That is a fairly meaningless statement, though kind of an adorable libertarian one to say. The aliens in "Battlefield Earth" liked gold so anything is possible and you can use your metal ingots to to pay people to finally build your road!

All the best.

If "the State" (fed gubmint) didn't unconstitutionally centralize most powers, then it could be left to the individual states to sort out most matters... so that if one didn't like the laws in one state, they could leave "the state" and have many others to choose from... instead of the main option being to leave "the State" (the good ole USA), which was once supposed to be the bastion of freedom and liberty.

There's ~200 other countries in the world, feel free to try any of them out.

If they're not to your liking, I guess you could start your own. Oh, wait, all of the land on the planet is already owned by others and you can't take any of it for yourself without initiating force against its owners? Hmm, seems like a problem...

International courts and arbitration. Literally to separate forms of law (and culture for that matter) getting together to attempt to find a peaceful solution.

Small indeed, I'm not saying that you claim the State is perfect, I'm saying you are defending it. I believe it is clearly an evil institution and I challenged everyone here on those claims. And...crickets. So that leads me to believe that you or anyone else felt as though agreeing with that would impede or flat out undermine your entire beef with Libertariansim/AnCap. I find it odd that even if you disagree with my views, we can't agree on stuff like being lied into war, currency debasement etc.

The US Gov't doesn't appear to be restrained by much imo.

We don't have a privatized healthcare system. And Canada's HC is supplemented by the private sector, yes truly a shining example when they can't provide everything people need. On top of that the private sector is not allowed to offer anything the gov't system does, shocker. Hey we really care about your health but if the guy over there attempts to care more and provide better care we will throw him in jail.

So politicians decide, jfc. What if they don't represent me?

Yeah **** poor people obv.

So I guess if someone is born into slavery that's ok, he chose it, he can just leave.



I have to pay to work at a corporation?

So again, how do you delegate rights you never had?

Not big on freedom are we? I think the State-ist tailspin has begun. LEAVE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, lol.

I think following the Constitution seems like a better solution than abolishing private property rights.

What does that have to do with the choice you're making right now?

Aww you thought I meant actually trade physical gold, now THAT is cute

Oh shocker, you weren't making a principled statement, just something that sort of sounded good as a comeback.

Sorry I was just applying your logic to someone else on the planet, to expose how awful it was.

There are complicated agreements that lead to establishing the authority of such international courts, no? Like, was there not a big thing about how the TPP would make us liable for reducing company profits in international courts, which led people to say "hey we don't like that, we should reject the TPP"?

It's not like, absent willful action by the United States to make itself subject to such a court, a company could otherwise be like "hey USA, you did something to me and I demand judgement from this international court". If the USA hasn't already agreed to be subject to that court, the USA's response is "lol". And that's my point, your system requires that same buy-in and agreement from all participating parties.

Sure, the state generally sucks, it just sucks less than libertopia. Speaking for myself, I'm not talking about war or currency because those are just general grievances you have against the United States, not against statism. Statism is not inexorably linked with the United States spending trillions of dollars on wars as you've brought up before, given that there are nearly 200 countries in the world that have significantly smaller militaries and kill significantly fewer people in wars than us. Statism is not inexorably linked with your bugaboos about fiat currency given that this very country was on the gold standard in the past century. So pardon me for keeping the discussion more focused rather than entertaining all your anti-USA grievances (which I share plenty of, but simply are not relevant to the overall question of statism).

This is just argle-bargle that doesn't address my point. You made a weird claim about "absolute power perverting" that I challenged and this response is just going off on a totally random tangent that has nothing to do with previous posts.

Vote for new ones.

hahaha:

In b4 four posts later you just pretend this never happened again

You thought you were exposing his logic? What?

Someone born into slavery obviously cannot leave. You can! What an idiotic comparison.

Nah, you're just avoiding taking responsibility for your own actions. Put another way--what would you do or how would your life be different in this new system? If you don't have the ability to go do whatever you want right now(turns out being self-sufficient is kinda pricey)--there's very little chance that would change in the AC version. Which brings us back around to--that whole voluntarily opting in thing

So I can just pick another country, show up and stay indefinitely, and they'll give me all sorts of govt. benefits and cater to me only speaking English fluently, etc., right?

You're free to leave, there's no law confining you within the borders of the United States (barring extreme circumstances). Now if you don't like the other options available once you exit, sounds like an inefficiency in the FREE MARKET of countries to choose from; you could always embrace the spirit of LIBERTARIANISM and fix that market inefficiency with your own competitor!

Might run into that problem I've been talking about though, regarding getting other independent operators to agree on the authority of your property rights...

There is no such thing as "own" in the objective material world. "Ownership" is a shared subjective agreement based on arbitrary social norms. There are many people in the world who own neither their bodies nor their labour and not many people in the world that own both. The rhetorical trick of moving seamlessly from a concept of "self-ownership" (which is never proven or even defined merely assumed tautologically) to a foundation of property is just that. A clumsy intellectual sleight of hand.

Well, there are options to skew things more in your favor if you want a lifestyle that at least approaches these ideals. How do you feel about boats? But there are other options. Also, it helps--a lot--to get the loot first. Expecting everyone else to accommodate your language might be pushing it on that whole freedom thing--but English is pretty popular.

What now? In the analogy, you were a customer, not an employee. Hence "take your business elsewhere".

Sounds to me like you don't like the service USA Inc. is offering. No problem, sir, there is plenty of competition on planet Earth, feel free to choose from any of the other available options. Oh, you don't like the services they offer either? Well, that might be a "you" thing, then.

Simply zero reason for this to ever happen again.

Also with these private courts, why would these courts not just award the judgment to the highest bidder? What prevents them from doing this morally or ethically? What prevents them from doing it from a practical standpoint?

It just seems like you are recreating all the problems we have now and adding in more for good measure.

He is not forcing anyone by just walking into a plane with a bomb but those that try to stop him is using force. You have to use words in a meaningful way if you are going to participate in a debate, this way of talking about force is just gibberish that nobody can relate to.

If you try to claim that the principle is not about initiatiating force against peoples bodies but rather that "one shall not lay hands on other peoples property (including their body and other stuff they claim to own like a plane) then the original moral argument is tainted into nothing. At least the initiation of force against other peoples bodies is an interresting moral argument that can be looked at and debated until you realize that it doesnt work because it doesnt allow laws and rights. But now with the new principle of not laying hands on other peoples property there is no moral oomph anymore. Everyone values the principle of being able to own private property, but they value other principles just as much, like a sense of equality, consequences, fairness, stuff that a state run on democracy can provide.

Actually the state could provide food and clothes cheaper.
Grey and vanilla but cheap.

But you're correct that people want a choice in what they wear and what they eat. They don't really want to have to choose which court to have a dispute settled in. They want a fair court available if needed.

Gold has intrinsic value?

Its only ever been a means of exchange. It has no inherent value other than as a commodity class.

I already made a similar point earlier ITT:

And in a shocking turn of events, he didn't get it: