Should individuals/groups have the right to secede from the state? (3 Viewers)

[dieburndie]

Did I crush your sad little fantasies?
truth hurts, doesnt it?

Hahaha. He thinks he's relevant!

 

[Ayatollah]

Hahaha. He thinks he's relevant!

by all means, go on plotting your creepy utopias as if my critique does not exist,
but you cannot deny the fact I intellectually destroyed your little nutjob arguments

 

[dieburndie]

by all means, go on plotting your creepy utopias as if my critique does not exist,
but you cannot deny the fact I intellectually destroyed your little nutjob arguments

Yes I can.

 

[Ayatollah]

okay name the 'stalanist autocrat' planting the 'chips' in our minds while we sleep..you can't do this and the intellectual basis for AC fails

 

[dieburndie]

okay name the 'stalanist autocrat' planting the 'chips' in our minds while we sleep..you can't do this and the intellectual basis for AC fails

That is not the intellectual basis for AC.
Have you been mainlining concrete powder?

 

[Riet]

Yeah sure they can secede if they want but what is to stop them being annexed?

 

[chelsea girl]

I wouldn't like children to be born into these groups.

It reminds me a bit too much of brainwashing cults (not saying AC is a cultish school of thought, but having a community set up like that is dangerous, imo.)

Also, if this was to be tested as an experiment and some guidelines put into place to stop slavery, violence, etc, how do you propose they could be enforced if not through government regulation, in which case does that not undermine the whole idea and purpose of the experiment?

 

[volition]

I wouldn't like children to be born into these groups.

It reminds me a bit too much of brainwashing cults (not saying AC is a cultish school of thought, but having a community set up like that is dangerous, imo.)

Why can't I equally argue that "I wouldn't like children to be born under government" ?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

you could argue that, but it wouldn't be sensible unless the splinter group could show that it had greater or equal protection for children.

and i don't think any anarchists would be particularly concerned about childrens rights. you insane whackjob.

 

[Ayatollah]

You still evade my question..why dont you, along with your '9/11 truth' pals, go of into the desert and let us be, there you can 're-enact' these disgusting ideals to your hearts (disturbing) desire, abolish laws against seat belts and child rape, let the sick and needy die, go nuts with this stuff, but leave us out of it.

 

[Planck]

Also, if this was to be tested as an experiment and some guidelines put into place to stop slavery, violence, etc, how do you propose they could be enforced if not through government regulation, in which case does that not undermine the whole idea and purpose of the experiment?

You don't really need regulations to enforce non-violence when personal security is not diminished. Keep in mind that mercantilism simply does not work. Nor does rent-seeking. The behaviours eventually cause collapse and rot. Any student of history knows this.

Any aspects of slavery would be dealt with the same way that abolitionists dealt with it in the UK, rather than requiring a war as in the US. It is an ideal, after all that a man is entitled to his freedom in the form of taking it. I doubt you'd see a major slave trade spring up.

Anarcho-capitalism is effectively decentralisation of force and the removal of a monopoly on force. Groups of individuals will rapidly realise that through trade and economics they will better their lives. Criminals, particularly gangs would prefer the comfort of nation-states as their laws substantially increase their incomes.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

relax, comrade ayatollah. most of the individuals here who support such an extreme ideology are either hepped up on dexies, or are batshit insane libertarians - gone too far into their false sense of security, wrapped in the clean, warm blanket of the free market, to realise how utterly absurd their suggestions really are. they can pontificate on their extremism all the live long day, but those of us with sanity and a clear vision can see how absurd their suggestions are, and can continue to parade around NCAP with our heads held high. we may not have the numbers, but we have the TRUTH, and only TRUTH can lead to true FREEDOM!

 

[Planck]

You still evade my question..why dont you, along with your '9/11 truth' pals, go of into the desert and let us be, there you can 're-enact' these disgusting ideals to your hearts (disturbing) desire, abolish laws against seat belts and child rape, let the sick and needy die, go nuts with this stuff, but leave us out of it.

You're almost getting good at this.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You don't really need regulations to enforce non-violence when personal security is not diminished. Keep in mind that mercantilism simply does not work. Nor does rent-seeking. The behaviours eventually cause collapse and rot. Any student of history knows this.

Any aspects of slavery would be dealt with the same way that abolitionists dealt with it in the UK, rather than requiring a war as in the US. It is an ideal, after all that a man is entitled to his freedom in the form of taking it. I doubt you'd see a major slave trade spring up.

any student of history also knows that your BELOVED free market isn't going to protect vulnerable individuals from the tyranny of the violent scumbags that would pollute such a society, scumbags like yourself daniel. you're a disgrace - an utter disgrace. you place all your eggs in the free market basket, but refuse to see the obvs pitfalls of an ideology with foundations built on nought but sand!

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS

edit: nah but seriously dude, you're fucking retarded if you think we don't need laws to prevent the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable - laws created and maintained by a GLORIOUS government

 

[Planck]

any student of history also knows that your BELOVED free market isn't going to protect vulnerable individuals from the tyranny of the violent scumbags that would pollute such a society, scumbags like yourself daniel. you're a disgrace - an utter disgrace. you place all your eggs in the free market basket, but refuse to see the obvs pitfalls of an ideology with foundations built on nought but sand!

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS

edit: nah but seriously dude, you're fucking retarded if you think we don't need laws to prevent the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable - laws created and maintained by a GLORIOUS government

I view this thing entirely as a thought experiment because there will be, at some point, a great likelihood of there being an imbalance of powers between groups within this society and thus the most likely outcome would be that any groups that attempted to 'take over' other sections of the society would, in effect, become a de facto government.

It'd be some form of new-age Fascism, but the point still remains.

I'm of the opinion that governance waxes and wanes, much like the business cycle.

Feudalism -> Industrial Revolution -> Early Capitalism -> FDR New-deal esque stuff -> Thatcherites and Reaganites dismantling the state -> post 9/11 police-y state kinda stuff.

Who knows.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

a de facto government? gosh - i can certainly see the urgency for change!

 

[Ayatollah]

I'm of the opinion that governance waxes and wanes, much like the business cycle.

Feudalism -> Industrial Revolution -> Early Capitalism -> FDR New-deal esque stuff -> Thatcherites and Reaganites dismantling the state -> post 9/11 police-y state kinda stuff.

Who knows.

similar to Marx's dialectual materialism
Comrade Nebuchanezzar what do you suggest should replace the 'free market' in allocating capital?

 

[Planck]

a de facto government? gosh - i can certainly see the urgency for change!

You are the screaming toddler bathing in its own filth of these forums.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

similar to Marx's dialectual materialism
Comrade Nebuchanezzar what do you suggest should replace the 'free market' in allocating capital?

we've reached understanding in the fields of the natural sciences, humanities, economics and such that are absolutely outstanding - I hypothesise that a group of the most talented, most intelligent members of the community be put in charge of an authority that studies how capital ought to be distributed fairly, rather than according to this non-existant "supply and demand" hogwash.

 

[volition]

you could argue that, but it wouldn't be sensible unless the splinter group could show that it had greater or equal protection for children.

and i don't think any anarchists would be particularly concerned about childrens rights. you insane whackjob.

1. Just because the government has a department for child saving, doesn't mean it actually does a good job at it.

2. It's a bit rich of you to suggest that children aren't protected under AC (which they are, generally via the same property rights that extend to adults) - and then turn around and suggest the violation of everybody's property rights via statism. Taxing people and regulating them and throwing them in jail for victimless crimes, yea sure, that demonstrates "equal or greater protection" for children.

we've reached understanding in the fields of the natural sciences, humanities, economics and such that are absolutely outstanding - I hypothesise that a group of the most talented, most intelligent members of the community be put in charge of an authority that studies how capital ought to be distributed fairly, rather than according to this non-existant "supply and demand" hogwash.

3. Sometimes I feel like you're not even serious about this stuff. Cos it's not the first time that I've told you about the economic calculation problem, which demonstrates why central planning will always be inferior to distribution via price mechanism.

4. Supply and Demand do definitely exist, even if you don't have capitalism. What is your understanding of the concept of supply and demand? I suspect you are just using the wrong terms here, so please clarify what you mean