Nippon

People can have conflicting ideas on how the world should be run, as long as they acknowledge that they have no right to force those ideas upon others (which was the premise for my argument). I acknowledge the complexity of social affairs, the complexity of social affairs is the reason why government intervention always leads to market failure, whereas free markets lead to an efficient solution. I'm not a huge fan of the moral debate either but I raised the issue, because I suspect that if I didn't, someone else would have. Later ;)

We really need some posting rules on this section...

If the majority of humans are not rational, how does a system based on the rule of the majority work towards gains for the society? What I mean with rational is the ability to follow one's self-interest in a given situation, nothing more. How do we have rational regulation, if the majority that creates these laws is not rational? All evidence points out that humans are normally very much rational in their day-to-day activities. Very well, thanks for the discussion, I'll wait for another person to challenge my argument.

Kings of P2P.

Where exactly do I assume this in my text? I assume nothing of the kind. Whereas You suggest in your next paragraph that these rights stem from some social contract or notions of law ...is what I said. If you believe that the government is an objective entity, you fail to see the problem with the current system. If the government indeed was as complex and objective as the billions of interactions between individuals in the society, there would be no practical problem with government authority over individuals and the moral problem would be debatable. But I regress; the government is far from an objective entity capable of functioning as effectively as individuals in their interactions with each other. This is the practical problem; the market outcome is always the most effective result for all participants, with the possible exception of a market failure, yet we have government intervention in nearly every interaction. The conclusion to draw from theory is that government intervention in itself mostly causes a lack of efficiency in individual interactions, so why do we accept government intervention? No. As I said, these rights are a result of social contracts between individuals which in turn are a result of the geo-political structures, moral hierarchies, etc. I have no evidence to present to you that these rights are accepted by all humans, however, the claim that they are is the prerequisite for the existence of an anarchist society. In my conversations with people, they usually uniformly accept the claim that noone else has the right to violate their person or their property, this has led me to believe that anarchist thinking is much more common than could be expected by looking at the current state of our society. This was not my intention. There might be a certain claim for authoritarian interference to individual interactions (mostly due to market failure), but anarchism should be the firm moral and practical platform that we build those authoritarian institutions on, if and only if necessary. At one point it was a believed 'right' to own slaves; if that is false than why has the universal right to self-determination and control not been practiced in reality? Imo, this suggests an egocentric human core that has been shaped by our desire to maintain the best possible life, and manifested through social, religious and political systems. We owned slaves because they were not human according to some, or because social hierarchies simply accepted this form of perception as normal and natural. Slavery is clearly against the fundamentals of anarchism. Notice again, that accepting those fundamental rights is the prerequisite for the actualization of those rights* and as such the prerequisite for an anarchistic society; without them, there can be no anarchism. *This is due to symmetry. The right to self-determination and control over ones property can not be actualized without a similar notion of the right from other members of the society. To rule over someone by force is clearly against the fundamentals of anarchy(as presented in 1) which, again, are the premise for an anarchistic society. You may argue that it is in human nature to rule and to be ruled, but this is not an argument against anarchism, which only argues against use of force when creating such power-relations. That is; people can still rule and be ruled, but only by making a contract between individuals. We do not make a social contract with the government. Government authority is imposed upon us on birth. Not to mention that it is absurd to say that we could form a contract with 'the government' (who are we forming a contract with?) You say that government regulation aids us in running our everyday lives. I would like to hear an example of this, an example of how the individuals in a society could not in principle organize some part of their interaction without government interference. For now, I'll deal with the arguments you presented so far: What would happen to our monetary systems? We would use a form of money that the individuals doing transactions could trust to hold its value. Just as we do now. How would we enforce laws? Notice that there would be no laws as we know them now. Only accepted situation for the use of force according to 1. is to protect one's right to self-determination over one's self and property. What would be our means of trade How would this be different? who would regulate this By definition: noone and everyone. and how would countries run themselves? By definition there would be no countries in the current sense of the word. The right to self-determination includes the right to use force to defend that right. Undoubtedly people would use private security services to defend their family and property, when necessary. Notice, once more, the prerequisite for an anarchistic society; that a sufficient amount of people accept the individual rights as presented in 1. In such a society, any attempt to violate these rights would be socially condemnded and more importantly, give any individual in the society the right to interfere on behalf of another.* *Again due to symmetry. The rights as presented in 1 are only actualized in an absolute sense; that is, violation of the rights of one individual is a violation of the rights of any other individual in the society. You misunderstand me. A majority of the people in the society would have to accept the rights as presented in 1. They would not have to, and indeed could not, accept any system of courts that violates these rights. This defines the principles by which the court or justice system could work, although the practical solution could be something we can't imagine. People would adhere to these systems to operate in a given area of society. I will give an example of how such a system could work. Say you wanted to go into the business of wine manufacturing. You have a property that you have inherited from your family. To enforce your right to this property, you have decided to purchase two kinds of services. First, you have purchased security services from a security agent X to protect your property from harm. Secondly, you have purchased legal services from a legal agent A that operates in the area your property is in. Legal agent A and other legal agents B and C defend the rights of property owners in the area. In cases of conflict between property owners, they work to solve the conflict by buying court services from the court agent Z. The system, of course, operates on trust. But unlike in the current system, the market participants would only have their own interest in mind. Thus, legal agents would provide to their customers by defending their rights as well as possible and the court agent would provide to its customers, the legal agents, by maintaining objectivity. The system is flawless because it works on self-interest which is the primary motive of all the individuals in the interaction. I do not hold any fantasies over human solidarity or altruism. Anarchy is flawless because it is based on self-interest. Co-operation in social interactions is often in the best interest of all participants*, this is why, provided that the participants are rational, the participants find the best solution for everyone without government interference. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_iterated_prisoners.27_dilemma

It's gay and doesn't solve the actual problems with F2P wilderness, that is the lack of skilling and moneymaking opportunities. F2P combat is nearly perfect as it is, with perhaps the exception of magic imbalance.

Ima just say Z because idk what NME pulls and everyone else said Z

The argument was not for whether or not humans have the ability to self-determine their own lives, but whether they have the right to do so. While it may be that the world is causal and deterministic to its core, and therefore any choices we make are illusionary, the question here is whether you believe you should have the right to make those choices and for others to have that same right. It is a real choice between authoritarianism and individualism. Here lies a danger of accepting the concept of some sort of natural rights. This is not the case I make for an anarchistic society. The rights proposed as prerequisites for an anarchistic society are legal rights, social contracts, but not between the individual and the state but between the individuals that establish anarchist society. This would require that all or a sufficient amount of individuals in the society uphold the rights as presented in 1. The two most obvious problems are a) it might be that not everyone in the society would accept these rights and B) issues regarding what is considered property of someone. Two likely solution are that a) would in an anarchistic society be solved by private violence machinery and B) by a private court system. Notice that the prerequisite for an anarchistic society as presented here is that a sufficient amount of people uphold the private and property rights as presented in 1. As such, violations of the property rights as established by the private court system would be rare due to social pressure alone. Let's be realistic here. Most people have a fairly good idea of what is their property. It is unlikely that this concept would disappear without governmental laws supporting it. Thus neither would property, because governmental laws are not what actually determines property in a society, it is the concept of property shared by the individuals in that society. The problem you present is indeed a problem between theory and practice, but I maintain that it is not a fundamental problem with human nature. Human nature as an absolute is not a sufficient explanation for 21st century culture and society. Society and culture have proven to have the ability to alter human behavior beyond "human nature", so much so that human nature as biology alone suggests isn't consistent with praxis in societal theory. To go back to what I proposed in the very beginning It would seem that the society does not uphold these values today, and here is the actual gap between theory and practice (as, I suggest, we would otherwise live in an anarchy), but to be an anarchist is to accept these values and wait for the day that the society will too, insofar as waiting is the right way to advance towards the goal.

"Angel Eyes" Sentenza

If government didn't take care of roads, would people stop using roads? Hardly. Roads would be privately owned and the people who use those roads would pay for the upcosts. Clean air is problematic in that the private costs of using clean air are sometimes smaller than the social/public costs. We still don't need government to organize the artificial cost, there are legal ways of determining the proper cost and beneficiaries without government interference. What you mean with Good Property is unclear.

Is this on trips or outside trips?

10 one-sentence replys in 10 minutes, you are certainly desperate for post count.

This is why you don't give EOP clw fights. Gj FI, well deserved.

Any top 5 clan would've beaten FI after all ranks got ddosed. Any top 5 clan. Gratz on #5 Zenith/CP p.s. I think this belongs in clan warfare, just wait for the topic. p.p.s. though I guess it's okay to let out some steam :thumbsup:

No ranks, no problem. That's member quality for you.

Your new idea is not new, there have been plenty of pure FFAs in the past. Lurk more.

Gl cunts

I'm guessing 100v100?

While both parties undoubtedly have an IQ of the magnitude of the temperature outside, lawful protests in public areas should be protected by law.

Tbh that's a good idea.

EOP losing and calling VR mains to help, nothing new here. GJ CP.

Coincidence? More like fate. Gl EOP, FI, do your thing.

Where's the propaganda? Surely you didn't expect that nobody would watch the vid and observe you getting killed by your competition? Gratz on your trip.

Should take starting and ending pics. gj FI

Looks like a clean fight. Gratz FI. What a terribad spot for a P2P run-in though.