{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/7/2016 3:01:19 AM
10
It's baffling how much effort leftists put into trying to keep the state secular, and thus less authoritarian.
"The state cannot impose its religious values on me."
Great, but why not? I mean, if it can coerce me into purchasing health insurance or paying a penalty, can't it also coerce me into adopting a religion or paying a penalty? Could it also coerce me into buying a copy of Sarah Palin's book or paying a penalty, too? Doesn't that authority rightfully exist?
English
-
Secularism isn't a "left or right concept. The idea of secular came out of the enlightenment, and the reason you have to pay taxes is because you live in a society that needs tax money to operate. Unless you're advocating for no government at all, taxes are necessary.
-
[quote]Secularism isn't a "left or right concept. The idea of secular came out of the enlightenment[/quote] I agree with this. However, my point is that it's hypocritical for the American Left (economic authoritarians) to support secularism out of an anti-authoritarian sentiment. [quote]Unless you're advocating for no government at all, taxes are necessary.[/quote] I am.
-
Edited by CrazyLincoln: 11/7/2016 3:18:28 AMWell, then what else is there to talk about? I believe that a government is important, and you don't.
-
[quote]Well, then what else is there to talk about? I believe the a government is important, and you don't.[/quote] I don't believe that we can rightfully initiate force against other people and their property. That statement better represents my position.
-
That's fine, but if you actually imagine how such a world would play out you'd end up with a government anyway. Just one that you have no control over.
-
[quote]That's fine, but if you actually imagine how such a world would play out you'd end up with a government anyway.[/quote] You must be unfamiliar with the works of Rothbard and Konkin III. I actually [i]don't[/i] think we have to end up with a state.
-
Edited by CrazyLincoln: 11/7/2016 3:27:42 AMI'm not, but it's fairly easily to figure out how such a world would operate as there are places were the government does not exist. If there is no state then those with the most power will take control. ie war lords, and once they take power they will form a defacto government anyway, which is why being on the side of no government is a fouls game. You should try to form the best government as it's part of human nature.
-
[quote]I'm not, but it's fairly easily to figure out how such a world would operate as there are places were the government does not exist. If there is no state then those with the most power will take control. ie war lords, and once they take power they will form a defacto government anyway, which is why being on the side of no government is a fouls game. You should try to form the best government as it's part of human nature.[/quote] You must be unfamiliar, then. AnCap's have theorized about contractual defense structures for a while now.
-
I am. Explain.
-
A basic rundown, that I'm sure won't do either man justice - You start with your private security forces. You engage in a voluntary transaction with them like you would any other institution. A common minarchist critique of the anarchist position is that a state can maintain a military to defend the borders. However, a network of private security forces can do the same thing, although it's decentralized. Rather than have one giant fighting force, you have a network of cooperation among different "rights firms," each vying to offer consumers the best protection.
