http://dog-ear-peircing.skidman.com
http://nose-ring-styles.skidman.com
http://body-pircings.skidman.com

If there are no â??rulersâ? then who determines (or decides) what the rules are?

One definition of anarchism that works for me is: an ethical system that does not exempt the rulers (even in a pure democracy) from the rules that apply to the citizens in their private capacity. Without that exemption, rulers cannot rule.

Every word.

Jonathan Wilde: Anarchocapitalism is all about rules. Much more so than minarchism. When you realize that, you will finally understand the argument.

Why would you just assert this instead of actually explaining it to me? What are the â??Rules of Anarchyâ? that you are referring to?

Jonathan Wilde: Why do you think I’m an atheist?

I apologize if I drew the wrong conclusion about you in that regard. It is certainly not my intention to mislabel you. I assumed you were an Atheist because so far I have met very few non-Atheists on this forum, and I canâ??t think of a single Anarchists I have encountered who was not an Atheist.

Have you listened to anything JTK has said? Anarchocapitalism is all about rules. Much more so than minarchism. When you realize that, you will finally understand the argument.

Why do you think I’m an atheist?

Jonathan Wilde: And theories of government donâ??t?

Rules are an inconsistency in anarchy. Anarchy is the denial of rules.

But rules are completely consistent in theories of government. Government is all about rules.

But that is your problem Jonathan. You and the other Anarchist/Atheists want to pretend that we exist in a universe with no rules. It is an absurd premise.

John Kennedy: In some cases nothing â?¦

More like ALL cases.

John Kennedy: â?¦ but market forces are better checks and balances than votes.

How so? Commonality has to exist before trade or markets can.

John Kennedy: What is the magic of government? What prevents the army from taking your freedom? Your vote?

What is the magic of markets? What prevents the â??private security forceâ? from taking your freedom? Your money?

And theories of government dont?

No.

Conscience and self interest are not products of government, they will continue to operate in the absence of government.

I would say the checks and balances that we have in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of govt and the written constitution.

In some cases nothing, but market forces are better checks and balances than votes.

What is the magic of government? What prevents the army from taking your freedom? Your vote?

Since anarchists talk about private security forces, I would guess that the/a theory of anarchy includes the assumption that at least some people would not respect others’ rights voluntarily. The creation of these forces, however, would not solve that problem. What would prevent the private security forces from doing the same thing, and taking away people’s freedom? What prevents a “private security force” from taking on the role of the government? The other private security forces, if they are strong enough, but even if they succeed, it’s still going to get messy. Unless we can expect people to respect the rights of others voluntarily, in the long term we have a choice between having a dominant government (preferably in some way controlled by the governed) or civil war.

Theories of anarchy depend on certain rules being followed — that there cannot be an unjustly coercive government, for example. Without a government, who would enforce a rule like this?

Ohh come on now Mr. Kennedy! Why donâ??t you just ask, If someone comes to murder you, what right do you have to shoot back?

Are you a member of PETA now?

What gives you the right to kill and eat animals???

John Kennedy: Every argument you make presumes that your government may justly require that people pay up or leave, but you’re never come close to justifying that premise.

I didnâ??t realize that I needed to justify self-defense and self-preservation. I guess I wrongly assumed those notions would be axiomatic between us?

John Kennedy: If you were my landlord then my choosing to stay on your property would oblige me to pay for the use of your property. Now all you have to do is explain how you’re my landlord.

I would say that the principle of Continuity is what makes the Constitution and the U.S. government your landlord. Individuals may come and go, but the Society persists. You seem to be saying that on the day you were born the entire country should have stopped what it was doing and taken note.

Hey look, John Kennedy is here now, I guess we better nullify the Constitution because he might be offended by it.

Your problem is that you want to pretend that you exist in a universe unbound by Fate.