I was arguing that they don’t need doing, that they are immoral, that there are voluntary alternatives such as community organization. — NOS4A2
one isn’t compelled, by threat of force, to deal with anyone in the private sphere — NOS4A2
Nor are you compelled by force to deal with anyone from your government. You are free to leave at any time. We've been through this. What threat of force prevents you from leaving your country?
If some pie in the sky Utopian fantasy of a global love-in is all you've got... — Isaac
I don’t think anyone can own a country and I have given no group of people or any institution the right to dictate how I conduct myself. — NOS4A2
These fucking libertarians are totally, 100% OK with corporate tyranny that rules over when you can literally go to the bathroom between 9am and 5pm but will get mad about having to pay taxes. — Streetlight
Why don’t you just admit that this is an accurate description, NOS? At least be honest. Put down the laissez faire and liberty bullshit. If you have no interest in democracy or liberty at work, you have no interest in democracy it liberty. — Xtrix
states ... utilize force and compulsory cooperation.
— NOS4A2
They do not. You are free to leave. — Isaac
It’s not as ludicrous as you make it out to be, I'm afraid. People help the homeless everyday. People organize to protect the environment. Volunteers, churches, philanthropists, charities, still operate despite your panacea. — NOS4A2
I'm still unsure what any of this has to do with anything. "If you don't like it, just leave" is a fallacy. Why do you keep evoking it, and why should I answer these questions? — NOS4A2
the risk of leaving a country, his home, his family, his support networks, is more than enough to convince one to remain in his country. — NOS4A2
NOS just keeps repeating the same thing again and again. He's not interested in a real discussion or a conversation. You will not change his mind, because that's not what he's here for. And that's perfectly fine. Just don't waste your time sticking around after you say your piece. — Philosophim
Then why have those problems not been solved? There's enough money in the hands of the wealthy to house, feed and clothe everyone. There's sufficient available solutions to the environmental crisis for it to be, at least, patched up. The government is neither preventing, nor even discouraging people from acting. Jeff Bezos could feed most of Africa tomorrow if he so wished. The fact is that charitable efforts are currently below what is required. It's therefore ludicrous to argue that such efforts would be adequate to deal with state-funded management tasks too.
It's your argument, not mine.
"Employment does not need regulating because if you don't like it you can just leave" - your argument, not mine.
"Corporations are not tyrannical because of you don't like their deal, you can just find another" - your argument, not mine
So
"Governments are not forcing anything on anyone because if you don't like it, you can just leave" - exactly the same argument.
Again, why is the risk and difficulty anyone else's problem? Your argument is that the government are forcing you, with threat of violence, to comply. They're not because you can leave. Your argument is simply wrong on the same grounds you want to use to argue corporations are not forcing anyone to comply. Either both are using a kind of force (the difficulty of finding an alternative), or neither are.
It’s comforting to know good people and good organizations are doing the best they can. — NOS4A2
Much of it is probably ineradicable. — NOS4A2
Then why have those problems not been solved? There's enough money in the hands of the wealthy to house, feed and clothe everyone. There's sufficient available solutions to the environmental crisis for it to be, at least, patched up. The government is neither preventing, nor even discouraging people from acting. Jeff Bezos could feed most of Africa tomorrow if he so wished. The fact is that charitable efforts are currently below what is required. It's therefore ludicrous to argue that such efforts would be adequate to deal with state-funded management tasks too. — Isaac
Yes, I get it, a boss may act immorally towards an employee just like a state can act immorally towards a citizen. Yes, one has the option of quitting a state just as one has the option to quit a job. People do both all the time, for economic and moral reasons, at least when they are not fleeing because they fear for their lives. — Nos
I don’t know the answer. — NOS4A2
I never made such arguments, though. You’re pretending I did. The closest I came is saying that if I don’t like a product or service I don’t buy it, which is a statement of fact and a description of my own behavior. Instead you took someone else’s mischaracterization and wasted a lot of time on it. — NOS4A2
I differentiated the state from the corporation with the monopoly on violence. — NOS4A2
When I purchase a product or service from a business I do so voluntarily. When I purchase a product or service from the government I do so involuntarily. — NOS4A2
Is there no such difference in your mind? — NOS4A2
So you're advocating demolishing the state on a hunch that everything will be just fine?
You do not. We've been through this. No one is making you accept any services from the government. Just move country. I asked you (but you've so far refused to answer), what threat of force prevents you from avoiding taxes by simply moving out of the country in which they are the rule.
It's no different to employment. If you don't like the terms of your employment, leave. If you don't like the terms of your using a country's resources (air, land, water), then leave. If you don't agree that such ultimatums are fair (and I'd be with you there), then no such ultimatums are fair - including those of the corporation.
There is no difference between the rules a corporation sets for your employment and the rules a country sets for your use of their services. Both are mandatory whilst you use their service, both can be freely left of you don't like the terms.
Of course not. To think so would be absurd. Why would I even have a job, or pay for a service with no threat of violence. I'd just take the stuff I wanted (to the extent that I thought it rightfully mine). Corporations rely entirely on the threat of violence to enforce working conditions that no-one absent of such a threat would agree to. As such, the threat of violence (and the monopoly on it) is absolutely integral to the functioning of the corporation. All the while they can control the state, they control the monopoly on violence (by proxy). Take away the state and they'll have to obtain the monopoly on violence some other way. They need the monopoly on violence because without it they cannot set a price on products that people could otherwise just freely take from them.
What I have argued is that what we fear in laissez-faire is not poverty, wealth inequality, or ecological destruction as such—these are present in all systems—but what we are to do in the absence of state authority. — NOS4A2
All of us must obey because it is illegal to do otherwise. — NOS4A2
That money funds everything from state propaganda to state monopoly to the politician's wardrobe to wars to vaccination programs, all without my consent. — NOS4A2
I can do as you suggest and not buy food, not work, become homeless, move to another country, because no one is forcing me to consume food or live with a roof over my head, but knowing that all of this is being used to avoid the points of my criticisms leaves me with little choice but to ignore it. — NOS4A2
The human capacity for cooperation, I believe, serves us all better then than his capacity for evil and greed. — NOS4A2
You lied and pretended I said it. — NOS4A2
I have had no relationship with a corporation that was not voluntary and premised on mutual agreement. If I were to come across arraignments that were not to my liking, I’d not sign any contract. If I don’t like their product or service I don’t buy it. — NOS4A2
Corporations rely entirely on the threat of violence to enforce working conditions that no-one absent of such a threat would agree to. As such, the threat of violence (and the monopoly on it) is absolutely integral to the functioning of the corporation. — Isaac
When I buy a loaf of bread, the government skims 7% of that transaction, with neither mine nor the seller's consent. — NOS4A2
That money funds everything from state propaganda to state monopoly to the politician's wardrobe to wars to vaccination programs, all without my consent. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.