Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Hugo

  • Rank
    Everyone's Favourite Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. I have a question. Who gets to decide whether the content of a given speech is hateful or inciteful, and who decides where these rules will be applied? Are we talking about public or private spaces?
  2. No, they control who enters the cinema. Try going to your local multiplex and asking if you can go into the cinema, but not watch the movie. I see I completely wasted my time explaining all that to you. Obviously, your prejudices are just too strong. Your loss. Anyway, I have repeatedly answered your question. You like to pretend I haven't because you don't seem to have a statisfactory response to my answer. My answer, again, is that intellectual property is metaphysical and not subject to the laws of scarcity. Cinema owners should be able to build walls. This allows them to control the s
  3. Yes, I am. And if you had read the rest of my post - or at least not pretended not to have read it - you would understand why, bearing in mind the subject of this thread. Strawman. The piece of paper is not what the patent purports to control. Perhaps I should illustrate this in a way that shows you how polycentric law works. Let's say we both live in an anarcho-capitalist society. I don't support the notion of intellectual property, so I will contract with a defence agency that uses an arbitrator who also does not support intellectual property. You, however, do. You will contract with
  4. It doesn't particularly matter. It is my belief that intellectual property would not be enforced in an anarcho-capitalist system. Unlike the notion of physical property, the idea of intellectual property came very late to human thinking and was imposed by States rather than evolving without them, unlike physical property. This seems to indicate that it is not in accordance with economic law. Anarchism is not about making normative prescriptions, but in this instance (and many others) anarcho-capitalists are merely proposing their idea of the most likely scenario. It may well be that it is com
  5. You can try and do whatever you like. Try and patent an idea, but without a State making such ridiculous laws you'll have a hard time standing in court and asking the judge to extract money from a guy because he saw your blueprints, committed them to memory and made a copy from his own resources. Basically, you want the right to control what's in other people's brains. Sound familiar? You can restrict access to the physical. In fact, it's impossible not to restrict access to it, because it's scarce. It's extremely difficult to restrict access to the metaphysical, and that is because it i
  6. Wrong. The Law of Scarcity is economics 101, August. The seats are made of physical resources which have a finite supply. You could not build a hundred theater seats for every person in the world, at least, not without making huge sacrifices elsewhere. However, every person in the world could know a hundred songs, without any sacrifices being made anywhere, and without it affecting the ability of a person to know another song. So what? It doesn't help your argument at all, except to demonstrate another really basic economic fact: goods and services will tend to be traded in a way that minim
  7. You assume that taxes are even necessary. "We accept coercion into purchasing large inflatable rubber model elephants because we understand that nobody would purchase large inflatable rubber model elephants otherwise." If it were possible to do that then economics would be very different. However, all transactions have costs. Just because marriage has high costs does not mean it is not a transaction. If you choose not to have choice, that is a choice. Sorry. They didn't have much success tossing out Hitler or circumscribing his crimes, did they? Democracy is not a guarantee that Gover
  8. My first question is why you would therefore support a system that gives non-standard laws and punishments in the same geographical area, let alone every few feet. Not only do we have different laws for police officers, MPs, taxmen and private citizens, but the punishments meted out change at the whim of a judge which neither the prosecution nor the defence agreed to have hear the case, but which the State appointed (and we must also ask why the State appoints judges when it is also either the prosecution or, sometimes, the defence). My second is how you have decided where the boundaries of l
  9. You're assuming your conclusion. If an individual cannot steal from, kidnap or kill another, why can he "empower the State" to do these things? At what point do you have enough consent to make a crime a non-crime (assuming the victim never consents)? What's the magic number - how many people do you need to support you to make your violation of my rights just? You just finished telling me that the people - the mob - can empower a State to carry out justice. Now you are telling me they cannot carry out justice. If they can collectively empower someone else to mete out justice, why can't they
  10. It's already been covered quite extensively, I think across several threads. Here is some of it.
  11. Why? If the individual lacks the right, why does the mob have the right? Mobs are made of individuals. If the individuals cannot fly, could the mob? Basically, you're back to saying that might makes right. So, the only reason we have a State is because they control the greatest means to violence. We don't need them, and it is not objectively justifiable that they exist. Why? You've conceded that government is made of people (and therefore will become self-serving) and that it steals to support itself, and the only reason that it exists is because it controls the means to force. Therefore,
  12. They are going to have to be, or they can't govern. To tax, for instance, they will have to be exempt from the laws of theft and robbery. Why don't you address this point? A Government is made up of people. To have a Government needs a double standard in law. Popular approval wouldn't make private theft a non-crime in law, so why does popular approval make theft a non-crime when it is committed by agents of the Government? To have a State, you need two bodies of law: one for the rulers, and one for the ruled. Therefore, there can be no equality of rights where a State exists. The former may
  13. Catch-22. If a Government must impose rights for all, it must have the right to steal (tax) to support itself. Therefore, there will not be equal rights for all. If it does not tax, then people who wish to violate its decreed rights may do so since it will be optional, so there will not be equal rights for all.
  14. Yes, but there is all sorts of rubbish propounded here "according to you." "Making future loans possible" is just doublespeak. So how is any of this coercive, exactly? You are taking an example of a group that asks you to do action A, otherwise unpleasant circumstance B will be visited upon you by C, a force outside their or your control. You equate this to a group that asks you to do action A otherwise they will personally visit unpleasant circumstance B upon you. Examples: take your vitamins, or you'll get sick. Give me your money, or I'll break your kneecaps. You're asking the wrong
  15. If they were able to wield overwhelming force to apply equal rights to all then the rights would not be equal, because the arbiter would not fall under them. To 'rule the country' means that you cannot have the same benefits and equal privations as everyone else. As I had said before, the existence of government requires a double standard in law or rights. Basically, the State must be able to do what private citizens are forbidden to. Therefore, you now understand my mock amazement. Equal rights for all, even if achieveable, is never achieveable under government since it is an inherent sel
  • Create New...