Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that almost all companies benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?
I would definitely say the largest and most powerful companies and corporations definitely do. Which is part of my critique of statism, for statism is what enables corporations to get as big as they do and its statism that often prevent these organizations from failing when that is what nature would have dictated.
Small businesses and farms by contrast are almost always hindered by state regulations and requirements which larger corporations have no problem with as they can afford them, and often helped write them in the first place. I am running into this myself as I am trying to start a meat business, my #1 problem by far is the government, bar none. Everything else is relatively easy in comparison.
Ultimately a stateless free-market society will be far more decentralized and both individual land-holding and business size would be far more restricted by natural conditions. There are no mega monopoly corporations in ancapistan; they can't exist because the mechanisms simply aren't there for them as they exist under super-states like we have today.
B0ycey wrote:You have to pay taxes in America to vote? Even the unemployed can vote in the UK. So if there is an association with taxes and voting in America it doesn't mean there has to be. A Libertarian party could even campaign against this. So again I see no NAP violation in Liberal politics.
You missed the point; the assumption of the social contract is that you have the privilege to vote in a representative government and receive its protection, but in exchange you must sacrifice total autonomy and be subject to taxation; its a general principle.
If "Liberalism" was consistent with the NAP; then I would have had to have voluntarily and willfully agreed to be taxed (which is not the case); and if not, I should be able to refuse paying taxes without any legal ramifications
(which is not the case). If I am forced to pay taxes, that is by definition a violation of the NAP (unless I willfully and consciously agreed to this arrangement in explicit and contractual terms
B0ycey wrote:Again you know you will be taxed when you agree to work and yet you still work.
No I don't, I am informed that Uncle Sam is going to forcibly take my money. Like I said; that is not voluntary association; that is theft.
If a thief gives you notice that he is going to steal from you, that doesn't make it any less of an act of thievery.
B0ycey wrote: Is that forced on you?
Yes, If I sell you something grown on my own land, the State demands a cut under penalty of violence.
I cannot opt out of that except by being illegal in my activities
; if you wish to buy or sell, you are held at gunpoint by the state. That is a violation of the NAP.
B0ycey wrote:Laws are part of the social contract.
You can have laws without a social contract, this has been the case for most of human history.
B0ycey wrote:They give you protections that you agree to by being part of society.
I don't want them, nor did I agree to be part of this society; I never signed a document, I never explicitly assented to this arrangement.
B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless rather than argue over a minor issue, I will state that I think you are still wrong but will say I can at least see your point of view and where you are going with this when before I thought you just confused oxymoron with faux.
Believe me, I am doing everything I can; following the practice of Agorism.
In any event, thanks for the convo.
annatar1914 wrote:And Reformism as we should all know by now does not work, entryism into government and political organizations to affect slow and meaningful change, peaceful and gradual, according to one's ideology. Any Ideology. Because as has been pointed out, human nature is what it is.
annatar1914 wrote: But not every ideology of the State believes in the forms of Democracy that do not possess the substance of Democracy (that is, true earthly Liberty) anyway.
This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.