What Individualism Is Not • Frank Chodorov

a reply to: daskakik

You don't live in a free market, I am not making excuses for you though, character is a factor when coexisting and it looks like that may be an issue for your neighbors.

Maybe you should try the town monopoly method, it might work better. You certainly can't be sure until you try it.

originally posted by: greencmp
You don't live in a free market, I am not making excuses for you though, character is a factor when coexisting and it looks like that may be an issue for your neighbors.

You're making excuses for why this is happening because it flies in the face of AC dogma.

Maybe you should try the town monopoly method, it might work better. You certainly can't be sure until you try it.

It's as close to AC as you can get. People are free to choose. What do you have against freedom?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
You don't live in a free market, I am not making excuses for you though, character is a factor when coexisting and it looks like that may be an issue for your neighbors.

You're making excuses for why this is happening because it flies in the face of AC dogma.

Maybe you should try the town monopoly method, it might work better. You certainly can't be sure until you try it.

It's as close to AC as you can get. People are free to choose. What do you have against freedom?

You can't use your town as a representation of AC, it is not. It is also a myopic distraction from the economic argument.

Also, you should move.

originally posted by: greencmp
You can't use your town as a representation of AC, it is not. It is also a myopic distraction from the economic argument.

I'm not. It's an example of the real world, where AC rhetoric breaks down.

Also, you should move.

Why? I have more freedom than you. While I understand that this isn't really what you want, this is closer to what you have been advocating for, for the last 11 pages.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A whole lot of wishful thinking.

If AC was the norm and it worked so well, why isn't it more common?

Because AC is against the law. Only the government gets to steal, kill, and counterfeit. No one in AC could make a living at fraud, murder, and theft.

The Liberty Dollar (ALD) was a private currency produced in the United States.

The currency was issued in minted metal rounds (i.e. coins), gold and silver certificates and electronic currency (eLD). ALD certificates are "warehouse receipts" for real gold and silver owned by the bearer. According to court documents there were about 250,000 holders of Liberty Dollar certificates.[1] The metal was warehoused at Sunshine Minting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, prior to a November 2007 raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Secret Service.[2] Until July 2009, the Liberty Dollar was distributed by Liberty Services (formerly known as "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code" (NORFED), based in Evansville, Indiana. It was created by Bernard von NotHaus, the co-founder of the Royal Hawaiian Mint Company.[3]

In May 2009, von NotHaus and others were charged with federal crimes in connection with the Liberty Dollar and, on July 31, 2009, von NotHaus announced that he had closed the Liberty Dollar operation, pending resolution of the criminal charges.[4] On March 18, 2011, von NotHaus was pronounced guilty of "making, possessing, and selling his own currency".[5][6]
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
You can't use your town as a representation of AC, it is not. It is also a myopic distraction from the economic argument.

I'm not. It's an example of the real world, where AC rhetoric breaks down.

Also, you should move.

Why? I have more freedom than you. While I understand that this isn't really what you want, this is closer to what you have been advocating for, for the last 11 pages.

I can assure you that your life will continue to be unpleasant and the more you attempt to solve your problems with increased taxes and expanded state services the more waste, fraud and abuse you will endure.

Mexico is among the most corrupt places to live.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

That might explain why it can't make a comeback but it doesn't explain why it fell out of favor in the first place?

Figure that out and you will understand the point have been trying to make this whole time.

originally posted by: greencmp
I can assure you that your life will continue to be unpleasant and the more you attempt to solve your problems with increased taxes and expanded state services the more waste, fraud and abuse you will endure.

I grew up in the US, I don't need you to try and assure me of anything. Save that AC rhetoric for someone else.

Mexico is among the most corrupt places to live.

Because freedom means people can choose to be corrupt.

a reply to: daskakik

Do you get distinct feeling that attempting to have a reasonable discussion on the issues presented here is pointless?

Apparently, the basic terms of the philosophy presented here:

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

True enough, I can't produce enough evidence of a stated unknowable.

... are unknowable.

I feel like there should been a disclaimer presented earlier, how about you?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That might explain why it can't make a comeback but it doesn't explain why it fell out of favor in the first place?

Figure that out and you will understand the point have been trying to make this whole time.

I don't know if there ever was AC.

Your point seems to confuse voluntary cooperation with well intentioned forced conformity. Well intentioned being the crux of the argument.

If people are bad, why should people rule over other people?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: daskakik

Do you get distinct feeling that attempting to have a reasonable discussion on the issues presented here is pointless?

Apparently, the basic terms of the philosophy presented here:

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

True enough, I can't produce enough evidence of a stated unknowable.

... are unknowable.

I feel like there should been a disclaimer presented earlier, how about you?

It means that the best way to do anything is only discoverable if you allow everyone to try to do it themselves. That means it can't be planned and is therefore unknowable for the purposes of planning, the primary justification for the statist argument.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I can assure you that your life will continue to be unpleasant and the more you attempt to solve your problems with increased taxes and expanded state services the more waste, fraud and abuse you will endure.

I grew up in the US, I don't need you to try and assure me of anything. Save that AC rhetoric for someone else.

Mexico is among the most corrupt places to live.

Because freedom means people can choose to be corrupt.

So, if you don't believe that you need more government and you don't think less government would help, what exactly are you suggesting is a viable solution?

Corruption is inevitable we clearly agree (the state being the most powerful and lucrative franchise), are you just resigned to your fate?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
I don't know if there ever was AC.

It is one of the claims often made by proponents of AC.

Even the OP said something to that effect here.

originally posted by: greencmp
So, if you don't believe that you need more government and you don't think less government would help, what exactly are you suggesting is a viable solution?

I don't have any suggestions. I'm just pointing out the flaws in AC.

Corruption is inevitable we clearly agree (the state being the most powerful and lucrative franchise), are you just resigned to your fate?

Be water my friend.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
So, if you don't believe that you need more government and you don't think less government would help, what exactly are you suggesting is a viable solution?

I don't have any suggestions. I'm just pointing out the flaws in AC.

Corruption is inevitable we clearly agree (the state being the most powerful and lucrative franchise), are you just resigned to your fate?

Be water my friend.

Indeed!

When there are many restrictions in the world
The people become more impoverished
When people have many sharp weapons
The country becomes more chaotic
When people have many clever tricks
More strange things occur
The more laws are posted
The more robbers and thieves there are

Therefore the sage says:
I take unattached action, and the people transform themselves
I prefer quiet, and the people right themselves
I do not interfere, and the people enrich themselves
I have no desires, and the people simplify themselves

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
I don't know if there ever was AC.

It is one of the claims often made by proponents of AC.

Even the OP said something to that effect here.

Yes, unmanaged free markets do exist and predate government but, they do not represent anarcho capitalism when they do so surreptitiously in clandestine 'black' markets in order to evade the established regional oversight authority.

These are very minor mostly semantic clarifications.

originally posted by: greencmp
These are very minor mostly semantic clarifications.

Honestly you seem to have a little trouble in the wordsmithing department. Of course free markets don't represent anarcho capitalism, they are an economic model, they don't represent anything.

Anarcho capitalism upholds free markets as a solution to society's ills.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
These are very minor mostly semantic clarifications.

Honestly you seem to have a little trouble in the wordsmithing department. Of course free markets don't represent anarcho capitalism, they are an economic model, they don't represent anything.

Anarcho capitalism upholds free markets as a solution to society's ills.

You are talking in circles, is that your intent?

originally posted by: greencmp
You are talking in circles, is that your intent?

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

You make a thread quoting the typical AC stance of: "the advocacy of limited government and a free economy."

You then try to tell me that "the more you attempt to solve your problems with increased taxes and expanded state services the more waste, fraud and abuse you will endure."

Those are not problems? Aren't the solutions that you propose limited government and free economy?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
You are talking in circles, is that your intent?

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

You make a thread quoting the typical AC stance of: "the advocacy of limited government and a free economy."

You then try to tell me that "the more you attempt to solve your problems with increased taxes and expanded state services the more waste, fraud and abuse you will endure."

Those are not problems? Aren't the solutions that you propose limited government and free economy?

You ask me for examples of free markets while erroneously presenting your town as one.

You suggest that I am not communicating properly and feign misunderstanding of my multitudes of specific responses.

You then repeat the same thing you said before, that free markets are for dummies over and over. Am I missing something?

Now what, am I answering your questions too well?