Resources, however abundant and easily produced, are controlled to the point of artificial scarcity through marketing campaigns exploiting the emotional weakness of the masses.

However unnecessary, the class struggle is maintained just for the rich to be quantifiably richer.

Greed hunts guilt and humanity is doomed to be slaves.

>>2794423

Post-scarcity world never happens because of one reason alone: sex.

Competition for mates ensures waste and fraud, and something being leveraged for sex.

>>2794423
pretty sure that paradigm is going to have to end soon... THE GOLDEN AGE IS NIGH MY BROTHERS!

>>2794444
>>2794423
Ironically enough, sex was the first economy of artificial scarcity!

>>2794448
Here's hoping.

YESSSS THIS THREAD AGAIN
The resources are there, the manpower isn't. Wait approximately 20 more years and the technology for human-level AI will become available and affordable. This is where capitalism will be transcended.

>post scarcity
You mean a world where we have a magic portal to a world where there's an infinite amount of any kind of imaginable resource?

>>2794423
I was going to attribute it to that and human error, but that is a human error.

GG comrade

>Pretty sure we have plenty of resources to do pretty much anything we want

see, that's where you're wrong

We're no where near a post scarcity world. The only people foolish enough to think we are are those right up the top of the current global economic order. They're so far removed from the realities of the harsher side of life on a finite planet that they cannot get their heads around the idea that everything is, if fact, very fucking scarce.

Don't believe me? Google "rare earth metals".

There will never, ever be such a thing as material post-scarcity. Intellectual property is another matter, but for tangible property politics and economics will remain about managing the relations between people in a resource scarce environment.

And those who would tell you otherwise are lying on purpose.

>>2794423
Fucking Commies.

What like mining asteroids and shit?

>>2794402
>whats it look like?
Everyone = god in their own universe

This is the only technically "post scarcity" world.

>Pretty sure we have plenty of resources to do pretty much anything we want

Who is we? Everybody on planet earth?

>>2794488
We have enough food to feed everyone we have enough accessible information for everyone to be literate... we have enough to make living no so shitty at least for now

>>2794402
>whats it look like?
A world without copyright and patent protections. We live in a post scarcity environment, just with forced artificial scarcity on the majority of the world's GDP.

>>2794459
Hurr. No. The amount produced is enough that no amount of demand can make it run out. It all comes down to efficiency and technology.
>>2794462
First off, we haven't found all mineral deposits.
Second off, OCEAN MINING.
THIRD OFF, LOW EARTH ORBIT ASTEROID MINING
FOURTH OFF, SOLAR SYSTEM MINING.

>>2794402
Also

>Pretty sure we have plenty of resources to do pretty much anything we want

>>2794499

Look up the economic definition of scarcity to which this subject applies then shut the fuck up.

>>2794508

EROEI. Look it up, and then let me know when all those things you listed aren't just fantasies.

>>2794423 here
If you want to look at a real example of post-scarcity, look at internet piracy.
Data is replicated and transmitted with such efficiency that it's the closest thing we have.
Strangely enough, the concept works with music piracy. Artists are able to distribute their music as a promotional items and are far more likely to make profit from actual products and services (merchandise/concerts) as a result of the publicity.
Doesn't work with videogames or movies though.

>>2794499
All of that is true and gives us reason to question the structure of global economic and political relations but is absolutely nothing to do with other resources being terrifyingly scarce.

>>2794508

Because rocket technology has just advanced so much in the last 50 years.

>>2794508
>>2794508
>>2794508
>>2794508
>>2794508
What the fuck! There is a word hidden in the lens flare!?

>>2794508

>asteroid mining
>solar system mining

we are no where near perfecting space travel efficient enough to accomplish these things

also asteroid mining is bogus, no rare earth metals to be found on shitty space rocks

Free energy and alchemy faggots... Than we have EVERYTHINGGGGG

scarcity is always there because living organisms always grow to fill surpluses.

lrn2bio

>>2794537
Because rocket technology is the main problem. Totally.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece
>>2794541
>also asteroid mining is bogus, no rare earth metals to be found on shitty space rocks
THE STUPID, IT BURNS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

>>2794560
then why is it that as a nations GDP and quality of life increases, the birth rate decreases?

>>2794559
Oh right I forgot about our recently discovered ability to transmute lead into gold, silly me.

Now if we could only transmute excess carbon emissions into iPads all the world's problems would be solved.

>>2794579
stupid liberal, i bet you think its possible to go faster than light too

>>2794579
Sadly enough, it's not going to happen as long as we can get the same resources on earth at a smaller cost.

They smartest thing to do is to try and find a way to retool common materials in space to be a cheaper alternative. That would provide the incentive for corporations to back the technology.

>>2794592
Mostly social, and HERPICUS DERPUS scarcity of food.

>>2794607
Well if you flip into another dimension where space-time is time-space you can

>>2794592
because liberals spread propaganda to kill off the white race, notice how immigrants to those countries breed like the vermin they are.

>>2794607
>>2794607
>hurr durp nigger librul
First off, it's impossible to travel faster than light, but as you accelerate closer and closer to the speed of light, the strange effects of time dilation make time slow down on the vessel you're on. Effectively you could go to the center of the Milky Way galaxy in 21 years ship time, but 30,000 years or so would have passed everywhere else. Then there is the fact of Alcubierre drives, which the technology may one day become available for.
>>2794609
I reckon the price of these minerals will become very competitive with normal earth-mineral mining if we can get multiple space elevators up.

>>2794648
Just out of curiosity, what's a good major if I want to help out with Terraforming or Asteroid Mining? Is there a good major, or should I just chill out until I can download wikipedia to my brain?

>>2794648
Space elevator tech is all pending on practical implementation of carbon nanotubes.

And if that happens then we have so much things we could improve with them before we make pulleys to the moon.

>>2794621
>im an idiot who thinks what i want the universe to be like is actually what its like.

next your going to tell me you can flip into another dimension where niggers are people, fucking liberals, youre all utterly retarded

>>2794673

>>2794609 here
I'm seriously considering a degree in mining engineering. It's the highest paying engineering degree.
STRIKE THE EARTH.

>>2794687
I thought it was petro-chemical engineering.

>>2794687
What are some schools in California offering that? I graduated with an Accounting degree a few years back, made some good money from my job and some good investing (pulled out before shit got bad in 07-08), and am now interested in changing career paths with a new degree.

>>2794648
>implying alcubierre drives are possible

good luck building something that not only needs more energy than exists in the universe but is also a requirement in its own construction.

>>2794673
Astrophysics, geology, biology, environmental sciences, and perhaps chemistry,
>>2794674
They are getting longer with exponential improvements in their manufacturing technology.

>>2794700
I saw a chart posted a while back. Don't know how old it was, but Mining engineering topped the chart at 117,000$.

>>2794705
Not sure about Cali.I might try transferring into the Colorado School of mines.

>>2794718
Keyword was 'may.'

Humanity should mainly spread out through this solar system and perhaps colonies to the near stars on which we can confirm habitable or near-habitable (for terraformation) exoplanets.

>>2794673
Astrophysics encompasses a lot of good stuff. Astrochemistry/biology would be your concentrations if you wanted to do research in Terraforming.

>the energy requirements for some warp drives may be absurdly gigantic, e.g. the energy equivalent of 1067 grams might be required[9] to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way galaxy. This is orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the universe

BLOODY CHRIST SCIENCE IS COOL

>>2794722
>>2794745
Thanks. Astrophysics was definitely up high on my list, since I'm going all out science this time (though I'm definitely minoring in history).

>>2794782
> the energy equivalent of 1067 grams might be required[9] to transport a small spaceship across the Milky Way galaxy.
>1067 grams

>>2794782
I would think the mass of the universe is a lot more than a kilo.

>>2794457
I wish, but no. Conservatards and corporations gonna keep the status quo as long as possible. look at file sharing..thats an example of post-scarcity but noooo they've made it illegal


still butthurt over napster

when has energy ever been measured in grams?

>>2794823
You can't prove that.

>>2794801
lol you can do the history of science.

>>2794835
Since that most cliched of equations, e=mc^2.

>>2794829
Capitalism will bring it's own demise. Around the start of the 2020's self-driving cars, taxis, buses, trucks, and possibly airplanes will replace their human counterparts because they are more efficient, cheaper, faster, and all round more safe. Then it will happen with the service sector. WE're already seeing it happen. It happened with ATMs. Now it's happening with cashiers. Then slowly to the people that stack the shelves. Perhaps even mid-level managers.

When the unemployment rate breaks 40%, you will see a collapse of the system. And I hope to be the one that creates the new one.

>>2794867
>Efficiency in production supplants human labor until the system collapses under the impoverished masses

Karl Marx detected.

>>2794867
This is like the tagline of Libertarian Socialism.

>>2794916
Well...

>>2794943
lol that explains a lot. Not that I'm against it, I'm just hesitant to get excited before I see results. After all, the human species is filled with people who would love to throw a wrench in the wheels of history.

>>2794867
Oh and if anyone doubts this....
http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/thinking-tech/googles-self-driving-car/5445/
>Google announced this weekend that it’s been building robotic cars that have been driving themselves around California — down curvy Lombard Street in San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge, along the Pacific Coast Highway, around Lake Tahoe and from Google’s Mountain View headquarters to Santa Monica (a 350-mile trip). So far, the cars have logged over 140,000 miles.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/emerging-tech/71013.html
>Furthermore, a car run by robotics would not be subject to dangerous driving behavior such as distracted driving, the company pointed out. So far, the only mishap the self-driving car has encountered was getting rear-ended at a traffic light.

And this is prototype shit.

>>2794943
Shit, Tyrone, get it together.

>>2794916
>>2794913

That's obviously what's happening. The companies are already starting to do that. Fucking bottled water, really? The future is getting you to pay for shit you don't need.

>>2795010
The society I advocate is more toward the center.

>>2794943
>>2795010

You are all dickfarting statist bourgeois scum. Prove me wrong.

>>2795023
IS HE HOLDING THIS?

>>2795023
OBAMA'S NASA WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON GOLD PLATED SPACE PORN TONIGHT ON HANNITY

>>2795036
Pfft, I'm your antithesis, and your brother.

>>2795036

lol

>>2795058
>>2795036

You both jelly.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18817_5-reasons-future-will-be-ruled-by-b.s..html

hate to quote a comedy website but there's a lot of truth in it

Do I win?

>>2795222
I hate it when the lib arts people get something right, but they did here. Bullshitters will win.

>>2795014
This was a good test. Thanks for the inadvertent suggestion.

>>2795339

you're almost me, so yes, you do win

ITT: Complete idiots who have never picked up an economics textbook

enjoy your zeitgeist utopia, kids.

>>2795036
And you're a self-contradicting dream-world anarcho-communist.

>>2795036
>statist


The only real antistatists are the ones bottom-center. lol fail

>>2795222
Yeah, my favorite sex chat limits all the rooms to 25 users at a time, unless you want to pay to get in when the rooms are full.

>>2795049
Yes. ;_;

>>2795082

Your diagram skips me.

>Implying post-scarcity would or even could ever happen
>Implying this thread is not therefore completely retarded and not worthy of /new/

>>2795397
Umm... I'd say the true non-statists are the ones on the bottom right. Of course their world would be either a corporatist slave-state, or a Somalia-style anarchy, but hey.

We need a state, but only to deal with economic, regulatory, and welfare matters; things that either everyone values or that the market can't distribute.

The rest should be up to individuals.

>>2795422

Actually, according to your diagram I'm a Nazi, Socialist, Maoist, Stalinist, Fascist.

Am I Obama?

>>2795428
let the teenagers have their dream.

>>2795428
>implying partial post-scarcity cannot be achieved with technological advancements

>>2795432


bottom center is market anarchism, where the real free society, voluntarism etc exists. bottom right is anarchocapitalism, neolockeanism, etc

>>2795438
>implying it can
people and sub-human niggers will simply breed like rabbits until its back to scarcity. lrn2malthius

>>2795445
I wouldn't really self-describe as a market anarchist... I'd say that would be half-way to the right...

Maybe that's just because I don't think market anarchist accurately describes my political opinions... Markets need to be contained to some extent to deal with externalities and systemic risk.

>>2795438
>We need a state, but only to deal with economic, regulatory, and welfare matters;

The state is not only incapable of regulating the economic but severely makes it worse. It is false security. welfare economics has never even worked and has only existed this long because of political pressure/rhetoric.


>things that either everyone values or that the market can't distribute.

like what?

>>2795455
>lrn2malthius
You mean lrn2 agree with a guy who has been proven consistently wrong for the past 150 years? Ok sure, let's do that.

Fucking Malthusian fucks.

>>2795455
That is the stupidest fucking argument ever seen.

Take a good look everyone, the village idiot.

>>2795459
Parks.

Not to split hairs but post-scarcity = communism. Am I right?

Pic related, remains of the 0th man in space.

Post Scarcity will never come to this world because the bottom line is it is bad for business

search your heart your know it to be true

>>2795458

negative externalities are the result of the state failing to enforce or even allow the very private property is claims to uphold. abolishing the state + private property = the best possible system to holding people accountable for property violations. see: tragedy of the commons.

I am not concerned with risk, it is an essential market mechanism. you people dont allow markets to work yet claim markets are not working effectively and assume the state could do anything to solve it besides bureaucratize everything with arbitrary quotas and vaguely defined goals.

>>2795481
No. Economic systems are designed around certain given conditions, scarcity being the most important.

Political arrangements would be interesting, but economics would be easy, since economics would no longer exist as it exists today.

>>2795476

So you're saying there's not a demand for parks and thats why the state is necessary? do you not realize private parks already exist? Do you not realize you have to PAY to get into state parks???

>>2795496
What? No. Parks are special. You need government for parks.

BIG GOVERNMENT.

>>2795488
FREE MARKET WILL FIX EVERYTHING! AYN RAND WAS RIGHT! RON PAUL 2012!

>>2795460
>consistantly proven wrong

>malthius' theory accurately describes what has happened from every technological/cultural etc advance in history.
>inspired Darwin's theory of natural selection
>wrong

wow, I knew liberals were resistant to facts but this is aboutly astounding.

>>2795459
>first point
Completely and utterly wrong. The most recent crisis has shown us the the states who impose sensible restrictions on the activities of their markets survive much better; would you rather be Germany, or Iceland? Australia, or Ireland? Sweden, or Latvia?

Take your asshat neoliberal fundamentalism somewhere it's welcome. Like 1970s Chile. You fuck.

>second point
Things that are preference-neutral
Healthcare, national defence, civil defence, policing, courts, possibly education (although maybe not)

Things the market cannot allocate;
National defence, courts, environmental regulations, roads...

I'm no socialist, markets are effective, but they're not magic.
And so long as there are informational asymmetries, market externalities, and actors starting from unequal initial conditions, they never will be.

>>2795498
park fees would be much cheaper if they were to be privatized and subject to open competition unlike the bloated static monopoly we have today.

>>2795503
You're furious, aren't you? BIG GUBMENT!

>>2795501
amen

>>2795503

Yeeeeap. How's that mass return to subsistence-level economics going for you Thomas?

Oh wait it never happened because technology works, and because once you educate women they stop splonking out too many babies.

>>2795503
>malthius' theory accurately describes what has happened from every technological/cultural etc advance in history.

>>2795531
I swear those two words are all it takes to destroy 90% of arguments on here.

>>2795492
But if someone enjoys torturing niggers, how would this demand be supplied?

>>2795503
I wonder if you even know what MALTHUSIAN DEMOGRAPHIC THEORY (get it right, asshole) entails.

...

No, you don't, but it probably deals with NIGGERS and WELFARE, right? Of course.

>>2795548
Don't worry, the free market will help him out, I'm sure.

>>2795548
It wouldn't. There are a certain base set of socially-destructive illegitimate preferences that the market ought be forbidden from providing.

One of the jobs of politics is to help decide the scope of these.
I would prohibit heroin and baby-rape, but allow adult prostitution and ecstasy.
But not everyone agrees, and we can only have one rule...

There will be post-scarcity for those who realise individual freedom is the only thing standing between owning and being owned and 3rd world poverty scraping a living on the fringes of civilization for the idiots who believe socialism works. Rather like today.

>>2795582
And that the only thing that secures individual freedom is the liberal, democratic, capitalist state.

Individual freedom cannot exist without a single collective mechanism to protect it.

>>2795582
I'm stunned continental Europe is somehow "less free" than the fascistic shithole the UK has recently become

>>2795594
That map comes from a rabidly neo-liberal think tank (Heritage Foundation) who have an exceedingly narrow idea of what freedom means.

Essentially they don't care about what people can actually /do/, they only care about the /state/ not preventing them from doing it. If circumstances or corporate power prevent you from excising some legal right, too bad that doesn't matter.

>>2795605

It's just economic freedom. It's not meant to be comprehensive of all human freedom.

>>2795594

Not Switzerland or Denmark.

>>2795631
Yea I know. But my thing is that it's not only economic freedom that matters... Also all of Europe should be fucking red until they ditch the CAP and reduce their criminal tariff regime.

>>2795509
>first point

Mostly filler ad hominem and butthurt.
>The most recent crisis has shown us the the states who impose sensible restrictions on the activities of their markets survive much better

That's an obvious nonsequitur. if you care to elaborate further, define "sensible regulations" and which states' policies you claim have used them effectively.

>Healthcare
Everything ultimately has to be paid for at some point. Healthcare is no different. I dont understand how you can claim to understand how resource allocation, supply/demand, etc works yet say something like healthcare is necessary when it is no different than any other industry on a fundamental level. Not only does the bloated state create inefficiency, scarcity and rationing, but it does absolutely nothing about Big Pharma. At its core, people wont truly be helped the way a free market among all practices and services would. Cheap solutions to actual cures to major diseases wouldnt be kept in the dark by fascist institutions like the FDA, AMA, and so on. No state would exist to promote legalized monopolies through humorously incoherent patent laws, cartelization of the industry, biased oversight on regulating safety measures, and so on.

>policing
The police are merely a monopoly on force. Open competition amongst private security would exist in the free market just as security guards (who today have very limited power thanks to state laws) already exist. in a society free from rampant regulations and taxes a competitive security industry would more than easily fit the bill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNFrWur6T8A

>education
Private schools already exist and they kick public school ass to shreds. Enjoy your Prussian indoctrination camps.

>National defence
What nation, first of all. second, there are many private solutions to protection and security that are already available.
learn more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feoOSbgG4p4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMERhoSJ1-0
>courts
Private courts already exist. In a free market nothing about courts would change.

>environmental regulations
I've already proved to you why the state is incapable of doing one of the few things people blindly trust it with, enforcement of private property. Which you've failed to respond to btw. Corporations get away with polluting lakes, dumping toxic waste, etc because the very state theyre in bed with owns those places and not individuals. If people had actual sovereignty over their own land, something that the state cannot provide on a fundamental level, they could actually hold others accountable when violations occur.

>roads
Private roads already exist. They work just lovely even in Europe ffs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmImpYxKvl4


>>2795548
>idiot who doesn't remember state instituted jim crow laws, separate but equal, SLAVERY

fucking morons

Define what you mean by post-scarcity. Ultimately post-scarcity is impossible. There's no reason why more robots would destroy capitalism.

>>2795580
>I would prohibit heroin, but allow ecstasy.
Then you are a hypocrite

>baby rape

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfrtIyufvJY&feature=related

>But not everyone agrees, and we can only have one rule...

And of course, that rule has to be yours, right? The only thing people are obligated to following are the terms theyve agreed upon with others. Otherwise, you have acted aggressively upon a nonaggressive person who did no harm to anyone besides maybe himself.

>>2795677
>Private schools already exist and they kick public school ass to shreds. Enjoy your Prussian indoctrination camps.
Private schools closely follow the public school curriculum. To call the latter simply an indoctrination camp and not the former is a little bit intelluctually dishonest.

>>2795592
There are no collectives, only systems of representing individuals and bureaucracies intended to accomplish this composed of individuals.
>>2795594
There are other indicators, this is just for economic freedom.

>>2795702

Part of competition means following what people thinks works best. If people think standardized testing and other arbitrary quotas are what work then let them. my main case is that with a decentralized society independent schools would be more free to experiment and see what they feel works best. I personally am not a big fan of schooling all together but thats just my own preferences. unlike most people, i actually believe in live and let live.

>>2795664
>Everything ultimately has to be paid for at some point
Well, duh. My argument is about who pays. You obviously have a deeply held opposition to cross-subsidisation, I do not, because in the end it's the lesser of two evils.

>Policing
>monopoly on force.
You're damn right it is. And it needs to be. You can't have competition between private security forces (especially with private courts) because in the end they are going to clash.
Say a large commercial tenant and their land lord fall out over a property dispute, both hire private security forces, what do you think is going to happen?

This doesn't happen at the moment because there is a state monopoly on both the adjudication of disputes and the enforcement of their out come. Without the state's monopoly on violent force all you have is a might-is-right system. Fuck did I actually just have to invoke Hobbes?

>If people had actual sovereignty over their own land...
What the fuck am I reading? You sound like some doe-eyed anarchosyndicatist there...

Most usable land is privately held. But land isn't a magic hermetic system. What I do on my land effects what others do on theirs. Air moves, water flows, toxic waste leeches.
No regulation aren't perfect, but they're better than leaving it to the benevolent good will of profit-directed companies to deal with (which they will do in the most financially rational manner, which is not at all).

>>2795677
>Education
Private schools are pretty good you're right. Which is why I'm more open to an argument that a state-funded but privately run education system might be an acceptable model.

>>2795707
Ok there are no collectives... Except then you go on to describe a thing that is /exactly the same as a collective/... Good cognitive dissonance you got there.

>>2795701
It's not hypocrisy, not all drugs are the same. And their differences are what make it consistent to oppose meth but not alcohol.

No, I don't think I'm always right.

But within the sphere of political negotiation I'm going to argue for the policies I think are best. Same as anyone else involved in it. Some things have to be legal, other illegal (unless, again, you want Hobbesnian anarchy), and politics is the means by which we decide this.

>>2795734
>it's the lesser of two evils.

Calling something the lesser of two evils isnt an argument, especially when your mandating they they pay more for subpar services.

>You can't have competition between private security forces (especially with private courts) because in the end they are going to clash.

Clashes are inevitable, fighting reality is futile. The only "consistent" argument you could reason is that a one world government is necessary to settle all issues and disputes. If you do not support this argument then I cannot take you seriously. If you do support this argument then i at least respect your cajones for not being an irrational fence sitter.

>What would happen?
Same thing that would happen if both hired thugs today to solve all their problems. This is why we have courts, which are already privately available, to settle disputes civilly. You're argument is that the absence of a divine authority leads to violence. What you don't understand is that this isnt about and socioeconomic system; this is NATURE. Violence could theoretically be the result in virtually any government even strict communism with gun bans. worst case scenario hypotheticals are not refutations, they are shameless and illogical assertions.

>This doesn't happen at the moment because there is a state monopoly
What you dont realize is that it is the state monopoly that fucks you over the most and they do anything they want by threatening you through the barrel of a gun. you think the corporations who control the state are subject to the very laws the create?? This is what happens anytime you grant an arbitrary group the special privilege of monopolizing force.

>>2795755

Politics is a fool's crusade and the ultimate display of hypocrisy. Also, it doesn't matter how you personally view adrugs, if people decide to voluntarily take them then that is none of your concern.

>>2795803
>What the fuck am I reading?
Since you failed to give any response whatsoever, i'll just reiterate mine instead. The state's failure and incapability to enforce its own private property laws are the main reason we see things like the tragedy of the commons. We do not have actual private property under statism. we pay them rent for our own land. we pay for polluted water their corporate masters dump toxic waste into. No commons, no tragedy. Until then, expect more disregard for the commons by corporations since the "public," the state. owns it and not the actual people.

Not only are regulations ineffective, they're much worse. now all youre creating is another layer of politics with things like carbon credits. Instead of discouraging pollution now you have meaningless arbitrary quotas and corporations strategically selling and buying off the rights to pollute and profiting from corruption once more! Thats just one of many reasons how the state complicated and worsens matters while of course blaming it all on the evil market.
>What I do on my land effects what others do on theirs. Air moves, water flows, toxic waste leeches.
Fortunately, there is a simple, effective approach available – long appreciated but under used. An approach based solidly on . . . private property rights. At its root all pollution is garbage disposal in one form or another. The essence of the problem is that our laws and the administration of justice have not kept up with the refuse produced by the exploding
growth of industry, technology and science. If you took a bag of garbage and dropped it on your neighbor’s lawn, we all know what would happen. Your neighbor would call the police and you would soon find out that the disposal of your garbage is your responsibility, and that it must be done in a way that does not violate anyone else’ s property rights.

>>2795803
The issue of global governance is difficult for any self-reflecting liberal I admit... On the one hand the logical extension of my views does necessitate a single global system. Which to be honest we are moving towards anyway. States usually resort to non-violent judicial or negotiated settlements that rest on an agreed system of international law these days rather than war... So...

But then on the other hand; A) dislocating power that far from the people it governs is not a way to make government responsive, and B) societies the world-over are way to different to make a single order workable.

>You're argument is that the absence of a divine authority leads to violence.
No, my argument is that the lack of a single authoritative policing-judicial system will make violent conflict between power groups inevitable. And I know there are private arbitration services available, but in the end the right of appeal from them flows into the state court system.

>this isnt about and socioeconomic system; this is NATURE
No, what /you/ don't understand is that we /are/ talking about artificial social systems whose working can be altered.

Do you honestly think allowing out basest animal urges towards conflict and violence to play out on corporate scale would be preferable from the at times frustrating but well managed state system we have today?

>>2795677
Private schools do not perform any better, nor to independently run public schools. The only reliable indicator of education is the socioeconomic status of the students. Richer students = better results.

>>2795839


But if you took that same bag of garbage and burned it in a backyard incinerator, letting the sooty ash drift over the neighborhood, the problem gets more complicated. The violation of property rights is clear, but protecting them is more difficult. And when the garbage is invisible to the naked eye, as much air and water pollution is, the problem often seems insurmountable. We have tried many remedies in the past. We have tried to dissuade polluters with fines, with government programs whereby all pay to clean up the garbage produced by the few, with a myriad of detailed regulations to control the degree of pollution. Now some even seriously propose that we should have economic incentives, to charge polluters a fee for polluting – and the more they pollute the more they pay. But that is just like taxing burglars as an economic incentive to deter people from stealing your property, and just as unconscionable.


The only effective way to eliminate serious pollution is to treat it exactly for what it is – garbage. Just as one does not have the right to drop a bag of garbage on his neighbor’s lawn, so does one not have the right to place any garbage in the air or the water or the earth, if it in any way violates the property rights of others. What we need are tougher clearer environ- mental laws that are enforced – not with economic incentives – but with jail terms. What the strict application of the idea of private property rights will do is to increase the cost of garbage disposal. That increased cost will be reflected in a higher cost for the products and services that resulted from the process that produced the garbage. And that is how it should be. Much of the cost of disposing of waste material is already incorporated in the price of the goods and services produced. All of it should be. Then only those who benefit from the garbage made will pay for its disposal.

>>2795830
>then that is none of your concern.
Until they start committing crime to feed their habit, neglecting their kids, and leaving themselves in a state where they can't fend for themselves any more and their families are stuck with the burden. You've clearly never lived with a "recovering" drug addict.

Also if you think politics is hypocrisy fine, but if you've got a better alternative I'd love to hear it.

>>2795854
>hasnt been to a public school

lolbutthurt

>>2795839
>Your neighbor [sic] would call the police and you would soon find out that the disposal of your garbage is your responsibility, and that it must be done in a way that does not violate anyone else’ s property rights.

Well first off there are no police in your neo-liberal fantasy world. Secondly, we tried that in the late-1800s and the system of torts got so unmanageably complex it droves lawyers mad. Thirdly your trite little example works fine for a bag of rubbish, but what of mercury leaching that occurs slowly and undetectably over 50 years and doesn't show up until the mutant babies start arriving?

Face it. As much as you might hate the state, we all need it.

(Sorry I don't respond to every point at once, you are dropping some rather large walls of text.)

>>2795862
>Herp a derp
You can call lol butthurt all you like but across the Western World, the highest performing high schools are always in the richer suburbs. Take where I live for example, the highest performing schools are consistently, St Hildas, Scotch College, Hale, Christchurch, PLC, MLC. These are all private schools in the leafy western suburbs. But what public schools can mix it with them? Oh you know, Applecross, Churchlands, Rossmoyne, Willeton. Schools located in either the same suburbs or ones of marginally lower levels of income.
If it was true that private schools were offering substantially better education and public schools were failing our kids, then well funded schools like Corpus Christi would be outperforming the likes of Churchlands and Rossmoyne. They're not.

And for the record I attended 5 schools in 2 countries as I grew up. Both public and private. Did I do well at school? Yep. Was it because I attended a private school at some point? Nope.

>>2795803
>you think the corporations who control the state are subject to the very laws the create
In countries that actually enforce some limits on corporate access to power? Yes, they are.

But do you think allowing corporate power to run unconstrained without any kind of limit whatsoever is in any way preferable?

Because that's what you're arguing for with your desire to smash the state.

>>2795861

Inflicting harm on yourself isnt an outright crime. Inflicting harm upon others is a crime. The drugs he took are irrelevant. It is only when he acts out on other people is he accused of crime not because he took a drug but because of the physical act itself. You are implying that things that are already legal like alcohol are incapable of contributing to the same result. Banning never solves anything and sets bad precedents. You cannot ban every "potentially" dangerous thing from society without absolute authoritarian control over everyone else.

You think only people who do drugs neglect their kids?

If families do not want to take care of a recovering drug addict they dont have to, simple as that. If they do, it is ultimately their own choice. consequences exist, deal with it.

>>2795755
>describe a thing that is exactly the same as a collective
Is it so difficult to distinguish between theory and practice?

You don't get it. It's not that there's something wrong with my argument, you don't understand it because you're so stuck in your ways the very idea of individual freedom being a system of representation never occurs to you.

>>2795895
It's the same here (Auckland, I assume you're in Sydney)... Auckland Grammar, Mt. Roskill Grammar, and Rangitoto College (public) are just as good if not better than Kings, St. Cuths, or Kristin (private).

But from all accounts (not very through ones, I admit) America really is a two-tier system.

>>2795899
>In countries that actually enforce some limits on corporate access to power? Yes, they are.

You actually think the corporations and banks DONT run the modern world? How cute. So you admit even if what youre saying was true, that individuals are ultimately helpless in this situation since they are forced to relying on the benevolence of the state... which is at the same time paid for by the very people theyre supposed to regulate...

>But do you think allowing corporate power to run unconstrained without any kind of limit whatsoever is in any way preferable? Because that's what you're arguing for with your desire to smash the state.

Defenders of the free market are often accused of being apologists for big business and shills for the corporate elite. Is this a fair charge?

No and yes. Emphatically no—because corporate power and the free market are actually antithetical; genuine competition is big business’s worst nightmare. But also, in all too many cases, yes —because although liberty and plutocracy cannot coexist, simultaneous advocacy of both is all too possible.

First, the no. Corporations tend to fear competition, because competition exerts downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on salaries; moreover, success on the market comes with no guarantee of permanency, depending as it does on outdoing other firms at correctly figuring out how best to satisfy forever-changing consumer preferences, and that kind of vulnerability to loss is no picnic. It is no surprise, then, that throughout U.S. history corporations have been overwhelmingly hostile to the free market. Indeed, most of the existing regulatory apparatus—including those regulations widely misperceived as restraints on corporate power—were vigorously supported, lobbied for, and in some cases even drafted by the corporate elite.

People that think resources are scarce, there are lots of resources yet to be extracted and those that haven't are still on this planet. They don't fucking evaporate. You just go into old land fills and reprocess the resources that aren't already recycled. The only thing that is scarce are products. That is something that is fixed through labor and capital. A post scarcity is a matter of time.

Don't say hurr overpopulation. Every post industrial society enters dthe final phase of a demographic transition and the population stops growing. This is also only a matter of time.

>>2795899
Corporations obtain their privileges from the state, so technically smashing the state would topple corporations. However I don't want to smash the state, I just want to prevent it from being abused.

>>2795902
You're on the wrong side of an ambulance/cliff argument. Of course we prevent provably potentially harmful things as well as actual existent harmful things. To think otherwise is ridiculous, if it weren't so they'd be no laws against attempted murder or toxic dumping. A sane society seeks to - so far as is commensurable with individual liberty - prevent harm before it occurs.

Also, as for families just being able to toss their relatives aside, well great if we could all be emotionally dead individualist like you. Shit happens, and you support those close to you when it does. But like fuck if I'm not going to argue in favour of measures that prevent heroin's availability.

>>2795905
>It's not that there's something wrong with my argument
No, it actually is precisely because there is something wrong with it.

Disagreement is endemic, and if we don't have a single dispute mechanism to settle these disagreements, all you end up with is might-is-right decision making. At least with a state it's run under some semblance that the system might be run in the interest of all the people stuck within it, not just those with the most power.


You (if you're the same person I'm arguing with all along) seem to think that people will in conditions of absolute freedom be able to live together in a materially finite world and settle disputes without recourse to violence. That's not how a state with out a state would play out. What would happen is those with a pre-existing power advantage would leverage that power to further increase their own position. And I don't want to live in a world like that.

>>2795962
>However I don't want to smash the state, I just want to prevent it from being abused.

You and me both kid.
Admittedly if you're in the US you've got a much harder job than the rest of the west.
But whatever the answer is, it isn't guns, and it sure as fuck isn't putting John Bonner in power.

>>2795905
>the very idea of individual freedom being a system of representation
Well no, because I have no idea what that even means...

Representation... Like maybe we choose among ourselves a set of people to represent us and then task them with arranging the rules by which we engage in mutually beneficial economic and social activity?

And if they devise rules that we as individuals adjudge to be unsatisfactory we can, periodically, seek their replacement?

I'm actually generally curious to see what you meant by that line?

>>2795846
>Which to be honest we are moving towards anyway.
>Rationalizing tyranny.
Proof all liberals are closet totalitarians

>States usually resort to non-violent judicial or negotiated settlements that rest on an agreed system of international law these days rather than war... So...

The international legal system is exactly that of anarchy (there is currently no higher authority above the nation-state) which is exactly that which you claim to advocate.

>dislocating power that far from the people it governs is not a way to make government responsive
This very logic applies to statism as well.

> societies the world-over are way to different to make a single order workable.

This very logic applies in favor of anarchy. Replace "societies" with individuals and you have the very same concept.

>>2796040

> my argument is that the lack of a single authoritative policing-judicial system will make violent conflict between power groups inevitable.

You just showed your support for a polycentric legal system on an international level yet completely shift your logic because the scale has decreased. You admitted yourself they favor voluntarily agreeing upon terms of negotiating disputes over violence. Does that mean that violence would disappear? Of course nor, again that is NATURE. Countries still fight wars on a grand scale yet your implying youre somehow willing to live with that just not on a much smaller and more reasonable scale. Violence is not an argument against anything, especially reality.

>appeal from them flows into the state court system.

nonsequitur, appeals would just as easily be defined and agreed upon ahead of time during the signing of contracts to begin with.

>artificial social systems whose working can be altered.
So you're saying you support social engineering and mass ideology in the name of preventing something incredibly vague and realistically inevitable like violence?

>Do you honestly think allowing out basest animal urges towards conflict and violence to play out on corporate scale would be preferable from the at times frustrating but well managed state system we have today?

How can you say that when it is you who supports the existence of not only corporations but the corporatist plutocracy that runs and controls the world? The only people the state is working well for are the global elite.

>>2795931
Corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace. This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare; protectionist tariffs; explicit grants of monopoly privilege; and the seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London). But these direct forms of pro-business intervention are supplemented by a swarm of indirect forms whose impact is arguably greater still.

One especially useful service that the state can render the corporate elite is cartel enforcement. Price-fixing agreements are unstable on a free market, since while all parties to the agreement have a collective interest in seeing the agreement generally hold, each has an individual interest in breaking the agreement by underselling the other parties in order to win away their customers; and even if the cartel manages to maintain discipline over its own membership, the oligopolistic prices tend to attract new competitors into the market. Hence the advantage to business of state-enforced cartelisation. Often this is done directly, but there are indirect ways too, such as imposing uniform quality standards that relieve firms from having to compete in quality. (And when the quality standards are high, lower-quality but cheaper competitors are priced out of the market.)

>>2796040
>>2796052
States are not the same as individuals and you know it. The constraints that dictate how a state (which in the end is just a mass of individuals) can act mean that it's utterly dissimilar to the whims on which an individual can act.

But even insofar as they are similar, a society of 200 people probably could be governed by mutual agreement, that's the nature of the state system.

I should also point out that the powerful states might go to the International Court of Justice or the WTO arbitration panel, but as soon as the results go against them they simply disregard the result. And of you think that isn't how life without a single final arbitrator of disagreements would be, well, I think you're wrong.

A society of 7 billion, or even 7 million cannot. And that's the nature of the world we live in. In the end there needs to be an agreed

Don't be so quick to conflate all limits of freedom of action with totalitarianism. In the end we need to restrict some freedoms (like my freedom to rape or murder or drive dangerously or keep the first 25% of my wages) so that others can fully utilise their freedom.

>>2796052
Ok I am at my wits end with you so I'll just say it... If the world I advocate is so dire I ask you; what. is. the. alternative.

(Also, you're the one advocating unleashing corporate power puppy, not me. I like anti-trust and fraud laws.)

>>2796063
>subsidies, bailouts, and other forms of corporate welfare; protectionist tariffs; explicit grants of monopoly privilege; and the seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain

I am opposed to all of those things.

That's not the same as being opposed to state monopolies on education, healthcare, roading, and the judiciary.

>>2796123
what about a state monopoly on food?

>>2796129
Opposed to that.

But I'm in favour of a minimum wage or (time-limited) unemployment benefit to ensure all people can have access to food provided by the market.

I'd love if we lived in a fantasy world where labour was in such short supply that wages at living-levels as a matter of supply-and-demand. But we don't and they're not.

>>2796129
Ah. I see where you're going with that now.

I'm not in favour of a strict state monopoly on things like education and healthcare so much as in favour of guaranteed state provision of those things.

>>2796155
I never, ever bring up that argument (that was my first post in the thread btw) because that's basically why I don't take lefties seriously. they want state healthcare but not state food? food is even more important.

i dunno maybe it's a good idea to have a state monopoly on health care...but if we do, i think it should be on food too.

anyway not trying to argue here, really i just saved that line just for you, I've seen you around and you're one of the most consistent and intelligent posters on here, and probably the best debater except for DARE or Lefty when they get serious. was just curious of your thoughts on the proposal.

>>2795985
>if it weren't so they'd be no laws against attempted murder or toxic dumping.

Evidence of attempted murder clearly violates the victim's individual liberty. This is the case in any society. The point is you cant actually get them in trouble until they've proven their motives or if they've attempted it. In other words, after they have acted with proven aggressive intentions. You cant arrest someone for thinking about it in their head. That's not how reality or the legal system works. It's always after the fact. after they have acted.

In a society where individuals arent helpless against the state and corporations, any violation of your property would be treated as such, a crime. The problem here isn't lack of government regulations, its the government itself.

>A sane society seeks to - so far as is commensurable with individual liberty - prevent harm before it occurs.

See above, also your cheap appeals to society (which does not exist) only exposes your philosophy that enforcing your beliefs upon everyone else is acceptable. the idea of society is every bit as discriminatory as racism or sexism.

>Also, as for families just being able to toss their relatives aside, well great if we could all be emotionally dead individualist like you.
Make as many appeals to emotion as you want, but if you chose to take care of someone that will always be your voluntary choice. If you decide to, you have no argument for complaining about it.

>>2796176
Food is not healthcare. A doctor is not a grocer. Bread is not a heart transplant

Food is a constant, ongoing, low-cost need that economic actors will - given access to the means to acquire it - choose to purchase.

Healthcare is an occasional, high-cost good, that most economic actors will in their short-sightedness fail to make allowances for.

Furthermore with food there is much more scope for individual preference to play itself out. I want apples, you want caviare.

With healthcare there is some scope for preferences but it's much more narrow, and most consumers are not capable of understanding the amazing intricacies of modern medicine.

And if people really want to exercise choice, that's why you allow a private system to exist alongside the public one.

This is why I never take libertarians seriously, they care too much about neat theory and too little about messy reality.

>>2796225
i can manage my health choices just fine, sorry you haven't really grown up and taken responsibilities :\

to be blunt i can't stand internet libertarians, it's just what being self-reliant has brought me to

>>2796184
>society (which does not exist)

The stupid. It burns. It burns.

Society is made up of individuals yes. But your statement is akin to saying that there is no human body, only cells.

>>2796233
You might be, but a lot of people are not as far sighted, or simply don't have the economic resources to make what from the outside is the better decision.

Also, dollars-for-QALYs (quality adjusted life years) public healthcare systems destroy private ones.

>>2796184

>But like fuck if I'm not going to argue in favour of measures that prevent heroin's availability.

Fair enough, just make sure you realize prohibition era policies have never worked, are extremely expensive, exhaust your police and state resources, make matters worse by allowing the black market to hold cartels, help fund gangs, make tracking i down that much harder, put more police in danger,.. is any of this getting through to you?? It makes no logical sense. It seems like the only reason you support it is because we live in a time where the war on drugs is a common place and supporting weed ffs is seen and blasphemous let alone heroin.
>Well first off there are no police in your neo-liberal fantasy world.

I love how you make blind assertions and strawmen in every post. I suggest you look up what neoliberalism is, genius. Also, you're implying that an industry that provides security for buildings, neighborhoods, etc doesn't already exist. The difference is now they wont be cheap security guards with flashlights. They would be able to actually protect their areas because there is no state that mandates they can't carry guns or other protection. it is also worth stressing that any form of security as far as something like police are concern will always arrive AFTER the fact. This is true no matter what society youre living in.

>>2796083

>States are not the same as individuals and you know it.

They are different, yes. One is a political construct rooted in theft, coercion, mass ideology, power, etc and the other is a physical sovereign being. The logic however is the same. You just happen to be inconsistent in which reasoning applies to which situation. math does not change as numbers get bigger, addition is still addition even though one problem might have bigger numbers than another addition problem. The logic in both problems however remains consistent just like the anarchist's view on polycentric l legal order. A system might i point out, that you unknowingly approve of.

Might I also remind the audience that statism is by no means the will of the people but the very opposite, the few ruling elite over the masses. I hope this simple observation is obvious enough for most people to accept. Let's not kid ourselves here, elections are a joke. a two party dictatorship both lead by corporatist shills? lol no thanks.

What you are advocating here is the right for the few ruling plutocrats over the masses vs. the will of the individual over the right to his own life.

>>2796245
You can't save people from their own stupidity, doing so would be elitist, condescending and authoritarian.

Also, by "private" do you mean placed in the hands of state endorsed corporations?

>>2796254
Sorry for that, I thought you were the same anon who said we should abolish the cops.

And prohibition can work with drugs that are complicated to make, process, or distribute.

Prohibition on alcohol and marijuana will never work.

Meth, ecstasy, and smack are another story. It'll never be perfect, but when combined with a justice/health system that focuses on rehabilitating addicts and punishing dealers I think it's preferable to an open market.

>>2796235

The human body is indeed a physical conscious being with the power to act toward its own interests. are you implying someone else has the right to tell you how to live and what to do with your own body or how to operate it? Because thats essentially what people imply when they use the term society.

also, for anyone interested
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi0HnrExShg

>>2796275
Actually, yes you can. We do it all the time, and we're right to.

And I mean both systems with state-paid provision and direct state provision.

(As an aside, I think healthcare in the US should be done at State level, not federal level)

>>2796289
>are you implying someone else has the right to tell you how to live and what to do with your own body or how to operate it?

In a very limited scope, yes.
And you'll shout bloody murder and call me a fascist and all sorts of other things.

But in the end there is a necessity for legitimate compulsive force on the part of the state, I won't hide from that.

Any other conclusion results in anarchy.

>>2796281
>Sorry for that, I thought you were the same anon who said we should abolish the cops.
I never said we should abolish the idea of police. If you actually bothered reading my posts you would realize that no one is calling for the end of police, merely the way we view the idea of police. Police merely provide protection and security. Something that private security guards and other private agencies already do like neighborhood security, etc. Nothing new as far as police will be created in anarchy, simply the way they are funded. Again, very similar to how private security functions today. Only instead of being forced to carry something cheap like a teaser or a baton, they would actually be allowed to arm themselves in preparation of an actual violent emergency like a random shooting.

>And prohibition can work with drugs that are complicated to make, process, or distribute.
smh, the type of drugs are irrelevant. Its the principle of the matter. again, it is this inconsistent logic that we should be forced to funded a fascist war on drugs, exhausting police forces against nonviolent acts, the empowerment of gangs, the cartelization of drug trade, why am i constantly repeating myself? Is any of this getting through? Prohibition will never work period.


>Meth, ecstasy, and smack are another story. It'll never be perfect, but when combined with a justice/health system that focuses on rehabilitating addicts and punishing dealers I think it's preferable to an open market.

This is what makes me rage the most, youre blaming the "open market" (individual freedom) and advocating a state which creates infinitely more problems and solves none as your solution?

>>2796301
>But in the end there is a necessity for legitimate compulsive force on the part of the state, I won't hide from that.

And if it is so necessary why do you admit global government ISN'T necessary? Because of the difference in size? By your logic statism itself could not logically function because the city is merely a smaller county. A county is merely a smaller state. A state is merely a smaller nation. A nation should logically be the component of global government. But it's not in your eyes. You can atleast see the flaws behind the logic for a global government. But you cannot see those exact inherent flaws in the nation-state and everything below it. Your logical reasoning completely shifts when dealing with anarchy and global government for reasons i cannot understand.

>>2796310
OK I have misunderstood you then. I don't have a problem with private security forces existing, but they'll never be the same as the police. In the end they (the private forces) need to be subject to some limits (like being punished if they attack civilians without cause).

The police are different.

They're there to enforce the decisions of the state. Which I supposes if you're convinced the state itself is illegitimate then that won't make a difference I suppose. But it's an important distinction.

>the type of drugs are irrelevant. Its the principle of the matter.
No, it's not the principle, it's the effect in the real world. It really is the type of drug that matters. Just like how there's a difference in how we make sure everyone is fed and how we make sure everyone gets medical treatment.

Different situations call for different approaches. Meth is not pot. A country is not a person.

Ugh. Ok. You and I are clearly getting nowhere, and everyone else seems to have stopped paying attention. So other than as intellectual sport, what's the point?

>>2794402
>implying unlimited resources is possible in a limited resource world
>implying you're not an idiot

>>2796329
I treat like cases alike, and different cases differently. That's not being inconsistent.

The way states relate to each other is NOTHING LIKE the way individuals relate to each other, so your attempt to scale my objections to a one-world-government down to an objection to any government doesn't work.

Argument by analogy only works where the cases are similar.

As for the size objections I agree, massive democracies have their issues, and about a certain size I'm not certain they work, which is why we have federal systems.

I'm no Polyanna, I realise there are problems with the state. I just fail to see how any other system can deal with the problem of endemic disagreements about the use of finite resources.

>>2796291
>Actually, yes you can. We do it all the time, and we're right to.

When you do you do so coercively against the will of the people you supposedly care about. Not only does this not disturb you, but you admit it casually as if dictating other people's lives is nothing to be alarmed at. You say "we" as if you in anyway have a say in the matter. There is a clear case of Stockholm syndrome going on here, where you actually believe you're a part of the group that "knows better" when in fact you and your fellow citizens are the ones at the mercy of the nanny state.


Not only that but things like UHC do nothing to actually solve fundamental problems with the health of individuals. Part of it is the state and its extension; Big Pharma which is one of the biggest and most corrupt industries in the world. If anything youre giving free money directly to Big Pharma. BP would love nothing more than a permanent base of customers ready to take their so called "treatments"

Also, state run healthcare is even worse than federal. But then again, if you applied your reasoning consistently you could see that state run HC is no more desirable than federal HC.

>>2796349
Hey I don't like Big Pharma, but in they end they're the ones who developed Combivir, and Herceptin, and Venlafaxine, and Lipitor...

And in the end, that's what we have private companies for; to develop products and sell them at a profit.

My argument is mostly about who pays. And I have no objection to cross-subsidisation.
I'd rather impinge the freedom of a millionaire to keep some of their income than let a kid die because his parents were too short-sighted or poor to buy health insurance.

And if that makes me a fascist in your eyes, well, I can deal.

As always anarchist bros, it's been fun.

>>2796334
>t they'll never be the same as the police.
They both perform the exact same job. They are the same thing.

>In the end they (the private forces) need to be subject to some limits (like being punished if they attack civilians without cause).

There's nothing stopping a victim from seeking justice against an aggressor just like we already do today. As I have already stated, nothing fundamentally new would be created, the system itself as we're used to it would only change to a certain degree. there are policemen already that behave in barbaric ways and perform unnecessary and brutal acts (thanks in part to their position as the monopoly on force), you cannot deny this happens. Allowing an arbitrary group the privilege as a monopoly in general are never a good idea. why would this change here?

>They're there to enforce the decisions of the state

Checks don't exist in government. This isn't the 19th century where some actual ideological diversity in government may have been existent. Every President, every house leader, every court justice is cherry picked and approved by bankers and other elites. The republic is an illusion meant to give false peace of mind from the fact that the people have no say in their own country or even their own lives.

>>2796398
>Just like how there's a difference in how we make sure everyone is fed and how we make sure everyone gets medical treatment.

Yet NONE of those things actually work IRL. You only continue them for fear of public scrutiny, appeal to emotion, political pressure, and so on. If you actually cared about "the people" you wouldn't defend such corrupt, bloated, expensive and counterproductive institutions.

>Meth is not pot.
They are both drugs and require an authoritarian "war" against vague enemies that cannot realistically be defeated. why dont we just pour the taxpayers' money directly in the toilet?

>what's the point?

convincing you of the error in your ways. You seemed like a rational person. i was hoping you would have been fixed by now. Unfortunately for the last hour i have been forced to repeating myself to no avail.

>>2796400
Funny how we're both seemingly rational, and yet even after an hour of saying the same things to each other again and again neither of us has moved an inch. It's almost like our disagreement agreement is implacable, and we need some sort of agreed mechanism for deciding between them... I wonder what that might look like...

>>2796346

>I treat like cases alike, and different cases differently.
But i just proved how they are like cases.

>The way states relate to each other is NOTHING LIKE the way individuals relate to each other

You keep saying that, but you have failed to prove how the way they both function relative to each other differs on any fundamental level. You even admitted this yourself. The main problem with statists is that they do not like the idea of a world outside their "stable" state. Similar to how serfs despite their bondage aligned themselves with their masters using the illusion of security as slave morality.

>Argument by analogy only works where the cases are similar.
You have yet to address nor refute any of my arguments or examples. you merely declared that they were different to justify inconsistent logic. essentially, you are stuck on the fence, plagued with the choices of coercion with false security or freedom the same potential for violence as statism.

>I just fail to see how any other system can deal with the problem of endemic disagreements about the use of finite resources.

Except I have gone to great lengths ITT to elaborating for you why it makes logical sens as well as deconstructed your arguments and logical implications.

>>2796398
Also.

>a victim from seeking justice against an aggressor just like we already do today.

Vengeance isn't justice.

>>2796435

You need a mechanism to make everyone agree with each other? I am not imposing my will on you, it is statists whom impose their will upon me. If I had it my way people would be free to choosing whatever preferences they personally prefer which is the way its supposed to be. No one imposing their will one anyone, everyone getting the results they want.

some people are irrational and they will make poor choices when choosing their own form of governance, that shouldnt mean everyone is forced to the same system as well. its not necessary, its immoral, its completely unreasonable.

>>2796444
>who said anything about vengeance? Have you not paid attention to a word ive said? Private courts already exist today. nothing about the court system would change on a fundamental level in a free market.

>>2796443
States (as actors on the global stage) are not unitary agents but the sum total of the individuals that compose them. They have massive internal disagreements about policy direction, and bureaucracies that limit their ability to immediately act as a single unit. People are not like that. Negotiations between states can take years, not minutes.

Additionally because of their internal checks they very seldom act with the recklessness individuals do.

States don't need to eat. States don't do drugs. States don't have kids. Or jobs. Or cancer.

On top of that the differences between say Russia and Lesotho are orders of magnitude more consequential than the differences between any two people.

The comparison doesn't stack up.

And even if it did, all it shows is that groups of 200 can operate without a government in a way that's horribly unjust to the ones with the least access to power.

>>2796477
>Private courts already exist today

Well first off [citations needed]. I'd almost guarantee these courts will have a means of being appealed to the central court system. And secondly, don't confuse mutually agreed arbitration in a commercial setting with the criminal justice system.

The restorative function the courts exercise in their civil jurisdiction ain't all that similar to the punitive function they exercise in their criminal one.

I know I said I'd quit, but dammit you ability to make sweeping generalisations and treat different things as if they're the same is bugging me, political disagreements aside.

>>2796477
accidental greentext

>>2796367
fascist apologetics are indeed every bit as bad as fascism itself. appeals to emotion in defense of fascism is just plain sickening, you assume big pharma's prescription scams are even necessary when infinitely cheaper solutions that are currently being suppressed by institutions like the FDA because 1. they're cheap 2. they're not patentable and 3. because they actually cure you.

Would killing an innocent person in the name of saving some other innocent person be justified? Of course not. Even if you had "good intentions" it is still murder regardless. How about saving a person from a mugger then demanding their money as payment for saving them? Is that justified? Of course not.


just some food for thought for you to think over.

>>2796465
No you need a mechanism to decide what happens when two or more people want to do different things that effect each other.

I want to put this apple in a pie, you want to turn it into apple sauce. How do we decide what to do?

My answer turns on the pre-existing property rights over it as determined by a neutral legal system, and enforced in one of our favour by the state.

Your answer seems to turn on whoever's private security force has bigger guns.

If I am misrepresenting your theory, please do explain, how do we decide what to do with the apple?

>>2796487
States (as actors on the global stage) are not the sum of the total individuals but cartels that control centralization of power and act according to their own agenda interacting with other cartels and oligarchical corporatists.

An actual group of actual individuals would essentially be an anarchic society.

>They have massive internal disagreements about policy direction, and bureaucracies that limit their ability to immediately act as a single unit. People are not like that. Negotiations between states can take years, not minutes.

The time frame is as irrelevant as the size. What matters here is that you acknowledge the interaction itself. If the state was an actual group of individuals as you claim, there would be millions of people addressing international issues and conflicts instead of plutocrats. If you had an actual meeting between millions of people, it would be pointless because the free market where state politics isnt necessary would obviously be preferable. you also admit that international conflicts are infinitely more inefficient and sluggish than the interactions between individuals themselves.

>And even if it did, all it shows is that groups of 200 can operate without a government in a way that's horribly unjust to the ones with the least access to power.

Are you serious? Getting what you actually prefer in open markets through voluntary agreements is less desirable than the absolute mess and ultimate incompetence not to mention corruption of state politics?

>>2796566
>Getting what you actually prefer in open markets through voluntary agreements
Would be amazing if that's what actually happened. You assume an initial starting position of equality, not one where some actors have at their disposal vastly more resources than others.
I'm not an egalitarian by any means, but I'm simply saying that going from unfair starting position by fair means to an new position still leaves the situation unfair.

And that ignores that fact that markets cannot exist without that state, that some externalities are inevitable, and that a select class of goods are better distributed by the state not by the market.

And hey ho where EXACTLY WHERE WE STARTED AGAIN.

(And we still haven't decided what to do with the apple)

>>2796529
>No you need a mechanism to decide what happens when two or more people want to do different things that effect each other.
This is precisely what markets do. The preferences of everyone dictate these things with simple concepts such as supply and demand.

>I want to put this apple in a pie, you want to turn it into apple sauce. How do we decide what to do?

In the market, both of us could have what we want. Do you ever remember voting for a new apple sauce factory? Have you ever experienced a shortage of apple pie OR apple sauce? or people arguing in congress over which one deserves a new factory?

>My answer turns on the pre-existing property rights over it as determined by a neutral legal system, and enforced in one of our favour by the state.
What you dont see is that this is not even a legal matter. Because of markets both are available for everyone. There is no need whatsoever to go to court over which one should increase its production. Again, businesses through simple things like the pricing mechanism decide if their product is in high demand, low demand, and plan accordingly. no politician declared he needs to make more of his product, he received all the information he needs to know through the market.

>Your answer seems to turn on whoever's private security force has bigger guns.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

>If I am misrepresenting your theory, please do explain, how do we decide what to do with the apple?
Search for what apple related products are in greatest demand, in other words he goes where the greatest profit incentive is. It's a win win situation. The people get what they want and the seller is rewarded at the same time.

>>2796615
Oh so you're saying that all other considerations (like ownership) are irrelevant in the all-consuming face of the market.

Also, say our data comes back inconclusive, then how do we decide? And say we did, who keeps the profits?

excluding social politics , an actual post scarcity society would would require leaps in nanotechnology comparable to the difference between the Babbage engine and an a current generation stealth fighter. its 100 to 200 years away if its possible at all.

>>2796644
What I'm trying to get at is that your (market based) answer assumes that the mechanism I'm speaking of already exists. The state is prior to the market.

>>2796647
http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2060-2069.htm#2062

>>2796583
>You assume an initial starting position of equality, not one where some actors have at their disposal vastly more resources than others.

First of all, the only real equality that is most realistic and practical negative liberty. True freedom under the law and a level playing field. As far as people with a head start, there is nothing realistic that can be done about this. What matters is that their state propped corporation is now on the same playing field as everyone else. Corporations themselves will shed much weight, bureaucracy and layers of hierarchy. Much like capitalism itself, it does not assume a false sense of equality but does provide the opportunity to improve your socioeconomic standing. throughout history it was capitalism that has been proven to improving the lives of countless and raising them out from the depths of dire poverty. the working class today live on a level that was unimaginable to the rich of yesteryear. no one here has a choice in where you are born into nor are you entitled to anything more at the expense of everyone else. You are however entitled to the sweat of your own brow and the wealth created by your own labor and investment. as the economy steadily grows in the absence of the keynesian plague, it is then clear wealth is only as limited as the ambition and drive of its creators.

>>2796652
>The state is prior to the market.
Forthwith disregarding every future comment of yours. Contrary to what you may think, the market isn't simply a synonym for the socioeconomic state that we have found ourselves in.