The risk takers are the poorest and the middle class not the super rich. The poorest risk their health by working themselves to exhaustion covering 3 jobs to feed a family, still unable to pay for health insurance.

I'm glad you made the point, lets turn the table around - The person who covers 3 jobs to feed his family will obviously make more money than the person who only does 1 job.

And that was exactly my point. Why then, should the person who risks his health to work more hours and 3 jobs have to also pay for the welfare of the guy that only chooses to work 1?

Its not just a simple upper class vs middle class vs lower class. There are millions of people across the spectrum. The 'incentives' argument is also about rewarding normal people like these to go the extra mile to feed their families, not just your villanous Koch Brothers.

The middle class goes to university unsure if they can pay off their exorbitant students loans.

There needs to be an awareness about the opportunity to doing apprenticeships at trade schools rather than just getting random degrees on a whim at a university. If you are unable to pay off your student debt, its obvious your degree is not, from a practical point of view, beneficial to society. If thats the case, why should society pay for the degree?

While the upper class owns all the assets and generates revenue and profits by doing nothing and dodging taxes. Having a parking lot in manhatten is really risky business, people should be reward for it.

Yes, and it is these 'assets' that also provide millions of jobs and opportunities to pick up new skills, and the tax from these 'profits' that drive the economy! That being said, tax loopholes should, of course, be closed.

Edited 5/15/2016 00:50:37

So an eye for a eye how? You kill someone? You'll be run out of the town and die or survive in the woods. You don't deserve anything more, you killed someone, you're on your own, no buying anything. You wronged someone in a deal? You give back their stuff and have a penalty of folk knowing you're not trustworthy. Sounds fair enough. You smoked marijuana? Nothing happens to you.

I'm sorry, but you know what? I don't want to be apart of millions killed by governments across history.

Anarchism is the most pointless of all political philosophies. Even if you succeed in removing governments people will eventually band together into groups for mutual benefits and establish....guess what? Hierarchies, which turn into governments.

A stateless world really isn't possible. Government, or something resembling government, will always exist. It's human nature.

No. It's the only moral and logical ideology, since it advocates freedom for folk who don't hurt each other, let's folk get together if they're collectivist and do what they want as long as they don't hurt others , and the only ideology that can stop the countless innocent deaths from war.

You can't honestly believe that. Removing government won't stop war. People will still get violent. They'll still form groups to fight with other groups over resources or some other excuse. Anarchy is just survival of the fittest where the strong will supress the weak and there's no higher power to intervene. You know why government is so flawed and evil? Because people are flawed and evil. At-least government gives us a system of checks and balances.

I'll stick with the government that at-least provides some structure over lawless anarchy where my only chance of survival is hiding with a local militia group fighting off gang raids.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:05:12

MSGB, you do realize your view of the world perfectly aligns with a post-successful Marx world right? Let me tell you something, Marx's world view is A. outdated, B. based on the presumption that people are not going to grab at all power available to them, which is generally false, and C. That somehow this society won't devolve into pure survival of the fittest.

you view capitalist Anarchism as the way to achieve this world. How exactly do you plan on getting to this world?

smedley no one wants ur world get over it

They'll still form groups to fight with other groups over resources or some other excuse

Which will falter and prove to be a bad way to gain wealth, this happened in Somalia and it was recognized that the peaceful business folk had way more power than the few warlords left before 2006 (when the AU and Al-Qaeda invaded).

Anarchy is just survival of the fittest where the strong will supress the weak and there's no higher power to intervene

There is no evidence for this.

Because people are flawed and evil

Stop being a self-hating human. Guess why you're alive, have all your things, and have great living standards. Voluntary cooperation by humans, no thanks to the government you love, or your fictional god.

we all cooperate to have a government

minorities like u want go back to the dark ages and have warlords fighting each other

Most beasts live in some kind of anarchy. I'm sure they'd rather some kind of, if hypocritic, still order, then to have their life always in hazard.

Voluntary cooperation by humans, no thanks to the government you love, or your fictional god.

You are practically preaching Marxism. Anarchic communism is alright enough, but "one bad apple spoils the rest.", especially in capitalist-driven Darwinist socities that almost everyone lives in.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:23:23

The basis of Anarcho-Capitalism and capitalism is voluntaryism and the free market, don't try to get on me for "preaching Marxism" when you and other pro-capitalists do this on a daily basis.

The difference between (limited) capitalism is that folk don't have to try to cooperate at all and think only about themselves, in truth, the divide between capitalism and communism can be competition against cooperation, both of which good in healthy doses.

And what you are advocating for is that folk try to cooperate with each other with no immediate gain to themselves.

Well there's both. Consumers peacefully cooperate with the producers and middle-men/middle-women, while middle-folk and producers compete with other middle-folk and producers.

They don't try to cooperate, they just think to themselves and immediate gain.

Sellers sell stuff to make money (for themselves, and anyone helping them get stuff). Buyers buy stuff to get stuff. And this is both for their own goodgains - both sides feel like they got the better side of the deal, else they would not do such a trade.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:41:16

There is no evidence for this.

Yes there is. Just look at any nation when the government collapses. Society degenerates into anarchy with terrorist groups and mobs taking control until a new government is formed. History has proved what a power vacuum will do.

Guess why you're alive, have all your things, and have great living standards. Voluntary cooperation by humans

Yes. Voluntary cooperation involving that evil government you despise so much. The roads we use for our commerce? Government mandated. The fire-departments that keep everything from burning down? Government mandated. The freaking hospital which has saved your life or that of someone you know at some point? Wouldn't be here without government assistance.

You think the government is some evil demon that's out to kill you, but the fact you're allowed to spew all this anti-government anarchist rhetoric on a regular basis proves that you're wrong. If the government was as oppressive as you claim, the FBI would have tossed you into a prison long ago.

or your fictional god.

Odd that you go for the religious attack route since I never brought up God or my religion. I was going to resist throwing out the overused "Marxist" card, but you seem to fit the signs more and more. Also, this kind of vitriol is ironic coming from the guy who was whining on this or another thread about "Angry Panda like insults".

Yes, but every moment they are doing something together, they are cooperating, while for the interests of themselves, they are still cooperating voluntarily and peacefully.

There are two types of exchanges:

Win-win: one side wants something the other side has, so they make a deal and both in some way benefit. This is voluntary and cooperative.

Win-lose:

When you are forcing someone to do something or taking something they have without them agreeing.

except ppl consent to this system

not enough ppl want to radically change how this country works

because ppl do not want ur system

keep living in fantasy land

Yes, but every moment they are doing something together, they are cooperating, while for the interests of themselves, they are still cooperating voluntarily and peacefully.

Ok, fine, but then what if there is no interet to cooperate voluntarily and peacefully? Win-win has a goodgain for both sides. Win-lose means that someone is "winning" at the expense of someone "losing". What's any immediate goodgain to stand up for the folk being forced against their will to "lose"?

Yes there is. Just look at any nation when the government collapses. Society degenerates into anarchy with terrorist groups and mobs taking control until a new government is formed. History has proved what a power vacuum will do.

Alright, let's go with Somalia. After a brief period of civil conflict after the fall of the Barre regime and the UN invading, order returned to Somalia. Tens of thousands of refugees returned to Somalia, living standards raised, and after the drought passed, the economy boomed.

The roads we use for our commerce? Government mandated.

Can be paid for voluntarily. Same for the fire department and hospital.

It's not about short term goodgain, it's about folk using logic to see longterm goodgain. A jerk who goes around stealing from businesses is dangerous, best to tell him to stop screw off, and to follow up with force if he refuses.