rights

Oneil, I think that was sarcasm.
Of course, I can't prove that.
I do figure that the IP addressed logged by this site would bear some evidence on the matter.

Oneil, I think that was sarcasm.
Of course, I can't prove that.
I do figure that the IP addressed logged by this site would bear some evidence on the matter.

Could be, hard to be certain "via electrons" unless one practically falls over themselves with a bunch of 

opps,, Almost forgot to add this...

"Absolute" freedom is a red herring.  Even if we limit our "absolute" to "that which is materially possible", it can only matter to Robinson Crusoe (before Friday).

So, what can "freedom" mean in the context of a community of other humans, i.e., humans in their natural habitat?

I agree.  I don't know what "absolute freedom" is supposed to be, unless it is the freedom to do absolutely anything you want, without consequence.  As such, absolute freedom is not universal--it's only possible for one person in a society to have such absolute freedom, i.e. some kind of tyrannical dictator.  Otherwise, you're always going to run into others who object and resist you're using them without their cooperation.

Ha! How about this: Absolute freedom is know EXACTLY who forms the social environment for each situation one finds oneself in, and also EXACTLY how these people will react to each potential course of action one might choose in that situation???
In that scenario, absolute freedom is the absolute freedom from ambiguity: One is able tp make a determinative choice in the situation in question, weighing out all the social costs/benefits - one is free to take from the situation all that one is willing to pay for, at cost prices! - or to invest into the situation as much or as little of one's social capital as desired, assured of the amounts of dividend one can expect to reap from that investment.

Of course, this "omniscient" version of absolute freedom is as much of an impossibility as the "omnipotent/invincible" form that first came to mind... but at least it operates within the limits of possible outcomes (it is the ability to pick them at will that is the impossibility).

Perhaps one should not start by assuming that all natural rights must be negative rights.

But it's fairly easy to come to the conclusion that this is likely to be the case. It would be nice, for example, if people had the right to free education to the limit of their abilities, or to all necessary health care services. But these are things that have to be paid for. So, if they were rights, we would obviously have to violate someone's negative rights to pay for them.

We can say, though, that because we're menaced by foreign aggressors, we need to tolerate the violation of negative rights that a state with the power to tax and conscript inflicts, and while we're at it, instead of just also paying for police to protect the property of the rich, we might as well throw in a few goodies for the rest of us like healthcare and education - thus treating them as pseudo-rights.

As long as we know what we're doing, and don't go overboard, it doesn't have to be all that bad. It's when we lose sight of the fact that those things are not rights, just convenient luxuries (for example, some socialized health care prevents cheapskates from inflicting infectious diseases on the rest of us) that we can slide into absurdity or tyranny.

The Western world has been reasonably free despite not being either Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist for quite some time. So I don't want to forego the option of simply going back to greater freedom rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach.

The Western world has been reasonably free despite not being either Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist for quite some time. So I don't want to forego the option of simply going back to greater freedom rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach.

As has been mentioned before (In this thread? Maybe one that TeamTroll deleted.) Constitutionalists and Anarcho-Capitalists have common interests, in that we both seek to reduce the current leviathan government. I'll gladly work to help a constitutionalist achieve his goals, because it puts me closer to mine. Every industry successfully moved into the private sector puts me one step closer to my goals, and gives me just that much more ammunition when it comes time to argue for private defense and justice as well.

The Western world has been reasonably free despite not being either Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist for quite some time. So I don't want to forego the option of simply going back to greater freedom rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach.

As has been mentioned before (In this thread? Maybe one that TeamTroll deleted.) Constitutionalists and Anarcho-Capitalists have common interests, in that we both seek to reduce the current leviathan government. I'll gladly work to help a constitutionalist achieve his goals, because it puts me closer to mine. Every industry successfully moved into the private sector puts me one step closer to my goals, and gives me just that much more ammunition when it comes time to argue for private defense and justice as well.

It's part of the old DAM (Debate Anarchist Minarchist).  We anarchists will fight like wolverines alongside the minarchists until the minarchists have their way.  Then we keep going.

The Western world has been reasonably free despite not being either Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist for quite some time. So I don't want to forego the option of simply going back to greater freedom rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach.

For male heads of households, freedom has been diminishing rapidly since the early nineteenth century.  It continues to diminish rapidly.

With tax consumers outvoting tax producers, the time of democracy approaches its end. The present political system will not endure much longer.  What will replace it is up for grabs.

I am not saying Free Will is a bad thing, All I am stating is a society based on Absolute Freedom is unworkable, where one based on AnCap will function.

I see. I think we were arguing at cross-purposes. My bad. Still, what I was saying was that everyone already has absolute freedom, but they don't typically exercise it.

We, the citizens of a formerly free society, agree to give up some of our rights in exchange for the guarantees of a free society.

For all you call me a state apologist, I have loads of complaints about our supposedly free society; a society that will get markedly less free if the Anarcho-Capitalist candidate get elected.

I just dont see how anarchy, and total control of freedom by corporations, will solve all of our current problems.
In the past, physically and mentally handicapped people were shut in, ignored, abused and/or tortured.  Things are better today.  Not perfect, as that hidden mic in the handicapped classroom showed us recently, but better.

How will anarchy make life better off for the poor and the handicapped?  What about the mentally ill?  How will they afford treatment, if they cannot work.  What do you do if they refuse treatment?

Send them out into the night and hope some George Zimmerman type takes care of your problem for you?

If everybody has absolute freedom, what about the rights of those who arent even capable of exercising those rights?

Actually, we're not arguing that the free market IS run by thieves and thugs, at least no more so than any other human enterprise. We're arguing that the fallibility of people is not a sufficient excuse to discount an entire organization, whether it be the free market or government.

You're right. Human fallibility is not the reason we discount organizations like the government. We discount them because of their methods. A government is defined by the method of its revenue generation: Taxes. Taxes are theft, pure and simple. If a company that didn't have a flag took money by force to run its operations, we'd call them criminals. With the flag, we call them government. Anarchists simply ignore the flag and call them as they are, criminals.

And if you think US taxation is "voluntary", try saying "No, thanks, I'll pass on paying". See how well that works out for you.

American taxation is covered under the same contract law that would be used in an Anarcho-Capitalist system. 
You agree to pay a certain amount, and in return you get certain things.

If contract law were not to be used in AnCap, the big corporations (and the small ones too) would install such governing authority that provided for the provision and enforcement of contract law.

If there were no government, whats to stop any or all corporations from declaring themselves to be the government of the area they control.

What do you do if Boeing says "in exchange for the necessities of life, you agree to live under our rules"?
If Boeing is paying the people who run the electricity and water and paying for the police and fire departments, and providing you with a job and money, what do you do?  Say "I'm sorry Mr. boss, but no government means no government;  I'll take my chances" ?

Sounds great for a bachelor, but what if you have a wife and kids at home?  How will you pay the rent, or mortgage.

 No government means the landlord or mortgage holder doesnt have any bureaucracy to deal if they want you out.  Especially once they hear you have voluntarily walked away from a good, well-paying job.

We, the citizens of a formerly free society, agree to give up some of our rights in exchange for the guarantees of a free society.

I don't. I would prefer to select my own guards for my security, thank you.

For all you call me a state apologist, I have loads of complaints about our supposedly free society; a society that will get markedly less free if the Anarcho-Capitalist candidate get elected.

Um... OK. Not how I see AnCap coming to pass, but whatever.

I just dont see how anarchy, and total control of freedom by corporations, will solve all of our current problems.

You have... no idea how AnCap would work. You look at the power corporations have now, and you think "Dear god, what would they be like without government holding them back?" What you refuse to believe, however, is that their power comes entirely from the government. The regulations that supposedly "hold them back" really prevent competition, by raising the barriers to entry. Under AnCap, the phrase "The customer is always right" would come back. Nowadays, it's more like "The regulations are always right."

In the past, physically and mentally handicapped people were shut in, ignored, abused and/or tortured.  Things are better today.  Not perfect, as that hidden mic in the handicapped classroom showed us recently, but better.

How will anarchy make life better off for the poor and the handicapped?  What about the mentally ill?  How will they afford treatment, if they cannot work.  What do you do if they refuse treatment?

Send them out into the night and hope some George Zimmerman type takes care of your problem for you?

If everybody has absolute freedom, what about the rights of those who arent even capable of exercising those rights?

Tell you what. If you can tell me what government will do for poor and handicapped (or any) people that cannot be provided by a private charity, I'll toss aside all my objections to government. I've issued this challenge a number of times over the years, and nobody has yet met it.

As for how it will make life for them better, Anarchy removes taxes, which sap the economy at almost every level. Prices go down, real wages go up, and people have more disposable income. They give some of that money to charities, which, as I said above, can do anything the government can do, and probably more efficiently.

American taxation is covered under the same contract law that would be used in an Anarcho-Capitalist system. 
You agree to pay a certain amount, and in return you get certain things.

But I don't want those things, and they are making me pay anyway.

If contract law were not to be used in AnCap, the big corporations (and the small ones too) would install such governing authority that provided for the provision and enforcement of contract law.

Contract law would be used, almost to the exclusion of any other kind. (I say almost, because I'm not a lawyer, and thus not fully versed in the various and sundry types of law, I don't know of any that would have the widespread use of contract law, but I might be wrong.) Here's the thing though: You cannot be held to a contract you do not sign. Thus, if I agree, and sign a contract, I can be bound by that. If I do not agree, and therefore do not sign, I am not bound by that contract.

If there were no government, whats to stop any or all corporations from declaring themselves to be the government of the area they control.

This is not formatted as a question, but I will assume it was meant as one. The answer is simple. Without the perceived legitimacy that government now enjoys (your defense of same shown as evidence), they would meet resistance and vilification at every turn. Kinda hard to sell your product when all your customers hate you. 

What do you do if Boeing says "in exchange for the necessities of life, you agree to live under our rules"?
If Boeing is paying the people who run the electricity and water and paying for the police and fire departments, and providing you with a job and money, what do you do?  Say "I'm sorry Mr. boss, but no government means no government;  I'll take my chances" ?

Sounds great for a bachelor, but what if you have a wife and kids at home?  How will you pay the rent, or mortgage.

 No government means the landlord or mortgage holder doesnt have any bureaucracy to deal if they want you out.  Especially once they hear you have voluntarily walked away from a good, well-paying job.

Well, if Boeing did something like that, I would apply for a job with Airbus, or some other airplane manufacturer that wasn't trying to set up a state, and get the heck out of dodge. Hopefully Boeing would know that ahead of time, and let the market do its job, but I'm fairly certain that at least one company is going to have to go out of business in this way for the rest of them to get the point.

charities ... can do anything the government can do, and probably more efficiently.

Charities have to hope enough income comes in to do what they want; therefore they budget their resources.  A government bureaucrat knows the public's pockets are always there for the picking, so "budgeting" is something done only for show.

charities ... can do anything the government can do, and probably more efficiently.

Charities have to hope enough income comes in to do what they want; therefore they budget their resources.  A government bureaucrat knows the public's pockets are always there for the picking, so "budgeting" is something done only for show.

Not as bad as you make it sound.  Every person in office knows that raising taxes is unpopular, so actually increasing a budget is difficult.  However, cutting services is also unpopular, so things tend to remain at a status quo, without significant civilian input.  The other side is that with a slowly growing economy, a slight increase in a budge is called an increase by the opposition, but a decrease(relative to GDP, and tax base) by the incumbents. 

This is not formatted as a question, but I will assume it was meant as one. The answer is simple. Without the perceived legitimacy that government now enjoys (your defense of same shown as evidence), they would meet resistance and vilification at every turn. Kinda hard to sell your product when all your customers hate you. 

Not really.  It would all be done in the name of good PR:  supply employee housing? sounds great.  Operate a few stores by said housing?  still sounds good.  supply protective services to those living on your property?  who wouldn't agree with that?  Then they realize that they have an effective monopoly on a reasonable population, and quality of services start going downhill.  This is where it turned from a company cutting costs by removing a middelman to their employees changed into a government, with all its pitfalls, a fascist state in the middle of your AnCap wonderland.  This is the Cyberpunk dystopia that we fear.

This is not formatted as a question, but I will assume it was meant as one. The answer is simple. Without the perceived legitimacy that government now enjoys (your defense of same shown as evidence), they would meet resistance and vilification at every turn. Kinda hard to sell your product when all your customers hate you. 

Not really.  It would all be done in the name of good PR:  supply employee housing? sounds great.  Operate a few stores by said housing?  still sounds good.  supply protective services to those living on your property?  who wouldn't agree with that?  Then they realize that they have an effective monopoly on a reasonable population, and quality of services start going downhill.  This is where it turned from a company cutting costs by removing a middelman to their employees changed into a government, with all its pitfalls, a fascist state in the middle of your AnCap wonderland.  This is the Cyberpunk dystopia that we fear.

Hmmm....were company towns outlawed by the government?  No?  Then why do we not have large numbers of company towns today?

charities ... can do anything the government can do, and probably more efficiently.

Charities have to hope enough income comes in to do what they want; therefore they budget their resources.  A government bureaucrat knows the public's pockets are always there for the picking, so "budgeting" is something done only for show.

Not as bad as you make it sound.  Every person in office knows that raising taxes is unpopular, so actually increasing a budget is difficult.  However, cutting services is also unpopular, so things tend to remain at a status quo, without significant civilian input.  The other side is that with a slowly growing economy, a slight increase in a budge is called an increase by the opposition, but a decrease(relative to GDP, and tax base) by the incumbents. 

They don't have to raise taxes. They can just print more money