Why couldn't these be funded voluntarily? I would donate money to a local school system if it means keeping the parent-less kids off the streets, and they might have to come up with unique ways to attract donors. If a majority of voters support public schools then they should also support donating to public schools on their own will. If we're going to have public education it should stay at a local level. In the US the Federal Government got involved with education in the late 70s and that fucked it all up.
Capitalism is very flexible BUT unregulated capitalism does not rob consumers of rights, good prices, and such. In capitalism, its all about mass productuion, profits, so ineffecient firms and companies get weeded out. Most of the firms that ever existed have died out, most companies fail, most capitalists take too huge a gamble We are left with companies that have intense competition and as a result, must adjust prices accordinly. Meanwhile, costs presumably go down thanks to innovation and wages go up as overral quality of life goes up. If a company offers shitty wages and was a huge competitor, it will try to increase wages to prevent from drastically reducing its inherrently reducing profit value. SO capitalism causes lower prices, mass stock of products, and possibilty to compensate workers like never before. HOWEVER, companies will more likely than not neglect raises and quality at some times which is why regulation of capitalist economies is generally good to avoid revolutions against state along with corporations failing from consumers getting sick with their company. Capitalism is good in some ways, made the whole world richer and has allowed now for more and more ppl to have leisure time to focus on humanistic thoughts or pursuits of knowledge. But it will eventually fail or disappear as a new economic system emerges.
Looks like us "haves" are going to have to break out the big guns. I have no qualms with taking someone's life if they are aggressing against anyone for material gain. I'm sure the "haves" will have the resources to fend off the dirty knaves who would commit such violence.
How about this. Pure anarchy and then war between the haves and have nots. You want to suck off the government through our money? Well then let you fight for it. We'll see who can buy bigger guns Know your role!
These are questions that would be decided upon (by people working together voluntarily) in an anarchist society. It's not set in stone what would happen in those cases. There would still be laws in an anarchist society. Some anarchist societies may frown upon killing home intruders, while others may not... Rural areas will probably have different laws than urban areas. If someone invades your home and doesn't threaten you at all, killing them probably isn't the best option; on the other hand, if someone breaks down the door and has a weapon, then it's probably within your rights of self-defense to gun them down. Forcing racists to serve black people and forcing homophobes to serve gay people is a benefit? The government discriminates a lot... It protects against some discrimination while institutionalizing and encouraging others. Depends on the kind of security... If you want a personal bodyguard, you're probably going to have to be pretty rich. If you want a subscription to a security company, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to afford that as a blue collar worker. Do you think working poor people have a lot of security?
But then wouldmt that make it not an anarchy? That would just be a setup for a government to be formed ..it all starts with rules...then laws...then ppl to enforce those laws etcetc..imo of course
If u kill some one, state should kill u. Prison is suppossed to serve as punishment too but a rehab system wud work better in my system. Cept for killers, sociopaths, pyschos, child molestors, and horrible shit like tht. Theifs and other lesser crimes that result in an intended death cud prob be rehabilitated until its obvious they aren't or can't stop and then u _________
Anarchy means to live without a state, not to live without rules. A state is not needed for people to follow rules voluntarily, neither is it necessary to bring justice to aggressors who intend to inflict harm for personal gain.
Anarchists get it a lot. It's totally cool. Just think guys. Anarchy means the weed market will be free from regulation by a coercive force of bastards. Fuck the DEA. t-break over?
Damn I just wrote a huge ranting post and my computer froze up on me. Ah well, maybe I'll type it up again later if I feel up to it. Anyone who's interested in approaching the subject of anarchy with an open-mind, especially if you're a doubter, should check out this essay that Kylesa showed me a while back. It was an eye opening read. http://mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf
Fffffffuuuuuuuuuuuu I just hit the back button and lost my wall of text for the second time tonight. Damn you weed for making me all clumsy and shit...I guess I'll just have to consider it my 2nd rough draft and comeback to rehash it later.
Maybe you should start writing your posts in a word processor that background saves every couple of minutes when you're high.
Bro, don't ever type over the webs, you're better off 'copy pasta' their post and put under your document program. Then proceed to type, make sure you save as often as well. Because you know, sometimes you need those info that you learned and was written to your common sense so you can continue to improvised your thinking and ideals. Well, you can just call it... E-Journal. Or 1. ctrl+a 2. ctrl+c proceed to type for another paragraph or so. Repeat