Sivad wrote:What's the difference between paying a government tax or an ancap corporate surcharge? It's just semantics.
Taxation is made in ransom against your life; a private fee is actually owed based on a service or good rendered to you that you voluntarily consented to.
You are basically saying that me being born in the U.S. and being required to pay taxes to a state under threat of force, for services I never asked for, is the same as a cashier requesting me to pay for the burger I just ordered.
If you imagine that these "corporate fees" are something else, then please explain.
Because in Ancapistan, there are no involuntary fees and surcharges. NONE.
Sivad wrote:The government will put you in prison and the corporation will ban you from receiving essential services and vital necessities, it's all just extortion in the end.
Ban you from "essential services and vital necessities?"
First of all, monoplies cannot exist without a state (as I will explain further below); hence, you concern over a bunch of Microsoft and Enron conglomorates ruling the world in the abscence of the state is irrational fantasy, some sci-fi nerd's dystopian wet-dream, not a rational possibility.
Secondly, are you suggesting that if I have something you need at a given time, that I am obligated to give it you?
Let us have a thought experiment on this:
Lets say I owned an oasis in the middle of the desert and lets say you decided to see if you were man enough to cross this desert in only one day in order to break the world-record of crossing it in three days and lets also say tht you packed accordingly.
Now, after crossing this desert as far as you could you ran out of water and you decided to come to my Oasis.
Once you get to my oasis, you demand that I give you water because its a "vital necessity."
Why am I obligated to give you my water?
I do think it would be charitable for me to do so, and as a Christian I may give it you freely in spite of your stupidity; however, as to disincentivize other people being likewise stupid and thinking my family's oasis with its limited water resources is a free public rest-stop, I could also charge you the full $1,000.00 that you happened to by carrying on your person.
How would i be wrong to do this? I don't see how.
Sivad wrote:No, I'm saying those with more gold shouldn't be allowed to make the rules.
How would they make the "rules?"
What a nebulous thing to say anyway.
In Ancapistan; the only rules are ones property owner set over their own land that they retain by their own means; otherwise, rules between different land owners are voluntary pacts/contracts made between them.
If you don't like one land owner's rules over the village he has proprietorship over, move somewhere else.
its really quite simple. You literally have an open market for what sort of rules you want to live under and if you ever happen to buy land or find some that is unclaimed, you can make your own rules.
Sivad wrote:It came much earlier than that. It came when a group of ape men realized that if they banded together they could dominate society and dictate terms to everyone else.
Yes, those who violate the NAP act like a state and vice-versa.
Sivad wrote:How can you voluntarily become a slave?
Lets say I got a car from a friend of mine, a 1970 Dodge Challegner RT with a 440 V8. In exchange, I promised him monthly payments so that he could finish paying off his student debt.
Now, lets say I wrecked the Challenger and lost my job because I missed work for six months cause I got addicted to pain killers and defaulted on the debt I owed my friend who now can't afford his school payments.
In this situation, my friend happens to have a spare room at his place and a bunch of necessary repair costs that have been whats put him in the hole regarding his student debt.
If we were to make a deal that I be given a place to stay and to work my debt off by doing his home repairs; that would be a case of voluntary slavery. Debtor's slavery, or indentured servitutde.
Sivad wrote:If you have to become a slave then they already got you over a barrel, it's never voluntary.
I don't understand this phrase, who is the mysterious and all-powerful "they" you speak of?
You sound like the Alt.Right talking about the Jews.
But yes, people who fall on hard times would often consider voluntarily selling themselves into slavery to guarantee a warm place to stay and three square meals. I think such things should exist on the market as such would often be better than starving in the cold streets.
Sivad wrote:I don't know much about that other than it was short lived.
1,000 years is short lived?
Sivad wrote:the only means of preventing power from consolidating is mutual democratic solidarity.
Absurd, democracy has been the means by which the greatest tyrannies the world has ever seen have come into power. In every way democracies have been worse for the freedom of individuals than the monarchies they replaced.
Sivad wrote:The moral justification was just that, a justification, not a cause. The causes were the material factors of social evolution that allowed power to consolidate and expand.
Marxist nonsense. ideology precedes economics.
Sivad wrote:I don't see any reason why that same superrational strategy wouldn't be effective in an ancap system? It may be a little more difficult to pull off but ultimately it's still doable.
No, without a state; it would be impossible to have big corporations and monopolies of any kind.
Every monopoly and major corporation you can think of, required a state for its becoming so big.
Copyright and patent laws alone (which do not exist in Ancapistan) account for probably 90% of these.
Another 9% are tax loop-holes, subsidies, and federal protections (like the Monsanto Protection Act), etc.
The remaining 1% is buying out competitors; however, if there are no copyright or patent protections, attempting to buy out all competitors would be impossible without going bankrupt (ask if you want to know why)
Sivad wrote: As long as there are courts and militaries enforcing a capitalist property regime it's still possible for the few to dominate the many.
Well that might be part of your problem right there; there is nothing enforcing the private property regimes except property owners and those whom they hire.
Sivad wrote: I would start from social democracy because that's a well proven system that has provided the most liberty and prosperity of any system in human history
Sivad wrote:and from there begin to remove the scaffolding of the state by turning the various public industries and social programs into autonomous voluntary cooperatives and mutual benefit associations.
Yeah, that wouldn't happen. The state does not allow for itself to be massively scaled back, there is too much money in overreach.
Sivad wrote:All wealth that has been generated through social cooperation needs to be reclaimed by society and distributed back to individuals in the form of voting shares and stock in market enterprises. I don't want the state or the capitalists to own and control the world, I want individuals to own and control the world they live in as true sovereigns.
Individuals are capitalists; you are either a capitalist or a statist. There is no other category.