Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

He who owns the land says what goes on on that land. This is the anarcho-capitalist way.

It's quite clear that you haven't got the slightest idea what anarcho-capitalism is about. Suggest you go read some more about it before making a further spectacle of yourself.

How is it different from right now in the US? If I own my land, I can drive as fast as I can on it. The government can't tell me how fast I can drive on my own land.

So what was your complaint about the government setting speed limits on public roads to begin with?

Are you confusing public owned and private owned roads again?

It's quite clear that you haven't got the slightest idea what anarcho-capitalism is about. Suggest you go read some more about it before making a further spectacle of yourself.

If there is no government, wouldn't all paved roads be privately own by either private citizens, organizations, or corporations?

So in DoofyWorld, wouldn't the speed limit on all paved roads be set by private citizens, private citizens, organizations, or corporations depending on who owns it?

Still denying you ever said you want corporations to set speed limits rather than government?

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

How is it different from right now in the US?

Ummm. Last time I looked, you actually have a government.

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 07:27 PM

BTW, hyteckit, have you thought about actually commenting on the thread topic?

Don't answer that. You edit your posts so much and it's obvious that you're simply trolling so it's into the ignore list for you. Perhaps if you were actually here for a decent conversation instead of trolling it wouldn't be so.

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ummm. Last time I looked, you actually have a government.

Are you confusing public owned and private owned roads again?

You are talking about speed limits on privately owned roads. In the US, you can set your own speed limits on your own land. The government doesn't set speed limits on the land that you own.

Surprise Doofy?

Like I've said, you are just anti-government. More like anti-US government. As long as the speed limits are not set by the US government it's all good.

Speed limits impose by private citizens - GOOD
Speed limits impose by organizations - GOOD
Speed limits impose by corporations - GOOD
Speed limits impose by government - BAD!!!

Chuckit · Jun 30, 2009, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

He who owns the land says what goes on on that land. This is the anarcho-capitalist way.

It's quite clear that you haven't got the slightest idea what anarcho-capitalism is about. Suggest you go read some more about it before making a further spectacle of yourself.

In your anarcho-capitalist system, who's to say I don't shoot you and take your land for my own?

Doofy · Jun 30, 2009, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

In your anarcho-capitalist system, who's to say I don't shoot you and take your land for my own?

Ask the idiot up there. He obviously knows more about the whole anarcho-capitalism thing than I do.

Off-topic much?

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 07:45 PM

Doofy, since we are discussing the Constitution, private citizens, law, and role of government, why is it trolling for me to ask you about the role of government or the lack of?

Why is Chuckit off-topic by asking about the role of government?

turtle777 · Jun 30, 2009, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

In your anarcho-capitalist system, who's to say I don't shoot you and take your land for my own?

My guess would be: his guns

-t

hyteckit · Jun 30, 2009, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

My guess would be: his guns

-t

guns and hired-guns.

BLAZE_MkIV · Jun 30, 2009, 10:54 PM

Do you know what you call a guy who pays a bunch of guys to protect his land? A king (or an Earl depending on size etc.) Feudalism is a form of organized government.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 1, 2009, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Do you know what you call a guy who pays a bunch of guys to protect his land?

Umm, a rancher? Celebrity? Politician? Property owner? Business owner?

Chuckit · Jul 1, 2009, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Do you know what you call a guy who pays a bunch of guys to protect his land?

Whatever he tells you to call him?

BadKosh · Jul 1, 2009, 05:33 AM

Clinton WAS impeached, but not removed from office. He was disbarred for perjury.

ghporter · Jul 1, 2009, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV

Do you know what you call a guy who pays a bunch of guys to protect his land? A king (or an Earl depending on size etc.) Feudalism is a form of organized government.

Depends on the setup. Around here, it's called "the police," "the state police," "the National Guard," and even "the Army." I pay them (through taxes) and their jobs are to protect me and my land-among other things (for which I also pay them).

Wiskedjak · Jul 1, 2009, 10:32 AM

So, in Doofy's anarcho-capitalistic world, you can do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't affect others.

But, how does one determine if their actions affects others, what sort of actions are appropriate when actions do affect others and how are people punished when their actions negatively affect others? It sounds like you need some sort of organization to help regulate appropriate actions and distribute punishment for inappropriate actions. Ideally, that organization should represent the interests of all the people involved. It'll probably also need funding, which I imagine could be collected through some sort of membership fees, possibly based on the level of income of it's members to ensure equal representation.

And then, of course, you need to figure out what kinds of actions you can take that don't affect others. Because, really, almost anything you do can be traced to have a potential impact on someone else.

Chuckit · Jul 1, 2009, 10:54 AM

How does basing membership fees on income level ensure equal representation? Are you saying pretty much every membership-based organization in the world is giving unequal representation because they charge everybody the same fees for the same services?

Wiskedjak · Jul 1, 2009, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How does basing membership fees on income level ensure equal representation? Are you saying pretty much every membership-based organization in the world is giving unequal representation because they charge everybody the same fees for the same services?

By basing membership fees on income level you can ensure that everyone can participate in the organization. Or, you could just make the membership fees the lowest affordable number for everyone, but then you might not be able to raise enough money to fund the organization, since there will be some people in the population that won't be able to afford to pay anything for membership.

This is, of course, only if your goal is equal representation of everyone in the population.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Jul 1, 2009, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Or, you could just make the membership fees the lowest affordable number for everyone, but then you might not be able to raise enough money to fund the organization, since there will be some people in the population that won't be able to afford to pay anything for membership.

That's a contradiction.

So those people that can't afford to pay for membership... also don't get the privileges of membership?

Arty50 · Jul 1, 2009, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Well, I might just be narrow minded, but I don't see the bailouts of AIG, GM, Chrysler, Citibank etc... as general welfare, nor as regulating commerce.

Call me crazy, but I think trying to prevent a recession from spiraling into a depression would be in the interest of the general welfare of the country.

kobi · Jul 1, 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Call me crazy, but I think trying to prevent a recession from spiraling into a depression would be in the interest of the general welfare of the country.

+1

You and I are in agreement, but the Right spins/interprets the Constitution into whatever is opposite of rational logic/reality.

Hell, they still Reagan was a great president. That alone defies all logic.

turtle777 · Jul 1, 2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by Arty50

Call me crazy, but I think trying to prevent a recession from spiraling into a depression would be in the interest of the general welfare of the country.

You guys are to dense to realize that government intervention (cheap Fed money, pressuring Fannie and Freddie to make stupid loans) created the mess in the first place.

And now you think more government intervention, incl. goinf Trillions of $$$ into debt will fix the issue ?

Hey, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, right at the Iowa oceanfront, it's really cheap

-t

kobi · Jul 1, 2009, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

You guys are to dense to realize that government intervention (cheap Fed money, pressuring Fannie and Freddie to make stupid loans) created the mess in the first place.

And now you think more government intervention, incl. goinf Trillions of $$$ into debt will fix the issue ?

Hey, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, right at the Iowa oceanfront, it's really cheap

-t

Sorry but it was 8 years of:

-Republican control with no regulation anywhere.

-No checks and balances on wall street.

-Starting wars to the tune of 12 Billion a month for nothing

- A former President that sold the debt he created and our country to China to line his buddies and their companies pockets.

Do I need to go on with the list?? That is what help caused this mess.

You can sell your Glenn Beck/Hannity Freddie and Fannie conspiracy theories somewhere else.

Only Republicans can take a $415 Billion national surplus, blow it in a year and turn it into a Trillion dollar deficit in seven years; then try and blame it on the other guys. Classic.

And you wonder why your party can't get elected? Or why Republican's are leaving the party in droves? You actually have to ask?

turtle777 · Jul 1, 2009, 04:55 PM

It's people like you that have no f****ing idea about finances and economics that run our current government. God help us all. I'm sure you'll feel even better once you get the living daylight taxed out of you.

-t

hyteckit · Jul 1, 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

It's people like you that have no f****ing idea about finances and economics that run our current government. God help us all. I'm sure you'll feel even better once you get the living daylight taxed out of you.

-t

If you believe Fannie and Freddie and Acorn is the sole main cause of the economic collapse, then I have a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

Deregulating the energy market in California cost California billions of dollars.

Deregulating the financial markets cost the US trillions of dollars.

spacefreak · Jul 1, 2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

The WSJ seems to more clearly portray the timeline:

- Zelaya plans referendum
- Court declares referendum illegal, per constitution's ban on referendums within 6 months of election, and military refuses to take part in distributing ballots
- Zelaya fires chief of the army, pledges to "press ahead"
- Court issues order for Zelaya's removal.

Some more interesting facts about what went down in Honduras, as read in the Wall St. Journal... How in the world is anyone getting away with labeling this a "coup"?

- Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, but the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

- Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela.

- The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional while instructing the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote.

- When the top military commander told the president that he would have to comply, Mr. Zelaya immediately fired him.

- When Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

- Deciding to run the referendum himself, Mr. Zelaya led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored, and then he had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

- The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying.

Wiskedjak · Jul 1, 2009, 11:32 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

That's a contradiction.

So those people that can't afford to pay for membership... also don't get the privileges of membership?

Perhaps I misstated somewhere. If the goal of the organization is to provide equal representation to all members of the population, and that organization has funding requirements, then there are 2 options for funding: 1) collect a membership fee based on the most that the poorest member of the population can afford, or 2) collect a membership fee based on income.

IF the goal is equal representation.

But, ultimately, what I'm saying is that I don't think anarcho-capitalism is possible.