Individual rights v. governent intervention

J_dazzle23 said:

Just to clarify, I don't have an endless supply of questions- in fact, before my last post I have asked exactly 3 over 50 pages. Repetitively, yes, but that'd because it took quite some time for anyone to answer them directly without a redirection away from my question.


Besides that- an interesting response, but remember that I am not suggesting any kind of government or lack of government system, YOU are. I'm curious about what your system would do to address these things.

I will reflect on your questions to myself, but I'll still wait for you to answer mine, as you are the one suggesting anarchy as a societal organization.

If you would prefer not to answer them, then by all means, carry on.

As for point #4- you might want to reclarify your direct answer, it's a bit vague. From what I understand....basically nothing other than mitigation, yes?

Click to expand...

Well, first, regarding me suggesting a particular form of government, not exactly. It was a snarky comment from another poster that prompted this thread. It was actually part of a different thread, but was splintered off at the suggestion of two posters. Second, no hiding by acting like you have the initiative by asking questions. Even if you only asked three questions, you've still had tons and tons and tons of explanations posted to this thread, even if they were not directed to you. More than enough for you to take the ball and run with it if you were genuinely interested in consensual government, rather than playing contrarian or naysayer. So:

Come, come. Lets hear your suggestions and solutions. I'll even be generous. The fact you have to think over my questions totally reveals you have not researched the issues, supporting the possible conclusion you were not even aware of them. So, I will overlook that you had thirty pages of thread to look up answers before now, but didn't. Take your time to look things over.

And, really. Lets just focus on one. Lets just start with your first, the monetary system.

Citizen said:

Well, first, regarding me suggesting a particular form of government, not exactly. It was a snarky comment from another poster that prompted this thread. It was actually part of a different thread, but was splintered off at the suggestion of two posters. Second, no hiding by acting like you have the initiative by asking questions. Even if you only asked three questions, you've still had tons and tons and tons of explanations posted to this thread, even if they were not directed to you. More than enough for you to take the ball and run with it if you were genuinely interested in consensual government, rather than playing contrarian or naysayer. So:

Come, come. Lets hear your suggestions and solutions. I'll even be generous. The fact you have to think over my questions totally reveals you have not researched the issues, supporting the possible conclusion you were not even aware of them. So, I will overlook that you had thirty pages of thread to look up answers before now, but didn't. Take your time to look things over.

And, really. Lets just focus on one. Lets just start with your first, the monetary system.

Click to expand...

....are you suggesting I have been actively participating in a thread without reading the thread?

I will repeat myself for the last time. If you don't want to answer my four specific, should not take more than one post(certainly not thirty pages) direct questions, that's fine. I'll move on, no harm, no foul.

I'm not here suggesting any solutions. I'm asking about yours that you are very passionate, yet vague about. So let's hear em.

If not, let me know

J_dazzle23 said:

....are you suggesting I have been actively participating in a thread without reading the thread?

I will repeat myself for the last time. If you don't want to answer my four specific, should not take more than one post(certainly not thirty pages) direct questions, that's fine. I'll move on, no harm, no foul.

I'm not here suggesting any solutions. I'm asking about yours that you are very passionate, yet vague about. So let's hear em.

If not, let me know

Click to expand...

Oh. That sorted out faster than I thought it would. Please move on. Yours is too plainly just an attempt to use a tactic--asking questions--to try to hold an initiative and thereby put others on the defensive and keep them there. As I've repeatedly said, tons and tons of information has already been posted, more than enough for you to pick up the ball and start running with it if you were genuinely interested in consensual government instead of simply naysaying.

Or, you could still give us your suggestions on the monetary system. What's the worst that could happen? You would have to take a position yourself, and then be open to critical comments from others?

Citizen said:

Oh. That sorted out faster than I thought it would. Please move on. Yours is too plainly just an attempt to use a tactic--asking questions--to try to hold an initiative and thereby put others on the defensive and keep them there. As I've repeatedly said, tons and tons of information has already been posted, more than enough for you to pick up the ball and start running with it if you were genuinely interested in consensual government instead of simply naysaying.

Or, you could still give us your suggestions on the monetary system.

Click to expand...

Hang on, before I leave, let me clarify-

So there are people here such as yourself advocating a specific brand of anarchy as a preferential form of government....

And my "tactic" is -- "ASKING QUESTIONS--to try to hold an initiative and thereby put others on the defensive"?????

If those direct, simple, concise questions put you on the defensive- it's probably best I quit wasting my time.

My questions are clear, concise, and relevant to this topic. They were open and not arguementative.

/smh

Have a great night.

J_dazzle23 said:

Hang on, before I leave, let me clarify-

So there are people here such as yourself advocating a specific brand of anarchy as a preferential form of government....

And my "tactic" is -- "ASKING QUESTIONS--to try to hold an initiative and thereby put others on the defensive"?????

If those direct, simple, concise questions put you on the defensive- it's probably best I quit wasting my time.

My questions are clear, concise, and relevant to this topic. They were open and not arguementative.

/smh

Have a great night.

Click to expand...

And, where did you actually take a pro-liberty position yourself, opening your position to critique, rather than working to keep others on the defensive and constantly explaining their position?

Sorry to see you go. The monetary system is very fruitful for discussion. I really wanted to hear your suggestions and solutions for improvement.

Citizen said:

And, where did you actually take a pro-liberty position yourself, opening your position to critique, rather than working to keep others on the defensive and constantly explaining their position?

Sorry to see you go. The monetary system is very fruitful for discussion. I really wanted to hear your suggestions and solutions for improvement.

Click to expand...

Trust me, I wanted to hear yours as well. Which is why I took time from the thread, researched, thought on it, then asked. But oh well.

I think I've been quite open about the fact that ideologically I'm quite a fan of what I've heard. I've had more than my fair share of criticism in this thread due to positions I have shared...I'm sure you haven't missed that.

You spent some time on that post. I notice you didn't spend that time responding to my questions or supporting your position about the constitution being an effective solution or wanting to return to the constitution.

Click to expand...

I spend some time on every post. They make more sense that way. It's kind of you to stand by with a stopwatch. :lol:

And it's really inconsiderate of me to work on my job today and choose what to address first, instead of staying here and answering posts strictly in your preferred order.

OK sorry, that's humor again. But does it make a point? You know, I type at my own speed. I think about what I say. I like quality. Is that a fallacy? Or an infraction?

Dang, I bet I've spent too long already! How long has it been?

And that leads to the next point.

As to treating one another as equals (your underline), I sure wish you would treat me as one and answer or respond to my questions as though I was an equal deserving the respect of an on-topic direct answer to my questions, rather than evading them.

Click to expand...

It's sometimes several against one here. I'm not Mr. Octopus. I have a certain amount of time and I have to do one at a time. Also it's hard to answer when I'm gone.

When I get back, the more accusations piled on (and responses demanded) just means the more we have to wade through before we can get back to the point. I'd have got your desired answers much quicker, for example.

If I'm getting paid, you're choosing what comes first. If this is a voluntary activity, probably I should have a say about the order. It's even possible I had something I already wanted to say. :idea:

And that leads to the next point again.

New post!

J_dazzle23 said:

Trust me, I wanted to hear yours as well. Which is why I took time from the thread, researched, thought on it, then asked. But oh well.

I think I've been quite open about the fact that ideologically I'm quite a fan of what I've heard. I've had more than my fair share of criticism in this thread due to positions I have shared...I'm sure you haven't missed that.

Click to expand...

Then I am sure you'll understand I am sorry to see you go. If you looked into it, I am sure you formed your own opinions. I was really looking forward to hearing those on the monetary system.

Citizen said:

Then I am sure you'll understand I am sorry to see you go. If you looked into it, I am sure you formed your own opinions. I was really looking forward to hearing those on the monetary system.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'll be back if it looks like anyone is willing to answer specific questions about their chosen style of society to advocate until then, I feel the conversation would go in circles. See, I have no government/non government I'm advocating, and without such, my thoughts on the monetary system have no context. In relation to what you are suggesting, all relative context is right there. But if it's not a bridge you would like to cross, I understand. After all, I'm just a stranger on the internet.

J_dazzle23 said:

Maybe I'll be back if it looks like anyone is willing to answer specific questions about their chosen style of society to advocate until then, I feel the conversation would go in circles. See, I have no government/non government I'm advocating, and without such, my thoughts on the monetary system have no context. In relation to what you are suggesting, all relative context is right there. But if it's not a bridge you would like to cross, I understand. After all, I'm just a stranger on the internet.

Click to expand...

Or, you could just give us the wisdom you've picked up in your recent research on the monetary system. Your hard insistence on not discussing it unless someone else answers your questions doesn't really do a lot to dispel conclusions that you're just using a tactic.

In any event, I'll regret missing your contribution if you don't.

Citizen said:

Or, you could just give us the wisdom you've picked up in your recent research on the monetary system. Your hard insistence on not discussing it unless someone else answers your questions doesn't really do a lot to dispel conclusions that you're just using a tactic.

Click to expand...

A yes- my tactic. "Asking questions"

I ask, you don't answer but ask nothing but questions back....and accuse me of hard insistence.

Pot and kettle story.

HP995 said:

SNIP It's sometimes several against one here. I'm not Mr. Octopus. I have a certain amount of time and I have to do one at a time. Also it's hard to answer when I'm gone.

Click to expand...

Superficially, that sounds good. However, you did take time to respond to my posts. My issue isn't that you never responded. My issue, as I've mentioned what? three times now, is that you won't support your original declaration that you considered the constitution an effective solution and wanted to return to it in the face of the historical facts I offered and the questions I asked deriving from those facts.

So, while you were busy working later, you did find time to give non-sequitur responses at some point.

But, that's all water under the bridge. Why not take the time to continue our conversation with sequitur replies now, or your very next post after reading this whenever you did get a chance. That would surely convince me you respected me as an equal, too.

@ SVG, Marshaul, Other Libertarians or Anarchists

Hey, fellas! I'm in the mood to discuss the monetary system now.

What do you reckon are the disadvantages of a bi-metallic system? Would these disappear if each metal was allowed to float against the other, the relative values determined by the market instead of compulsory government? Are there any problems that arise simply because a compulsory government forces a fiat currency?

I know that it can drive a government a bit crazy trying to re-adjust the value of the government's monetary unit against the fluctuating market values of each metal, but what would happen if government just got out of the way? Besides fluctuating the government's tax income (the whole reason for dictating the value of the monetary unit against a metal in the first place), is there any problem that couldn't be overcome that you guys know of?

Actually, anybody can reply. I'm just tired of dodgers and contrarians who throw up declarations and conjecture and then expect me to endlessly explain my position, rather than actually discuss something.




ETA: Something just occurred to me. Why would a compulsory government feel compelled to create a monetary unit in the first place? Why not just name the monetary unit one ounce of gold, or silver, or platinum, or whatever? What does the compulsory government get out of naming a monetary unit, and then regulating that unit in terms of fractions of an ounce of something else?

Superficially, that sounds good. However, you did take time to respond to my posts.

Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Every statement is either a demand or an accusation.

And keeping time on my posts - that's a bit creepy.

Also by "take time" I suppose you mean just looking at the time of each posting rather than the time spent writing.

I ate a midnight snack in between the last post and this post. I didn't type while eating.

My issue isn't that you never responded.

Click to expand...

My issue is that your constant stream of accusations are preventing me from responding to previous ones - including yours - or from getting back to my own ideas.

Usually I let things like that slide, but with a constant stream of accusations, I'm going to respond more thoroughly than usual. They are accusations.

Whether that becomes "never" responded depends on how many more accusations you add (which I reserve the right to respond to) before responding.

Basically it's unlikely to be "never" - you'll get responded next time if you don't make too many more accusations in the meantime.

So, while you were busy working, you did find time to give non-sequitur responses.

Click to expand...

I find this incredibly creepy.

I checked in here for brief periods of time. While I was working I didn't give any response because I wasn't here.

I'm going to sleep now. Feel free to check on my time while I'm snoozing. Just don't hack into the video cams or something and watch me sleeping! :lol:

Citizen said:

Hey, fellas! I'm in the mood to discuss the monetary system now.What do you reckon are the disadvantages of a bi-metallic system? Would these disappear if each metal was allowed to float against the other, the relative values determined by the market instead of compulsory government? Are there any problems that arise simply because a compulsory government forces a fiat currency? I know that it can drive a government a bit crazy trying to re-adjust the value of the government's monetary unit against the fluctuating market values of each metal, but what would happen if government just got out of the way? Besides fluctuating the government's tax income (the whole reason for dictating the value of the monetary unit against a metal in the first place), is there any problem that couldn't be overcome that you guys know of?Actually, anybody can reply. I'm just tired of dodgers and contrarians who throw up declarations and conjecture and then expect me to endlessly explain my position, rather than actually discuss something.ETA: Something just occurred to me. Why would a compulsory government feel compelled to create a monetary unit in the first place? Why not just name the monetary unit one ounce of gold, or silver, or platinum, or whatever? What does the compulsory government get out of naming a monetary unit, and then regulating that unit in terms of fractions of an ounce of something else?

Click to expand...

Lets define money first. It equals a medium of exchange for services as most economist will point out.Whether it be precious metals, which has historically been used as money tremendously more successful than any other medium, or other mediums the market chooses better than the state interference.The problems from compulsory government anything is outweighs the markets choice. Fiat money is one of the most insidious means of taking peoples property, and distorting the market. It should be done completely away with.The market adjusts many times daily with the exchange rates between Canada and US (not even accounting for even more volitile exchanges world wide) I don't see any problem with the state doing so too. Of course the state shouldn't be stealing in the first place.

J_dazzle23 said:

I'm sick of talking on circles here. Some honest questions. Opinionated, direct answers would be appreciated. I've taken some time off this thread to give the idea some quality thought.

Click to expand...

It seems you just don't want to accept our answer it isn't up to having a pre solution to ending the state. With a little research into the books and websites provided you these are answered, and some of the questions are worded as assumptions for the state to do when they are not.[QUOTE/]1. How do you moderate currency, and standardize it? Also preventing counterfeiting? [/QUOTE]This begins with the premise that this is the governments job and they do it well. They do not they really suck at it. It prevents no counterfeiting and allows for no private solutions to the problems presented.I just saw yesterday a bank note from 1880 at a local coin shop when banks printed their own money. Beautifully intricate looked way harder to counterfeit than modern notes. It also assumes people won't find a moderate means of exchange which is all money his.The early colonist used wampum as money, a native currency, they later used tobacco notes, eventual the spanish dollar became the standard. When the Feds messed with money they made it worse. https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money2. How to provide public services to anyone besides the rich? Sewer, water, security, etc. 3. How to deal with a free market run rampant? Such as complete monopolies(yes, companies could do it just like the gov.)4. How to solve conflict, especially for all those that cannot protect themselves (of which this is the majority, imo). Given that morals and values are NOT objective, there is a very real difference on what is acceptible to every person.If you could kindly answer then in numbered order, it would keep the clarity of my questions intact.Thanks!

HP995 said:

but am not sure I ever will see...

is a pro-anarchy advocate taking a critical look at anarchy.

Click to expand...

Oh, my...

There is a lot of critical analysis of anarchy by it's advocates.

J_dazzle23 said:

I'm sick of talking on circles here. Some honest questions. Opinionated, direct answers would be appreciated. I've taken some time off this thread to give the idea some quality thought.

Click to expand...

It seems you just don't want to accept our answer it isn't up to having a pre solution to ending the state. With a little research into the books and websites provided you these are answered, and some of the questions are worded as assumptions for the state to do when they are not.[QUOTE/]1. How do you moderate currency, and standardize it? Also preventing counterfeiting? [/QUOTE]This begins with the premise that this is the governments job and they do it well. They do not they really suck at it. It prevents no counterfeiting and allows for no private solutions to the problems presented.I just saw yesterday a bank note from 1880 at a local coin shop when banks printed their own money. Beautifully intricate looked way harder to counterfeit than modern notes. It also assumes people won't find a moderate means of exchange which is all money his.The early colonist used wampum as money, a native currency, they later used tobacco notes, eventual the Spanish dollar became the standard. When the Feds messed with money they made it worse. https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money2.

J_dazzle23 said:

How to provide public services to anyone besides the rich? Sewer, water, security, etc.

Click to expand...

Wow. So only the rich have sewer, water, and security? There are so many assumptions in this tiny paragraph. Like what makes it "Public services"? I am not rich, I am forced to use the local high rate rip off water and sewer system, I am not allowed to provide my own water and septic system. The poor is such a broad based statement, are you saying the poor don't pay their water, sewer, and for security now? That they don't pay any taxes now? Are you saying that we must have a welfare nany state where whole sale theft and graft is rampant to give to the few who can't care for themselves?Please look up a great example in Detroit of a private police force that provides security for the poor, ummmm because its in the interest of those who pay them to make sure everyone in their area is safe.

J_dazzle23 said:

3. How to deal with a free market run rampant? Such as complete monopolies(yes, companies could do it just like the gov.)

Click to expand...

NO such thing as a free market run rampant. This is simply statist/socialist propaganda sold to the public for state power and control. In a free market the consumer rule please explain how a company without state licensing and permission can fully monopolize a market for any measurable length of time? Of course the anti trust laws were passed with lobbying by big business especially Roosevelt's good friend Morgan. They written that basically any government that isn't a friend of the state can be in trouble. Interesting thing is that noone can point to any thing in history to support their fear of monopolies.http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/

J_dazzle23 said:

4. How to solve conflict, especially for all those that cannot protect themselves (of which this is the majority, imo). Given that morals and values are NOT objective, there is a very real difference on what is acceptible to every person.If you could kindly answer then in numbered order, it would keep the clarity of my questions intact.Thanks!

Click to expand...

This seems to be a twisted question. So you recognize the subjective values of people but encourage a non subjective arbitration that makes sure it enforces by the violent threat of a massive state one set of values?This assumes people don't recognize others have different cultures, values etc and are not willing to live and let live or find resolutions to conflict or actually with voluntary association accept each others different values.Really the majority cannot protect themselves? Guns are cheap and would even be cheaper on a free market. You don't really hang out or know poor people do you? They do a lot to protect themselves in many different ways.Overall you are asking for an impossibility. For anti statist to foretell how free people will solve problems the government involves itself in (and usually make worse).https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/how-anarchism-can-work/

Post 846 would not let me edit or delete.

Nightmare said:

I provide my own water, paying for the power to pump from the deep well, and sewer, paying the honey wagon to pump the holding tank and transport its contents where he will. I am absolutely dependent on power from the cooperative only for the deep well. It's a two mile hump from the largest body of potable water in the world, Lake Michigan's 1200 cubic miles.

Click to expand...

I might be moving to a place to do the same. It sucks I live in a rainy rainy place, not far from a 600' deep lake, but pay more for water than some places were they truck it in.