You're still not answering the question. Do the people who want to speak klingon need the permission of english speakers before they're allowed to do so?

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I wish you good luck in getting to work in the morning without using the public roads.

Well, I mean, if the U.S. won't sell me the right to use its roads even if I make it a reasonable offer to pay just because it wants to be mad obstinate, what am I supposed to do? I'll probably have to find a new job/move. Price of liberty, imo.

Does the US currently deny all non-USAians access to US roads? Even if they're e.g. riding in a taxi??

PM home address plz.

No, but they also (generally) don't let them live within the borders of the United States for an indefinite period of time and not pay taxes. We're creating a new relationship here and my personal standard for a situation where someone (who would otherwise be considered a US citizen) who wishes to live within that land borders of the US but withhold normal tax payments would be that they cannot partake in ANY of the services of the state.

It's not that they are mad or obstinate, it's that they aren't structured to accept pay-for-play tax payments. It doesn't make sense for the government to do so. Just like you can't buy 4 channels from comcast, or 1 egg from the grocery store, or 14 french fries from McDonalds. Goods and services are often packaged. If your condo building has a doorman, you can't negotiate that you won't use the doorman services so your monthly dues should be lower. That's not mad or obstinate at all, that's just the way the system is set up.

Well, I mean, you could negotiate all that stuff. It's just that it's not worth it to most people. McDonald's can sell you 14 fries, the grocery store can sell you 1 egg, etc. McDonald's and the grocery store create these packages because they're convenient and fit a lot of people's needs.

If they charge you more than they otherwise would for that service because they have to use their time negotiating, that's fine with me.

e: Condo analogy doesn't fit, imo, because you're creating a K with the condo association re: the public areas and services associated with those areas that says you accept that you have to pay for blah blah blah. You could try to negotiate those, too, in theory, but you'd have to do it before you sign the K.

Until human nature changes in a fundamental way states are inevitable.

My home is the only piece of property in the entire US that you can prove the government owns? Nice try, stalker.

please define 'argument,' 'ignorance,' and 'fallacious.'

I'll assume you agree with the rest of my post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is false only because it has not been proven true..

I'm in your target audience here. As of now I'm pretty disgusted with the state, but there are a few things that seems like they could be huge problems under ACism.

1a) Natural disasters and 1b) Global Warming. Seems like if you privatized dealing with these problems, no one would want to pay until it is too late.

2) Murder, theft - how do you prevent / punish these things?


To my limited and mostly recent exposure to ACism these 2 seem the largest problems. I'm sure they have been brought up before but I haven't seen those threads, can someone give me any sort of answer?

They have been brought up before and there are pretty in depth discussions out there. A few things to think about (I though I'm not going to come close to doing the debate justice here) for number one, Katrina says hi. If you're worried about natural disasters a state is the worst thing to have because basically everyone then thinks it's everyone else's problem. having common property (owned by the state) leads to the problem of the commons. For number two there are very lengthy discussions but it basically boils down to a system of private courts and insurance agencies.

Why is statism the default position? Well why for 1000s of years was it the default position for people to believe without question, in various silly pagan gods that ruled all aspects of their lives and the world?

Why did people accept as the default reality brutal kings and monarchs and countless tyrants for 1000s of years, and even to this day? Why would people of the past rise up and overthrow a failed king only to replace the old regime with a new one that is just as bad if not worse, and repeat the cycle over and over and over again for ages. The idea of freedom and liberty, limited government and self evident rights that everyone should have, didn't even exist in the realm of human thought for most of recorded history. Instead people of the past would overthrow the old tyrant and replace him with a new ruler, only this one would be more benevolent, for sure, because the people need a benevolent king! a ruler to protect and provide for the kingdom for the good of the people, and everybody agreed with this, even the peasants, they just didn't like the last guy who was a tyrant and brutal so they replace the old one with a new crown wearer. Sound familiar?

Why do the vast majority of people believe by default whatever organized religion they were born into?

By enlarge people accept the beliefs and to that end the environment they are born into. As someone previously mentioned, it is only in recent years, thanks to the internet that has allowed the average person access to information on just about anything, and more importantly information from countless sources with countless perspectives, giving the average person a chance to evolve beyond what is default thought for him/her.

Statism is a default position?

Last time I checked it covered amongst many other things completely contradictory political directions, so I find that hard to believe.

Cue another hilarious thread wherein people express puzzlement at the hesitation of people to abandon a political system which has proven the only bulwark against violent lawlessness, for a political system which only works inside the heads of nerds who congregate on internet poker forums.

Edit:

The complete and unanswerable retort to this is "voluntarism and free trade have existed since the beginning of civilisation, so what has prevented your system from establishing itself before now?"

Nobody is asking you to "abandon" your security blanket.

But I see why you like it. I have a magic rock that has proven to be the only bulwark against tiger attacks.

Good post.

Cue another hilarious remark where somebody calls an institution that wages violent wars, destroys lives for smoking the leaves of a plant and impoverishes a good number of its citizens in order to fund said hijinks a "bulwark against violent lawlessness".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Unanswerable retort? Heh.

Actually, voluntaryism is not a system. When someone picks up a knife and robs a person on the street, has he proven that voluntarism and free trade "don't work"? It seems to me that he has proven that coercion doesn't work, and that we should stop supporting coercion in every way we possibly can.

Because people like you make fun of people who advocate abstaining from violence (a truly hilarious concept, what a horrible world that would be).

And I'm sure you've arrived at this conclusion through careful pondering of political and economic arguments.

Any system works if everyone agrees to hold hands and play along. Presumably you think the multiple failures of socialism are proof only that people aren't committed enough to socialism - if only people agreed to work hard for no money, then socialism would work fine. The measure of a system is how it works when people don't agree to play along, a test which the ideal of "voluntarism and free trade" has failed miserably at every opportunity.

Arguing that anarchocapitalism cannot sustain a free society is not an argument from ignorance. Arguing that there is not a giant pink teapot orbiting Jupiter is not an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from the fact that no such thing has been observed. The starting state of a group of human beings is to have no central power. The fact that every human society in history has devolved into a central power, or a group of violently competing powers, is solid evidence that spontaneous formation of a society without coercion is extraordinarily unlikely. People don't want to live in a society of voluntary interaction; they are largely forced to. If you want to argue for a New Socialist Man-esque realignment of the human psyche, that's great, but you're living in a fantasy world.

Everything that can exist already exists.

Right.