— SteemCN

No problem Angel we can start over here with a much softer tone towards one another. Again my apologies for sounding harsh initially. It is the 'treatment' of the subject concerning 'An-Caps are not Anarchists but we Coms are' I see from An-Coms that often engenders those sharp and 'blasting' rebuttals. But I'm down for some friendly debate here :)

Now please do not take this the wrong way, but I do not have to read the books and philosophies of men to understand freedom, and the 'system' that nature has already established for us. (which is already expressed so much in the things I've already said in my previous responses) As well, being as busy as I already am in life, no I'm not going to read this book you recommend it in its entirety, although I'm down to hear some quotes from it and go from there if you'd like, as well as anything you'd like to put into your own words.

In the meantime saying that 'I think it is okay to set up big money, ruling elites' etc, is just an empty charge Angel. It doesn't mean anything, especially when I have proven through my arguments that the Market once liberated and the 'political state' removed would actually stop financial power monopolies from happening.

People use the 'power vacuum' argument because they've been conditioned to accept that "but in a state of Anarchy, some bad guy gets all the power and that leads us to tyranny" nonsense, that I too used to entertain and blindly repeat.

But I don't think I have to explain how it's actually far more impossible, since what I refer to as 'the Innocent, the Good, and the Free' are not going to sit passively by when some man and group of his 'wild banditos' have proven their intent to subjugate others. Said in another way, IF 'El Guapo' can even talk his people into leaving their own lives and lands and following him on his conquest, they're more than likely not going to get too far and find themselves 'strung up and hung'. Not to mention, 'El Guapo' is going to have to pay his 'followers' in 'real capital', and where's he gonna get that? If he's got it already, that means he's had to earn it, or that it's already precious and valuable, so why lose it for such risks when he can instead just enjoy the good life?

Okay so looking at these things, and to which I'm certain you'd agree, it's the same with this nonsense concerning the 'power-vacuum' argument but that has been turned into an economic one concerning monopolies. Nobody is going to be able to create these monopolies the way they do now for reasons I've already explained: such as there's no central banks to bring them about and continue subsidizing their existence on our backs to begin with. And so now, they'll be forced to risk their own 'real capital', that will already be limited since what they're able to produce must first be desired by other men, while facing endless possibilities of competition.

But not only will competition remove so many opportunities for 'monopoly', without the political state, nobody can write corrupt laws and enforce them by holding a gun to our head and compelling us to partake in something through the system of state sponsored extortion, meaning that if we see a company or corporation as 'uncouth' than we simply choose to 'opt out' and not pay for their services. That's the heart of Voluntaryism.

When I hear someone who remains terrified that somehow 'some big entity is going to take us over', I hear the exact same problem that has given birth to the forms of man-made governments that all the time enslave us to begin with, 'fear', followed by a 'need' to figure out 'how we can control it'.

The 'Market' will stop many of these problems before they're even allowed to take root my friend. We do not have to inspire humanity to 'take over corporations', as nobody will ever be all the time on-board with these solutions.

I believe that people can and will experience 'success' for those things they have been willing to put their hands to creating, learning, producing, and trading. But I really do not think we're going to see these 'big corporations' we have today, and the only reason they've gotten there to begin with, is because humanity has been foolish enough to employ the 'political state' to protect him, when all it does is write laws in favor of those to give us something for nothing, while charging us more debt and interest on these things and through the processes made possible by their corrupt central banks that they also write and pass laws for.

Ok, Shane, in case you missed it, what I tried to communicate was if somebody was gone a few days and wanted to ask a question they could pick nearly any of my posts to do it on.

Having a position contrary to Lord Shane's is not dissing.

For the record, I've been told that I am 50, but I couldn't honestly tell you.
I can tell you what I know about folks what point fingers at others, but I won't, it'll be funnier to watch you learn for yourself.

Blah, blah, the slave mentality is strong with this one.
Sorry, the parts that didn't make sense to me distracted me into tldr stupor.
If you have a question, or statement, can we try to limit them a little.
I'll be glad to address any I can understand.

RE: Authoritarianism as Security Blanket

You are viewing a single comment's thread from: