Search results

Not so, natural communities organize on economics, not governmental force, though government likes to claim credit for the organizing.

Do you have any evidence supporting the contrary? What makes some people special enough to rule while others to be ruled? Is it some royal bloodline? Some supernatural process that happens when one is elected? If we are programmed to be ruled, what makes the rulers the exception?

Not in the natural organization of a community. Does a community need to come together to decide and vote that rape, theft, assault, etc is bad? Sure, if you want to stretch the definition of democracy to encompass that to make you feel you've proved your point, go right ahead.

Anarcho-capitalism. I'm using community rule as in the natural process that a community organizes, not a communal democracy. I disagree that we are programed that way.

And yet, Copenhagen authorities have been violently cracking down on their liberty as of recently.

The community. If someone is a known thief, rapist, etc., the community can refuse to sell to them, associate with them, or allow them on their private property. I don't want to be ruled, democratically, or otherwise.

It's never been tried in modern times. Why can't we have our chance?

What options?

There could be serval ways of enforcing rules; ostracism, Dispute Resolution Organizations, etc. Those are some ideas. And no. And who, besides sociopaths, would want to violently take over? And yet, both are violent monopolies. The choices are laughable, which candidate in the last...

Goods and services can be exchanged voluntarily outside of government. My point is that government is not necessary for these exchanges, and that it's violent monopoly on services is immoral because these services can be exchanged without the government.

This is assuming that with anarchy, there is nothing but chaos and lawlessness. Anarchy is just the absence of rulers, not the absence of rules. People can arm themselves, there is no gun control in voluntarism. How is this despotism any different than the current system?

That was in response to someone else on democracy. I am well aware of the US democratic republic.

Taxes are what government demands you pay for their monopoly on services. The initiation of force is immoral; taxation is a form of force initiated by the state; therefore, taxation is immoral.

Why not?

So? Please tell me, who wins in a democracy, the minority or the majority?

Just because it's the first US president, does not mean it's any less immoral to steal and call it taxation.

So, you're ok with totalitarian government, if Caesar were to claim all that was in his field of vision? From they you've been arguing thus far, it sounds as if you want a theonomy. If you want to discuss theology, there's a board for that. This, however, is the politics board.

Jesus and Caesar agree on "You shall not steal"? How is it greed to want to have the liberty of deciding what to do with the money you earned, instead of having the state violently forcing its will upon you? Is slavery moral because Jesus and Caesar agree?

Voluntaryism, aka, anarchy.

Just because Caesar claims that a share of my income is his, makes it no less theft.