Are you afraid your ideas and beliefs are too XTREME?

Post Reply New Topic

in the past yes but not now

I sometimes think that anarcho-capitalism would be a better solution to create a legal system, to provide for various human needs, and to reduce moral coercion within society, with the latter being good to allow for true morality to be found and maintained.

OK, I have to say that I thought my views were extreme...ah, nope. Feeding the homeless to the hungry is the most extreme thing I've heard in a very long time...

With that said, you do solve the problem. I work with systems development and I was once asked to attend a class for bright ideas...how to come up with solutions to problems...etc...The entire focus of the class was to come up with things as strange as what you just described and then work through it to solve an actual problem. So, honestly, although I think your idea is a bit extreme, I also think you probably have the ability to solve many issues...but you would have to of course, take a couple of steps back to reality and see how those extremes could be applied to real solutions. I wish I still had the name of the guy who taught that class...

Here's a question, is housing the homeless out of the hungry more or less extreme?

schools would be user pay from day 1 through student loans. Nobody should be required to take bullchit classes like gym to graduate and would pay for a basic curriculum and extra for frill classes. More like a meal in a restuarant, the basic meal with a glass of water and drinks & desert cost extra. Basic education in math,english,history,science.

Taxes, a national sales tax and no property taxes on factories or income tax/payroll tax on labor. Keep capitol gains & dividend taxes and corporate income taxes.

Bill back all costs of social services to employers if they employee people with normal size families and don't pay them a living wage and the family qualifies for government aid, send the bill to their employer plus the cost of administrating the government program.If a job can't support 1 adult & 1 child it shouldn't exsist.

Health insurance
no more golden policies that cover minor stuff. Our car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or minor repairs, so why should health insurance cover small stuff or have co pays ? Purpose of insurance is to keep from getting cleaned out financially, a few trips to the doctors and a few perscriptions isn't a financial disaster requiring insurance coverage, major medical and on going expensive drug costs are financial disasters and what insurance is supposed to be for.

car registration would be based on vehicle weight and horse power. The more somebody exceeds the basic low power econo box the higher the registration fee goes. Nice hummer, $20,000 a year to regester it.

Property taxes would be based on square feet of living space with a rising rate beyond the basic need, like $1.00 a square foot for the first 1,000 square feet, than $2.00 a square foot for the next 500 square feet
$3.00 for the next 500 square feet
$5.00 for the next 500
$10 for the next 500
$20 for next 500
$50 for every square foot over 3,000

so 4000 square feet would be
$1000 first 1000 SQ
$1000 next 500 SQ
$1500 next 500 SQ
$2500 next 500 SQ
$5000 next 500 SQ
$10,000 next 500 SQ
$25,000 next 500 SQ
total $46,000 in property tax

like go ahead and build some monster house and pay big time.

Illegal immigrants
require a work license, have local police issue them. get a job offer and go to police station and have them certify you are eligable to work in the country and than fine the living hell out of employers caught using illegal labor based of percentage of the companies gross income or total number of employee's so it's not a cost of doing business for a large company getting caught once in awhile or does it bankrupt a small business, the fine should hurt both large and small, but based on size of company, their odd's of having one illegal out of thousands of employee's go up, so it's got to hurt them also, but not be insane or just a drop in the bucket.

zoning laws
The NIMBY crap needs to be addressed, no more blanket 2 acre zoning covering many square miles and require every town to have so much land for commercial use office,retail and industry, some sort of percentage by physical size of town and population of town.

Jonathan Swift came up with the classic line "Eat the Poor!" in his essay "A Modest Proposal" back in 1729.

Anarcho-Capitalism is total nonsense. Capitalism requires state power to function, otherwise it would degenerate into a kind of mercantile feudalism in which most people are serfs of corporations. The "Capitalism" of Right-Libertarians is a idealization of what Capitalism, in their minds, should be rather then what it really is, how it actually functions, and what power structures Capitalism is based on are.

You win. I'll never be as extreme as Rothbard.

Clarify your position by defining capitalism first, as you are off-handedly dismissing intelligent scholars(professors, even polymaths) rather lightly and frankly, I cannot really argue much against assertions. I can define how I'd think an anarcho-capitalist system would work, but frankly that does little to impact the logical premises behind your assertions.

Yeah, actually I did not expect to really ever go that far, I just could not figure out how to create true justice so I decided not to.

How can you even start a logical discussion with anyone with out defining your terms? Why don't you define how you think an anarcho-capitalist system would work before you assume that it is infallible to criticism.

i worry people think i AM extreme because i tend to speak with hyperbole a lot and they think i'm serious.

for example i've said on more than one occassion that George W. Bush should be executed and that the Catholic Church is a loose criminal organization that should be utterly obliterated.

i of course don't really feel this way. Bush at the worst should be stripped of all his assets and imprisoned in shame (death is too good for him), and the Catholic Church should just be ignored.

Well, I am not the one who is attacking. I merely expressed an extreme idea in an extreme idea thread and was assaulted as having a horrible idea. I also did not think it wise to start off with defining my terms because Odin is already working with how he thinks the terms are defined, so frankly, I want to work on the framework he has imposed rather than directly develop my own.

I never assumed it was infallible to criticism, and you have me mistaken by saying that. I merely think that his attack was too vicious given the data he had. Really though, anarcho-capitalism is easy to define, we remove the government and have it be replaced by trade between individuals and organizations formed by these individuals, the issue that pops up ends up being issues of individual behavior under these circumstances, and actually part of the idea is that we don't define perfectly how it would work as noted in an essay by Per Bylund. http://www.perbylund.com/the_library_st ... chists.htm I can possibly bring up ideas by anarchist scholars on how it might work, but there is no point to that as I know Odin and I have disagreements in economic theory that would have to be dealt with first and by addressing him I do bring up these fundamental issues before we start up on the higher ones.

Honestly though, how this will really probably divide out is that critics will emphasize the instability of human society, or the instability or injustice of a capitalist system where as proponents emphasize the stability of human society, the dynamism of the capitalist system, and the liberty found in capitalism. The argument will span from economic theory into ethical theory and the moral nature of government and go rather deep into foundations as this is not a matter of a system vs another system, but rather of a system vs the desire to eliminate such systems with the additional assumption that individualism and some variant of capitalism go hand in hand.

^ Another Anarcho-Capitalist. Here was me thinking us a rare breed.

Ah, I get told heaps my views are too extreme. Most tend to revolve on these few things

- whatever holds my current interest
- how something will affect myself or those I care about
- what ever is more chaotic (I don't tend to like things well structured as it usually means freedom is affected negatively)
- whatever I think is best for the smaller people at the time

I'm also one of those people who sees trends and fashion disdainfully most of the time. I prefer to do things my way. That alone in my localised area makes my ideas and beliefs too extreme.
But I look at the alternatives. 'Gangsta wannabe?' No. 'Emo?' HELL NO.

But that accomplishes nothing but revenge. It is not in any way productive. I would favor the criminal making some type of reparations to the victim, as satisfactory to said victim. If that's not practical, then just use the criminal for slave labor. Earn money for the federal government (and thus decrease the need for taxation) by renting them out as cheap labor to businesses who then no longer need to hire illegal immigrants for jobs "Americans won't do."

Funny how your opinions differ greatly to those of George Orwell later on in his life.

Your brand of Libertarianism has been tried before. Remember 19th-century England. Unlimited economic growth at the cost of the poor. You might argue against that view due to the advances in technology, but the charities, do not forget, did not manage to tackle alot of the issues faced. And you're against strong regulations?
Anarcho-Capitalism would be a massive step backwards.

I think that the welfare and tax systems need reform to remove the welfare trap and encourage lazy people to get a job rather than be an unneccessary drain on the hard-working taxpayer. People who cannot work due to health/age, are of course the exception.