Democracy is not freedom

Roman is correct. Also, VI, then it should be offered as a private service, from a private company; that's how business works. You pay for what you get.

Then why is the government enforcing a monopoly on these "services"? It needs to give me a choice in the first place before taxing me.

That's why it isn't fair.

Also ok VI so I can steal your money to donate to the poor, is that ok?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WHERE is there a democracy???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very true; even republics, however; in fact, republics are even less free.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sorry dragon, I don't follow pop culture.

 

Banks would be free to issue their own form of money. Yes, banking could still exist in a totally capitalistic society.

Hm... where can I go where I will not be taxed? Where can I go where I sill not be be forced to give part of my earnings to another? I do not wish to live in isolation, I simply wish to live in freedom.

I agree with the OP on basically everything he has said. Even those who disagree with anarcho-capitalism must admit that the government does function as a monopoly. Government monopoly is a basic economic term. I can think of no reason for why I should be forced to give my money to the government to pay taxes. While I think no government is a great and very interesting idea, part of me still believes that some form of extremely small government must exist so to enforce private property laws and individual freedom or I fear, like many others, that those who wish to live in anarchy will quickly be suppressed by those who wish to live in order.

 

Capital-ism is based upon money (coins and notes can be exchanged at banks for gold.) Gold is only valuable because it is a noble element: it does not corrode (hence the phrase gold dust); if you should keep gold and other elements the gold would survive for longer than the other elements. Gold is more eternal and can be inherited.

 

I am personally in favor of a credit or e-currency system, rather than a physical currency system; the reason is because physical currency has two values: the values you take it as currency, and the value of it as a physical item.

For instance, pennies are worth more than one cent as copper, or so I hear.


Anyway, no matter how much you want to assist or regulate, it isn't your right. That's the whole point

 

Fraggle Rocker, you don't need a central authority to dictate a standard currency.

 

Also to make it much easier for rulers to collect taxes, fees, homage, tithes, etc.

No 1 knows why writing was invented. It became common among merchants & the upper class partly because of the above & also because writing made it much easier & more certain that the rulers' commands be accepted & carried out.

 

There would be no way an anarchist society would survive... at least not in this day and age.

A scenario painting: The government is removed. Everyone goes about everything normal at first. Then somebody breaks in somewhere and shoots someone. Nobody does anything. Then somebody gets robbed. Nobody does anything. The roads are broken and nobody is there to fix it, and if they did other people would not reward them they'd just drive over it until it broke again. People steal from those who have more. So the ones who have more bribe some stronger ones to protect them. Some of the people are stronger than others, and some are weaker. the weaker ones are killed trying to protect what they care about or through other means. The stronger ones are able to join up with other stronger ones in order to form a collective alliance that can provide a means of survival amongst the chaos. A leader is chosen in order to organize everything, but the guidelines by which that leader is chosen can vary, depending on what is needed, size, intelligent, strength, connections etc. These bands of leaders end up forming into packlike or tribelike societies, ensuring their own protection at the cost of sharing their own resources within the tribes.

You do realize that is how humans started off right? Anarchy is never total anarchy, because survival of the fittest can most definately be rewarded by organization, as seen not only in humans but many members of the animal kingdom. You don't notice wolves, packs of lions, fish in herds, birds in flocks, etc etc... these were behavioral organizations not resembling anarchy but primitive organizations in order to ensure the survival of the species.

 

Algernon if someone broke into your house and raided you, it's not like the government could do much anyway. Also anarchy isn't chaos! It's simply a lack of centralized, coercive authority. Rather, people voluntarily associate by choice and consent.

 

Fine then. Without taxes we'd have no roads to drive on. Oh yeah, and we'd have a bunch of smog above our heads and we'd be dying of cancer because some factory decided that there was no regulations to prevent them from polluting our air. Oh wait i can move somewhere else right? Too bad some guy built a fence around me, and he has a knife and gun so I can't really do crap. Too bad sucks to be me.

Oh wait maybe if I have a gun, I can rob him. Or maybe if i get 3 guys to work with me, guaranteeing we will split the profits of the robbing, then it'd be worth it. We rob this guy and get all his food. When I have my back turned he shoots me in the face along with the other 2 guys. Now he runs off with all the food and the rest of us are dead on the floor. So much for anarchy.

 

Norse, you are throwing the basis of anarchy on the goodwill of humankind.

Thats the exact same idealistic approach that communism was based on. Socialism was based on the idea that people would follow what was in their best interests and what was demanded by society, and in theory sounds great but we all know that that didn't work out too well. Same thing applies to anarchy, we assume that without a government, people's cultures and traditional experiences and upbringings have no effect whatsoever on the society and that everyone would simply fall into place without any kind of guidance or authority.

When two people voluntarily trade goods... who is there to ensure that one guy doesn't knock out the other or vice versa. yeah if it was a routine trade it might be beneficial to both parties, but what if it was like a super large one time trade? In one small murder, one guy ends up WAY ahead of everyone else in that society because he decided to forgo that mutualistic agreement and become a parasite on that type of society.

 

If the government wasn't there to build roads, private businesses would do it instead. This would create competition and advancements. Also, people will switch to alternative fuels once they realize that infinite use of fossil fuels is not possible.

Communism has never actually been exercised. The USSR, nor any other so called communist country, was ever communist. We have no proof that it is an ineffective political system.

There would be private police in capitalism, so stealing would be limited. That's not the issue though, the issue is why does anyone have the right to tell me what to do and what not to do? If a man came up to you and said, "I'm going to mow your lawn for the rest of your life, you are going to pay me, but I will always do it. If you do not pay me, you go to jail." Would you be happy about this? The government is very similar. I'm not trying to discuss what is "good" or "bad" for mankind, those are relative terms. Instead of forcing your morals on everyone else, why not allow everyone to make their own choices based on their own morals.

In any case, no one can argue that we have democracy in the United States. We have a forced two party system due to the electoral college. The two parties are given media coverage because they agree to support the corporations when they get into office. Media coverage wins elections.

 

Seems that you're the one not thinking. In the old days, what you've suggested is exactly what occured ...and those roads were dirt paths that no one maintained, and in bad weather, they couldn't be used.

Why do you think communities began to build and maintain roads in the first place? ...just to throw money away? Think a little bit, it'll help you a lot.

Baron Max

 

Um, where I come from, if you don't pay your road tax you simply don't get to use the roads.

How the hell would a private service work?

Surely for example regards road building, you would have different companies wanting to build different road systems, with resulting confusion and inconvenience?

What does stealing to give to the poor have to do with ANYTHING?

 

My morals tell me that if I see a nice looking guy I can slip him a drug, take him home semi-conscious in the boot of my car, and rape him. It also says I can mutilate him a little as long as I don't inflict any serious or lasting injuries.

Everyone else ok with my morals? Nope, didn't think so. However, this is anarchy, so cry me a river.

 

Wow... You can take me home anyday.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Come here. *shoves you into car boot, drives to remote location*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!