Well, you can't vote out the bastard you don't know, so there's that bonus!

Only if you're the bastard that can't be voted out...

Dude, on further review... you had actually already explictly identified, by mentioning the NAP, that you mean ACism when you say 'anarchism' ITT. So as I promised, I'll happily go along with your word usage ITT.

• Under 'anarchism', can a coal mine owner buy up children on the 'thriving market for children' to work in his mine?
  
  
• Under 'anarchism' can a bothel owner sign an indenture contract with a child's owners until age 25 in return for, say an airplane ticket, and then put that child to work in their brothel?
  
  
• Same as above, but the brothel owner waits until the child reaches, say 16yo, before putting them to work in their brothel. Under 'anarchism' is that cool?

This is a thread about Anarchism. If you want to discuss Anarchism, by all means.

The benefit is getting rid of the biggest mother ****er with all the guns that commits all the violence.

Dude, you're too ****ing ******ed to understand anything I tell you, and tell you again, and again, and again, so just stop.

• Under 'anarchism', can a coal mine owner buy up children on the 'thriving market for children' to work in his mine?
  
  
• Under 'anarchism' can a bothel owner sign an indenture contract with a child's owners until age 25 in return for, say an airplane ticket, and then put that child to work in their brothel?
  
  
• Same as above, but the brothel owner waits until the child reaches, say 16yo, before putting them to work in their brothel. Under 'anarchism' is that cool?

Now I'm going to go ahead and guess yes to all of the above.

And of course, if an electrical generating plant owner didn't care for child mine workers he's free to boycott/shun those coal mines who employ children. Likewise, brothel customers who con't care for indentured child sex workers, or older sex workers indentured as children, are free to boycott/shun those brothels.

Do I have 'anarchism' figured out correct here?

The U.S. federal government is the largest government that has ever existed.



While it's nice to hypothesize over what things would be like without the institutionalized violence of government, it is unproductive to get bogged down in such academic discussions. The Anarchist philosophy presents a framework for how you should live your life, and how people should interact with each other, and you can go about your life trying to live free of hierarchy, and exercise self ownership.

MissileDog, this thread is about Anarchism, and whatever that means to people. Anarchism to me is Anarcho Capitalism. To you, Anarchism is radical industrial unionism. If you want to discuss Anarchism, go for it.

You cannot vote against the elite in this country. It is completely impossible. Tell me which of the recent presidents did not represent the interests of the elite.

While these things could happen in any world, I do not support such things, as they are completely wrong. A child has rights, just as their parents does, and their parents can infringe on their rights, just like anyone else.

Hypotheticals like you just mentioned are disgusting violations of rights, decency, and the non aggression principle, and Anarchism.

Lirva gonna get droned

because

Anarchy is the dumbest ****ing **** a bunch of hippies ever came up with.

Zero understanding of economics. Zero understanding of money. ZERO understanding of human nature except for the part where humans are ******ed.

Go take your Ron Paul garbage manifesto into the jungle and wipe your dirty asses with it.

**** you!

These aren't hypotheticals.

In fact, all these things happened in relatively recent history on the 'free market'. It was only after governments stepped in and interfered in the 'free market', by using laws and 'force', that they have mainly receeded into history.

Also I don't see how you can possibly say they are violations of the NAP. In every case, two people made a 'voluntary' trade, which benifited both of them. How can any such trade, free from 'coercion', possibly be against the NAP?

So... bottom line, without any government to keep interfering in the 'free market', these practices would surely quickly reappear under 'anarchism'. And you would boycott/shun those brothels (and if you happened to own a power generating plant, boycott/shun coal mines that employed children). And that would be that.

Do I understand 'anarchism' correctly here?

Every one needs NAP

So, basically, you don't want to consider any bad repercussions to your ideals because they might violate your ideals?

Why do you think this will change under AC? Will there not be elites with orders of magnitude more stuff than other people? Will you not be allowed to use your stuff to your advantage?

You're conveniently ignoring the third party; the children. They are not in the situation voluntarily, so it is absolutely a violation of the NAP, and their rights.



That is an assertion, not a given.

The incidents you are referring to happened during the early days of the industrial revolution, yes? This was a period of great transitional change, and in any times of great change, there will be problems arising from individuals acting badly. You don't know that the practices would have continued forever without a government action. Do you think if slavery were legalized today, it would become prevalent? I certainly don't.



I understand correctly. I understand that you want me to be the scapegoat, so you don't talk about Anarchism, as you see it. I've just invited you multiple times to do so, and you continue to rage on against Anarchism, as I see it. You like to use me as a scapegoat, and I understand that perfectly well.

"Academic" my ass. You still haven't answered the most basic question; what prevents anarchy from turning into the worst parts of Lord of the Flies?

Sure there will be very wealthy people with far more resources than others, and absolutely they will use their resources to their advantage. The benefit is since there would be no institution to provide individuals with economic advantages (a government), they will have acquired their vast wealth through legitimate market functions, by providing a better product to customers than their competitors. This is not a bad thing, it's good.

I've never read the book, fwiw.

People, and their pursuit of living. There is a great demand for security, and where there is demand, there are people trying to meet it and profit. So without a government, what would prevent my neighbor from killing me? A private police force could be a possibility. Instead of the govenment having a monopoly on this service, it could be provided by competing businesses. I doubt many businesses would include locking their customers up for smoking a plant in their terms. Also, most people interact with each other peacefully, and do not infringe on the rights of their neighbors.

No.