Voluntaryism

First of all, personhood was assigned to blacks all the way back in the Constitution described them as "peoples" in the 3/5 compromise, which is no accident. Legal studies is all about the definition of words basically. Since rights extended to "the people" referring to black people as "people" opened a huge legal can of worms, and they kicked that can down the road until Lincoln came along who was a huge supporter of abolition.

The idea of enslaving people didn't become a "blight along the landscape". Abolitionists were in no way the norm, and slavery was pretty well supported in the North as well. It was the free market that lead them to practice slavery in the first place. Cheap labor. That was the primary motivation. It would've stayed that way if the Government hadn't intervened.

Also segregation existed in the South because people wished to continue that practice and found a legal loophole to still subjugate the society.

How is it "the free market" that kept Slavery in practice when the costs of Slavery and refugee slaves recovery were subsidized by the State? How was it "free market" when the State didn't "protect" the lives and LIBERTY of the slaves themselves? Slavery was an institution completely empowered by Government. How was it that only in the US was Slavery ended by War, yet the rest of the Western World it was not?

I'm not talking about Slavery JUST in the United States, I'm talking about the practice through most of the civilized world.
 
Dude Corporations are responsible for all sorts of slavery all over the world. What strange planet do you live on exactly?
 
Dude Corporations are responsible for all sorts of slavery all over the world. What strange planet do you live on exactly?

Why is it that you find it that Corporations, which exchanges money for labor, is slavery. But taking a portion of wealth, with threats of prison, not theft or slavery? Why can't you see that it is NOT Corporations, or even Government, that is the problem, but the Violations of the Non-Aggression Principle. It doesn't matter if it is "a Corporation" or "A Guy that calls himself President" or a masked man in an alley, taking property or liberty by using the intitation of Force is evil and wrong. Taking money is Theft, whether its a man with a mask or a man in a blue costume. Putting people in cages is wrong, whether it's a psycho or a man who calls himself a Government Agent.

Corporations that would practice some sort of "wage slavery" only do so because they have the full permission and support of the Government in their geographic region. They do so because they know that they are allowed to do so legally. Just like plantation owners in the south before the 1860's in the US, they only practice this slavery is because they have the guns of government helping them.
 
By the way, did you know Somalia is an example of voluntaryism or Anarcho-capitalism?
 
By the way, did you know Somalia is an example of voluntaryism or Anarcho-capitalism?

For someone that seems to believe themselves so entrenched in philosophy and seems to try to "1 up" every point that I make, you should be well aware that Somalians routinely deny and violate the Non-Aggression Principle, thus has lead their people into CHAOS, not Anarcho-Capitalism. They have Warlords that act as a Governments. They don't have a culture that recognizes property rights, which is an important part of AnCap, wouldn't you think, Professor? You should be well aware that it is the Violations of the Non-Aggression Principle that I keep referring to, not Government, per se. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if you are wearing a mask, or a blue costume, theft is wrong.

edit: if anyone want's to see a video/podcast about Somalia and it's supposed anarchy:

 
Last edited:
No, dude, that's just how humans are. Humans are aggressive by nature.

That's why in this argument you're so stubborn. You're brain not programmed to seek truth. It's programmed to win and survive. You violate your own principle here. Arguing is an act of aggression. Humans are aggressive. You will never cure that.

Somalia is what happens with no central Government enforcing rule of law.
 
Last edited:
Dude, Human are aggressive by nurture.

Okay what's the proof of that.

Why does it not seem to matter where you're born, you still have huge problems with human violence?

Did you know the pre-civilization murder rate was in the 90% range?

Did you know the number method of conception before any record of civilization, and before Government, was rape?

Did you know Science has already proven humans are prone to aggression when left to their own devises?

Why do we have to make humans we find in wilderness "civil"? Why are they more prone to aggression at that point than civility?

Did you know all you do is make bald assertions for which you offer no facts to support your argument making it look as flimsey and absolutely wrong as it is?

Did you know watching a bunch of people explain things to you on the internet is a monumentally bad way to engage subject matter?
 
Last edited:
Okay what's the proof of that.

Why does it not seem to matter where you're born, you still have huge problems with human violence?

Did you know the pre-civilization murder rate was in the 90% range?

Did you know the number method of conception before any record of civilization, and before Government, was rape?

Did you know Science has already proven humans are prone to aggression when left to their own devises?

Why do we have to make humans we find in wilderness "civil"? Why are they more prone to aggression at that point than civility?

Did you know all you do is make bald assertions for which you offer no facts to support your argument making it look as flimsey and absolutely wrong as it is?

Did you know watching a bunch of people explain things to you on the internet is a monumentally bad way to engage subject matter?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/98/4/837.short
http://umaine.edu/publications/4357e/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247333.php

And two that I actually read:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1983895,00.html
http://nospank.net/vcb.htm

And if you don't want to read the last one, you can listen to the reading of it:



It is reported that 90% of Parents physically hit their child as a form of disipline, and you wonder why we have a violent society? Parents tell children that Hitting is Wrong (which is a violation of the N.A.P), then HIT them to cause correction? What do you think that does to children? It shows that Violence is Okay to get your way.

Violent tendencies are completely due to how a person is raised, not "nature".
 
Now we're onto spanking? You love your non sequiturs.
 
Last edited:
Hitting children isn't violence? Wow, you love your indoctrination.
What? Straw man. Never said that.

No one brought up spanking? Why do you feel that's relevant now?

Why can't you debate in a coherent fashion?
 
What? Straw man. Never said that.

No one brought up spanking? Why do you feel that's relevant now?

Why can't you debate in a coherent fashion?

You said humanity is violent by nature. I said it was by NURTURE. What the hell do you think "Nurture" means? It doesn't mean anything about when a human being is already an adult, now is it? What do you call humans that are not adults? Children. Please follow along.
 
You said humanity is violent by nature. I said it was by NURTURE. What the hell do you think "Nurture" means? It doesn't mean anything about when a human being is already an adult, now is it? What do you call humans that are not adults? Children. Please follow along.
So spanking is the only source of human nurture? Humans didn't exist before spanking?

Spanking is the cause of all the world wars?

That seems to be a very unconvincing argument.

I could find people who say spanking is benefitial. What would you say to them?

Since your society is libertarian in nature, by the way, there's no way you could eliminate spanking since such a decision would ultimately be up to individual parents.

Also, while I'm not sure hitting a kid is a good idea, especially considering my stature, and the fact that past a certain age they can talk about their problems, I don't know that it's a great idea. Yet, at the same time it certainly seems like kids who are not spanked, or at least never face any physical or real life adversity grow up with a sense of entitlement. You're going to have pain inflicted upon you at some point, could be from a person, or your environment, and I've noticed kids who grow up in very "soft" and "self-esteem" affirming households become very ill-equipt to take on the world.

The biggest problem with spanking I found I realized raising dogs and cats: it's ineffective if there is any time lapses between the incident and the response. Spanking needs to be swift and immediately following the act, otherwise the animal won't associate it with the punishment.
 
Last edited:
So spanking is the only source of human nurture? Humans didn't exist before spanking?

Holy crap. Wow. Just wow. I appreciate that you are trying to follow along now, but it may be better if you just stop now and go on about your day.
 
Spanking is the cause of all the world wars?
No, violations of the Non-Aggression Principles are the cause of all wars.
That seems to be a very unconvincing argument.
It doesn't matter if you are convinced or not.
I could find people who say spanking is benefitial. What would you say to them?
It doesn't matter if you can find anything stating that spanking would be beneficial, it's still a violation of the N.A.P. You can find people saying any side of the issue is beneficial versus the other side, But, if it violates N.A.P., it leads to disastrous effects.
Since your society is libertarian in nature, by the way, there's no way you could eliminate spanking since such a decision would ultimately be up to individual parents.
Yes, in a Free Society, people would be free to do so, but their consequences would borne by the family. If you raise a dog that bites a neighbor, who is responsible? You of course. But, in today's world, if you raise a child that turns out to be abusive to others, who bares the cost? Society. This subsidization of abuse in children must end and people have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Also, while I'm not sure hitting a kid is a good idea, especially considering my stature, and the fact that past a certain age they can talk about their problems, I don't know that it's a great idea. Yet, at the same time it certainly seems like kids who are not spanked, or at least never face any physical or real life adversity grow up with a sense of entitlement. You're going to have pain inflicted upon you at some point, could be from a person, or your environment, and I've noticed kids who grow up in very "soft" and "self-esteem" affirming households become very ill-equipt to take on the world.
Yes, while I agree with a portion of what you say here, the "self-esteem" movement has had horrible effects on the development of people that leads them to feel entitled, Just ignoring children isn't the answer. Peaceful Parenting is the answer. Respect begets respect. Raising children to value themselves, not just telling them they are valuable.

The biggest problem with spanking I found I realized raising dogs and cats: it's ineffective if there is any time lapses between the incident and the response. Spanking needs to be swift and immediately following the act, otherwise the animal won't associate it with the punishment.

Spanking still instills in children that "violence to get your way" is an acceptable measure, that that grows in adults to mean that "Violence to get my way is acceptable measure as long as other enough people agree with me. If you desire a peaceful world, children must be raised in a peaceful environment.
 
im4Y7.jpg
 
VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: The History of a Catastrophe
 
Last edited:
Voluntaryism is also known as Anarcho-Capitalism where it is understood that the property is an extension of the actions of an individual and no different than a portion of the individual. You spend time and energy acquiring food that is disseminated by your body to feed and fuel and grow your cells. Just like you spend time and energy to acquire wealth to pay for that food. It's an extension of your Life and Liberty. And to remove a portion of your property by force is akin to removing a portion of your body. You can give your body Voluntarily, but if taken by force it is evil.

In this argument, the only evil in the world would be the Initiation of Force. Every action must be voluntary and without coercion. This would lead to happiness.

What makes Anarcho Capitalism better then anarcho-syndicalism? If we are going for high ideals, doesn't anarcho-syndicalism promote a radical form of anarchism, because they would get rid of both private and public institutions? Why should private hierarchies survive, if the public ones are done away with?

Noam Chomksy is one of the most left wing guys around and he is a anarchist, what makes your anarchism better then his?

There have been societies without the concept of private property. The Native American tribes had no concept of private property, were they unhappy before the Europeans came and took everything from them?

Left wing anarchists would say that the hunting and gathering societies before modern civilization had no concept of private property and that private property was concept imposed on humanity, so they would say they don't have to take away people's property, because after an anarchist revolution the concept of private property would be meaningless because humanity would return to a more innocent time before that concept existed.

I am not anarchist in any way, but if I wanted to become a radical, left anarchism seems more appealing then right wing anarchism, because it seems like left anarchism gets rid of more hierarchies then right wing anarchism.
 
I'm inclined to agree with you there. Although that's not entirely accurate about Native Americans, at least not the innocent part. Most conflicted with other tribes. Basically the same bullsh**, different skin color.
 
I'm inclined to agree with you there. Although that's not entirely accurate about Native Americans, at least not the innocent part. Most conflicted with other tribes. Basically the same bullsh**, different skin color.

Well the native American tribes were not perfect, but they generally didn't have a concept of "owning land" the way Europeans did. Also in the 1600s I think I would prefer being in a Native tribe then being exploited in Europe by the crown and the Church.

My point is if I were to become a radical, I would go all the way. Anrcho capitalism just seems like a half measure, get rid of the public hierarchies, but keep the private ones. Left Wing anarchists want to get rid of both. Again I don't believe in Anarchism, I am more believer in Hobbs then Rousseau, but hey, if you going to go radical I would prefer to go all the way then some half measure.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"