ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:


Damn leftards! How can you rob your own bank!? That's like calling me spending money out of my own wallet, stealing! It was their bank, they are the bankers. What sort of pinko would say the sort of thing your wife was unfortunately subjected to? Crazy, the lot of them. Give your wife my condolences, no-one should have to listen to that disgraceful disparagement of our benefactors!

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:


A system doesn't have morals people have morals. I can safely say that what you list all fall in with theft and violence in Universally preferable behavior, in that 99% of humans agree that those things are immoral so DRO's or any other system would have to include these things.

I just wrote up a big spiel on the above and pollution but I found myself basically repeating half of the article.

So I'd ask that people read the dispute resolution and pollution sections:
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

To add onto that though the best thing about a free society is you are free to tackle these issues, governments restrict that's all they do. The whole point of a stateless society is the notion that no one person knows best how others should live, so people need humility in that we don't have to know every single nook and cranny of how things should be done. If there is a demand for it like looking after the environment then people will develop renewables etc and alternatives.

It really falls onto the slavery analogy. I don't know who's going to pick the cotton what I do know is two things, A. Slavery is immoral and B. everyone wears clothes, so if there is demand for cotton than people will find a way to pick cotton.

When people are free from violent state slavery, I don't know how everything should be done, however many things are already being done and there's almost 7 billion people on this planet, a free Australia means the collective innovative thoughts of 22+ million Australians wanting to solve issues as the state tentacles are peeled off. Not just that but through free trade you open up and allow every innovative entrepreneur in the world to come in and say "hey you've got a problem? I have an answer!"

The aims of advocating a free society is:
1. To show people that it's immoral and that it's not necessary we can have a morally built society without the need for people telling others how they should live

2. To do a decent job at calming fears with logic and evidence.

I can have a go at addressing your fears but you have to remember that there are many other people, people that have invented electricity and cars and planes and mobile phones and sliced bread! All I can do is show you the train of thought and the logic behind a solution and it's up to everyone to choose what solution they want.

You can come up with your own solutions and I'd love to hear them. The train of thought is instead of being a fearful consumer scared of what if scenarios, flip it around and play the role of the entrepreneur wanting to calm consumer fears, how would you do it?

For example in the article there are ideas like well what if someone bribes a DRO to sway their decision in a contract dispute? Well a good DRO would have a claus saying that if you disagree with the outcome you can nominate an external third party DRO and appeal to them and if you further disagree with both take it up with a contract rating agency. Any DRO found to be fraudulent and taking bribes would easily have their contract rating plummet and people will spread stories and refuse to do business with a DRO that takes bribes.

Expand on it as much as you want we can all think of ways to avoid potential issues, the idea is to think like you are doing a business pitch to investors or trying to calm consumer fears, we all have the same fears which means we can all be free to resolve these issues, we don't need a law to say not to cut the queue at a shopping centre, everyone knows it's wrong and people usually speak up, a cashier can easily refuse you service because you cut in line. Incentive incentive incentive.

The article goes into worst case scenarios about DRO's too which is I think it's greatest virtue.

I'm absolutely amazed that the three of you refuse to reply to my post about clarification on terms? Why should I reply to any of your question if you won't follow even the most basic of debating etiquette?

All I was asking is that you state whether you agreed or disagreed and why on those terms so we could come to an understanding so we don't misinterpret what we say.

How can we debate if we all disagree on the meaning of terms?
It makes me think you guys are scared for a real structured logical discourse that you'd rather sit in the background spitting logical fallacies into the mix. I really hope this isn't the case, because I feel I've wasted the last 26 pages replying to people that don't really give a f*ck about truth.

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:


That's right, and what regulates peoples morals? The society they live in, the collective. Government/polotics should represent the people of that polity. If you want to "do business" in that polity you should do it according to the rules that polity sets forth. You should not and have no right to moan about the rules that polity put upon you, you could always f off. You won't if money is to be made though, you would work within the framework the people want. This is why socialism and capitalism can coexist so well in Nordic countries. Let that get out of balance and we see Australia's history of the last 30 odd years and Sweden's in the last 20 years.. Capitalism is a tool and should be used with caution and sobriety, not a system to live by.

Vuk11 wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 9:00pm:


I think I have been abundantly clear. What don't you get? I'm amazed at how you skip over and not respond to what has been posted then come out with this.

Setanta wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:


If you want to go for rule by the majority be my guess.
I can't f off. No one in this world can f off because states claim control over every square inch of land on the earth.

By advocating the state you are advocating the subjugation of every human being. That you think people should be able to control others. This is immoral.

A state is not needed to uphold morals. Due to things like Universally preferable behavior we can see how 99% of people hold moral truths that are inherent in all human beings.

If you buy a toy for child A and child B steals it 99% of people can agree that stealing is immoral and  that sharing is preferable.

If you go to a shop you don't need a cop telling you not to jump queue, we all know to stand in line.

I point again to the below quote which is essential to understanding a free society. If you believe humans are flawed and fallible and therefore we need a state it's self contradictory, because you are putting flawed and fallible people to control flawed and fallible people because they are flawed and fallible.

If you are so scared of monopolies then why do you support the biggest and most destructive monopoly in the history of human existence? (states include any monopoly of violence in a given geographical area, kings chiefs senates presidents etc) "I'm scared of violent monopolies so I'm going to make one big violent monopoly".

"I don't want people controlling my life so I want a small group of people controlling EVERYONE"s lives".

It's ridiculous.....there is no real justification for a state besides "necessary evil" because people are afraid of business which are people....you are essential scared of each other, of everyone else. So if you are so scared of people why give strangers control over your life?

Setanta wrote on Nov 7^th, 2013 at 9:30pm:


The Corpocracy: the state and corporate monsters forming a partnership in order to rob the polity and to prevent democracy and freedom from flourishing

(also known as fascism)