Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Brilliant move from Occupy Denver

I don't agree with or understand everything Barak say but, I sure do enjoy reading his posts. He is great at getting people to think.

I don't agree with or understand everything Barak say but, I sure do enjoy reading his posts. He is great at getting people to think.

I don't think we disagree, do we?

In a free society, all those parks would be private property. Each would belong to some single private entity which would either be sympathetic to their cause, in which case they'd presumably be welcome to stay until the sympathy ran out, or unsympathetic, in which case they'd be trespassing and subject to ejection, forcibly if necessary.

If sympathetic, nearby unsympathetic businesses that saw their profits threatened would find various ways to bring pressure to bear on the park owners.

And from my viewpoint, every system OTHER than ancap fails to factor in the problem of human nature.

Everybody else says there are humans who can be expected to deny themselves and live altruistically for the interests of others above their own. Socialists say everyone is like this; oligarchists (including republicans) say a few people are like this; monarchists say one person is like this.

Anarchists are the only ones who admit that nobody is like this, and that anyone, given political power, can be expected to succumb to corruption.

Conservative in Florida? Conservative in Pakistan? Conservative in China? Conservative in England, France or Spain?

Does Conservative have a meaning to you, other than "the good guys, you know, the guys that think like me"...?

Sycamore

When they arrived with their leader i would have my Pitt Bull and him have a private meeting in the back room.

Reality check, Captain. If they had the equal access to force and violence, they wouldn't have become VICTIMS in the first place.

Go in to the neighborhoods that prisoners come from, go into their high schools and their homes. They do not have equal access to force and violence, either by size, or genetics or gender. Go look into a drug gang, free-enterprise right? Is the best businessman who delivers the best product at the best price the most successful? NO, it is the dealer who can intimidate or remove his competitors the most effectively.

Sycamore

wait for a freezing night and break out the water cannons....

And yet you believe that anyone, given economic power, would not fall into corruption?

I believe there are societies that are more altruistic than others. I believe there are societies that hold altruism to be a higher value than others, even if they fail to always live up to it.

For all the worship of "the market", most evidence I've seen is that business would rather not have competition.

Sycamore

There are two senses of the word, as you suggest. One simply means a preference for the status quo/distrust of change, the substance of which varies from culture to culture. The other refers to a particular, well established, American political movement. I'm using it in the latter sense.

Exactly right. It's only natural to seek to advantage oneself at the expense of others. That's where the rule of law comes in, the only effective form of which is that which punishes (after the fact, as a deterrence, absent prior restraint regulation) only authentic victimization as classically understood, e.g., theft, fraud, unjustified violence, etc.

Within the contexts of government, established business interests seek to partner with the state in order to disadvantage potential competition. In the context of anarchy, established business interests would seek to use force directly in order to disadvantage potential competition.

The solution is to have a government empowered to punish victimization, but not empowered to impose prior restraint regulations, since it's through the latter by which established business interests are empowered to disadvantage potential competition by a partnership with government in developing and enforcing said regulations.

In Barakistan who would have the power? If there is no authority then might makes right. If you have something I want and I have the ability to take it what's to prevent it? If I do take it then what is the punishment and who enforces it?

Once you decide who has the power then how do prevent them from becoming corrupt?

If you gave me two weeks' notice that the guy who raped my wife was going to be released at the corner of Main and High, and that whatever happened to him was his own lookout rather than mine, I'd scare myself up a bit of force and violence VP matter how poor or black I was.

I'm on my phone right now and a bit cramped. Do a Google search on "Franz Oppenheimer economic means political means" (without the quotes). The two are not parallel or analogous: they're opposites.

Do you hunt or fish?


Travis

The Jackboots are always socialists, they may be labeled fascists, or neocons, or communists, or any other ist, but when it comes down to it there isn't a far right or far left, there is only Liberty or tyranny.

Wall Street got into bed with government to line their pockets, and now they find they are sleeping with a hungry lion. And, OWS is sleeping with the hungry lion too.

The only good hungry lion is a dead hungry lion.

Everyone. No one. You'd have much more power over (and responsibility for) yourself and your own affairs than you do now. You would have much less power over others and their affairs than you do now.


Plenty of authority, but no initiation of force.


Me, and the folks who work for me.

I don't have to wait for the government to mow my lawn: I either do it myself or hire it done, or both. There's no reason I should have to wait for the government to protect me; I can do it myself or hire it done or both.


That's my decision, if your crime was against me. Who else could possibly have moral standing to make such a decision?


You can't. Nobody can. Only anarchists understand this. The best you can do is keep coercive political power out of the hands of men so that the influence of their unavoidable corruption is minimized.

Just hunt. Never learned to fish: not enough water. But I'm much better at shooting than I am at hunting.

I try to be fair and read for comprehension when folks on here seem to be thoughtful and sincere, and sometimes that causes me to rebut.

However, in my experience, the statement shown above seems to be deliberate nonsense. Anyone else see it differently - can you enlighten me about what this poster is trying to do/say?