I have another hypothetical question for you Baal. Say you're a tattoo artist, and someone comes to you because they want a big swastika tattooed on their chest. The guy is up-front that he wants a proper Nazi swastika, it's not a Buddhist or Hindu swastika or whatever. What do you do?
It's a thought experiment, so don't bring up the fact that you're Mexican and it would never happen, please. That's the point of thought experiments. (If it helps you, let's just say that you're going to move to the US and open a tattoo shop at some point in the future when you've lost your accent so he can't tell. It's not implausible, with some people it's hard to tell. Taking myself as an example, often people couldn't tell that I'm French.)
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
You've been saying this shit for years. We all know it by now. The tenets of free market fundamentalism aren't more difficult to understand than those of Christian fundamentalism. It's not a "misunderstanding" that you believe in the false dichotomy of crony capitalism versus real capitalism. And somehow that doesn't fly for leftists when they say that state capitalism isn't real socialism (true) though eh?
Yes if the state cannot be tamed then there is no hope for either capitalism or socialism, but we both believe it can, or at least hope it can.
But let's forget that -- say for the sake of argument I grant this to you. It's not real capitalism, and real capitalism would be better. Now what? What's your plan? What do you do about the power that has been concentrated through this "mingling with the state"? Obviously you can't have a fair and meritocratic society if people have cheated their way into power and the monopolies currently exist. Say the state is abolished tomorrow. Doesn't it logically follow that you first have to do redistribution in order for the real capitalism to exist? Assuming my logic follows yours so far, can you give us the details on that redistribution? Who operates it and on what basis? Also, how do they not have essentially the function of a state?
I dont think the state can or perhaps even should be abolished over night, but lets just say It were up to me, I would first remove private lobbying and campaign funding would be done with public money (many if not most of countries do this), then I would progressivly reduce the size of the government, taxation, regulations, minimum wages etc to become a libertarian republic and I wouldnt redistribute anything, the chips fall where they may.
This is uncharted territory, I believe all monopolies would collapse on its own, in the case this isn't true then a vital role of this government would be to break them up to ensure the health of the market, and I would try to create very strict safeguards to keep the government from growing and to make it easier to scale it down., my vision of anarchocapitalism isn't states being replaced by corporations, I dont belielve that would happen but if it did I would be obviously willing to adjust.
On June 20 2019 20:11 Loco wrote:
I have another hypothetical question for you Baal. Say you're a tattoo artist, and someone comes to you because they want a big swastika tattooed on their chest. The guy is up-front that he wants a proper Nazi swastika, it's not a Buddhist or Hindu swastika or whatever. What do you do?
It's a thought experiment, so don't bring up the fact that you're Mexican and it would never happen, please. That's the point of thought experiments. (If it helps you, let's just say that you're going to move to the US and open a tattoo shop at some point in the future when you've lost your accent so he can't tell. It's not implausible, with some people it's hard to tell. Taking myself as an example, often people couldn't tell that I'm French.)
If someone or some group has cheated by "colluding with the state" to acquire a large amount of land, infrastructure, and power to defend them, why should their authority as owners be respected in a post-corporatism society? If you're not redistributing it, you are asking people to accept that the society they exist in still isn't meritocratic because people aren't starting at the same base level. You are saying private tyrannies can do whatever they want to anyone who wants to claim a right to be on that land, including killing them, all the while accepting that they are in this position illegitimately. What am I missing here?
Why would monopolies collapse on their own? (At least, without bringing the entire society down with them)
What would stop that small government from being corrupted and not following your intentions and growing because it suits corporate interests (like we just went over)? What kind of safeguards are you thinking of?
Why would you refuse business to someone who simply has different ideas than you? A swastika has never hurt anyone, and to your knowledge, this person has never hurt anyone either. Why discriminate against them? How can you hope to build a free society when you discriminate against what people want to do with their own bodies?
What about the fact that if you don't do it, he's just going to go to someone else who will do it? Maybe eventually he'll find a white supremacist who will do it. That means your refusal to do his tattoo means you would be giving more purchasing power to someone who will possibly use it for violent reasons. By contrast, you could do it and support an anti-extremist organization with a part of the money the Nazi gave you. Why is it the best moral decision to not do the tattoo in the face of this?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 20 2019 21:54 Loco wrote:
If someone or some group has cheated by "colluding with the state" to acquire a large amount of land, infrastructure, and power to defend them, why should their authority as owners be respected in a post-corporatism society? If you're not redistributing it, you are asking people to accept that the society they exist in still isn't meritocratic because people aren't starting at the same base level. You are saying private tyrannies can do whatever they want to anyone who wants to claim a right to be on that land, including killing them, all the while accepting that they are in this position illegitimately. What am I missing here?
They lobbied when it was legal to do so, you cannot apply new laws retroactively, they obtained their wealth in an unfair market, but from now on, the market will be more fair, I am not trying to play god and see who deserves what, those people will eventually give it all back to the ferris-wheel of the free market, new fortunes will be made, old ones will collapse.
I"m not sure what are you talking about land claim and killing.
Why would monopolies collapse on their own? (At least, without bringing the entire society down with them)
Most monopolies are dependant on the state in many ways, probably the biggest one by increasing the barrier of entry in a market, other markets require massive amount of infrastructure but even those fall, every big car manufacturer in the US has gone bankrup and saved by the government except Fordand yeah when they fall thousands will hurt, but it leaves an open space and everything goes back to normal with time.
What would stop that small government from being corrupted and not following your intentions and growing because it suits corporate interests (like we just went over)? What kind of safeguards are you thinking of?
I dont know, that is the main reason I lean towards anarchocapitalism, I'm not convinced the state size can be contained, but perhaps it can, I havent thought through what safeguards would be good but I suppose along the lines of requiring a big majority among representative and perhaps required confirmation of direct vote for any measure that would increase the state size, and opposite very easy requirements to scale down the government.
Why would you refuse business to someone who simply has different ideas than you? A swastika has never hurt anyone, and to your knowledge, this person has never hurt anyone either. Why discriminate against them? How can you hope to build a free society when you discriminate against what people want to do with their own bodies?
What about the fact that if you don't do it, he's just going to go to someone else who will do it? Maybe eventually he'll find a white supremacist who will do it. That means your refusal to do his tattoo means you would be giving more purchasing power to someone who will possibly use it for violent reasons. By contrast, you could do it and support an anti-extremist organization with a part of the money the Nazi gave you. Why is it the best moral decision to not do the tattoo in the face of this?
Because I disagree strongly with his ideology and I think it should be socially repudiated, he can do what he wants with his body, I wouldn't make a law against those tattoos nor I would stop anything else from tattoing him, Its my personal choice, the same way I think that christian baker should be able to refuse the gay wedding cake.
I find the "others will do it anyway" a disgusting way to deflect integrity, and about tattooing him and using the fund for some anti-extremist organization sounds reasonable in concept, many anti-racist organizations like the SPL are ideological cesspools so I woulnd't go that way, but hypotetically assuming I like the organization I think that would also be a viable choice to me.
On June 20 2019 23:26 Baalim wrote:
They lobbied when it was legal to do so, you cannot apply new laws retroactively, they obtained their wealth in an unfair market, but from now on, the market will be more fair, I am not trying to play god and see who deserves what, those people will eventually give it all back to the ferris-wheel of the free market, new fortunes will be made, old ones will collapse.
Right, so, you and I play a game of heads up poker. I am colluding with the dealer, and manage to get 95% of your chips until you find out. Then you replace the dealer, and there's no more trickery. Now it's fair, I get to keep the chips, and we'll see who deserves what. Is that what you're saying? Well, that's obviously what you're saying, but what you're saying is that we'll just keep playing a bunch of other matches after that and it will eventually make that first game meaningless if the sample is big enough. That's assuming that you don't need the money you're going to lose from the first match in order to survive until I decide to play again. Maybe someone is actually coming to collect that night and is planning to break your legs if you don't have the money, and I'm not willing to play again until next week.
Of course, the weakness of this analogy is that most people don't have the chips to play at all, they have debts from a previously rigged game, and you want to carry those debts forward and you expect them to accept it and for things to get better for them somehow.
I"m not sure what are you talking about land claim and killing.
The so-called "non-aggression" principle. Your land, your rules. It doesn't matter who or how many people actually need the land that is unoccupied or used for whatever purposes, the only thing that matters to you is who owns the property. Under capitalism, once a person owns property, they have the full force of the law -- or the private police, or paramilitaries -- to defend it against those who would want to use it. If people are starving to death and they come on your property to eat some of your crops, you are justified in killing them, because they were the aggressors. When these are the predictable consequences, it just seems a little bit problematic to not redistribute the land if people have cheated in order to get it?
Most monopolies are dependant on the state in many ways, probably the biggest one by increasing the barrier of entry in a market, other markets require massive amount of infrastructure but even those fall, every big car manufacturer in the US has gone bankrup and saved by the government except Fordand yeah when they fall thousands will hurt, but it leaves an open space and everything goes back to normal with time.
Let's just grant that everything you said about how they got there is true, it still doesn't answer the question. What prevents those corporations from absorbing all of the competition and maintaining a monopoly now that they have gained such a position? Who is going to want to compete against people with that kind of power in a society where power is everything? You can buy mercenaries to kill your competition if you don't buy it. You can buy people within the private justice system. Power corrupts, not the goberment.
People still need to sell their labour to them in order to survive, so they're not going to go out of business based on some kind of moral indignation uprising against monopolies. Most people in the richest country in the world live paycheck to paycheck and a lot of the jobs are bullshit jobs (bureaucratic and useless). You'd be getting rid of those jobs, so you can bet there would be a ton more people willing to sell their labour to those big corporations.
Because I disagree strongly with his ideology and I think it should be socially repudiated, he can do what he wants with his body, I wouldn't make a law against those tattoos nor I would stop anything else from tattoing him, Its my personal choice, the same way I think that christian baker should be able to refuse the gay wedding cake.
That's interesting, because they are two completely different things. The first one shows that you are in fact intolerant of intolerance. You are willing to take a hit financially in order to make a moral/political statement against intolerance. The second one shows that you are tolerant of intolerance unless you would also make it socially known that this person's business should be boycotted.
Anyway, denying someone the desire to express themselves on their body according to your values? Some people might call that extreme or authoritarian. You might even say it's just one step behind no-platforming, and that basically, if you had friends in the area who also do tattoos, and you said "this guy might come around to get a Swastika, don't do it" to them, it would be a near equivalent.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Right, so, you and I play a game of heads up poker. I am colluding with the dealer, and manage to get 95% of your chips until you find out. Then you replace the dealer, and there's no more trickery. Now it's fair, I get to keep the chips, and we'll see who deserves what. Is that what you're saying?
No because collusion is illegal in the game, if these people weren't breaking the rules then they just have to play a new more fair game, if these people broke the rules of their previous system and dodged punishment with influence then even more reason to change it, but dispensing god-like justice, being prosecutor, judge and executor is something I would strongly oppose and I would focus on the future rather than the past.
The so-called "non-aggression" principle. Your land, your rules. It doesn't matter how many people actually need the land that is unoccupied or used for whatever purposes, the only thing that matters to you is who owns the property. Once a person owns property, they have the full force of the law -- or the private police, or paramilitaries -- to defend it against those who would want to use it. If people are starving to death and they come on your property to eat some of your crops, you are justified in killing them, because they were the aggressors.
Well that person worked for that land and bough it, I mean if you work and buy a house, and then move should you lose the house to squatters because they can't use it? why since its the result of your labour.
What Oliver Twist bullshit is this? starving people getting killed because they stole a caggabe from a field? this doesn't happen man, come on, if somebody is starving and came to a farm they would most likely just feed them ffs.
Where are you going with this, is this a concern about people hoarding acres of rural areas in the middle of nowhere? or is this about tenants, please go to the meat of the subject.
Let's just grant that everything you said here is true, it still doesn't answer the question. What prevents those corporations from absorbing all of the competition and maintaining a monopoly? People still need to sell their labour to them in order to survive, so they're not going to go out of business. Most people in the richest country of the world live paycheck to paycheck and a lot of the jobs are bullshit jobs (bureaucratic and useless). You'd be getting rid of those inefficient jobs, so you can bet there would be a ton more people willing to sell their labour to those big corporations.
And who is going to want to compete against people with that kind of power in a society where power is everything? You can buy mercenaries to kill your competition if you don't buy it. You can buy people within the private justice system. Power corrupts, not "the goberment".
You cannot absorb competition and be profitable, otherwise create companies in that sector becomes the most profitable market in the world and you go bankrupt buying 100x companies a day, and I said even if I were wrong then a vital task of the small government would be to break those up.
Would you buy a fucking soda that has kill-squads? fucking no, but you are getting ahead of yourself I'm not even arguing for anarcho capitalism here, we were talkinga bout the middle-step, a libertarian republic.
Giving me shit for a typo? come on, you are better than this.
That's interesting, because they are two completely different things. The first one shows that you are in fact intolerant of intolerance. You are willing to take a hit financially in order to make a political statement against intolerance. The second one shows that you are tolerant of intolerance unless you would also make it socially known that this person's business should be boycotted.
what person's bussines should be boycotted I"m totally lost.
I said that refusing to tattoo him or donating the money would be viable options to me.
On June 21 2019 01:01 Baalim wrote:
No because collusion is illegal in the game, if these people weren't breaking the rules then they just have to play a new more fair game, if these people broke the rules of their previous system and dodged punishment with influence then even more reason to change it, but dispensing god-like justice, being prosecutor, judge and executor is something I would strongly oppose and I would focus on the future rather than the past.
The rules in the real world are not obeyed by all people equally. It's not legal to pick and choose the leaders in other countries, but it hasn't stopped the US from doing it over and over again because they have the power to. Many things that we now regard as immoral also happened to be legal throughout history, so that's always going to be a bad benchmark for how we should deal with moral and political issues.
"All the more reason to change it?" Yes, of course, you're talking with a leftist, change is what we live for. The question has never been whether it should be changed, but to what it should be changed. Allowing people to get away with obscene levels of wealth, land, and control over people and resources isn't going to fly with most people who aren't sleep-walking. Saying that it amounts to playing God to want to make retributions and redistributions is what I would expect someone who is at the very top of the hierarchy to say in order to defend what they have hoarded by depriving others, it's not something I'd expect of someone who has little (which is most people). Even the founder of anarcho-capitalist ideology was aware of the importance of this issue and advocated for redistribution, so I am frankly a bit shocked that you so easily dismiss it.
Well that person worked for that land and bough it, I mean if you work and buy a house, and then move should you lose the house to squatters because they can't use it? why since its the result of your labour.
How do you know that they worked for it? They likely inherited it, or capitalized on the work that other people did in order to own it. Pretty sure the people who have worked the hardest in life throughout history owned the least. It's easy to take your average middle-class worker in isolation but it doesn't represent the reality of the structural injustices that you would carry out into your "new" system, which apparently wouldn't be new at all. There's no reason to think it wouldn't be even more oppressive and unfair.
What Oliver Twist bullshit is this? starving people getting killed because they stole a caggabe from a field? this doesn't happen man, come on, if somebody is starving and came to a farm they would most likely just feed them ffs.
During the California Indian genocide, settlers would routinely exterminate entire families of Indians for stealing livestock. The white settler John Burgess testified that 10-15 Indians were killed for every cow that had been killed. Another admitted an attack killing 8 Indians, 3 by shooting and 5 by hanging after some of his hogs were stolen. He stated that these killings were a common practice. The California Indian genocide is estimated to have wiped out 80% of the native population, and as much as 95% or even 100% among the most heavily targeted tribes. 9,400 to over 16,000 of these deaths were caused directly by over 370 massacres perpetrated by settlers. These massacres were sometimes committed in perverse brutality ripping the hearts of young girls out and throwing them into the bushes in which their sister was hiding, the perpetrators were usually private militias.
So it has happened and it would happen again under your system unless I'm missing something?
What do you make of the few indigenous populations still inhabiting this Earth? Who would protect them? They are already fighting for survival so that their territories aren't invaded by capitalist expansion seeking to build pipelines and take their only source of water to bottle it for profit.
Where are you going with this, is this a concern about people hoarding acres of rural areas in the middle of nowhere? or is this about tenants, please go to the meat of the subject.
It's both and other instances of putting profits over people because "might makes right".
Would you buy a fucking soda that has kill-squads? fucking no, but you are getting ahead of yourself I'm not even arguing for anarcho capitalism here, we were talkinga bout the middle-step, a libertarian republic.
Well, what if all the water is privatized and the water companies all have kill squads? You don't need soda but you need water.
Why wouldn't I discuss your right-wing anarchist ideas? Don't confine me to your working vision, my role is to ask questions about how it works. You say you don't know how the government could be prevented from being corrupted in one post, and in the other you want to keep it to this version of the scenario where it is somehow successfully restrained to only useful functions.
You cannot absorb competition and be profitable, otherwise create companies in that sector becomes the most profitable market in the world and you go bankrupt buying 100x companies a day, and I said even if I were wrong then a vital task of the small government would be to break those up.
That's why I specifically asked how monopolies would collapse without society collapsing with them. I just don't see how.
Giving me shit for a typo? come on, you are better than this.
You didn't make a typo. I like the expression "the goberment" but I removed the quotes, they were my typo.
what person's bussines should be boycotted I"m totally lost.
The Christian bigot.
I said that refusing to tattoo him or donating the money would be viable options to me.
And I'm saying that for some people your refusal would amount to being authoritarian, because you'd be denying someone's desire of expressing something on their body, which is what your work would be about.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Here's an example of right-wing censorship that Baal never sees happening and which is happening in my province right now. It's a particularly interesting one considering how many different groups of people it targets. A hunger strike has begun over this law's passing and not just by religious people. I think we'll see more of this in the future.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
"All the more reason to change it?" Yes, of course, you're talking with a leftist, change is what we live for. The question has never been whether it should be changed, but to what it should be changed. Allowing people to get away with obscene levels of wealth, land, and control over people and resources isn't going to fly with most people who aren't sleep-walking. Saying that it amounts to playing God to want to make retributions and redistributions is what I would expect someone who is at the very top of the hierarchy to say in order to defend what they have hoarded by depriving others, it's not something I'd expect of someone who has little (which is most people). Even the founder of anarcho-capitalist ideology was aware of the importance of this issue and advocated for redistribution, so I am frankly a bit shocked that you so easily dismiss it.
Assuming no laws broken which I think its what we are arguing, just people legally exploiting the system I dont think its correct to retroactively impose rules.
Going back to poker analogies, shortstackes were exploiting the system by hit and running, they made alot of money with it but I dont think its right to confiscate their money, simply a new rule was set to stop them from doing that, and shortstackers were gone, forced to adapt, many shortstackers lost their money back to regs and others adapted and survived.
During the California Indian genocide, settlers would routinely exterminate entire families of Indians for stealing livestock. The white settler John Burgess testified that 10-15 Indians were killed for every cow that had been killed. Another admitted an attack killing 8 Indians, 3 by shooting and 5 by hanging after some of his hogs were stolen. He stated that these killings were a common practice. The California Indian genocide is estimated to have wiped out 80% of the native population, and as much as 95% or even 100% among the most heavily targeted tribes. 9,400 to over 16,000 of these deaths were caused directly by over 370 massacres perpetrated by settlers. These massacres were sometimes committed in perverse brutality ripping the hearts of young girls out and throwing them into the bushes in which their sister was hiding, the perpetrators were usually private militias.
So it has happened and it would happen again under your system unless I'm missing something?
Thats over 150 years ago, in 2019 killing starving people from stealing crops is not a problem anymore.
What do you make of the few indigenous populations still inhabiting this Earth? Who would protect them? They are already fighting for survival so that their territories aren't invaded by capitalist expansion seeking to build pipelines and take their only source of water to bottle it for profit.
People using unclaimed land should have ownenrship of it, who would protect it? in a libertarian republic the law and if neccesarely the polilce too as they would protect anybody's private property, in ancap themselves would and sympathetic public but unlike now you wouldn't have the state bashing their heads, they would actually stand more than a chance.
Well, what if all the water is privatized and the water companies all have kill squads? You don't need soda but you need water.
The police can't stop drug cartels in mexico right? so how come then there aren't sugar cartels, paper cartels, furniture and energy drink cartels?
It might shock you but most people aren't just waiting for the police to go to become mass murderers.
Why wouldn't I discuss your right-wing anarchist ideas? Don't confine me to your working vision, my role is to ask questions about how it works. You say you don't know how the government could be prevented from being corrupted in one post, and in the other you want to keep it to this version of the scenario where it is somehow successfully restrained to only useful functions.
Well its just that its a bit messy when im trying to defend two different systems, a libertarian republic is far easier to defend since it doesnt require as much imagination as ancap.
And yes I don't know how to eliminate corruption, that is quite the task, thats why I say that if there is any government it has to be as small as possible to limit its access to funds and limit corruption avenues.
That's why I specifically asked how monopolies would collapse without society collapsing with them. I just don't see how.
Well its not like monopolies collapsing ends that market, actually it instantly creates a huge opportunity for new businesses to cover that demand.
I said that refusing to tattoo him or donating the money would be viable options to me.
And I'm saying that for some people your refusal would amount to being authoritarian, because you'd be denying someone's desire of expressing something on their body, which is what your work would be about.[/QUOTE]
I think I should be free to provide or not a service/good to anybody based on my beliefs and people should be free to disagree with me and tell their friends not to come to my business.
On June 21 2019 03:44 Loco wrote:
Here's an example of right-wing censorship that Baal never sees happening and which is happening in my province right now. It's a particularly interesting one considering how many different groups of people it targets. A hunger strike has begun over this law's passing and not just by religious people. I think we'll see more of this in the future.
And I oppose that bill, its idiotic as long as the attire doesn't interfere with the duties/function it should make no difference.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 21 2019 06:02. Posts 5296
We don't need to come up with hypotheticals about private power using death squads to protect their property since they are currently doing it. I am assured however by some libertarians that philanthropy will sort out the inequality problem
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Even if that specific example wasn't happening, it would be rather meaningless. It would just mean two things: (1) that the methods (or mechanisms) of oppression and administering death have changed over the last 150 years and (2) when you've exterminated most of the natives, no shit, you can't find many natives being exterminated because they pose no threat as they're already pretty much all gone!
What we do now in neo-postcolonialist form is intervene in other people's countries and destabilize their regions, make them kill each other and maintain a presence to control what is happening, and when they come to us to flee from the horrific circumstances we have created for them, we call them dangerous illegal aliens and put them in cages where some of them die before they can be sent back to their hellhole. It's much more humane. But of course, in a libertarian republic this wouldn't be happening because there would be no "military-industrial complex"; everyone involved herein would have happily given up their power, it's just not clear how or why.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
We don't need to come up with hypotheticals about private power using death squads to protect their property since they are currently doing it. I am assured however by some libertarians that philanthropy will sort out the inequality problem
protecting your property =/= taking other's property.
if somebody tries to steal your stuff Its fine to use violence to defend it, but not to use violence to take others stuff I mean... this is pretty basic -_-
On June 21 2019 17:57 Loco wrote:
Even if that specific example wasn't happening, it would be rather meaningless. It would just mean two things: (1) that the methods (or mechanisms) of oppression and administering death have changed over the last 150 years and (2) when you've exterminated most of the natives, no shit, you can't find many natives being exterminated because they pose no threat as they're already pretty much all gone!
What we do now in neo-postcolonialist form is intervene in other people's countries and destabilize their regions, make them kill each other and maintain a presence to control what is happening, and when they come to us to flee from the horrific circumstances we have created for them, we call them dangerous illegal aliens and put them in cages where some of them die before they can be sent back to their hellhole. It's much more humane. But of course, in a libertarian republic this wouldn't be happening because there would be no "military-industrial complex"; everyone involved herein would have happily given up their power, it's just not clear how or why.
The spanish didn't exterminate the natives in here and starving natives dont get killed because they stole an avocado ffs.
The reason Canada doesn't do that either is not because there aren't natives, its because your society is much different than from 150 years ago.
Its a very small portion of the migrantns the ones fleeing from wars, the biggest exodus is Mexicans to the US by far and most European migrants aren't Syrians, obviously the US foreign policy is appauling and yes one of the libertarian core values is non-intervention and the army is for protection only, in regards to migration if you don't offer welfare then migrants are not an economic load so you can have lax borders, but the more welfare you offer the more a deficit is a migrant and border control has to be tigher to avoid the economic drain.
Nobody said people would easily give up power, thats why downsizing the government is very difficult, but private power depends on the state size, when the state is downsized they are on their own governed by the laws of the free market and if they dont outperform the competition they fall, it doesn't matter if they want or not to give anything up.
BTW where was the tattoo thing going? I made an effort to answer honestly and not try to anticipate the "trap", you probably don't believe it but I'm interested to see if I find contradictions in my thinking.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jun 22 2019 02:17. Posts 5296
mining corporations fund parts of the genocide in west papua, which is not a suprise when you have people like henry kissinger on the board of directors of that company, and freeport mcmorhan company director is special advisor to trump. Private power and state power has a shared interest in aggression around the world, but it is the state that takes the aggressor role initially-no corporation wants to fund an entire marine corp. That said most of the soldiers in iraq were mercenaries for a long time, some are involved in the war in yemen now, and in cases like somalia, your example of a good anarcho capitalist society, you have pirates working for private power. There are those rebel groups in the congo that defected from state power and form their own profit seeking militia groups to sell minerals to chinese and british manufacturers
Don't really know why u bring this up when it's obvious that private power is using violence to steal resources.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Could you name a case where a company fought against a state to steal the resources or are all of these cases stories where the state was in fact used and complicit in this, which is my main point in the first place. The presene of the state does not stop this from happening, on the contrary it amplifies it.
The mercenaries in Iraq were paid by the state to wage its war.
Come on, dont argue like Loco, why would I defeat myself claiming Somalia is a good anarcho capitalist society? What I said is that despise its dire circumstances, starvation, war and disputes in Mogadishu and other cities for power, by just not having a central government it became the fastest growing african nation in many metrics during the time, their corrupt government was doing them more harm than all of the pirates, warlords and chaos going on combined.
