Democracy is not freedom

Ok. But since the government monopolizes roads, you don't have any choice but public roads.

Er....it isn't that complicated.

It is what the government does.

Oh yes, because the government could definitely do soooo much. Besides, I would stop you as a threat to my personal health. I would stop you, not tell you you're wrong or anything because there is no such thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems that you're the one not thinking, Norse. 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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then communities can still build and maintain roads under laissez faire, just from voluntary and consensual donations.

Also there is incentive to maintain roads just like there is an incentive to maintain the restaurant: profit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think at some point of reading this... i realized that norse doesn't actually believe in what he is arguing about... yet for the sake of discussion and personal stimulation he decided to argue for something that he doesn't believe in in order to see the profound reasonings behind anarchism.

Touche. Somebody as intelligent as Norse couldn't possibly believe in absolute anti-government... however arguing for anarchism is pretty tough I give it that. As a newb to the forums I was just surprised I took norse seriously on his stance. You learn more from a situation or controversial topic if you take the side you are not familiar or agree with, then you are able to see both sides of the picture before coming to a sensible argument.

My mistake. That's twice now lol.

 

I am genuinly arguing for the free market (which happens to be anarchistic in nature)

Again, anarchy is without rulers, not without rules, and not chaos.


Although, I do acknowledge one simple problem: a need for an entity to recognize property, which would have to be government. Therefore while I want a true free market, the best we'll get is a laissez faire government

i.e, the government recognizes property and that's it.

 

It would make sense that roads would be dirt before the technology became available to pave them. If the profit motive was there, that is, enough people wanted them and were willing to pay the money to have them, paved roads would exist in a private system.

It would work exactly how the building of everything else works. Different companies build differing tv's, but yet you only choose one don't you? Similarly, different companies would build roads, but you would choose the one that best suits your needs. This is all beside the point though, the real issue is freedom to choose.

Yes, you are correct, in anarchy this you would allowed to do this, but you should be aware of the possible consequences of your actions. Why are your morals better or any more right than anyone else's? Why should you be able to tell others what they can or cannot do. Morality is all relative.

 

But can't you see ....that's exactly what happened!! And, surely you'll note that if "...enough people wanted them and were willing to pay the money...." essentially means that it's NOT private!!

So all roads and highways would be toll roads? And people would have to stop constantly to pay different private owners to use that section of private road or highway? Surely you're making a jest, right?

We do have the freedom to choose ....we have the right to vote! "We, the people, ...." voted for the systems that we have in place now ...including the free-access of highways, streets and roads.

It's called "society". And since you don't know what that is, it's the right of the members of that human group to dictate what it's members can and can not do. Sure it's relative ...it's what the members of that particular society want. Anyone is free to find a different society if they choose ..no one is forced to stay in society if they don't want. That's freedom!

Baron Max

 

And using state roads is such a violation of your freedom, because?

Those 10 or so different companies who build roads had better co-ordinate, then, or there will be different nexuses or roads going all over the place, crossing over each other and what not.

Last time I checked the government doesn't take money from people so they can give it to the poor.

And let's say I happen to be stronger than you, more skilled at martial arts than you, or you simply don't notice that I slipped you a drug to render you unconscious? What are you going to do about it?

Note: I don't mean this as an actual threat, I'm just making a point.

So in an anarchy, you can do what you like unless your victim has a big strong friend to stop you?

Some society.

 

Weren't pirate ships some of the only true "democracies" in history?

 

I know of none in any historical records that didn't have a captain, the ruler of the ship(s).

In some of the fictional accounts, it was said that a bunch of criminals joined forces, stole ships and thus became the pirates. But I hardly believe that any group of people could last long as a true, equal-partnership, voting democracy. True democracy simply doesn't work because it's so cumbersome and time-consuming to get anything done ...people would spend all their time in the debates and voting processes to have time to grow crops or milk the cows! ..much less have time to eat!

Baron Max

 

But the 82 cents lost to bureaucratic shuffling is making work for people who wouldn't be employed otherwise. Right?

 

It isn't about using state roads or not. It is about the simple fact that the state does not give us a choice nor does it ask for our consent; nor does the state ever give us an option.

Ever heard of welfare?

Hire private police

Of course, obviously

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anarchy doesn't mean chaos, and humans are still going to be the same. That means most people will still prefer peace and will be willing to provide for it, voluntarily.

Even if welfare worked well, I would still be against it. As Rubiks said, it is on purely moral grounds; no matter what "services" they provide to me, they still rob me and threaten me with violence.

I am not at all opposed to charity. Just make sure it is voluntary.


Visceral Instinct, let's say I needed to pay for a surgery. I go to your house and point a gun at your face, and demand that you hand over the money I need.

Of course, you probably wouldn't approve of such action. The state, however, does this on a daily basis!