideologue?.

333. Nah, Catalina – Dan’s “Leave It Alone” thread is at 475 right now. It takes a lot to surpass him.

334. Nah, Catalina – Dan’s “Leave It Alone” thread is at 475 right now. It takes a lot to surpass him.

335. Well 350 would still be a coup in my book UI.

336. Really, what a great accomplishment.

337. How’s the weather Fifty-Two-Eighty?

338. @176 porcupine.

     rape is not a “dictionary” word.

     it is a violent sexual assault. fuck you for your cluelessness.

339. How’s the weather Catalina Vel-DuRay?

340. Oh crap, here we go again. Come on guys, just a few more to get to 350.

341. It’s cool, cloudy and overcast here in normally sunny So Cal. We’re usually in the middle of fire season this time of year.

342. I love to join a thread when it is played out. Y-a-a-w-w-n. And Catalina @336: your wise mother was right on both counts.

343. Okay

344. How’s the weather emma’s bee?

345. my work

346. is done!

347. “whateva i run for congress and won, then i had sex with an intern and killed her and hid her body….whateva i do what i want!”

     how’s that?

348. Didn’t read the whole thing.

     But I kinda like this unpaid intern guy.

     One thing stands out. You’re this uber anarcho-libertarian guy who wants to move to Switzerland? Uh. dude. Switzerland is the land of rules. Midwestern guy like you would go crazy.

     I mean they’re good rules, usually, but Switzerland is the exact opposite of the mentality for a society you’re advocating.

349. @352

     “One thing stands out. You’re this uber anarcho-libertarian guy who wants to move to Switzerland? Uh. dude. Switzerland is the land of rules. Midwestern guy like you would go crazy.

     “I mean they’re good rules, usually, but Switzerland is the exact opposite of the mentality for a society you’re advocating.”

     Anarchists love a particular set of libertarian rules. They love peace, cooperation, law and order. They love justice. In addition to this, there is nothing wrong with rules established by voluntary contractual covenant and we also prefer smaller more decentralized units of social organization. What we object to is tyranny in any form and all states are a form of tyranny. The tyranny we object to ranges from the socialism of Lenin and Stalin to the socialism of Hitler and Mussolini, to the tyranny of social democratic socialism that we suffer under here today. At their root, all of these forms of socialism share the same basic premise: the right of privileged political elite to tax and maintain a monopoly of the application of force within a particular geographic region. This is the unjust state.

     But you are right, in some ways, Switzerland may be worse than the US. In other ways it is probably better.

350. #324:

     “Efficiency is not the point. Popularity isn’t always the issue either. What government provides that private industry cannot is an accountability that is egalitarian, in principle.”

     The perception of accountability in the state is illusory and a fraud – in principle. It blindly transfers coercive powers to a small minority, who are ultimately answerable to their financial backers only, as it is almost always financial backing, above all else, that determines political success. How people can witness this fact in practice in politics their entire adult life without assimilating it in their minds is beyond me. That we can so easily be bamboozled is why propaganda never died, I guess.

     “A democratic state is beholden to the poor and the subsistence workers just as much as it is to those who can buy private castles and security guards.”

     I can only say: “just wow”. And some say the anarchists have their idealistic heads in the sand. Heh!

     “That’s what the anti-statists hate about it, I guess, because it provides for these people by cutting into the security guard budget of the wealthy.”

     Heh!

     “Or the freedom to live in fear of highwaymen, I suppose. Nonetheless, we have managed to create a society in which the wealthy have access to riches and luxuries far beyond the wildest dreams of millennia of feudal lords.”

     And you attribute the advances leading to increased production of wealth and affluence to the existence of the democratic state. Of course you do.

     “The idea that our society’s tax policies stifle the dreams of the innovators and entrepreneurs just seems absurd.”

     Regulations, red-tape, taxation and confiscation stifle the dreams of the smaller, less established innovators, yes. There is a reason why established industry is so keen on using the state regulatory system to set their own rules in its industry – it can squash the small and new entrants into the market with overheads, enabling more of a monopoly for itself.

     “The wealthy benefit SO MUCH more from the social programs that prevent unrest and create consumers than they ever would from an anarchy in which their private militias were battling the hordes of beggars.”

     Anarchists are not interested in rationalizing and bestowing special advantages, privileges or subsidies to the wealthy or any other class. We are interested in justice and the associated private property rights. The economically enlightened among us, simply recognize that where property is respected, maximum economic advancement cannot help but follow.

351. @290 (since I’ve been addressed)

     You’re seriously equating slavery or imprisonment to Unpaid Intern’s circumstances? Seriously? I mean….really?

352. It is incredible – INCREDIBLE – to me that people can look at what this guy originally posted and say that he’s into either libertarianism or objectivism. It is so hip to be young and hate on shit without knowing anything about it. The Stranger itself is partly to blame for always shitting on these two ideas without ever bothering to explain why they’re unworkable, or that the reason people pay attention to them is that they do posess motes of value (Go ahead and point to any completely workable, universal philosophical system, political or otherwise. Forgive me if I don’t wait for you.).

     Oh, and being a rude piece of shit on the internet is for children. This dude is polite and most of the commentors are uncouth, ignorant assholes.

353. Oh DeaconBlues, you DO NOT want to read Dan’s SLLOTD “LEAVE IT ALONE”! Don’t read it, really, don’t go there, just don’t, nuh uh.

354. I also don’t read the IA comments anymore. Any polarizing situation on the internet is nearly always a waste of time.

355. Libertarians. Ew.
     They’re anarchists that don’t know how to share.

356. Actually, I think libertarians typically fall into one of two categories:

     1) People who believe that humanity is fundamentally good. This is why they tend to blame Standard Oil and Thomas Edison on too much regulation instead of too little, and ignore basic truths about humanity when thinking about capitalism. They would rather believe that people are basically good and that when two competing companies offer identical products, they will engage in a price war instead of a war based on fucking the consumers in the most prolific and surreptitious ways possible. They ignore (or are unaware of) a lot of modern psychological research about diffusion of responsibility and what happens to ethics when one is able to place the ethical responsibility for one’s decisions onto the shoulders of another group-the stockholders, in this case.

     2) Pricks.

357. @360

     Libertarianism (by which I mean market anarchism) is actually fundamentally anti-utopian. People say that if men are angels then we don’t need government, but it’s really that if men aren’t angels then we certainly can’t have government. We’re all self-interested and greedy about certain things, and that applies to politicians, bureaucrats, etc. The distinction to make is how people satisfy their greed. If they do so by consensual means, that’s fine, but if they rely on coercion, as all politicians do, I’d say that’s a no-no.

     Statism, in almost any form, is utopian in the sense that people are willing to believe that “if we could just get the right people in charge” government would somehow serve their needs. This relies on the idea that the “right” people could/would ever be attracted to politics. I would say that by virtue (or lack there of) of the fact that someone is willing to initiate force against others to accomplish whatever means, they cannot be the “right” kind of person.

358. Dear Matt-
     I agree with you on most all things you wrote about. Seattlites are about the worst at bending over so the state can rape them financially with taxes, taxes and yes, more taxes. Some how, some way they all blindly hand over their money and allow the state to just take and take and take which is surprising for such a progressive city who is outspoken on rights of the people to live any way they choose.

     Although some taxing is def needed (like many said before my slog…roads, running water etc etc)- the politicians in this state spend as though today is their last day to financially rape us and then they die. Which is probably why across the board, you don’t trust or identify with any party, in any state at any time. Nobody can be trusted. I don’t blame you. Rock on young one, rock on.

359. @359 Actually as someone who happens to be a voluntaryist, when homeless people ask for me to give them money for food, I very often offer to buy and bring them food from the nearest food source.. all while working a part-time job that doesn’t even earn me 1000/month. (by choice, for i currently prefer leisure time over making lots of money) So yes with what little I have (relative to many of my peers), I am still willing to share it and all without the threat of force because I have a conscience and care about people.

     @360

     “People who believe that humanity is fundamentally good”

     I do not argue, nor have I encountered any other voluntaryist or anarchist who has argued that humanity is fundamentally good. Such an argument is not consistent with material reality. All my life I have observed and read about some of the most horrific atrocities and the most awe striking acts kindness. Humans are flexible and diverse and have the capacity to do these things and everything in between.

     Now, if one argues “humanity is fundamentally evil” then to me that should be even more evidence for why there shouldn’t be a government because if thats true… then all you’re going to get in the government is evil people because as i said before… government is people (with guns) not a separate race of infinitely virtuous and faltless beings. Also… for anyone who makes this argument… never assert generalizations about the human race for which you are the one exception it just isn’t accurate.

     So, if we accept reality and admit that humans are capable of both good and evil, again, its still just all the more reason why there shouldn’t be a government. For what better place is there for an evil person to go than the largest force known to man (government: the monopoly on force) to enact his ill-intentions on others. This is a place that enables and validates theft and violence (the initiation of force) on a daily basis. War, police brutality, torture, imprisonment, interrogation, and the threats of all these things against anyone who refuses to pay taxes, register for selective service, and fill out census papers, amongst many other things.

     “what happens to ethics when one is able to place the ethical responsibility for one’s decisions onto the shoulders of another group-the stockholders, in this case.”

     You just described the way government works. Replace the word “one” with “government” and “the stockholders” with “the taxpayers.” You are expressing your fear of what already exists but projecting it onto something else to distract yourself from realizing that this is the fact which is even more frightening.

     “Pricks”

     Oh ooodles, you got me!

360. That’s weird, I don’t recall stating any preference towards government.

361. Dear Intern and Pauled,
     Yes, private industry could maintain the roads we have. But how do new ones get built today? The interstates exist only because the state had the power to get the land necessary to build them. Your view would have let one or a few persons with a chunk of land prevent the road from getting built.

     You rightly claim that without the state, private schools and private cabs and the like would arise. Private schools existed long before public schools, and some are very good. What they aren’t is universal. Harvard, Yale, Andover, or Choate don’t try to educate large numbers of people, and almost no poor or middle-class. Some religious schools try, but they limit the number they take in, too, even when their endowments went up substantially. Public schools exist ONLY because the private ones failed to educate everyone. UI rightfully says that it’s not fair that he be judged by where he was born, but similarly, do you really think that getting an education should depend on the accident of one’s birth?
     The same is true for transportation. Private companies are not necessarily more efficient than government: The New York Subway is government-run because three private companies all went bankrupt. As much as everyone likes to dump on Amtrak, its east coast line makes a profit on the very same route where Penn Central, the B&O, Eastern Airlines, New York Air and Continental Trailways all went bankrupt. Goverment Air Traffic Control exists because privately-run airliners collided over the Grand Canyon, and no private entity was willing to act as traffic cop, or let a rival airline act as such.

     Should vaccines be available only to those who can pay? the more people around you who are vaccinated, the safer you are from infection. And who would pay for the CDC to identify new viruses coming in?

     Pauled presents the model of the beach-its fate should be left up to the owner and only to the owner, according to him. Don’t the creatures that live there get a say? They “owned” the beach before the original owner bought it (from whom)? The environment counts for nothing? Only if you have a supremely incorrect view that humans have no ties to the other lifeforms around them.

     UI says that humans are generally humane and generous. Absolutely, but they are generally NOT far-sighted. UI has never seen the smog that covered our highways in the 1960’s, now largely gone thanks to government enforcement. (Well, you can go to China and see it). There is little record of private industry being able to, or even desiring to prevent pollution on others’ lands. Pauled says that privately owned homes have beautifully maintained lawns, without noting that the chemicals used to maintain them have killed thousands of miles of waterways. The “tragedy of the commons” has been replicated over and over. Read the Jared Diamond book “Collapse” on humans’ propensity to short-sightedness to the point of human extinction.

     Schools, roads, public health, defense, the environment…wherever society demands that some good or service be available for ALL the population and not just those who can afford it, private industry has failed, and government is necessary. Until you can come up with a demonstration that this can be done privately on a country-wide scale, and indeed, global scale for the case of climate change, please don’t be surprised that the “statists” guffaw at your naivete and are repelled by your greed.
     “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes

362. And can we get Unpaid Intern and Alemana together for a discussion on rape by the state?

363. @365

     Simply citing failures of the private sector and supposed successes of the public sector, is an incomplete view of all the evidence. Public and private sector are both subject to failure and success because they all consist of people who are not perfect. Now honestly, I won’t attempt to account for all the instances of success and failure in both sectors to determine who succeeded more; because even if its true (which I doubt) that somehow goverment has statistically done a better job at things, it still ignores the principle at play here.

     Whose venture got off the ground by threatening violence against others and stealing and whose didn’t?

     I think that any venture that succeeds without the immensely unfair and unjust advantage of government force is the greatest human success imaginable.

     Lastly, even if a government controlled service somehow does better, that doesn’t make it right. To argue its validity on that point is sickeningly Machiavellian. Success does not justify imprisoning someone who refused to contribute to it and exposing that person to beatings and rape while in prison.

364. @365

     Dear Intern and Pauled,

     “Yes, private industry could maintain the roads we have.”

     Do you really think so? How or why would private industry fund the maintenance of private roads? Not all socialists can clearly see this.

     “But how do new ones get built today? The interstates exist only because the state had the power to get the land necessary to build them. Your view would have let one or a few persons with a chunk of land prevent the road from getting built.”

     To be clear here: You are implicitly advocating imminent domain – the process of the state confiscating private property for the greater good of a freeway. Is this right? Do you think our desire for a nice straight freeway or road, trumps your right to keep your property? How about our desire for a nice shopping center. Or a highrise. At what arbitrary point would you assert your right to property over the public’s desire to use your property for something that is convenient for it? Let’s see how deep this socialistic rabbit hole runs.

     “You rightly claim that without the state, private schools and private cabs and the like would arise. [Roads too] Private schools [and roads] existed long before public schools [and roads], and some are very good. What they aren’t is universal. Harvard, Yale, Andover, or Choate don’t try to educate large numbers of people, and almost no poor or middle-class. Some religious schools try, but they limit the number they take in, too, even when their endowments went up substantially. Public schools exist ONLY because the private ones failed to educate everyone.”

     And public schools educate everyone, and do it very well, is that what you are telling us? Especially American public schools. Yes? As always, we do two things, we tend to understate the power of the free market to provide what people really value the most on the margin, at any given point in time, with the scarce resources we have. And at the same time, we tend to overlook just how poorly the state provides those same services. If the market provides less of something than the state provides, it is because people are busy directing always scarce resources towards some other venture deemed more important to more people at that given time. For instance, if you bought your son a corolla, instead of a Lamborghini, it may be because you also valued doing other things with the difference. It means you economized in the best way you saw fit, with the resources you personally owned and had at your disposal.

     Just because the state could have confiscated enough funding from enough people to provide your son both the Lamborghini and a corolla, and did so, does not mean that it was providing better services. It just meant that in a narrow field of vision, some individual or group of individuals, benefitted more than they otherwise would have. Of course such a diversion of resources to certain privileged individuals always requires someone else is compelled to pay for it. This is a problem.

     “UI rightfully says that it’s not fair that he be judged by where he was born, but similarly, do you really think that getting an education should depend on the accident of one’s birth?
     The same is true for transportation. Private companies are not necessarily more efficient than government: The New York Subway is government-run because three private companies all went bankrupt. As much as everyone likes to dump on Amtrak, its east coast line makes a profit on the very same route where Penn Central, the B&O, Eastern Airlines, New York Air and Continental Trailways all went bankrupt. Goverment Air Traffic Control exists because privately-run airliners collided over the Grand Canyon, and no private entity was willing to act as traffic cop, or let a rival airline act as such.

     “Should vaccines be available only to those who can pay? the more people around you who are vaccinated, the safer you are from infection. And who would pay for the CDC to identify new viruses coming in?”

     Does it ever make you wonder, with all the millions of people making similar arguments, at least in their own minds, if not at the occasional barbeque, that if these same people lived in a free market where charity depended on voluntary giving, if there would not be enough generosity to fund such activities? This love of aggression in the name of the good of mankind, I find disturbing.

     “Pauled presents the model of the beach-its fate should be left up to the owner and only to the owner, according to him. Don’t the creatures that live there get a say?”

     Do the creatures that live there have a say? Certainly. They should speak up at their earliest opportunity. But I think before they do, there will be socialists of all stripes lining up to speak on behalf of the mute creatures, giving a hundred and one reasons and methods of how that property should be used differently.

     “They “owned” [scare quotes are appropriate] the beach before the original owner bought it (from whom)? The environment counts for nothing? Only if you have a supremely incorrect view that humans have no ties to the other lifeforms around them.”

     These arguments sound so awesome, moral, far-sighted and upstanding, until someone offers to turn them on the subdivision in which the person making them lives. Then we turn all silent-like on the question of what of the poor deer and owl that may otherwise have lived in that long since plowed and developed piece of land, now uninhabitable by those natural “owners”. What we must strive for is a theory of property that can be applied generally, not arbitrarily against some people, and ignored for a superior group of others.

     “UI says that humans are generally humane and generous. Absolutely, but they are generally NOT far-sighted. UI has never seen the smog that covered our highways in the 1960’s, now largely gone thanks to government enforcement.”

     Would it be insane for me to suggest that prior to this noble government enforcement of the smog cleanup, the government was also already the monopolist of that location’s smog policy? It merely had a different policy. The point is, when the state causes or endorses pollution, and monopolizes the courts, and regulations, private individuals cannot effectively take these offenders to court. In a private society, no polluter would have a politically privileged status. He would be subject to local laws like everyone else.

     “(Well, you can go to China and see it). There is little record of private industry being able to, or even desiring to prevent pollution on others’ lands.”

     I guess we use China as an example because it is very close to the libertarian anarchy that our fine young intern is pining for. The Chinese state is not heavily involved in policies that may influence their pollution situation.

     “Pauled says that privately owned homes have beautifully maintained lawns, without noting that the chemicals used to maintain them have killed thousands of miles of waterways.”

     Really. Well, I suppose this is possible, since it is the state regulatory bodies and state court systems, and state ownership of these waterways that would allow this to happen on an ongoing basis. If private owners of these waterways had access to private courts that recognized private property and infringements against private property, then perhaps it would be too expensive to use these toxins in this way due to private lawsuits. As it stands now, we must vote for people to handle this wisely. How’s that working out for you, by the way?

     “The “tragedy of the commons” has been replicated over and over. Read the Jared Diamond book “Collapse” on humans’ propensity to short-sightedness to the point of human extinction.”

     I guess we should look to the state and its far-sightedness for hope that we will not extinguish ourselves.

     “Schools, roads, public health, defense, the environment…wherever society demands that some good or service be available for ALL the population and not just those who can afford it, private industry has failed, and government is necessary.”

     Uh huh. Both Bush and Obama have offered to sell you a bridge in your lifetime. From whom did you buy?

     “Until you can come up with a demonstration that this can be done privately on a country-wide scale, and indeed, global scale for the case of climate change, please don’t be surprised that the “statists” guffaw at your naivete and are repelled by your greed.
     “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes”

     As long as you believe the state has accomplished the very great things you attribute to it, it will be unnecessary for me to persuade you that the market can do the same. You have your perfectly optimum world already. I’m happy for you.

365. Amen Matt! And no I’m not joking. I honestly couldn’t agree with you more. And considering the vast number of people on this string who just clearly don’t have a clue and still think our taxes actually go toward “clean water and paved roads” saddens me. Gosh people are really clueless… Yeah, that’s what our public education system (cough: indoctrination centers) have contributed to our society: willing slaves who not only don’t understand the system but defend their slave owners. Wow! Well thanks for being a voice for truth. And remember the wise words once said: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Stand strong and keep speaking out. You’re not alone.

366. Guess I gotta split my comments to save space….

     Julie in Eugene: “Okay, fine, if they are self-sufficient, good for them. But… then, one of the adults apparently was molesting one of the children.

     So, what to do about this if there is no government, police force, etc.?”

     Here’s a clue:

     http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block16…

     Reg: “Ah yes, the blissful ignorance of a 19 year old having read far too much Ayn Rand.”

     You don’t have to be 19 to be rational. Reading Ayn Rand may help a little but it isn’t required either.

     dontrelle: “Ever tried walking around for an extended period of time in Beijing or Mexico City?”

     Since these too are places under governments point to the specific lack of laws that makes breathing an issue there.

     Reg: “Furthermore, why are you working unpaid for The Stranger? You should not let these collectivist parasites live off of the fruit of your labor. This goes against the nature of man qua man.”

     There is an interpretation of economic theory totally contrary to what he is advocating that would make the claim that The Stranger is living off the fruits of his labor – it starts with an “M.”

     Free Lunch: “Private policing? Doesn’t that mean you are paying for violence? I thought that was your primary objection to taxes.”

     No, it means that you can choose from a variety of security options and if you decide you don’t like a private police firm you can choose another one and not worry about a group like the IRS crawling up your ass for not paying for the “greater good.”

     “I think your real objection to taxes is this: you are selfish.”

     He’s not claim he has a right to what other people earn and produce, so no, he is not selfish – rather he feels that being forced to pay into a monopoly on force is likely to lead to mediocre service. If UPS/FedEx/DHL can literally deliver better service than the post office, or if private telecommunications is more effective and efficient than when government takes control of the system, then I don’t see any reason why security cannot be provided the same way.

     Objecting to taxes isn’t selfish, but saying you have a right to other people’s money sure as hell is.

     “I’d rather pay just one bill.”

     You can – just choose what you want and have it arranged as one bill – no different from bundle packages we see with TV/phone/internet companies. But if this really is an issue for you, then why stop there? Why not pay for everything from groceries to clothes to electricity to whatever in a single bill? Is it really that inconvenient or impossible for the market to deal with this kind of “problem?”

     Root: “Without regulation you get robber barons working their employees to death, literally, and destroying the country while getting rich.”

     Study time!

     http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons…

     http://www.amazon.com/How-Capitalism-Sav…

     http://mises.org/store/Capitalism-and-th…

     http://mises.org/resources/5642/The-Case…

367. And for some especially necessary reading, consider the fact that most regulations are promoted by businesses themselves:

     http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservati…

     http://www.amazon.com/Big-Ripoff-Busines…

     That first one is written by a socialist if you can believe that.

     At any rate, when it comes to the power and privilege it has over others, the biggest exploiter of people is government.

     http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

     “Without the military we get someone else in charge, who will also tax us. Without police we get vigilantes and people without weapons, or who can’t draw them fast enough, being dominated by those who are faster or better armed.”

     Awe jeez, not this shit again….

     http://mises.org/daily/1855

     http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

     http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertaria…

     And it’s not like government has done a very good job protecting life or liberty over the past century:

     http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

     Why the solution to the “warlord” problem is somehow solved by giving others more power over us is beyond me…

     “I think he should take his perfectly nice and respectful anti-tax anti-government argument to Somalia or the Congo or any of the many nice places without any working central government for a few years and if he survives he can come back and tell us how wonderful it was.”

     I think you should travel to those same areas, insist to the local populace that they would live much better if they gave a select group of people authority over everyone else (which is what a government is) and see how long it takes before someone feels the need to blow your head off. Besides…

     http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

     It must also be noted – while Somalia is a failed state resulting from a terrible socialist experiment, it has made some pretty big improvements over the past couple decades in the ABSENCE of any government:

     http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_p…

     http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_St…

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_…

     I’m betting that the continued presence of the transitional government will make things worse.

368. @368: Never has someone said so little with so many words.

369. Jesus fucking Christ, you clowns have never fucking heard of the concept of moderation, have you? Humanity and history are not so simple that you can boil everything down to “Capitalism is good” or “Objectivism is bad”. Trying to do so is just downright stupid, and responding to the suggestion that certain heads of industry may have treated their employees like assholes with a list of reading material is like slapping your hands over your ears and screaming until your opponent gets bored and wanders off.

370. He’s right – governments do more harm than good, and the bigger the government the more harm they do.

     Take Taxation for example – the last thing you want to do in a depression is raise taxes. Why? The more taxes the workers and employers have to pay the less people those employers will be able to employ, thus actually lowering the tax receipts of the government. In the late 1970s Margaret Thatcher here in England actually lowered taxes and that kick-started our economy big time after the recession of the 1970s. Because more people had money left in their pockets from their wages they spent more, thus creating more demand for goods and services, which in turn meant that employers could employ more people because the taxes they had to pay on them were lower and the income was coming in. And within the first year the government’s tax receipts had gone UP 20%.

     Big government = big f**K up. Simple as.

371. The functions of the government that you so deplore are, in most cases, invisible until they go away, and when they go away everyone is always immediately desperate to get them back. Your idea is one that you will only be able to maintain if you don’t actually see it realized. Hope that you never actually see your idea realized, because you will regret it. Somalia has no functioning government and it is a fucking hellhole. Ditto for the world’s other various failed states. They’re habitable, but they are neither comfortable nor pleasant nor safe.

     Without a functioning government, the peace, prosperity and security that you and me both take for granted cannot exist. Taxes are the price we pay for those things, and though the numeric price may seem high, given the benefits it’s the biggest bargain on Earth.

372. @367:
     No, the greatest success in human history is the eradication of smallpox, a disease that killed up to 1/6th of humanity, and was eliminated thanks to a concerted effort by the U.N. World Health Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, and brave public health workers who crossed battle lines in Somalia to make sure that both sides were vaccinated. I think that dwarfs anything you can come up with that private industry has done.

     Education: There wouldn’t BE an educated populace without universal public support. In the case of public health, without the threat of state coercion, a few could spread a disease like smallpox and kill millions. If preventing that means that you and I have to pay some (gasp!) taxes, well, boo hoo hoo!
     And public education was not a “supposed” success, it was a supreme triumph So was the polio vaccine, the eradication of malaria in the U.S., air pollution abatement, and a whole host of others that private industry did nothing about. As long as you’re going to use the most graphic distortions possible for the “unjust” machinations of government public health workers and schoolteachers (“rape while in prison”-give me a break!), you have to take ownership of the most graphic results of your greed: a lifespan of 40 years or less, more than half of babies dying before age 10, millions of women dying in childbirth, over 10% of males dying from human-on-human violence (as archaeologists have found from wounds on pre-government corpses), being eaten by animals (including parasites), and the wholesale destruction of the environment by industry, followed by mass starvation. But maybe, just maybe, you’d be safe in your private castle, so f**k the rest of humanity, right? And you would not have been taxed! Sounds like paradise!

     The “principle at play” here is simply that private industry has NEVER done and CAN NEVER do anything for EVERYone in society. There is no profit in doing things for people who cannot or will not pay. Government can and should; it is the only organization that can represent society as a whole.

     @368: “eminent” domain.
     You’d protect the environment with private courts? Courts that can coerce, i.e. levy fines or imprison you or “shun” you to deprive you of your income? Why would a polluter agree to go to those, when they could continue to make profits by ignoring you? You’ve just re-introduced coercion, except now it’s for-profit coercion.
     Private charity had the chance, and did NOT provide schools for every child, did NOT protect the quality of food, did NOT protect the environment, did NOT provide electricity to rural areas, did NOT vaccinate everyone, and did NOT prevent widows and orphans from starving, in the richest countries in the world. More to the point, private industry didn’t even try, and consistently denied these problems existed, just like it is doing with climate change and today. Good governments have demonstrably provided all of these things.

373. When dumbocrats attack.

374. @375:
     I think you need to do a bit of reading on Somalia. Yes, it absolutely sucks…compared to living here, but since “going stateless” their standard of living has increased in every measurable way (life expectancy, access to water, literacy, decrease in infant mortality, etc.). They are much better off than their neighbors who are choked by states. Also, most of the pirates WERE fishermen before the water was polluted by French, U.S. and other European countries because they didn’t recognize the legitimacy of Somalia without a state. Actually, Somalis (can you call them that when they don’t have a state? How about the sovereign individuals currently occupying the area of land known as Somalia?) do fairly well for themselves when the U.N. isn’t going in and fucking up their shit.

     http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_St…

375. @377: hahahahaha! “Dumbocrats.”

376. @376,

     “@368: “eminent” domain.”

     So many misconceptions, so little time and space to address them all.

     Q:You’d protect the environment with private courts?

     A: Yes. Private courts, private insurance, private protection, and private shunning mechanisms.

     Q: Courts that can coerce, i.e. levy fines or imprison you or “shun” you to deprive you of your income?

     A: Indeed. Although the latter would be of the last resort, since private courts would be interested firstly in the restitution of their clients as opposed to more general retribution, which is the emphasis of the state. The state, after all, is its own and exclusive client.

     Q: Why would a polluter agree to go to those, when they could continue to make profits by ignoring you?

     A: Because these courts can coerce him, depending on the contract he has with his own insurance providers, and they can initiate devastating shunning mechanisms, and withdraw insurance, which includes insurance that provides him with protection from aggression.

     Q: You’ve just re-introduced coercion, except now it’s for-profit coercion.

     A: Heh! Well any statist who’s ever tried to keep up, would realize that defensive coercion was never ruled out in the first place. Only the initiation of coercion (which is otherwise known as aggression) is ruled out. And since states are aggressive by definition, and in practice, states are ruled out.

     Also, I presume you are a YES for eminent domain. Well, you’re not alone. As a matter of fact, whenever I hear of a case of someone victimized by it, I try to imagine him as a typical ardent supporter of the concept in principle. That way, he is not even a real victim, and it’s not even a crime, and world seems just that much less unjust. I try to see even police tazings of non-threats in this light.

     “Private charity had the chance, and did NOT provide schools for every child, did NOT protect the quality of food, did NOT protect the environment, did NOT provide electricity to rural areas, did NOT vaccinate everyone, and did NOT prevent widows and orphans from starving, in the richest countries in the world.”

     I’m in awe of what statists feel the state can take credit for accomplishing, where the market fails. They even feel the state has protected the quality of food (and surely the safety of drugs). I am humbled at the power of state propaganda.

     “More to the point, private industry didn’t even try, and consistently denied these problems existed, just like it is doing with climate change and today. Good governments have demonstrably provided all of these things.”

     “Climate change”: Skill testing question: ever wonder why the title of this phenomenon was changed from “global warming” to “climate change”? LOL! So that we can blame man for it whether the earth continues to warm, or starts to cool. I love these scams, they so reveal mass mentality and how the masses can be led by the nose by the “authorities”. Too funny. Too pathetic.

377. DeaconBlues: “Never has someone said so little with so many words.”

     *reflects on Deacon’s comment

     QED

     “Humanity and history are not so simple that you can boil everything down to “Capitalism is good” or “Objectivism is bad”.”

     Indeed, the world is a bit more subjective than that – rather what we do is see what system is better than the other and draw conclusions from there.

     “…and responding to the suggestion that certain heads of industry may have treated their employees like assholes…”

     More specifically I was responding to the claim that business treats people worse than government. You should read the quotes I’m responding to first before making assumptions about what I was critiquing.

     “…with a list of reading material is like slapping your hands over your ears and screaming until your opponent gets bored and wanders off.”

     I’m only trying to cure some of the ignorance perpetuated by some of the people here. Besides, choosing NOT to face the facts those works presents fits that description of yours much better. ;D

     Now where was I….

378. N in Seattle: “If there’s no government to issue money, how could he possibly be paid?”

     What was the name of that shiny material that was used as money for centuries? You know, the stuff that the green pieces of paper we have today were once backed up by? Oh that’s right…

     http://mises.org/daily/3729

     http://www.the-privateer.com/gold1.html

     And there are other options too…

     http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa017.html

     smade: “In a “free” world, you have to supply your own force and that’s a full time job.”

     “Force” is a little extreme – I think deterrence if anything is a better term for it. But then again, in a free world you can just pay people to go after the criminals – similar to what we do now except this time you’re a customer, not a suspect, and the people who are cutting the return on crime actually have an incentive to do their jobs, kind of like what happened in these cases:

     http://www.gordon.edu/ace/pdf/F06F&E4748…

     http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

     “Human beings aren’t mean and nasty because we have laws and the means of enforcement, we have laws and the means of enforcement because human beings are mean and nasty.”

     Huh? So if we give a select group of people more power over us this “problem” somehow disappears? I think the origin of laws is a little different – we have laws protecting our rights because we have property and not the other way around:

     http://mises.org/daily/3817

     “But if you insist on staying on this land that isn’t yours, you’ll need to abide by our rules. Our house, our rules.”

     Why not the other way around?

     http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.ht…

     “Our house, our rules. If you don’t want to opt in to the social contract you can’t claim the protections guaranteed in it.”

     Excuse me?

     http://jim.com/treason.htm

     http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer1…

     http://www.nolanchart.com/article979.htm…

     http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davies…

     “We don’t owe you any more than you owe us.”

     So you agree that taxes – and government in general – should be out of the picture since they violate that very principle, correct?

     “There is still plenty of space available out in the oceans. I’m sure an ingenious young man such as yourself can scratch out a living there.”

     Funny you mention that…

     http://seasteading.org/

379. @375 “Without a functioning government, the peace, prosperity and security that you and me both take for granted cannot exist.”

     Let me get this straight. We need war for peace? We need to steal for security? We need bureaucrats with no show jobs and fatass pensions for prosperity? Really?

     What if brutality and oppression (government) is actually bad for peace and justice?

380. @will2power: You seem to think I’m argruing with you. That’s odd.

381. Unpaid Intern,

     I respect your honest grappling with serious issues and your ability to politely engage with critics, but your ideas have not one bit of merit. Your society would rapidly collapse into a Hobbesian nightmare.

     Your biggest mistake is thinking that without government, there would be no violence. Government was invented precisely TO REDUCE violence. We give the government sovereign authority to use coercion to prevent anarchy from taking hold. Now, this power is all too often abused, but that doesn’t mean that we’re still not FAR better off with government than we would be without it.

     Your second mistake is in thinking that coercion equals violence. Jail might not be fun, but it’s not the same thing as violence. Any philosopher worth anything knows that defining terms is a crucial step. Your definition of violence is way too broad to be at all useful. Furthermore, by your logic, private property should be abolished, as it is only maintained through the coercion of the state. Or, by the violence of property owners against non property owners. Or is it only violence by the government that concerns you?

     Have you ever heard the quote, I believe from Edmund Burke, that “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” I’m not trying to insult, but asking you to consider if you haven’t gone a bit too far with your philosophy because you’re in thrall to the idea that it is completely consistent.

     I’m genuinely interested in your answers.

382. Hmm, I think we have two options:

     Either the government keeps all the violence in the interest of the people OR the group with the biggest militia get’s to rape your ass whenever it wants; as a group with no option for recourse.

     Hey! All of a sudden, I feel okay with being fined $52 for non-payment of the gig-harbor bridge toll. It’s a minor injustice compared to anarchic lawlessness =D

     +Hawkeye

383. @376

     Yes master! Evidence either way is irrelevant at this point. This is the reason why force is always better: so few people ever want to die, so they’ll ditch their own argument/principles and do what ever the guy with the gun says just to stay alive. So you win because you have the gun pointed at me and if I act on my disaggreement with you, I am dead and its all over. Since I too prefer to live I guess I’ll just have to go on being your part-time slave for your grandiose altruistic quest paved with the blood, sweat, and tears of millions who disagreed with that vision. All the millions of our own neighbors, natives, germans, japanese, koreans, vietnamese, afganis, iraqis, and so many others. Oh well, its the price you pay for civilization and getting the job “done right.” “Bliss” for the homeland and hell abroad.

     However, as long as I live, I will continue to help others by being both a sharing and productive individual and evincing the success and good feelings it delivers. Then anyone who has at least half a heart and mind will follow my example.

     Alright, this is the last time I will talk out of turn, for I fear the blow of your truncheon and the chills of solitary confinement. I won’t engage anyone who knowningly and pridefully threatens to hurt me.

     Peace out.

384. DeaconBlues: “You seem to think I’m argruing with you. That’s odd.”

     Was the following comment directed at someone else?

     http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

     I figured since I cite sooo much material in one post – it had to be me you were referring to, sorry if I was wrong.

     ML77- before I address some questions you’ve raised (since unpaid intern and I seem to pretty much agree on everything so far), I’ll say that it’s good to see someone trying to make an honest assessment of what Matt has said so far. In response to you, I’ll throw in my two cents and once Matt (aka “Unpaid Intern”) gets back on here you can get his take – though I don’t think the core of it will differ much from mine.

     “Your biggest mistake is thinking that without government, there would be no violence. Government was invented precisely TO REDUCE violence.”

     There is certainly debate about how the “state” came to be in the first place, but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has studied that issue that can make the case for government being the product of a violent population who suddenly decided to solve their problems by creating an institution capable of even greater violence.

     Here’s a rundown of the theories put forth on the origins of government:

     Divine Right Theory: This states that god somehow commands some to rule over many. This may have served as a way of perpetuating monarchy in many instances, but government has arisen independent of whether or not people believe some kind of higher power.

     Evolutionary/Extension Theory: Supposes that government evolved as an extension to families which came about by people deciding to extend rule and control beyond just the head of the household.

     Contract Theory: States that we somehow signed an agreement to let government rule over us. For some criticism of this see comment #382 where I address the idea of a constitutional “contract.”

     Conquest Theory: The one advocates most by libertarians (but not all) and by most political scientists that I know of. States that government arose by primarily by force.

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppen…

     When you look at the different between the government and the free parts of society it’s not hard to see why this theory best fits the bill:

     http://www.independent.org/publications/…

     “Now, this power is all too often abused, but that doesn’t mean that we’re still not FAR better off with government than we would be without it.”

     Actually, it does. For starters, consider those killed by governments…

     http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.H…

     …and also consider the fact that two different government agencies in the U.S. (Customs and DEA) annually seize about as much property as is taken in criminal activity. It must be stressed however that these are based on FBI records, and not every crime gets reported, but also consider that when taxes alone are put into the picture, we see that the IRS ends up taking twice as much property away as criminal theft. I could go on about other agencies (in particular, the FDA) but I think I’ve made my point.

     The other half of the picture is the fact that things don’t get worse without government – if anything, they get better.

     First off, the warlord/chaos objection – in a nutshell war is expensive and if you have the power to tax people you’re more likely to engage in it:

     http://mises.org/daily/1855

     Next, the question of a private court system:

     http://mises.org/daily/1874

     And what about Somalia? Wasn’t it far more affluent and peaceful with government in place? Not at all:

     http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_off_Stateless…;

     http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_p…

     http://www.awdalnews.com/wmview.php?ArtI…

     http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/402025…

     http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/18/world/…

     http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b042903.html

     Despite the constant meddling by foreign nations, Somalia has IMPROVED since the time it was under a government. But sadly, with the introduction of the transitional government this progress will likely come to a screeching halt unless that government is stopped as well.

     “Your second mistake is in thinking that coercion equals violence. Jail might not be fun, but it’s not the same thing as violence.”

     It seems to me that everything in both that criticism and everything in that same paragraph you use to justify it is nothing more than an issue of semantics. In particular, I think I’ll let the claim that the state protects property speak against itself in light of what I mentioned above.

     Violence and imprisonment all share the same trait of violating a person’s individual rights unless it is done in order to prevent further violence (like self-defense for example). But as for government, I think it is necessary to give a sense of what government is and why that should be opposed.

     If you find the time, I suggest taking a look at the following:

     http://www.la-articles.org.uk/rothbard.p…

     I’m not asking you to read the whole thing right this second, but if you do have some spare time on your hands and are in the mood for some (anti)political science, then feel free to skim through it.

     But if I wanted to give a few examples of what makes the government different from other sectors of society, consider the following : Yelling “Stop thief!” to a bank robber vs. the IRS. Or accusing Charles Manson of being guilty of murder vs. these guys who presumably got nothing more than a few sleepless nights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

     What’s different between the former than the latter in both cases?

     And finally…

     “Have you ever heard the quote, I believe from Edmund Burke, that “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.””

     First, the meaning of that quote:

     http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_%27a…

     Ralph Waldo Emerson, in an essay which ironically happens to be called “Self-Reliance” was saying that people shouldn’t just mindlessly follow everyone else – the opposite of what Matt Lubby is doing.

     “I’m not trying to insult, but asking you to consider if you haven’t gone a bit too far with your philosophy because you’re in thrall to the idea that it is completely consistent.”

     It is consistent – it states that you may not initiate force against someone else – pure and simple.

385. Oh, it was directed at you. You just seem to have confused “argument” with “criticism”.

386. Matt,

     Well said. You’ve shown everyone that you have a spine, intellect, and heart. The Seattle democrats are not open minded or take well to dissenting views, and are prone to violence against those they think won’t fight back.

     “Initiative 1107 is a great example. No got the endorsement because people on our staff think the state needs the tax revenue. Not because they believe candy and soda are evil, just because they think the state needs more money to pay for the mouth-breathers who rape my life with regulations to have nice pensions.”

     I need to buy you a drink or two. You channel the anger average americans all over the country from excessive regulations and taxation. I look forward to reading more of what you have to say.

     Regards,

     Unforgiving Conservative

387. Matt,

     Well said. You’ve shown everyone that you have a spine, intellect, and heart. The Seattle democrats are not open-minded. They do not take well to dissenting views, and are prone to violent responses against those they think won’t fight back.

     You wrote, “Initiative 1107 is a great example. No got the endorsement because people on our staff think the state needs the tax revenue. Not because they believe candy and soda are evil, just because they think the state needs more money to pay for the mouth-breathers who rape my life with regulations to have nice pensions.”

     I need to buy you a drink or two. You channel the anger from average Americans all over the country drowning from excessive regulations and taxation. I look forward to reading more of what you have to say and write in the future. I am now your fan.

     Regards,

     Unforgiving Conservative

388. ML77 @385: We that question government know full well that without government there would be violence, just none anywhere nearly so organized, effective and well funded as the state itself.

     First the morality: Folks that call themselves government are wrong to steal from or hurt or oppress their neighbors just like anyone else.

     Then re effects: Is the state a reducer of violence? It is unless you examine their actions, not their stated intentions or longstanding popular delusion.

     How many people around the world have to suffer or how close does someone being brutalized by an agent of government need to be for you to see what happens all around us daily? The actual actions of “taxation” are the same as theft. What do you call it when someone takes from another with threat of violence? The actual behavior of war is murder, arrest (for non-crimes) is kidnapping, enforcing regulations is oppression, etc., etc., etc. People do not magically become able to morally, ethically steal, murder, kidnap or oppress because you, or 51% of voters, or a piece of paper say so, or call them “government employees” or anything else.

     Defining terms? Ol’ Matty here’s using the term correctly. Coercion that is backed up with violence is effectively the same as violence, just as the man who orders a murder is also guilty. And the definition of coerce is “the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.”, and force (“use of force”) is synonymous with violence.

     Private property is accepted and recognized by nearly everyone from the age of 2 or 3 because it’s right and true and good, not because a county councilperson says so.

     I, and those that share my views, very truly want a more peaceful, just and comfortable world for every single one of our fellow man. I also see the horrible violence and injustice done by people that think it’s ok to rule or own others and will spend my life working against it because I think it’s the next great leap humanity will take towards real respect for each other.

     Have you heard the Ghandi quote “Representatives will become unnecessary if the national life becomes so perfect as to be self-controlled. It will then be a state of enlightened anarchy in which each person will become his own ruler. He will conduct himself in such a way that his behavior will not hamper the well being of his neighbors. In an ideal State there will be no political institution and therefore no political power.”

389. @392 Right on and well said. To expand on your comment about private property… the reason why its “right and true and good” is that you cannot reasonably deny the existence of it without contradicting yourself. To argue “property rights do not exist” is a rank contradiction because you are making use of your body to express the argument. This is an implicit acceptance of self-ownership. Also by choosing to argue with someone instead of using force, you are implicitly accepting that the person you are trying to convince also owns him or herself because you recognize their ability to choose to agree or disaggree i.e. choose to change his or her behavior.

     Even if one makes an argument under threat of violence, it still demonstrates self-ownership for one could choose to die instead of making such a spurious argument. Choice emerges first from within the one who makes that choice. Without that ownership of the self and subsequently the action… there is no responsibility and one could not reasonably argue that those around him or her are more than “rocks bouncing down a hill.”

     From here it simply follows that we own the results of our actions. That which anyone creates by automatically asserting their self-ownership belongs to him or her. So long as it was not stolen from anyone else.

     Thanks for bringing that up.

     As for anyone who angrily brings up “well what about other animals.” Honestly, beats me. This may be part of the reason why I’m almost vegetarian. Otherwise, I’m just applying a theory for human interaction; for animals seem to lie somewhere between us and “rocks bouncing down a hill.” I recognize that certain animals come staggeringly close to us relative to other animals. Oh and also what about “someone in a coma.” Well, I am smart enough to recognize that that person is human and that certain circumstances have removed most of their ability to choose and act. So I adjust my own behavior accordingly; i.e. by choosing not to use this person for whatever personal use.

     Can anyone else here expound on the animal question? I don’t know, perhaps this is getting a bit off topic.

390. Sweet, stupid naif: fantasies of anarchic self-hatred indicate your glaring anti-social disorder. Look sharp, Somalia! Here comes a real fan of your work!

391. DeaconBlues: “Oh, it was directed at you. You just seem to have confused “argument” with “criticism”.”

     So I wasn’t mistaken in responding to your criticism – good.

     HOT PUSSY: “Sweet, stupid naif: fantasies of anarchic self-hatred indicate your glaring anti-social disorder. Look sharp, Somalia! Here comes a real fan of your work!”

     Have I addressed this clearly enough already in the following comment?

     http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

392. UI: “I had a nice Trojan horse thing going at first. Every time someone in the office would talk about police brutality or the war on drugs or the anti-war movement, I would emphasize my agreement with them. Every time someone in the office would talk about expanding government or voice anything but contempt for a politician, my earbuds would go in and I would shut up.”

     Honestly, this sounds like an accurate summary of almost any undercover anarcho-capitalist. ;D

     I go through the same exact routine – when I’m around liberals, I mention my opposition to the “PATRIOT” ACT, my support for legalizing pretty much every drug in the book (this issue is what brought me to libertarianism in the first place), opposition to interventionist foreign policy, you get the idea.

     When in the presence of conservatives, I focus on other things – my hatred of taxes, my support for gun rights (I especially tend to rant against the now expired “assault” weapons ban), opposition to the minimum wage, etc.

     Being a market anarchist in disguise is really just a matter of knowing your audience really.

393. So being an anarchist consists of never publicly standing up for your beliefs, pretending to agree with everybody else when face to face, but secretly spending countless hours cutting and pasting Cato Institute talking points into dead comment threads? Fight the power, dude.

394. So being an anarchist consists of never publicly standing up for your beliefs, pretending to agree with everybody else when face to face, but secretly spending countless hours cutting and pasting Cato Institute talking points into dead comment threads? Fight the power, dude.

395. @393

     Q: Can anyone else here expound on the animal question? I don’t know, perhaps this is getting a bit off topic.

     A: We are definitely going far afield here in the land of thestranger. But in any case, great question. Men have rights because it is in our nature to both verbally offer up, and also request a justification for our own actions, and the actions of others. In making such assertions, we unavoidably assume these rights, as your Hoppean rights analysis nicely explains. The very thing that rational men can do, which demonstrates the undeniability of human rights, is the very thing other non-rational animals cannot do, which therefore implicitly denies that they possess rights. It is not the nature of other animals to provide, or ask for a justification of anything. Because, unlike men, they simply cannot justify, they do not ever assume rights for themselves or others.

396. Voluntary cooperation by interested individuals solves every problem presented here as “insolvable except by government”.

     Want a bridge, or road? Build it. If you can’t figure out how to run it efficiently, sell it to someone who thinks they can. If they do, then the next bridge/road builder learns how to do it.

     Free Riders? If your business model doesn’t take it into account (internalize the externality), then sell it to someone whose business model does.

     Maybe the nay-sayers can explain how bridges, roads and water supplies were built before govt took them over?

397. Back from Vancouver and it’s still going. Very impressive, everyone. A thread that was initially a flame war gradually became, for many people, an honest philosophical exploration. That’s awesome. I just hope I get the chance to do this again. Oh, and for everyone who wants to buy me a drink and also for everyone who wants to throw a drink on me, keep your eyes peeled for the next Slog Happy.

     @ 385 — 1. I do think there would be violence without government, unfortunately. The difference is that it would be violence that would not have the cloak of legitimacy and would require real cost-benefit analysis. People would see war and coercion for what they are, not as “legitimate” functions of some imagined state they identify with. They would also have to account directly for the consequences of any violent actions, which is why someone much earlier in the thread suggested most private security and defense organizations would probably find mediation a far better solution than violence.

     2. thinkchip already got to this, but it’s you who has the definitional problem, I think. Outside of the occasional drunk or homeless person who actually wants to go to jail so they can get a warm place to sleep and a few meals, no one goes to jail voluntarily. Men with guns put you there and men with guns keep you there. I am gobsmacked as to how this is not violence.

     I’ve heard the quote you mention. I’ve read much of small c-conservative philosophy, like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn and Russell Kirk. They tend to view ideology as more of a bogeyman than consistency, but then any true ideology should be consistent, I suppose. The point is, I don’t agree with it. Consistency in my life makes me feel comfortable.

398. @266, Catalina, please stop repeating things like “As far as Cincinnati goes, it’s in Ohio, which is one of the many inland states that get back more in government services than it it paid in in taxes.” It’s wrong, as is your comment about the Midwest in general being that way. Washington State gets more money from the federal government than Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, or Michigan do, and Ohio is still in negative-subsidy territory. See this paper for a detailed state-by-state history going back to 1981, or see this for a convenient chart.

399. Yo Will2Power dude:
     be careful not to speak for others #388, you might misspeak.
     and remember Twain “if i had had more time i would have written a shorter letter.”
     so, be breif, to the point and don’t try to impress everyone with all you know.
     there are lots of smart people on here, be a resource not a burden.
     thanks for sharing but try to tone it down.

     in any case i have enjoyed the passionate discourse here.
     anyway, UI is back let him speak.

400. This unpaid intern is another example of a healthy young man in his prime who thinks he can go it alone and make it through life unaided. He has forgotten that he was a helpless infant and will become a helpless old man with periods of helplessness in between when life throws its hammer at him from time to time. Human beings have evolved as communal creatures in order to protect each individual during the inevitable fluctuations of each life. Governments are the natural extension of this communal impulse as a method to gather resources from those in their prime and redistribute it to those during one of their helpless phases. The reason for coercive measures is because humans are born ignorant and often fail to understand the need for taxes and laws until they are older and wiser.

     Time will make you wiser young intern.

401. @401 Nah, you’re just a fucking idiot. Enjoy growing up – I sincerely hope it goes a lot easier for you than it does for at least 5,000,000,000 other people on the planet.

     Oh no. I just initiated force against you. Should I just wait here while you hire your private security detail?

     http://www.tradersnarrative.com/wp-conte…

     Which one are you? And I don’t care if this is the 50th time you’ve had this thrown under your face – it still works.

402. You’re A Hero: “So being an anarchist consists of never publicly standing up for your beliefs,”

     The new intern isn’t an anarchist then? Fuck, I’m disappointed now – oh wait, he’s back and his views don’t appear to have changed.

     “…pretending to agree with everybody else when face to face…”

     There’s no “pretending,” I agree with liberals on drug policy and foreign policy (among other things) for instance, and with conservatives on gun control or excessive taxation.

     There’s nothing fake about it. If someone asks directly I’ll say it to their face what I think and they have every right to respond the same way.

     “…but secretly spending countless hours cutting and pasting Cato Institute talking points into dead comment threads? Fight the power, dude.”

     Well, actually these are more along the lines of what one would call “market anarchist” beliefs, not just “libertarian” in general. But I agree, whenever think tanks are doing well at the thinking they do (Whether it’s Cato, Mises, Brookings, Independent, CEI, the Century Foundation, really any ol’ tank in general) it’s good to pay some homage! ;D

     I’ve only cited Cato like twice on here – and I’m not at fault if rational thinking happens to strongly relate to anything they say. Besides, if the comment thread was dead, why legitimize what I’m doing even further by perpetuating the activity here?

     @398 – Heard you the first time, but I think I should also note here that telling the truth about anything in public these days can often be seen as the biggest act of trolling you could ever dream of.

     “Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” -Ron Paul

403. herbie52: “so, be breif, to the point and don’t try to impress everyone with all you know.”

     I’m not here to impress anyone, nor am I trying to be a burden here. If people have specific questions that go beyond the usual “how this” and “Somalia that” then I probably won’t have as much to say.

     heartfelt: “Time will make you wiser young intern.”

     It sure will, as long as he maintains a good reading list consisting of the likes of Rothbard, Hoppe, Murphy, etc. I find that half the fun of reaching a destination is reflecting back on the journey. Hence the reason why I find myself rereading the “Machinery of Freedom” when I get the chance.

     David Byr: “Oh no. I just initiated force against you.”

     How??? Was it a DDoS attack? A death threat? Did you have an altercation with him while he was in Vancouver? Or do we need a little lesson on what force is?

     “Should I just wait here while you hire your private security detail?”

     No, you should just sit up and explain yourself – how exactly did you initiate force against UI?

404. All these libertarians need is a couple of tours in Afghanistan under their belt, and they’ll realize the errors of their ways.

405. Pauled (@ 399) – In a nutshell would the libertarian line drawn on who has rights and who doesn’t depend on whether someone can question or make the case for why certain actions are taken? Or can it be described in the context of “You respect my rights and I’ll respect yours” sort of thing?

     I’m not very schooled in the area of the whole “animal rights” question except to say that they are not consenting adults, and that PETA is occasionally batshit at times…

406. Will in Seattle: “All these libertarians need is a couple of tours in Afghanistan under their belt, and they’ll realize the errors of their ways.”

     Dude, we’re non-interventionists and don’t think we should give money to foreign intel agencies to protect our “interests” anywhere around the world. We already know Afghanistan proves our point there.

     One decade later and it seems like DC still doesn’t care about what we have to say on that region…

407. Hey Matt!

     I’m actually a fairly conservative “liberal.” At least as far as this publication is concerned, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the more positive coercive nature of taxation versus the more negative coercion.

     If you don’t pay taxes, you will go to jail, yes. But if I don’t pay taxes, some kid in Georgia (where they take in more Federal funding than they dish out) won’t be able to eat or go to the doctor.

     Now, nevermind the moral argument, I’m saying, to what extent do you think people are positively motivated by the goodies that come from central taxation and redistribution rather than the fear of violence from the state?

     Does taxation and increased centralized authority come from the threat of violence so that they can wax the federal coiffers like some kind of feudal tax collector, or is it a more insidious ability to smooth out the down side of the dynamism inherent in a more community oriented legislative and taxation system?

     Honestly, this isn’t a leading question. I’m just curious what you think.

408. Hey Matt!

     I’m actually a fairly conservative “liberal.” At least as far as this publication is concerned, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the more positive coercive nature of taxation versus the more negative coercion.

     If you don’t pay taxes, you will go to jail, yes. But if I don’t pay taxes, some kid in Georgia (where they take in more Federal funding than they dish out) won’t be able to eat or go to the doctor.

     Now, nevermind the moral argument, I’m saying, to what extent do you think people are positively motivated by the goodies that come from central taxation and redistribution rather than the fear of violence from the state?

     Does taxation and increased centralized authority come from the threat of violence so that they can wax the federal coiffers like some kind of feudal tax collector, or is it a more insidious ability to smooth out the down side of the dynamism inherent in a more community oriented legislative and taxation system?

     Honestly, this isn’t a leading question. I’m just curious what you think.

409. Hey Matt!

     I’m actually a fairly conservative “liberal.” At least as far as this publication is concerned, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the more positive coercive nature of taxation versus the more negative coercion.

     If you don’t pay taxes, you will go to jail, yes. But if I don’t pay taxes, some kid in Georgia (where they take in more Federal funding than they dish out) won’t be able to eat or go to the doctor.

     Now, nevermind the moral argument, I’m saying, to what extent do you think people are positively motivated by the goodies that come from central taxation and redistribution rather than the fear of violence from the state?

     Does taxation and increased centralized authority come from the threat of violence so that they can wax the federal coiffers like some kind of feudal tax collector, or is it a more insidious ability to smooth out the down side of the dynamism inherent in a more community oriented legislative and taxation system?

     Honestly, this isn’t a leading question. I’m just curious what you think.

410. Never mind. I’m an idiot. You already answered this question, and apprently my computer thought it should post 3 times.
     Fuck.
     Sorry everyone.

     Jumped the gun.

     Three times.

411. @404 — Hey thanks for reading the thread. I don’t expect you to read every comment, but I’ve probably said at least 15 times that I enjoy being a part of various communities. Cool strawman, dude!

     @ WiS — Seriously, the Afghanistan non sequitur again? I’m starting to agree more and more with the people in the Fnarf/WiS thread about Will. In case you guys were wondering, Will just wants everyone to know that he is better than us because he did fuck-all with the Canadian Forces in the Okanagan for a couple of summers. Hoo-ah, soldier!

412. ” Pauled (@ 399) – In a nutshell would the libertarian line drawn on who has rights and who doesn’t depend on whether someone can question or make the case for why certain actions are taken?”

     I would say the line is drawn by the nature of the being. Humans, as you say, can question and justify. And humans look for an ethic to apply to humans. So the line is drawn at humans.

     “Or can it be described in the context of “You respect my rights and I’ll respect yours” sort of thing?”

     This too, which is just the ethic that is the precondition for discussing and attempting to agree on an ethic.

     “I’m not very schooled in the area of the whole “animal rights” question except to say that they are not consenting adults, and that PETA is occasionally batshit at times…”

     Animals, by nature, cannot claim a right, acknowledge a right, or attempt to agree to an ethic. They are incapable of assuming rights for themselves. Ergo, they simply have no rights.

413. For all of the angry statists that commented. Try to understand the primary message here. I own me. You own you. We have no rights to each others lives, liberty or property. Is this really the message you are so outraged over?? Ask yourselves why.

414. Well… we all grow up someday.

415. I agree Bean, I still have yet to decide whether I am a Market Anarchist who advocates the Austrian or Chicago school of economic thought yet. But I still have some time to learn!

416. @418 “Well… we all grow up someday.”
     Can one of these ever so wise adults explain to me why his age anything to do with the content of his message? And in your amazing old age of wisdom, explain to me how thats not a logical fallacy?(Non-sequitur)

     Some older people are so dumb lulz, and amazingly good at making themselves look it. Go read a book imo.

417. @418 “Well… we all grow up someday.”
     Can one of these ever so wise adults explain to me why his age anything to do with the content of his message? And in your amazing old age of wisdom, explain to me how thats not a logical fallacy?(Non-sequitur)

     Some older people are so dumb lulz, and amazingly good at making themselves look it. Go read a book imo.

418. Epic Post, and epic thread. Market Anarchy wins.

419. @404, Heartfelt

     “This unpaid intern is another example of a healthy young man in his prime who thinks he can go it alone and make it through life unaided.”

     I don’t think there is anything in his argument that suggests he has an inclination to “go it alone”. All he is suggesting is that he would like to exercise his right to go it without the “help”, as it is sometimes labeled, of the state.

     “He has forgotten that he was a helpless infant and will become a helpless old man with periods of helplessness in between when life throws its hammer at him from time to time.”

     No, I don’t think anything he has said indicates he has had such a lapse in memory. In anarchy there would be private institutions, family, private hospitals, and private medical practitioners, as plenty, and well priced as any market today that benefits from minimal state intervention and regulation.

     “Human beings have evolved as communal creatures in order to protect each individual during the inevitable fluctuations of each life. Governments are the natural extension of this communal impulse as a method to gather resources from those in their prime and redistribute it to those during one of their helpless phases.”

     Governments are institutions of aggression and irrationality. That is all that Matt has against them. If not for that, they would possibly be fine charitable organizations.

     “The reason for coercive measures is because humans are born ignorant and often fail to understand the need for taxes and laws until they are older and wiser.”

     Heh! That makes my day. Thanks.

     “Time will make you wiser young intern.”

     Time does not make everyone wiser. It requires first a certain attitude of openness to new ideas, a hatred of injustice, and an understanding of the connection between a general respect for property, and general liberty and prosperity.

420. What was that quote by Orwell about times of universal deceit?

     Needless to say, you have serious bravado for writing this article. While I think it was a little too rights-oriented (try consequentialism if persuasion is your goal), you got the basic point right.

     I am not that surprised that the same arguments seem to have showed up the whole time this was heavily discussed. Looks like I should take them into account when I make my message heard.

     Speaking of the comments on this and your other posts, what was Lenny Bruce’s saying about what liberals are capable of understanding?

Comments are closed.