NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a libertarian, but I think that democracy is the worst form of government, because of its tendency to weaken liberal values and increase the power of the state. Here’s why.

1.) Voting rights are an oxymoron, because they are a method by which people can coerce others into doing their will, even if they don't consent (hence why the 51 get to dictate what happens to the 49); this is hardly freedom.

2.) Because of this, democracy is inherently an exploitative, redistributionist and wasteful system because of above coercive “voice of the people”. Let us assume that there three perfectly informed (i.e. not ignorant) individuals in a democracy. Person B and C need someone to clean their lawns, so that they can each save $50. They decide to have a vote to make Person A clean their lawns. If Person A is forced into performing these acts, he will have opportunity costs of $2000, because he is a very productive accountant who will be stopped from doing his job and made to perform this task. Person A will vote against the measure, because he will have a loss of $2000. Person B and C will vote for the measure because they will attain a gain of $50 each. This is an example of an inefficient yes-vote, where the aggregate costs exceed the aggregate benefits. However, had this been a system of individual decision with no fictitious “voice of the people”, Person A would have been able to pursue the $2000 which is a service more desired by him and consumers than the $100 total of cleaning people’s lawns.

There is also an example of an inefficient no-vote, where a majority of people vote no because there are smaller costs spread in the majority around with a major gain for a minority of people (for example, Person B and C vote no on a measure that would cost them $50 but give Person A $2000.) This would seem to invalidate individual choice; however, in a system of individual choice, Person A would have the option of offering benefits to Person B and C in exchange for their costs; for example, he could take $200 from his benefits, leaving him still with $1800 in benefits, and give one-half each to B and C, changing their costs of $50 to benefits of $50. Thus, it is shown that individual choice is a far better mode of calculating optimal resource allocation than democracy, even if the latter claims to have the “voice of the people.”

3.) However, there is no such thing as perfect information; rather, people only have imperfect information. This imperfect information serves to only further damage democracy. Most people have very little way to influence and gain from government, and thus will not pay much attention to it, if any at all- this is rational ignorance, where the costs of gaining information outweigh the benefits of staying ignorant and doing something else. Along with these rationally ignorant people, there are people with much to gain from government's monopoly on force and many ways to gain it through various mechanisms of political support- the rent-seekers, who wish to redistribute resources from others to themselves.

Politicians will act in a way to keep themselves in power, in order to gain the benefits available of having this position. In order to maintain their power, the politicians must calculate what shall keep them in power. The rationally ignorant populace is a relatively unimportant part of this calculation, since they are ignorant and are not paying attention to government, essentially giving politicians carte-blanche; the real competition for politicians is to gain the support of the rent-seekers, who have the most to gain from government and the most ability to benefit politicians.

However, the rationally ignorant populace does have a role in this, but not one that serves itself. Since the populace is ignorant, they can be convinced into surrendering what belongs to them to the rent-seekers if their status of ignorance is maintained and they believe they are benefiting from the transactions. Thus the political structure and the rent-seekers form an alliance of deception and theft in order to parasitically feed off of the rest of the democracy. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that politicians do not need to worry about the long-term status of the country, seeing as it neither belongs to them nor will they stay permanently in power, but rather focus on getting their immediate benefits; therefore, their incentive is to plunder as much as soon as possible, regardless of future costs. This is similar to a tragedy of the commons scenario, in which, for example, there is a commonly held stream, in which people will not be punished for overfishing because any possible future claims on fish are not theirs, but claims on whatever present fish they catch are theirs. Thus, they scramble to grab up as much as possible now, even though this eliminates the chances for future gain from the stream.

There is a political tragedy of the commons, with politicians who want to get as much as they can as possible because they have little stake in the future of the country. This creates a depletion of the country's possible future resources at the hands of the politicians in order to benefit the politicians and their allies now. So the democratic state's aim is not to help its voters, but to balance a game of putting on an appearance of being a help, while it secretly uses its power for the benefit of those it favors. This rent-seeking serves to diminish any rights the people may have in order to benefit the rent-seekers and the politicians, thus causing a decline in liberal values and the weakening of freedom in a nation.

4.) Now, what is my alternative? It can be summed up in three ideals; an absolute right to secession from the government, an unamendable common law system based upon individual rights with absolutely no extra powers to government (i.e. no sovereign immunity, taxation, or regulation), and a need for long-term incentive in government to make them help develop the country. The first allows for people to leave the government and form their own, thus making the government competitive; the second allows for peaceful exchange and protection of the individual, putting government in the position of a subject instead of a ruler, and giving a guideline for all governments that cannot be changed by them for political expedience; the third, which can be attained either by government serving as a firm that works by pleasing consumer desires for arbitration and security, or as a charity of civic-minded people who gain a psychological benefit by helping others. With this, a government which truly benefits the people, through individual calculation and cooperation, can be attained.

I second your notions. Many nations that were once democratic eventually became corrupt dicatatorships, like present day Philipines and Germany 1930-1940. And sadly its slowly happening to America. :(

Secondly you can easliy bribe people in democracy thus raising the corruption.

The first allows for people to leave the government and form their own, thus making the government competitive No it makes it absoultely USELESS.

And you assume that people will be 'civil minded'. How naive.

Anarchy is proper. Government is that which abrogates rights.

No, he's proposing what would quickly develop into monarchy.

People realise what they can do together and they realise that they can have it so much better than they had it before. This is why they vote for their own interests.

Anarchy is proper. Government is that which abrogates rights.

Try building a society without a government--I mean from scratch. Good fucking luck with that.

tl;dr

I kinda see your point, but eh.
Libertarianism doesn't exactly seem to solve the "big" problems either.

Now, what is my alternative? It can be summed up in three ideals; an absolute right to secession from the government, an unamendable common law system based upon individual rights.

now how do we know what are these "common law rights"? different countries have different ideas on what rights should be. i dont believe in most rights anyway.

as i would agree democracy isnt a perfect system but it has the smallest window for corruption. personally i would prefere a military style form of gov. only the best get to the top.

Try building a society without a government--I mean from scratch. Good fucking luck with that.
How nice of you to say that. Thank you for your uninformed input.

Try building a society without a government--I mean from scratch. Good fucking luck with that.

If neanderthals were capable of doing it, why shouldn't we?

How nice of you to say that. Thank you for your uninformed input.
What an inspired comeback! I have been slain by your mastery of the issue! :rolleyes:

Anarchy is proper. Government is that which abrogates rights.

Prove it.

What an inspired comeback!
It was.


I have been slain by your mastery of the issue! :rolleyes:
Inasmuch as I was slain by yours.

IOW: maybe you should put more effort into your posts. Might help if you actually thought before you posted. Then I wouldn't just condescendingly dismiss you.

If neanderthals were capable of doing it, why shouldn't we?
Even the most rudimentary of societies had some form of government, even if it were nothing more than a clan leader or other "big man" that the members of the group looked to for leadership. Even families have government at that level. But the larger a group gets, the more it needs stability, and government provides that to some degree. Some do it better than others, but for social and technological advancement to happen, there has to be stability and, by extension, government.

It was.



Inasmuch as I was slain by yours.

IOW: maybe you should put more effort into your posts. Might help if you actually thought before you posted. Then I wouldn't just condescendingly dismiss you.
If I--or many others, for that matter--gave two shits what you thought, I'd put more effort into my ripostes with you. I'm satisfied with simply dismissing you, as you so richly deserve.

But the larger a group gets, the more it needs stability, and government provides that to some degree. Some do it better than others, but for social and technological advancement to happen, there has to be stability and, by extension, government.
No, there doesn't have to be a government. Stability does not require a government, especially considering there have been instabilities with governments.

Some do it better than others, but for social and technological advancement to happen, there has to be stability and, by extension, government.

Why do we need that? The more development and technological advancement there is, the more moral degeneration there is. We need to revert to a society where the Bible is held near and dear, even if that means sacrificing our modern conveniences. It surely will be preferable to eternal damnation. What's the use of the advancement of which you speak if people become more and more distant from the Church?

If I--or many others, for that matter--gave two shits what you thought,
Then don't post to me.

But you did.

So you care.

Now, if you're done contradicting yourself: put more effort into your posts.

A two-party system has this flaw, where it's tyranny by majority because one group has more control than the other, and so the will of one can be ignored for that of the other.

If I--or many others, for that matter--gave two shits what you thought, I'd put more effort into my ripostes with you. I'm satisfied with simply dismissing you, as you so richly deserve.

I'm disappointed. I hope you can be more accepting of him in the future. Everyone deserves to have his voice heard and his ideas debated instead of simply being ignored or ostracized. No one should have to feel the stigma of isolation which you have imposed on him.

No, there doesn't have to be a government. Stability does not require a government, especially considering there have been instabilities with governments.

Can you name an anarcho-capitalist society that has been stable for an extended period of time?

What's the use of the advancement of which you speak if people become more and more distant from the Church?

less religious wars and rape.

less religious wars and rape.

There hasn't been a religious war for centuries. As for rape, the Bible prohibits it.

There hasn't been a religious war for centuries. As for rape, the Bible prohibits it.
Unless there was a royal decree permitting it.

I'm disappointed. I hope you can be more accepting of him in the future. Everyone deserves to have his voice heard and his ideas debated instead of simply being ignored or ostracized. No one should have to feel the stigma of isolation which you have imposed on him.

Eh, when those sympathetic for someone's viewpoints start dismissing them then one wonders if one should pay much attention to them. Both Europa, a market anarchist, and Vittos, a minarchist, have both had reservation on BWK's arguing style.

I think that perhaps the Churchill quote is appropriate here. I'm sure you know the one I mean.

Addressing your points.
1) You only talk of one form of democracy - direct simple democracy. There are many different forms of democracies, such as, republics (first past the post, PR, STV, etc...), direct democracies, constitutional democracies, simple majorities, majorities requiring more than 50%, but less than 100% (eg 66%), qualified majorities, absolute majorities and others.

2) Democracy is not inherently exploitative. Just as dictatorships, theocracies, and other forms of government are not inherently. Rather it is human nature that causes some people to use a system to exploit others.

3) You talk of the tradegy of the commons yet you go on to say that human behaviour should not be regulated to prevent such situations.

4) Unammendable? Not being flexible is a serious hinderance to any human endeavour. And as always what a human right is open for debate. If a government cannot collect taxes then how is it to enforce the laws that have been agreed upon? I think you also attribute characteristics to humans which are you claim are unique to the form of government you suggest. If a low scale government such as your suggested one can be run by civic-minded individuals, why can a large scale democracy not?

I assume you have basic property rights under this common law you suggest. What happens if there is a dispute over ownership of a piece of property that cannot be settled? You say people can split off to form their own government. But, who does the disputed property belong to? The individual within the newly formed government, or does it become common property within the old government.

The reason why large scale government can work is that it has a monopoly on the use of force and its decisions are final. Hence if an arbitration is not resolved then the state can issue you its judgement on the matter and effectively enforce that matter. One party may not be happy about the judgment, but is unable to take any action. Thus the conflict can be stopped from turning into outright hostilities and society can progress.

There hasn't been a religious war for centuries. As for rape, the Bible prohibits it.

no there hasnt been any religious ware recently. your dead on there bud.....:rolleyes:

I second your notions. Many nations that were once democratic eventually became corrupt dicatatorships, like present day Philipines and Germany 1930-1940. And sadly its slowly happening to America. :(

Secondly you can easliy bribe people in democracy thus raising the corruption.

The Reichstag fire and the Enabling Act in 1933 pretty much ended the democacy in Germany. Between 1933-45 Germany was millitary dictatorship. Are you saying the Phillipines was better when Ferdinand & Imelda Marcos ran it?

Unless there was a royal decree permitting it.

I am for the implementation of legislated morality based soundly upon the Bible; that would make rape a criminal act and impose severe punishments upon those who engage in such a grotesque act.

Ideology always sounds so great on paper. The devil is in the details, as they say. Try actually organizing your system down to the nitty gritty. How do I get my mail? Who will guarentee the security of my investments? Who can guarentee the integrity of my inventions? Who's gonna fill the potholes on my street? Who will protect me from criminals? Who will conduct our foriegn policy? How will countries feel about engaging us if our government is an unstable, unpredictable blob? Who would have galvanized our country into a sigle minded entity when it needed to be after Dec. 7, 1941 or Sept. 11, 2001 (albeit that our current government did it so badly)?

Why do we need that? The more development and technological advancement there is, the more moral degeneration there is. We need to revert to a society where the Bible is held near and dear, even if that means sacrificing our modern conveniences. It surely will be preferable to eternal damnation. What's the use of the advancement of which you speak if people become more and more distant from the Church?

Why have technological advancements if it takes us further from the bible? Because basing a society entirely on a work of fiction is generally a bad thing?

It was.



Inasmuch as I was slain by yours.

IOW: maybe you should put more effort into your posts. Might help if you actually thought before you posted. Then I wouldn't just condescendingly dismiss you.

You condescendingly dismiss everyone that you don't agree with, hell even some that do agree with you but do not go as far as you wish.

Why have technological advancements if it takes us further from the bible? Because basing a society entirely on a work of fiction is generally a bad thing?

A work of "fiction" (as you call it, although I believe in its veracity) can still teach people how to behave morally. Some of the literary works with the most momentous implications were those of "fiction" because they accurately illustrated human nature and allowed for a equitable interpretation of their morals.

Ideology always sounds so great on paper. The devil is in the details, as they say. Try actually organizing your system down to the nitty gritty. How do I get my mail? Who will guarentee the security of my investments? Who can guarentee the integrity of my inventions? Who's gonna fill the potholes on my street? Who will protect me from criminals?
Answer to all: private companies/courts.


Who will conduct our foriegn policy?
No need for it.


How will countries feel about engaging us if our government is an unstable, unpredictable blob? Who would have galvanized our country into a sigle minded entity when it needed to be after Dec. 7, 1941 or Sept. 11, 2001 (albeit that our current government did it so badly)?
Neither of those happenstances needed to happen, and were readily preventable. But the governments in each time did nothing to prevent them.

You condescendingly dismiss everyone that you don't agree with,
No, I do not. Thank you for lying.

A work of "fiction" (as you call it, although I believe in its veracity) can still teach people how to behave morally. Some of the literary works with the most momentous implications were those of "fiction" because they accurately illustrated human nature and allowed for a equitable interpretation of their morals.

Oh it's true that some fiction does illustrate human morality in a very good way. The problem with that is two fold. First, we don't go basing our government on "For Whom The Bell Tolls" do we? And second, I believe that as a moral guide, the bible is, in fact, awful, and teaches a reprehensible version of morality. As such, even as a moral guide it fails.

It sorta bugs me when people bring up the "even if it's not true, it's still a good moral guide" argument for the bible. Seriously, have you read the thing? Death to gays, women not worth the same as a man, god wiping humanity out save for a family because he got mad at them. Job inflicted with horrible punishment to win a bet, entire cities reduced to pillars of salt. women stoned because they actually sold their own sex for profit...really, I wouldn't go using the bible as a great moral guide, unless you have an open enough mind to dismiss the crap.

I think that perhaps the Churchill quote is appropriate here. I'm sure you know the one I mean.

Addressing your points.
1) You only talk of one form of democracy - direct simple democracy. There are many different forms of democracies, such as, republics (first past the post, PR, STV, etc...), direct democracies, constitutional democracies, simple majorities, majorities requiring more than 50%, but less than 100% (eg 66%), qualified majorities, absolute majorities and others.

2) Democracy is not inherently exploitative. Just as dictatorships, theocracies, and other forms of government are not inherently. Rather it is human nature that causes some people to use a system to exploit others.
Democracy allows for/enables it.


4) Unammendable? Not being flexible is a serious hinderance to any human endeavour. And as always what a human right is open for debate. If a government cannot collect taxes then how is it to enforce the laws that have been agreed upon?
Agreed upon by whom?


I assume you have basic property rights under this common law you suggest. What happens if there is a dispute over ownership of a piece of property that cannot be settled?
Why can't it be settled?


The reason why large scale government can work is that it has a monopoly on the use of force and its decisions are final.
IOW: it's dictatorial.

And need I remind you of the dangers of a coercive monopoly?

A work of "fiction" (as you call it, although I believe in its veracity) can still teach people how to behave morally. Some of the literary works with the most momentous implications were those of "fiction" because they accurately illustrated human nature and allowed for a equitable interpretation of their morals.

Bang up job it's done for the last 2,000 years. Remember, the age of enlightenment and reformation which put an end to things like slavery, inquisitions and witch burnings happened because science forced us to abandon the literal interpretations of the Bible. It was when we started to take the Bible less seriously that we stopped treating people barbarically and started seeing the value in each individual human being. I'm not denying that there is a place for religion and spirituality in society, but when you make religion the guiding principle of your culture you get Saudi Arabia or the Spanish Inquisition.

I'm disappointed. I hope you can be more accepting of him in the future. Everyone deserves to have his voice heard and his ideas debated instead of simply being ignored or ostracized. No one should have to feel the stigma of isolation which you have imposed on him.

I don't know if you're a puppet or not--frankly, I don't care--but BAAWAKnights has a reputation that has earned him my disdain. And I'm sure he doesn't feel stung by it in the least.

No, I do not. Thank you for lying.

Proove you do not condescendingly dismiss all those who disagree with you.

Answer to all: private companies/courts.Without a central government to enforce laws private companies are free to rip me off and a court's ruling isn't worth teh paper it's written on.



No need for it.That's just so naive it doesn't require a rebuttal.



Neither of those happenstances needed to happen, and were readily preventable. But the governments in each time did nothing to prevent them.

How would no government have prevented it?

Death to gays

Please cite the relevant phrase of the Bible in which it says that humans must take it upon themselves to persecute all gays. Now, gays are mostly likely going to be condemned to Hell, granted; however, it is not up to us to hasten their journey there.

women not worth the same as a man

Have you ever watched the Olympics? Women consistently under-perform in comparison to men. How many famous women inventors have there been? Almost every single great scientist has been a man, from Newton to Einstein. You may not like it, but it's true, and the facts speak for themselves.

women stoned because they actually sold their own sex for profit.

Prostitution is a terrible crime which threatens the pillars of our moral state. It must be dealt with harshly because of that very reason.

but when you make religion the guiding principle of your culture you get Saudi Arabia or the Spanish Inquisition.

Or the Crusades...

Answer to all: private companies/courts.

Private companies making the rules will result in the same thing. Government. Only they will be much more interested in the bottom line, what makes them money. Hardly an ideal situation when you are trying to improve society.

No need for it.

I hope this is a joke. You don't live in a vacuum. Dealing with other nations is a reality you must deal with.

Neither of those happenstances needed to happen, and were readily preventable. But the governments in each time did nothing to prevent them.

Sounds like your plan would be to sell out anyone and give away anything you have to in order to avoid any conflict. Hardly something that is going to work in the long term.

I don't know if you're a puppet or not--frankly, I don't care--but BAAWAKnights has a reputation that has earned him my disdain.
And you're right: I don't care if you don't like me or if you do. However, I do expect you to put some effort into your posts if you're going to post to me. Otherwise, I suggest that you not post to me, because I WILL call you on your lack of effort. Capice?

Please cite the relevant phrase of the Bible in which it says that humans must take it upon themselves to persecute all gays. Now, gays are mostly likely going to be condemned to Hell, granted; however, it is not up to us to hasten their journey there.

And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death

Have you ever watched the Olympics? Women consistently under-perform in comparison to men. How many famous women inventors have there been? Almost every single great scientist has been a man, from Newton to Einstein. You may not like it, but it's true, and the facts speak for themselves.



Prostitution is a terrible crime which threatens the pillars of our moral state. It must be dealt with harshly because of that very reason.

Holy crap you can't be for real. THIS folks is why the bible makes a shitty moral authority, with or without the divinity.

No, there doesn't have to be a government. Stability does not require a government, especially considering there have been instabilities with governments.

God, that's a stupid statement. Because there have been unstable governments, societies don't need government in order to be stable? Name a single stable society that arose without a stable government that provided security for the citizenry in one way or another.

Private companies making the rules will result in the same thing.
They don't make the rules, and it wouldn't result in government.


Only they will be much more interested in the bottom line, what makes them money. Hardly an ideal situation when you are trying to improve society.
What makes you say that?


I hope this is a joke.
No.


Dealing with other nations is a reality you must deal with.
You deal with individuals.


Sounds like your plan would be to sell out anyone and give away anything you have to in order to avoid any conflict.
Doesn't sound like that at all.

You, like Nazz, need to put some effort and thought into your posts.

Have you ever watched the Olympics? Women consistently under-perform in comparison to men. How many famous women inventors have there been? Almost every single great scientist has been a man, from Newton to Einstein. You may not like it, but it's true, and the facts speak for themselves.
:rolleyes:

God, that's a stupid statement.
No, it isn't.


Because there have been unstable governments, societies don't need government in order to be stable?
Yes. There's no link at all. In fact, we can see from what happened in New Orleans in 2005 that there's no link whatsoever.

You're still not putting forth any effort. Try harder.

Holy crap you can't be for real. THIS folks is why the bible makes a shitty moral authority, with or without the divinity.

I'll take that as a "no, I've never watched the Olympics before." Men have been proven to be superior at mathematics, athletics, and the hard sciences by history. Almost every single great athlete, mathematician, scientist, or what have you, has been a man. You disregard this because it goes against your concept that men and women are equal, but it is true nonetheless.

They don't make the rules, and it wouldn't result in government.If there are no laws, then, again, who protects my investemnets? The integrity of my inventions? Prosecutes rapists and child molesters?

Without a central government to enforce laws private companies are free to rip me off and a court's ruling isn't worth teh paper it's written on.
No, it's not. There are private courts.


That's just so naive it doesn't require a rebuttal.
IOW: it's so correct that you can't rebut it.



How would no government have prevented it?
No naughty dealings by government agents to cause the ill-feelings precipitating the actions.

Please tell me that you don't think the Japanese and terrorist attacks just happened for no reason whatsoever.

If there are no laws,
Why would there be no laws? Are you so deluded that you believe that laws require a government?

:rolleyes:

It's true! I'm not just fabricating facts to serve my thesis. Men are better at women at athletics and science, although they are worse at tasks such as homemaking and sewing.

Okay, so what do you do when one of these "policing corporations" gets powerful enough to gain monopoly on police force, and becomes a racket/criminal organization? Who's gonna stop em from setting up a military dictatorship?

The mail corporation?

Here's another problem: Who issues money? Who decides how much it's worth? Is there even money at all?

I know someone mentioned it earlier, but every time it needs to be mentioned, the quote makes more and more sense.

"Democracy is the worst form of government - Except for all the others."

-Winston Churchill

I'll take that as a "no, I've never watched the Olympics before." Men have been proven to be superior at mathematics, athletics, and the hard sciences by history.

The only truth to that is the athletics part, and that's only true due to an average stronger body. The whole "proof" of male superiority at anything other than physical activity, on average, is nonsensical.

Almost every single great athlete, mathematician, scientist, or what have you, has been a man. You disregard this because it goes against your concept that men and women are equal, but it is true nonetheless.

Provide proof. "because Einstein was a man" isn't proof. All you've proven is that at times in our history, men had better access to education.

No fucking shit.

It's true! I'm not just fabricating facts to serve my thesis. Men are better at women at athletics and science, although they are worse at tasks such as homemaking and sewing.

OK, now this is just trolling, no two ways about it.

I'll take that as a "no, I've never watched the Olympics before." Men have been proven to be superior at mathematics, athletics, and the hard sciences by history. Almost every single great athlete, mathematician, scientist, or what have you, has been a man. You disregard this because it goes against your concept that men and women are equal, but it is true nonetheless.
Ever heard of Marie Curie? Rosalind Franklin? And the concept of having no great female athletes is so ludicrous I won't even go there.

I'll take that as a "no, I've never watched the Olympics before." Men have been proven to be superior at mathematics, athletics, and the hard sciences by history. Almost every single great athlete, mathematician, scientist, or what have you, has been a man. You disregard this because it goes against your concept that men and women are equal, but it is true nonetheless.

And women have been oppressed by religion for most of history. Since the age of enlightenment and reformation came women have enjoyed more and more freedom in the west and we can now look backat the last 200 years and find Madam Curie, that chick who invented the Polio vaccine, Mother Teressa, Diane Fossey... today women head the departments of physics, chemistry, political science at universities all around the world. Athletics? Try to get a man to do the moves a woman can on ice skates or on the gymnastic floor. Men can do things athletically that women can't do, but the reverse is every bit as true.

Okay, so what do you do when one of these "policing corporations" gets powerful enough to gain monopoly on police force,
How can that happen? You do realize that coercive monopolies require government fiat.


Here's another problem: Who issues money?
Banks or mints.


Who decides how much it's worth? Is there even money at all?
Second question first: yes. Most likely a precious metal like gold, silver, or platinum.

Worth? Whatever the bank or mint or issuing agency decides insofar as the face value. What it is accepted at is up to the acceptor. And there would be fixed exchange rates based on the content of the metal involved vis-a-vis different issuers.

No, it's not. There are private courts.And when they make a ruling I say, "go ahead and eat the peanuts outta my shit," and what happens?



IOW: it's so correct that you can't rebut it.No. It's just plainly ridiculous. How do we get platinum from Africa for our surgical tools and jet engines? How do we get uranium from Australia? If someo treis to invade Mexico for it's oil reserves, how do we stop that power from invading us for our breadbox?




No naughty dealings by government agents to cause the ill-feelings precipitating the actions.It's not about ill feelings. Its about competition for necessary resources.

Please tell me that you don't think the Japanese and terrorist attacks just happened for no reason whatsoever.

Of course not. Ultimately they happened becayuse of resource competition.

How can that happen? You do realize that coercive monopolies require government fiat.



Banks or mints.



Second question first: yes. Most likely a precious metal like gold, silver, or platinum.

Worth? Whatever the bank or mint or issuing agency decides insofar as the face value. What it is accepted at is up to the acceptor. And there would be fixed exchange rates based on the content of the metal involved vis-a-vis different issuers.

Oh that would be fun "hm, let's see, if i give you this piece of paper worth 3 ounces of gold over at the bank on James' street, and two of these each will get you 5 ounces of silver over there on the net block, plus something I think is worth 4 ounces of silver over on the other one, but this 4 ounce of silver is 5 bob street bank's dollar, but the one with the 5 ounces is 10, but 3 ounces is 2...is 3 ounces of gold worth more than 5 of silver...will that get me a soda?"

As for no need for foreign policy. Well. An interesting perspective I guess.

What if your system does work. Citizens of all the other opressed nations of the world will come flooding into your, well, society (Can't really say country). How do you deal with that? People who may not even speak the same language you do? People who come pre-organized into the competition within the corporate arena of the society? What about a foreign corporation which is more powerful than all the local versions, coming in and gaining a monopoly?

What about the inverse? Everybody hates the system so much they flood outside, a society without people works even less than a dysfunctional democracy.

what I find funny about the idea of private courts making private law is when one of those private legal entities passes a law saying "it's perfectly legal to bribe our judges"

I'm also amused that you think warfare would go away if nations just went away. So much for that "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life that plagued us all in our state of nature.

what I find funny about the idea of private courts making private law is when one of those private legal entities passes a law saying "it's perfectly legal to bribe our judges"

I'm also amused that you think warfare would go away if nations just went away. So much for that "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" life that plagued us all in our state of nature.

There was no war before there were nations.

Oh, wait... :confused:

Ever heard of Marie Curie? Rosalind Franklin? And the concept of having no great female athletes is so ludicrous I won't even go there.

Yes, there have been some great women scientists. However, the large majority of superior scientists have been men. Euler, Newton, Einstein, etc., have all been men. The ratio of great men scientists to great women scientists is about 20 to 1. Also, men hold the record in virtually every single athletic event; it's a fact, and not a ludicrous one at that. Men, on average, are stronger and faster than women. That's a fact.

Yes, there have been some great women scientists. However, the large majority of superior scientists have been men. Euler, Newton, Einstein, etc., have all been men. The ratio of great men scientists to great women scientists is about 20 to 1. Also, men hold the record in virtually every single athletic event; it's a fact, and not a ludicrous one at that. Men, on average, are stronger and faster than women. That's a fact.

But as I stated in my previous post there are historical reasons for that. Also, men are driven to succeed by competition for females. As for being bigger and stronger, sure. We also have better spatial reasoning skills. But women still do things athletically that men cannot and after years of study, aside from spatial reasoning, men have not been shown to have greater intellectual acuity.

, on average, are stronger and faster than women. That's a fact.

Yes, that is a fact, nobody has disbuted that. And maybe back in caveman days, being stronger and faster and able to hunt down that wild animal, and carry it back home made you somehow a superior person.

But in this society, other than occassional sports watching fun, what does it matter who is stronger or faster? Someone in a lateral position to me at my firm is a woman in a wheelchair, and I don't think that when promotion time comes around that the firm's senior partners are going to give me greater consideration because I can sprint down to the coffee machine before she can.

Yes, men on average are stronger and faster than woman. Fanfuckingtastic.

So what?

And maybe back in caveman days, being stronger and faster and able to hunt down that wild animal, and carry it back home made you somehow a superior person.

Only it didn't. In general, hunter-gatherer societies had pretty egalitarian relationships between men and women.

There is no "natural superior." All of that is a sexist lie.

Only it didn't. In general, hunter-gatherer societies had pretty egalitarian relationships between men and women.

There is no "natural superior." All of that is a sexist lie.

well then that just blows the whole damn thing to fuck doesn't it?

So what?

They are superior in that regard. Also, IQ tests consistently rate women, on average, one or two points below the men. So they are also intellectually superior. Objectively, they are superior in a plethora of regards.

They don't make the rules, and it wouldn't result in government.

How would laws be made? People are not just going to be act nice, laws are going to be neccessary and without rules society will break down. And I don't care what you try to tell yourself, whoever is in power will make rules whether you want them to or not.

What makes you say that?.

Because they are a business and businesses only care about profits. Paying for the publics security and welfare is an expensive proposition that no company ever wants to deal with. Should they gain power they will not willingly help you out.

You deal with individuals..

What does this mean? Foreign policy is going to be neccessary to any nation. You can not stick your head in the sand and ignore the world outside your borders.

Doesn't sound like that at all..

You are posting arguements like Pearl Harbor could have been avoided. The only way that would have happened would have been to appease the Japanese and give them the resources we were denying them. We were in the way of their conquering. Giving away anything you have to in order to prevent conflict is not going to work.

You, like Nazz, need to put some effort and thought into your posts.

What, simply because you disagree with me, my posts need to become "better"? You really need to learn how to deal with disagreement better, simply dismissing counter arguements does not put you in a good light.

well then that just blows the whole damn thing to fuck doesn't it?

Maybe it would, if we still lived in hunter-gatherer societies. We have, however, progressed from that level. We now can differentiate between men and women on a greater plane than a rudimentary "I should have sex with her" system of thinking. We have also come to realize, through experimentation, that men are superior to women in almost all respects (aside from homemaking, sewing, and the like).

How can that happen? You do realize that coercive monopolies require government fiat.

Easily. Bob, bill, and butch all have equal policing forces. Bob and butch decide that, financially, a merger would be advantageous, because of increased capacity to police larger areas, with more information. The price for policing goes up, bill is outcompeted because, although he is cheaper, his coverage is limited. Eventually, bob&butch, inc have so much more money than bill, they can do things like import RPGs from russia. They decide that it would be good for business to get contracts for bill's areas. Given their advantage of men, size and force, they decide that they don't need to negotiate too hard, a well placed threat does the job nicely. Bill decides that, if he's gonna lose his business, he might as well fight for it, a few bloodbaths later, bob&butch, inc, have a monopoly on security. If something happens, like, say, will sleeps with bob's wife, there's nothing preventing them from taking will to sleep with the fishes.

Then bob dies from old age, leaving butch as the sole owner of Butch security, inc. Butch examines some charts, and finds out that, what with that whole universal coverage thing (which essentially becomes a tax with a corporate face on it), there is no more profit to be made from security. He storms a few banks, coerces the more important corporations (like infrastructure and food supply) to bend the knee. And there you have it. A tidy police state.


Aside from that, a private policing force is essentially a protection racket. And can become a full one quite easily.

They are superior in that regard. Also, IQ tests consistently rate women, on average, one or two points below the men. So they are also intellectually superior. Objectively, they are superior in a plethora of regards.
You do realise IQ is a load of shit in regards to determining intelligence, right?

They are superior in that regard.

OK, again, I ask, so what? Men being stronger than woman matters in what way?

Yes, ok, I admit it, on average men have superior strength than women. I never said otherwise. I said, however, so what? HOw does that matter? In what way, in the 21st century, is that in any way relevant?

Also, IQ tests consistently rate women, on average, one or two points below the men. So they are also intellectually superior.

Cite it, bitch.

Maybe it would, if we still lived in hunter-gatherer societies. We have, however, progressed from that level. We now can differentiate between men and women on a greater plane than a rudimentary "I should have sex with her" system of thinking. We have also come to realize, through experimentation, that men are superior to women in almost all respects (aside from homemaking, sewing, and the like).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Only it didn't. In general, hunter-gatherer societies had pretty egalitarian relationships between men and women.

There is no "natural superior." All of that is a sexist lie.

There was still division of labor, though. In hunter gatherer societies men tended to be the hunters and women the gatherers. Also, don't discount the effect of sexual selection in body morphism. Women selected for bigger, stronger men. Men selected for reproductive health.

We have also come to realize, through experimentation, that men are superior to women in almost all respects (aside from homemaking, sewing, and the like).

What experimentation? Can you, other than the "men are stronger and faster than women" which I concede, because, frankly, it's fucking meaningless, back up a SINGLE point you're making?

You do realise IQ is a load of shit in regards to determining intelligence, right?

That's not entirely true, but that doesn't matter because the original post is bullshit. IQ tests have not shown men to be smarter then women in any measure except spatial reasoning.

Aside from that, a private policing force is essentially a protection racket.

it's my favorite aspect of ancapidom.

"the state is bad because it is like the mob. therefore the solution is to actually turn things over to the mob outright."

Would you people stop feeding the bloody troll already? Interesting discussion going on here...

That's not entirely true, but that doesn't matter because the original post is bullshit. IQ tests have not shown men to be smarter then women in any measure except spatial reasoning.
I was always under the impression that IQ was a poor measure of intelligence. I feel dirty for posting this, but...
A 1994 study by H. Stumpf and Douglas N. Jackson based on medical school application test scores showed that men averaged IQs about 8.4 points higher than women, while women averaged memories about 7.5 IQ points higher than men. This study, however, may be atypical.

A 1999 study by Richard Lynn [4], found that the IQ difference between men and women is typically about 3-4 IQ points, while women usually maintain short-term memory advantages over men of about 2 IQ points. In a 2005 study published in the British Journal of Psychology [1] which attracted media attention in the wake of the January 2005 controversy at Harvard (below),[2][3] he and Paul Irwing analyzed existing studies to report that men have an average IQ between 3.3 and 5.0 points higher than that of women; in Nature, intelligence-test designer Steve Blinkhorn argued in reply that Lynn and Irwing's analysis was critically flawed, for example by deliberately excluding a large contrary study that made up almost 45% of the subjects in the meta-analysis.[4]
IDK. Draw your own conclusions, I guess.

The points brought up in the OP are good points. I don't think anyone could argue our present system is perfect, and politicians (even though they do have some interest in the long-term state of the country, call it altruism if you will) are often making wrong or stupid decisions.

But I think the benefits of democracy outweigh the costs, if you ask me. It's still the best (or least bad) system of government we tried. Even if occasionally the majority (or rather the representatives of it) make decisions that I disagree with, I still prefer the ability to take part in the process, rather than have randoms (monarchs, dictators etc) decide.

Then of course there's anarchism. In that case there wouldn't be a decision process at all, I suppose.

But I don't think that's realistic. People have shown a remarkable tendency to use violence to gain power over others, and that wouldn't change just because we take back the one protection we have against that in the current system.

Insurance companies couldn't provide security because the legal system runs deficits by default. They couldn't get their significant costs back from poor criminals, and they'd have to hand out ridiculous punishments to the few really wealthy white collar criminals they'd catch (if they could get past the security firms or gangs hired by those guys, of course).
Alternatively they'd have to charge the consumers of the security, but that would make freeriding a serious problem, unless they're gonna be providing bodyguards to every consumer or property (which is hardly realistic or efficient). So the preventative ability of private security in this case would be unprofitable.
They could of course charge after the crime occured, to then get the criminal and punish him or her. That won't prevent crime, of course. So rather than have a police presence in the community, you'd have revenge squads travelling around. Usually, after the crime has occured, the restitution these squads can provide is not going to be the same as the value of the crime plus the money they charge the victim. Especially if the criminal is a small-time thug who stole their TV, sold it and used the money to buy crystal meth.

The only way to avoid these problems would be if the company somehow managed to monopolise a certain area (say a suburb for example), and charged everyone a base fee there. Then they could have patrols in that suburb and provide an adequate service. Unfortunately, they'd also have a local monopoly on security services...one could almost call them a local government.

But people could easily secede by moving to a different suburb, I suppose.

What you describe as democracy isn't. It is representative democracy or a republic. Pure democracy in the Athenian sense requires that you must vote and participate in the voting body. This was how it was in Athens. There was not a choice. It was not about freedom, but creating a responsible society where everyone was supposed to speak their mind. If you were a citizen you were literally dragged into the forum to participate.

A whole slew of posts popped up while I was gone, so I'm just going to take the one that's the most in-depth against me and comment on it.

Addressing your points.
1) You only talk of one form of democracy - direct simple democracy. There are many different forms of democracies, such as, republics (first past the post, PR, STV, etc...), direct democracies, constitutional democracies, simple majorities, majorities requiring more than 50%, but less than 100% (eg 66%), qualified majorities, absolute majorities and others.

OK, first of all, it is possible to be a non-democratic republic (Venice, Florence, etc.) Second of all, I think the inefficient yes-vote, no-vote, rent-seeking, rational ignorance and all the rest apply equally to all of these different forms; for simplicity's sake, I did not want to go through each and every one of them, because I'd just be repeating myself. I just needed one example of this.

2) Democracy is not inherently exploitative. Just as dictatorships, theocracies, and other forms of government are not inherently. Rather it is human nature that causes some people to use a system to exploit others.

But all of these forms of government have the inclination to do these things, and, in a realistic world where people rent-seek, it is inevitable that they will use these methods.

3) You talk of the tradegy of the commons yet you go on to say that human behaviour should not be regulated to prevent such situations.

Not regulated by the state. For instance, the stream in a common-law system. Let's say Fred Fisher owns the stream. He will have an interest in the claims on future fish that he can extract from his stream. If some big corporation starts polluting his stream, under common law, he can sue for tort and get reparations. You could apply private ownership to solve any tragedy of the commons, without the need of an omnipotent state.

4) Unammendable? Not being flexible is a serious hinderance to any human endeavour. And as always what a human right is open for debate. If a government cannot collect taxes then how is it to enforce the laws that have been agreed upon? I think you also attribute characteristics to humans which are you claim are unique to the form of government you suggest. If a low scale government such as your suggested one can be run by civic-minded individuals, why can a large scale democracy not?

The point of having it unamendable is because a law doesn't change; the law of gravity doesn't take a vacation, and the law of velocity does not fluctuate on a day to day basis. Human rights are not debatable; they are codes of conduct, and it is not debatable that they are otherwise (their validity may be.) My particular law I prefer allows for a maximum freedom of action for everyone, which allows people to act most efficiently in satisfying their demands. If the government cannot collect taxes, someone can donate money, or they can fine violators or seize property. It is possible for a large-scale government to be run by civic-minded individuals, but not with power that overrides freedom of action, consent and association. But democracy relies upon that collectivist "voice of the people" that overrides these, which I seriously dislike.

I assume you have basic property rights under this common law you suggest. What happens if there is a dispute over ownership of a piece of property that cannot be settled? You say people can split off to form their own government. But, who does the disputed property belong to? The individual within the newly formed government, or does it become common property within the old government.

Yes, I do indeed have property rights in this common law (I'm not sure if it could be otherwise.) The property still belongs to the individual in the newly formed government, but there is still a constant common law in the area. People can arbitrate even if they live in different governments, and if someone is being unreasonable they are well within their rights to use the police power to carry out the lawful arbitration.

The reason why large scale government can work is that it has a monopoly on the use of force and its decisions are final. Hence if an arbitration is not resolved then the state can issue you its judgement on the matter and effectively enforce that matter. One party may not be happy about the judgment, but is unable to take any action. Thus the conflict can be stopped from turning into outright hostilities and society can progress.

But you don't need a monopoly on security any more than you need a monopoly on mail, toothbrushes or computers, since all are goods for consumption in the end. If there were two governments, and in one of the governments there was an unreasonable person who was refusing to follow the arbitration, that government, unless it would want to become a criminal racket and thus endanger itself both in the eyes of its people and the other governments, would not interfere with the due course of law. Thus, there is no need for this monopoly with this in mind than with any other.

I was always under the impression that IQ was a poor measure of intelligence. I feel dirty for posting this, but...

IDK. Draw your own conclusions, I guess.

But that's because they're overall scores. Men are very heavily favored in spatial reasoning which is a standard in every IQ test. When you break down IQ tests into their constituent parts men do enjoy advantages but so do women. There's an article in Scientific American from a few years back where they did that and they showed all these wierd relationships. In order to explain it I need to point out a couple things. One is the concept of overlap. In spatial reasoning tests there is comparitively little overlap. For example if you scored a spatial reasoning test between 1 and 100, men may score between 40 and 100 where women score between 1 and 60. there is only a 20 point overlap which means you can say with confidence that men. on average, are better at spatial reasoning. This is the only aspect of IQ tests where you see so little overlap. Also, there is a wierd sort of symbiosis. Women score better on mathmatical calculation tests while men score better on mathmatical reasoning tests so that means women are better at doing the calculations while men are better at applying the results to the real world. In both cases, however, the overlap is huge. On mathmatical calculation tests women may score between 10 and 100 and men between 1 and 90 which means that there is no way that you can use sex as a deciding factor in determining whether any woman is going to be better at calculations than any man while it is relatively safe to assume an advantage for men in putting the ball in the hoop, teh corner pocket or in telling you which object is the original object when you rotate it and mix it together with similar objects.

Not regulated by the state. For instance, the stream in a common-law system. Let's say Fred Fisher owns the stream. He will have an interest in the claims on future fish that he can extract from his stream. If some big corporation starts polluting his stream, under common law, he can sue for tort and get reparations. You could apply private ownership to solve any tragedy of the commons, without the need of an omnipotent state.


Okay. So when fred fisher lodges his complaint, who makes the corporation pay him the reparations? Common law sounds awfully like morality, and we all know not everybody is a fan of that. Unless there is an "omnipotent state" (which it is hardly, you should know more than anyone), which enforces a law that says that polluting a fishing stream is a crime, there is no reason why the corporation would pay up. That is how the law works, as much as you romanticize it, in the end, it's just coercive morality. It is, however, the only thing that works.

And when they make a ruling I say, "go ahead and eat the peanuts outta my shit," and what happens?
Your reputation suffers. No one will do business with you.



No. It's just plainly ridiculous.
No, it's just plainly correct.


How do we get platinum from Africa for our surgical tools and jet engines? How do we get uranium from Australia?
Say--don't we have companies for those things?


If someo treis to invade Mexico for it's oil reserves, how do we stop that power from invading us for our breadbox?
What would we do to cause that to happen?



It's not about ill feelings. Its about competition for necessary resources.
It's about ill-feelings in the case of the aforementioned incidents.


Of course not. Ultimately they happened becayuse of resource competition.
Ummmm....no. The terrorist attack on 9/11 had nothing at all to do with resource competition. Nothing. At. All. Pearl Harbor did have something to do with it, but that was because of naughty actions on the part of government agents.

Oh that would be fun "hm, let's see, if i give you this piece of paper worth 3 ounces of gold over at the bank on James' street, and two of these each will get you 5 ounces of silver over there on the net block, plus something I think is worth 4 ounces of silver over on the other one, but this 4 ounce of silver is 5 bob street bank's dollar, but the one with the 5 ounces is 10, but 3 ounces is 2...is 3 ounces of gold worth more than 5 of silver...will that get me a soda?"
Only if you think that people won't standardize. Which they do.

Of course, you can feel free to live in your fantasy land if you like.

As for no need for foreign policy. Well. An interesting perspective I guess.

What if your system does work. Citizens of all the other opressed nations of the world will come flooding into your, well, society (Can't really say country). How do you deal with that?
How would they be allowed to be there?


What about a foreign corporation which is more powerful than all the local versions, coming in and gaining a monopoly?
How can that happen?


What about the inverse? Everybody hates the system so much they flood outside, a society without people works even less than a dysfunctional democracy.
That's a good thing.

what I find funny about the idea of private courts making private law is when one of those private legal entities passes a law saying "it's perfectly legal to bribe our judges"
And that company would very quickly find that it has no customers.


I'm also amused that you think warfare would go away if nations just went away.
I'm amused that you have such a strawman. However, warfare without the government ability to tax would be quite severely restricted. It is only with taxation that the limits are off.

Or don't you agree with the facts of reality?

Okay. So when fred fisher lodges his complaint, who makes the corporation pay him the reparations? Common law sounds awfully like morality, and we all know not everybody is a fan of that. Unless there is an "omnipotent state" (which it is hardly, you should know more than anyone), which enforces a law that says that polluting a fishing stream is a crime, there is no reason why the corporation would pay up. That is how the law works, as much as you romanticize it, in the end, it's just coercive morality. It is, however, the only thing that works.

The reason that he has legitimacy in filing the complaint is that the corporation is causing property damages, i.e. to the capital value of the stream (which is how many fish Fred can get in the future.) It is no different than smashing machinery at a factory or breaking windows; the method is not important, the effects are. And there would be plenty of people willing to help Fred get his money; there would be lawyers who would have an interest in gaining money by helping Fred win his lawsuit, as well as policemen who would have an interest in helping Fred get the property he needs as compensation should the corporation not cooperate as well as fining the corporation for the costs. And law is morality, effectively, there is no way getting around it. But it might as well be a good law that supports individual consent than one that tramples upon it.

Your reputation suffers. No one will do business with you.[quote]They'll buy the product that I stole from someone else as long as I provide it cheaper. As a matter in fact, everyone can steal it and make it themselves and there's nothing you can do about it so, why bother inventing anything? Why bother making a movie when anyone can just copy it for free and there's not a damn thing you can do about it except say, "don't do that," to which the person copying it says, "eat the peanuts outta my shit."




[quote]Say--don't we have companies for those things?Yes. And their interests and investments are protected through foreign policy negotiations between our governments.



What would we do to cause that to happen?Nothing. All that needs to happen is, say, a shortage of oil in China.




It's about ill-feelings in the case of the aforementioned incidents.At the root of those feelings is America's thirst for oil and Hitler's thirst for resources to bring his country out of a miserable depression.



Ummmm....no. The terrorist attack on 9/11 had nothing at all to do with resource competition. Nothing. At. All. Pearl Harbor did have something to do with it, but that was because of naughty actions on the part of government agents.

You're right. Oil had nothing to do with 9-11. At all. Nada. We didn't saddle the Midle east with dictators who would guarentee the free flow of Middle Eastern oil to world markets. In fact, that whole thing is a lie. there isn't really any oil in the Middle east.

No, there doesn't have to be a government. Stability does not require a government, especially considering there have been instabilities with governments.

Try forming a sort of effective society with 100,000 disparate individuals of varying backgrounds/languages/cultures/notions of right and wrong, without any sort of leading group or governing body. Then maybe I would take your argument seriously.

How would laws be made?
Private legal firms.



Because they are a business and businesses only care about profits.
Aha.

So what makes you say it?


Paying for the publics security and welfare is an expensive proposition that no company ever wants to deal with.
So there's no such thing as contracting with a company for the service? Are you mad? Have you lost your mind? Of course there's such a thing as contracting with a company for the service. People do it all the time for carpet cleaning, gardening, pool cleaning. Police service is no different.


What does this mean? Foreign policy is going to be neccessary to any nation.
There's no nation, though.


You are posting arguements like Pearl Harbor could have been avoided.
It could have been. Don't tell me you believe the nonsense fed to you in high school.

http://www.mises.org/story/216


What, simply because you disagree with me,
It's not simply because I disagree with you. Why is it that people like to pull out that old lie on anyone who dares to tell them to improve themselves? Only the lazy pull that lie out.

You really need to learn how to take constructive criticism. Putting forth no effort does not put you in a good light.

Try forming a sort of effective society with 100,000 disparate individuals of varying backgrounds/languages/cultures/notions of right and wrong,
Why?

And why should I take your demand seriously?

Your reputation suffers. No one will do business with you.
They'll buy the product that I stole from someone else as long as I provide it cheaper.
No, they will not. They will not trust you.


As a matter in fact, everyone can steal it and make it themselves and there's nothing you can do about it so, why bother inventing anything?
Because you're just too lazy to think.



Yes. And their interests and investments are protected through foreign policy negotiations between our governments.
You're quite naive if you believe that.



Nothing. All that needs to happen is, say, a shortage of oil in China.
So what you're saying is that you have no answer.



At the root of those feelings is America's thirst for oil and Hitler's thirst for resources to bring his country out of a miserable depression.
No, it goes deeper than that.



You're right. Oil had nothing to do with 9-11.
Correct. I do not buy in to your crackpot conspiracy scheme.

I am a libertarian, but I think that democracy is the worst form of government, because of its tendency to weaken liberal values and increase the power of the state. Here’s why.

1.) Voting rights are an oxymoron, because they are a method by which people can coerce others into doing their will, even if they don't consent (hence why the 51 get to dictate what happens to the 49); this is hardly freedom.


Ha! You wish! In england the 36% get to dictate what happens to the other 64% :rolleyes:

You do realise IQ is a load of shit in regards to determining intelligence, right?

Yeah. Basically...

What you describe as democracy isn't. It is representative democracy or a republic. Pure democracy in the Athenian sense requires that you must vote and participate in the voting body. This was how it was in Athens. There was not a choice. It was not about freedom, but creating a responsible society where everyone was supposed to speak their mind. If you were a citizen you were literally dragged into the forum to participate.

Sounds very sensible to me...

I'm amused that you have such a strawman. However, warfare without the government ability to tax would be quite severely restricted. It is only with taxation that the limits are off.

Or don't you agree with the facts of reality?

People will always be able to fight wars, no matter how hard you try to stop them


And yeah, democracy doesnt work, a communist semi-democracy would work...:cool:

In more recent news, in my experience, girls get better marks in class and for work, but guys do much better in tests...

How would they be allowed to be there?



How can that happen?



That's a good thing.

What do you mean how would they be allowed to be there? They cross whatever the neighboring country has for a border, and incorporate themselves into the society. Same way legal/illegal immigration works under normal countries.

The same way a local company would gain a monopoly. outcompeting the competition. How would a foreign company be subjectable to the laws of this state, especially given that it doesn't have a foreign policy towards corporate abuses or countries that defend corporations who commit them.

That's a good thing? Uh... am I missing something here? How is everybody leaving a *GOOD* thing? People leaving=less customers for your beloved corporations, just to name one problem with that.

Ummmm....no. The terrorist attack on 9/11 had nothing at all to do with resource competition. Nothing. At. All. Pearl Harbor did have something to do with it, but that was because of naughty actions on the part of government agents.

BIN LADIN: It is known that every action has its reaction. If the American presence continues, and that is an action, then it is natural for reactions to continue against this presence. In other words, explosions and killings of the American soldiers would continue. These are the troops who left their country and their families and came here with all arrogance to steal our oil and disgrace us, and attack our religion. As for what was mentioned about the ruling (Saudi) family those in charge, do bear the full responsibility of everything that may happen. They are the shadow of the American presence. The people and the young men are concentrating their efforts on the sponsor and not on the sponsored. The concentration at this point of Jihad is against the American occupiers.;)

Easily. Bob, bill, and butch all have equal policing forces. Bob and butch decide that, financially, a merger would be advantageous, because of increased capacity to police larger areas, with more information. The price for policing goes up,
Why?

[snip the rest until that salient question is answered]


Aside from that, a private policing force is essentially a protection racket.
No, it's not.


And can become a full one quite easily.
No, it can't.

Thanks for your unsupported assertions. I enjoy just being able to gainsay them.

;)
And you had a point?

Oh wait--you did, actually. Your point was to prove me correct. Thanks.

What do you mean how would they be allowed to be there? They cross whatever the neighboring country has for a border, and incorporate themselves into the society. Same way legal/illegal immigration works under normal countries.
Not when there's no country. Not when it's all privately owned.


The same way a local company would gain a monopoly.
But there's no government to grant the monopoly. So how can the monopoly happen?


That's a good thing? Uh... am I missing something here? How is everybody leaving a *GOOD* thing?
Exercising their right to choose.


People leaving=less customers for your beloved corporations, just to name one problem with that.
You're moving back and forth between my concept and your concept. You shouldn't be doing that.

People will always be able to fight wars, no matter how hard you try to stop them
And without taxation, the costs would be quite prohibitive.

No, they will not. They will not trust you.Really? Cause I just bought my stereo because I liked the way it worked.



Because you're just too lazy to think.that's not answer. The point is that people are driven to invent and innovate by profit. If there's no authority to prevent people from copying what you make there's no incentive. That's the whole reason for copyright and patent laws.




You're quite naive if you believe that.And hear I though all those trade agreements between countries were actually there for a reason. You know, like the ones that say that if someone in germany buys a Metalica CD that Metalica and the American publishing company that produced the CD get paid because germany makes sure it enforces copyright laws. Or the ones that say that in the US car companies can't make exact copies of a Mercades so that if you want to buy one the actual German car company gets paid.




So what you're saying is that you have no answer.No. I said exactly what I meant. We do not need to do anything at all to cause another country to take an interest in what we have. You asked what we would have to do to make someone invade us and I answered you. Nothing.




No, it goes deeper than that.Sure. We now have about a century of insults to the Middle East to piss the jihadists off in our quest to bring their oil to the market.




Correct. I do not buy in to your crackpot conspiracy scheme.Yeah. Our foreign policy in thye Middle east has nothing to do with oil regardless of what Osama Bin Laden says.

Why?

[snip the rest until that salient question is answered]



No, it's not.



No, it can't.

Thanks for your unsupported assertions. I enjoy just being able to gainsay them.

First of all, I would appreciate it if you would cut the wit. I'm one of the few people taking you seriously and debating, rather than insulting you.

Why would the price for policing go up? No particularly conspiratorial reasons, bob&butch would be able to provide a better service with more personnel and wider coverage, and therfore earn the right to charge more.

Yes it is, since it is basically is "you either contract us(or a competitor) or you leave yourself open to criminals stealing your property, being raped, being beaten, being mugged, etc etc etc."

Not when there's no country. Not when it's all privately owned.

Privately owned fences work better than public ones? Besides, Why would there be a corporation to do the border-show? It is not a service private individuals pay for. Not in the regular sense at least.

But there's no government to grant the monopoly. So how can the monopoly happen?

I told you. It outcompetes the competition. Once the competition runs out of customers and funds to cover costs, it collapses. Rinse and repeat until only corporation Y is left, making it a monopoly. You seem to be demonising the government here, I would rather say that in your society, there is no government to prevent the monopoly from happening. Antitrust laws and all that. Who ensures fair competition, nationally and internationally? Additionally, what about local corporations who want to cater to international markets? You need a government to iron out the specifics.

And you had a point?

Oh wait--you did, actually. Your point was to prove me correct. Thanks.

I didn't prove you correct. You said that th attacks on 9-11 had nothig to do with oil. Osama Bin Laden disagrees. He says the reason we are involved in the Middle East is for it's oil and our involvement in the Middle east is why he attacked us. How does this prove your assertion that oil had nothing to do with the attacks?

First of all, I would appreciate it if you would cut the wit. I'm one of the few people taking you seriously and debating, rather than insulting you.



Ditto... I tried to just debate but this guy likes to insult when he loses.

You are wrong.

All Governments erode Liberty, but a constitutionally bound Democracy does so to the smallest extent.

I am a not a democrat cause Republicans are willing argue with their opinions, not with other peoples faults.

Or, thats what it seems they do to me.

I may be wrong.

I am a not a democrat cause Republicans are willing argue with their opinions, not with other peoples faults.

Or, thats what it seems they do to me.

I may be wrong.

Lowercase d, dude, lowercase d.

Really?
Yes really.


Cause I just bought my stereo because I liked the way it worked.
Which could indicate why you're called "Psychotic Dan".


that's not answer.
Actually, it is.


The point is that people are driven to invent and innovate by profit.
No, not always.


If there's no authority to prevent people from copying what you make there's no incentive.
Non sequitur. And the whole notion of IP is utter bullshit in the first place. It is the idea that someone else owns my property. That's wrong.


And hear I though all those trade agreements between countries were actually there for a reason.
There needs to be just one agreement, period: allow complete freedom of trade. All else is just mercantilism.


No. I said exactly what I meant.
Which is that you have no real answer for me. Ok.


We do not need to do anything at all to cause another country to take an interest in what we have.
We do.


Sure. We now have about a century of insults to the Middle East to piss the jihadists off in our quest to bring their oil to the market.
More than that.



Yeah. Our foreign policy in thye Middle east has nothing to do with oil regardless of what Osama Bin Laden says.
It's about the religion, not the oil.

I didn't prove you correct.
Yes, you actually did. The religious motivation is the primary cause. OBL does not disagree. The part about oil was just a little window dressing.

Now then, if you can demonstrate that oil had anything to do with the attacks, I'll listen.

Yes, you actually did. The religious motivation is the primary cause. OBL does not disagree. The part about oil was just a little window dressing.

And yet, it's there. Out of the mouth of the man himself it has, at least something, to do with oil.

Yes, you actually did. The religious motivation is the primary cause. OBL does not disagree. The part about oil was just a little window dressing.

Now then, if you can demonstrate that oil had anything to do with the attacks, I'll listen.
He already has. The fact that you refuse to accept it is a failing on your part, not his.

By the way, I'm still waiting for your example of an advanced society that evolved without a government to provide stability. Don't expect I'll ever get one out of you.

First of all, I would appreciate it if you would cut the wit. I'm one of the few people taking you seriously and debating, rather than insulting you.
First of all, I would appreciate it if you didn't whine.


Why would the price for policing go up? No particularly conspiratorial reasons, bob&butch would be able to provide a better service with more personnel and wider coverage, and therfore earn the right to charge more.
Why?


Yes it is, since it is basically is "you either contract us(or a competitor) or you leave yourself open to criminals stealing your property, being raped, being beaten, being mugged, etc etc etc."
That's just a fact of reality. It's not even close to being like a protection racket.

Sheesh--you're not really that dense, are you? You're not so dense as to think that something like "pay us to clean your carpet or it will never be cleaned" actually has merit, do you? Oh wait--you do. You must, since that's precisely your claim about protection.

If not, then you're inconsistent.


Privately owned fences work better than public ones?
Maintained better with higher standards, lest liabilities happen. Tell me: did the residents of New Orleans like the government-provided levees?


Besides, Why would there be a corporation to do the border-show?
What's a border-show?


I told you. It outcompetes the competition.
How?

You seem to be demonising the government here, I would rather say that in your society, there is no government to prevent the monopoly from happening.
That's because it can't happen in the first place.


Antitrust laws and all that.
You don't seriously believe that antitrust laws are about fair competition, do you? If so, you're grossly deluded.

Want a good example? Take the NFL. They cannot broadcast games on any local station within 75 miles of a grade school, high school, or college football game on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays from mid-Sept through mid-Dec when the schedule for said games has been published sometime during the month of August. Why? Antitrust laws. Want the actual code cites? Ok. Title 15 USC, Sections 1290-1293.

Tell me--is that helping competition or hindering it? If you say helping, then you have a very strange definition of helping.


Who ensures fair competition, nationally and internationally?
What is "fair"?


Additionally, what about local corporations who want to cater to international markets? You need a government to iron out the specifics.
No you don't. You just need one idea: no interference.

He already has.
No, he hasn't.

btw, I'm still waiting for you to put more effort into your posts. I doubt that you ever will, though.

And yet, it's there.
And yet, it's not.


Out of the mouth of the man himself it has, at least something, to do with oil.
No.

Ditto... I tried to just debate but this guy likes to insult when he loses.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a sore loser you are.

it's my favorite aspect of ancapidom.

"the state is bad because it is like the mob. therefore the solution is to actually turn things over to the mob outright."
Only if you like strawmen. Which, you clearly do.

No, he hasn't.

btw, I'm still waiting for you to put more effort into your posts. I doubt that you ever will, though.What's the matter? I'm already kicking your ass. You want it harder? Answer the fucking question if you can. Until you can, your point of view is without worth.

And yet, it's not.



No.

oh well, guess you didn't read it. Don't blame me if you're functionally illiterate.

What's the matter?
That you're not putting any effort into your posts such that I'm having an even easier time intellectually kicking your ass than I normally would. It's not much of a challenge.

So please--put some effort into your posts, will you?

oh well, guess you didn't read it.
I did. Don't blame me that you can't comprehend it.

That you're not putting any effort into your posts such that I'm having an even easier time intellectually kicking your ass than I normally would. It's not much of a challenge.

So please--put some effort into your posts, will you?
That's really all you've got, isn't it? You're even more pathetic than I remembered.

I did.

well then you must have noticed when he was talking about oil then, huh?

That's really all you've got, isn't it?
It's all I need to give you. You're quite pathetic at this point, so I'm going easy on you.

well then you must have noticed when he was talking about oil then, huh?
Not as a reason.

It's all I need to give you. You're quite pathetic at this point, so I'm going easy on you.

Everyone reading this thread knows that you haven't provided a single example to back up your assertions.

You know who you remind me of? Marathon. Been a long time, but I remember the style.

Everyone reading this thread knows that you haven't provided a single example to back up your assertions.
And what assertions are those? You mean your assertions that government is necessary for a society to be stable? That assertion that you never backed up? That one?

You aren't putting any effort into your posts either, you're just assuming that, because it won't necessarilly happen, it won't happen at all. That's a fallacy.

Why would an international corporation outcompete a local one? Well, why wouldn't it? Why don't you answer my questions rather than try to drive me off by only answering the ones you can put propaganda into? Your system won't work if you don't have everything cleared up beforehand (you're probably going to ask why), and if you're not interested in making your system work, then you're just after a high post count or something equally irrelevant.

As for my policing example, I already told you why the price would go up. If I have to explain basic supply law to you, then I don't think you're much of an anarcho-capitalist to begin with. But just so nobody can say I didn't try:

When the quality of a service/product increases, the corporation which produces/provides it can charge more for it without reducing consumption, because demand increases. Why? the quality increased. Quality and demand are directly proportional.

Not as a reason.

he seemed to be pretty irritated that we were going in and taking arab oil.

In the US, we have a check on anyone gaining too much power. It is called the Second Amendment. By arming the citizens, they gain the ability to revolt if necessary. True, they have worse weapons than the military, but they make up for it with numbers.

Oh, and RuleCaucasia, the Talmud CLEARLY states that women are superior to men. This is why they have fewer commandments. Positive commandments help you become closer to G-d. Women start out much closer to G-d, so they need fewer commandments.

You aren't putting any effort into your posts either,
I'm putting in as much effort as each person to whom I respond has given me.


you're just assuming that, because it won't necessarilly happen, it won't happen at all.
I'm assuming no such thing.


Why would an international corporation outcompete a local one? Well, why wouldn't it?
Why would it? You're the one making the claim. Why don't you answer the question, rather than evade it?


As for my policing example, I already told you why the price would go up.
No, you didn't, actually. You just asserted that it would.


When the quality of a service/product increases, the corporation which produces/provides it can charge more for it without reducing consumption, because demand increases.
And yet if the service can be provided more efficiently with more people, the cost can remain the same.

I'm certain that I don't have to provide you with figures like how ALCOA reduced the price of virgin aluminum ingots from $8/lb in 1880 to $.20/lb in 1940, all the while having the monopoly on virgin aluminum ingot production in the US. And that Standard Oil kept increasing the quality of their products while lowering the cost. I don't have to remind you of such facts of reality because you already know them, right?

he seemed to be pretty irritated that we were going in and taking arab oil.
He was simply irritated at the presence qua presence, especially at what he felt were holy areas. The oil is more of a red herring.

I'm putting in as much effort as each person to whom I respond has given me.

Sorry to interject, and no, I don't pretend this here effort will warrant an update to your spambot debating technique.

But if you ever do encounter one worthy of your full attention, be sure to forward it to me, preferably with your reply. For the sake of my curiosity.

If I--or many others, for that matter--gave two shits what you thought, I'd put more effort into my ripostes with you. I'm satisfied with simply dismissing you, as you so richly deserve.

Yeah, this guy's lame. He's like a slightly better educated and more articulate version of MTAE. He talks a better game at first, but then he gets to this point where when, he's clearly lost a point, he resorts to stupid "you just proved me point" responses with dumb, transparent support that, in his mind, means he doesn't have to admit he's wrong. It's a debate with no integrity. The Middle East doesn't have to do with oil? What kind of moron could actually try to pass that off as a supportable debate position? 9-11 doesn't have to do with oil when the architect of it, Osama Bin Laden, is actually quoted as saying, "Those fucking Americans are only here to steal our oil?" Not worth it. There are far more worthy conservatives here to debate. Igonre list.

Yeah, this guy's lame.
Because I'm kicking your intellectual ass.


He talks a better game at first, but then he gets to this point where when, he's clearly lost a point,
When did this happen?


The Middle East doesn't have to do with oil?
What a lovely goalpost-shift. What kind of moron could actually try to pass that off as a supportable tactic?


What kind of moron could actually try to pass that off as a supportable debate position? 9-11 doesn't have to do with oil when the architect of it, Osama Bin Laden, is actually quoted as saying, "Those fucking Americans are only here to steal our oil?"
That's not what he said, and you know it. How nice of you to lie.

Sorry to interject, and no, I don't pretend this here effort will warrant an update to your spambot debating technique.
If that's what you think it is, you're sorely mistaken.


But if you ever do encounter one worthy of your full attention, be sure to forward it to me, preferably with your reply. For the sake of my curiosity.
There have been several with whom I do such. However, when, like most of the parties here, people make unsupported assertions, I have no reason to provide them with anything more than curt gainsaying. You should do well to remember that, for it will help you deal with people.

And thus BAAWAKnights proves, beyond any doubt, that he is precisely as PsychoticDan and The Fulcrum described him.

And thus BAAWAKnights proves, beyond any doubt, that he is precisely as PsychoticDan and The Fulcrum described him.

And what does what BAAWAK and you and Dan have been talking about have to do with the OP (aside from nothing)?

And what does what BAAWAK and you and Dan have been talking about have to do with the OP (aside from nothing)?

It's called thread drift, sweetie.

It's called thread drift, sweetie.

I think you're feeding the troll. :D

I think you're feeding the troll. :D

But I didn't know he was a troll. Now he' on ignore so he won't be fed by me.

I think you're feeding the troll. :D

baawa isn't exactly a troll. i mean, sure, he's trollish, and he does act in ways that look exceedingly like trolling. but he's really just an archetype of obnoxious people that took an intro philosophy course once, and think that they've now discovered the ultimate bludgeon to be used in any and all situations - especially situations where they are clearly out-gunned from everyone else's point of view.

baawa isn't exactly a troll. i mean, sure, he's trollish, and he does act in ways that look exceedingly like trolling. but he's really just an archetype of obnoxious people that took an intro philosophy course once, and think that they've now discovered the ultimate bludgeon to be used in any and all situations - especially situations where they are clearly out-gunned from everyone else's point of view.

If it walks like a troll, and quacks like a troll...

If it walks like a troll, and quacks like a troll...

No a troll is out to get a response, he does this because this is how he argues.

You may say he baits on some level but having a bad style is not the same as trolling

No a troll is out to get a response, he does this because this is how he argues.

You may say he baits on some level but having a bad style is not the same as trolling

He certainly devolves to it rather quickly.

He certainly devolves to it rather quickly.

You should see him argue religion ... and thats coming from a fellow atheist

I ain't saying he don't have a piss poor style. But I don't like confusing an annoying style with actual trolling

Tends to be too many cases of crying wolf

He certainly devolves to it rather quickly.

I agree with the other two. I think he believes what he says and wants to debate, he's just afraid to admit he's wrong so when he gets bludgeoned he resorts to, "I know you are but what am I? I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you. Nany, nany billygoat!"

Answer to all: private companies/courts.
Replace one corrupt system with and even more corrupt system. Pure Genius!!



Why would there be no laws? Are you so deluded that you believe that laws require a government?
Without a government who makes those laws? Who decides the laws.
If everyone is there own government I can make any law I want.


And if you say private corporations I'm going to scream. Because you can just pay them to make whatever laws you want.

No, they will not. They will not trust you.
Why?



Why?

Why not?



Originally Posted by Arthais101
Out of the mouth of the man himself it has, at least something, to do with oil.

No.
Why is it No?

Because you say so?


What I've noticed about him is that when he starts losing he keeps demanding clarification. Which either means
A: he's not bothering to look at it.
B: He's trying to sidetrack you.
C: He's an idiot.
D: All of the above.

With the Universal "Why" he thinks he is unbeatable.

So I say to him for EVERYTHING.

Why not?

With the Universal "Why" he thinks he is unbeatable.

So I say to him for EVERYTHING.

Why not?

then he'll just choose some random logical fallacy to accuse you of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XruBpY-8ce8

*Reads OP*

*blink*

"Everything that government does is violence. Don't you see the violence inherent in the creation of public liabraries? :headbang:

And thus BAAWAKnights proves, beyond any doubt, that he is precisely as PsychoticDan and The Fulcrum described him.
Except not.

Thanks for being so full of hate.

baawa isn't exactly a troll. i mean, sure, he's trollish, and he does act in ways that look exceedingly like trolling. but he's really just an archetype of obnoxious people that took an intro philosophy course once, and think that they've now discovered the ultimate bludgeon to be used in any and all situations - especially situations where they are clearly out-gunned from everyone else's point of view.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh you really kill me. You're hilarious.

He certainly devolves to it rather quickly.
And what do I devolve to, precisely?

You should see him argue religion
I do it the proper way.

Replace one corrupt system with and even more corrupt system. Pure Genius!!

Without a government who makes those laws? Who decides the laws.
If everyone is there own government I can make any law I want.

And if you say private corporations I'm going to scream. Because you can just pay them to make whatever laws you want.

Remember, the number one rule of right libertarianism: "Criticisms by right libertarians are by default constructive. Criticisms of right libertarians is always destructive.

Replace one corrupt system with and even more corrupt system.
Why would it be an even more corrupt system? Please justify your claim.


Without a government who makes those laws?
Private legal firms, which re-sell them to insurance or police agencies.


Who decides the laws.
The consumers, ultimately.


If everyone is there own government I can make any law I want.
Then you have the issue of enforcement. Good luck.


And if you say private corporations I'm going to scream. Because you can just pay them to make whatever laws you want.
You could, but then who would purchase that code?

Dearie-dear, you really need to think before you post.

Remember, the number one strawman of right libertarianism: "Criticisms by right libertarians are by default constructive. Criticisms of right libertarians is always destructive.
Edited for honesty.

Why?
You've given them no reason to trust you.

Now then, you do have a point, don't you? I mean, you're not just trying to be a troll, right?

then he'll just choose some random logical fallacy to accuse you of.
Except not.

I'm actually amused at how many whiners there are. They cannot handle being shown to be wrong, or having their dogma questioned. Just like fundies. They fly into a rage when someone dares to question their cherished beliefs. They blame the person questioning. They say "No, you can't be correct because I just can't conceive of anything else. You MUST be wrong."

But it's just their terror talking.

*Reads OP*

*blink*

"Everything that government does is violence. Don't you see the violence inherent in the creation of public liabraries?
Of course. They require tax dollars. Taxation is theft. Ergo, violence.

Except not.

I'm actually amused at how many whiners there are. They cannot handle being shown to be wrong, or having their dogma questioned. Just like fundies. They fly into a rage when someone dares to question their cherished beliefs. They blame the person questioning. They say "No, you can't be correct because I just can't conceive of anything else. You MUST be wrong."

But it's just their terror talking.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Of course. They require tax dollars. Taxation is theft. Ergo, violence.

What if the vast majority of people want the public library? Is it still "violent"?

Pot. Kettle. Black.
If only you could show it. But you can't.

Thanks for being a perfect demonstration of my point, little stalker.

What if the vast majority of people want the public library? Is it still "violent"?
Yes, for those who do not want it have their money stolen anyway. Ergo, violence.

If only you could show it. But you can't.

Thanks for being a perfect demonstration of my point, little stalker.

Actually this thread is pretty much a perfect demonstration of my point, little troll.

Edited for honesty.

Oh, come on! You're guilty of it quite a bit. Most major right libertarian thinkers make that same mistake.

Yes, for those who do not want it have their money stolen anyway. Ergo, violence.

What if I don't want to be someone's wage slave, but I have to pay off debts that are accruing at 22% per year because of fine print in a credit contract that I couldn't read because I could neither afford a lawyer nor glasses? Isn't that also "violence?"

Except not.

a big reason i stopped trying to discuss things with you was a conversation we had nigh on 3 years ago in which you tried to bludgeon people by saying 'no true scotsman' over and over. despite repeated attempts to explain how you went wrong, with textual evidence and everything, you refused to give up and moved on to declaring that all sorts of other imagined fallacies were being used against you in each post and then went right on to general flamage.

it's a sort of recurring pattern with you that even your natural allies have made note of.

Oh, come on! You're guilty of it quite a bit.
Nope.


Most major right libertarian thinkers make that same mistake.
Evidence?

a big reason i stopped trying to discuss things with you was a conversation we had nigh on 3 years ago in which you tried to bludgeon people by saying 'no true scotsman' over and over.
That's because it was being used, despite repeated whining that it wasn't.

Not my fault that certain people are too scared to question their premises.

What if I don't want to be someone's wage slave,
There's no such thing.

Actually this thread is pretty much a perfect demonstration of my point, little troll.
Except that it's not, little stalker.

Except that it's not

gee, that's one hell of a persuasive argument you got there...:rolleyes:

There's no such thing.

Thus, deja vu sets in, and relive old events that we've played out at least half a dozen times before.

Nope.

Every time I've criticized your ideology, you've resorted to a variant of that very same problem.

Except that it's not, little stalker.

Prove it.

If I'm your stalker then contact the mods, little troll.

Oh, for - put a cork in it already! You're all of you hijacking this guy's thread to indulge in gratuitous backbiting. C'mon, now - let's talk about why this guy says he isn't a Democrat, or something.

I did. Don't blame me that you can't comprehend it.That's really all you've got, isn't it? You're even more pathetic than I remembered.It's all I need to give you. You're quite pathetic at this point, so I'm going easy on you.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a sore loser you are.Except not.

Thanks for being so full of hate.You've given them no reason to trust you.

Now then, you do have a point, don't you? I mean, you're not just trying to be a troll, right?If only you could show it. But you can't.

Thanks for being a perfect demonstration of my point, little stalker.
I think we've all had enough of this trollish debating style.

BAAWAKnights, you've accumulated warnings and forumbans to spare on this and earlier nations. Time to end your participation on this site.


~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Gameover... Mod wins.

Ban-ablity