@39:00 They talk about marxism. 😸

1. And who decides which force is illegitimate? The state? How authoritarian. 

2. Strawman, socialists wish for everyone to be treated equally in certain contexts which is a very different thing from "believe everyone to be equal." I agree, "unique men and women drive society", but every person is a unique man or woman. This isn't some small group of rulers whom we should praise and follow. Your silly characterization of "masses" is real collectivism and based on irrational delusions of grandeur. 

3. How can you in one breath say individuals are unique and then proclaim an "inner spirit of human beings." In Stirner's words, "I am more than human; I am unique."  Human nature is a delusional spook. My nature is not your nature. Your nature is not my nature. Our goals and interests are not the same. This is a perfect example of Capitalist faux-individualism, when real individualists recognized the basis of capitalism as religious "humanism." It's ironic how in one breath you proclaim socialists to "believe everyone to be equal" and then in another speak of "the inner spirit of human beings." How religious and spooky. It'd be laughable if it weren't so dangerous (the basis of anti-social ideologies like fascism, absolutism, and ethnic-nationalism.) 

The governemtn isn't I agree. And the coercion of taking your money against your will to provide an inefficient service that you may not have required with exaggerated costs on the service and overhead... that is a big problem.

And yes as a minarquist Police, Army, Fire Department, roads, legal system and other very basic services I agree to have the government. All else that are necessary on occasion I don't see the need for government to take my money against my will.

If someone have about 1k Usd (or even less) in Brazil he can have sex with 20 girls, your point?

Nope man, considering 10k is the average for entry cars 0km, and that there are 40 years of used cars behind it, even though it is finite (as are the new cars) it isn't as scarce as it being impossible for someone to decide not to buy a new car, save the money and start his business.

Nope, your vision of exploitation view the owner taking the surplus from workers.

Very well summarized.

Agreed, it's always nice to have a pleasant back and forth on the internet about complex issues. Doesn't happen enough, sadly.

Yes, it's idealistic, I recognized it with "so ideally." There is nothing wrong though with using ideals as ultimate goals. By getting closer to said goal one benefits. 

I was trying to say that it was more than just idealistic with the phrase "in generous terms, a very idealistic concept." It seems so far-fetched that pursuing it, even if it's done as piecemeal goals, worries me. I agree that pursuing an ideal, even if farfetched, can be worthwhile, but issues can arise when the belief rests on a number of assumptions working out that may themselves be flawed.

For example, let's say that as part of this pursuing this goal, we somehow convinced a state's government to give up its monopoly on legitimized violence to another group (and we'll further assume that this group isn't inherently beholden to the interests of elites, like, say, private police). Now many of the issues I brought up previously have transformed from hypothetical questions to real world problems, and they are problems that need to be addressed now. Entirely new oversight mechanisms have to be constructed, along with rules and procedures, and maps of jurisdiction, not to mention the inevitable questions of whose definition of "legitimized violence" prevails in different locations. If the actions of some law enforcement officials are questionable now, just wait until cases of confusion over which independent force (the state or this new organization) holds authority in different cases.

That's admittedly an extreme example, but I think it illustrates how pursuing an ideal can be dangerous itself. If the policies we construct to replace a broken system are founded on notions which are far enough removed from reality, they will inevitably run into issues unaccounted for.

Sure, but must this standard be universal? For example, in our current world with multiple states very few people argue that we should have one super-state that acts as the final arbiter of all global affairs. The plurality of nation-states is recognized as something of value.

The standard does not need to be universal across the globe, but I would argue that it needs to be the same, or very close to the same, across a single nation. If we have multiple, competing definitions for what is and is not legitimized violence functioning in the same territory, any semblance of a functioning law will quickly dissipate, replaced by confusion as to what is and is not legal violence.

One also recognizes that the ability to induce violence (through nuclear weapons for example) is a huge deterrent because the costs of doing such are so relatively high. Does this mean that there is no war? Nope, but the probability of war has decreased significantly.The anarchist suggests that such mechanisms of dispute-resolution be replicated at the individual and community levels. That each person (and union of persons) is treated as an autonomous moral agent, and it is through compromise and the fear of the costs of war that people reconcile their differences. All of this can be done without an ultimate and universal arbitrator. This is why I suggest that the capacity to induce violence be at a minimum level.

Furthermore, since there is value in social cooperation and cohesion, if I act violently to others they might choose to ostracize me in non-violent ways. So out of fear for my own life and also out of my material interests (which are bolstered by social cooperation) I am very likely to act social rather than anti-social toward others, unless I have a particular advantage over them. 

You can, of course, always take more of an anarchist approach (or what I've come to call the "Senator Armstrong Theory of War" since 2013), where fear of retaliation largely determines right and wrong, but the issue is that, once again, we run a serious risk of the more powerful simply combining forces (or perhaps not even bothering to combine forces if they feel they are capable enough) to oppress the less powerful with no risk of retaliation. I find the reference to global scale politics to be rather intriguing, actually, because I'm reminded of Russia's takeover of Crimea. Regardless of whether you believe the decision to invade Crimea was justified, it's notable because it speaks to the relative lack of consequences in a situation where surrounding bodies believe that an attempt to retaliate in an appropriate manner could hurt them as well. The sanctions that did ultimately result perhaps speak more to the social consequences you mentioned in the second point, and I'll address that a little later. The bottom line, however, is that one powerful body was able to violently impose its will on another with minimal retaliation from others.

And this itself brings up another important issue, the problem of information. Somewhat obviously, countries who did impose sanctions on Russia were only able to do so because they knew about the event. However, on an individual level, if you take away the state's monopolization on the legitimization of violence, then you are also taking away any reason for the state to investigate a violent crime. After all, if what is and what isn't legitimized violence can differ from person to person, there is no reason to investigate what is no longer a crime. In other words, it's far easier to commit murder and get away with it, leaving other people with no way to know who committed said violent crime, and thus no way to punish the offender. Perhaps this could be resolved to some degree with private agencies, but again this just disenfranchises the poor even more because they will lack the resources to hire said agencies.

This all applies to social ostracization as well, and perhaps even more so. Not only does the information problem make it difficult to determine who to punish socially, but it can also make escaping the consequences of your action far more easily. Arguably the biggest social deterrent from committing a crime is the label of criminal; it permanently brands you as a violator of the law and makes it much more difficult to find employment. However, without a state monopoly on violence, there is no brand of criminal which will follow an offender for the rest of their life. A person can move to a new location and start entirely fresh, with no history of "criminal" behind them. While moving is certainly inconvenient, I wouldn't be particularly comfortable living in a state where the punishment for murder is that some people treat you as a social outcast and which can likely be erased entirely by moving to a new location.

Again, this could be perhaps mediated somewhat by private services; perhaps some sort of database by reporters across the country who look into compiling lists of suspected violent offenders. However, that in and of itself might worry me even more. Not only will the sources for who is and isn't a violent offender likely to be more questionable, but there's less hard evidence determining who is and is not on the registry, likely leading to more wrongly accused people. And, of course, there's the always present issue of favoring the richer.

In the same way that hierarchy is reinforcing, so is anarchy. People when living in a free society will be especially attuned to anti-social, hierarchical, and oppressive behavior and therefore wary of it. It's not in most people's interests to be ruled by others, and therefore there would be strong opposition to anybody who tried to declare authority over other people. 

But that is exactly the concern we have to take into account when considering pursuing a new ideal. No major country on Earth is used to anarchy, and so a transition to any system that resembles anarchy would be riddled with issues where people attempt to take advantage of opportunities to reinforce some sort of hierarchy that favors them, and the cycle just repeats itself. This admittedly gets a bit more entangled with the issue of transition time, which leads me to...

Anarchism isn't something that happens over-night. It requires a lot of social reformation and evolution alongside the political reformation and evolution. It seems unlikely that liberal democracy would've come to exist without the enlightenment, and it's just as unlikely that we disentangle authority without a second enlightenment, which changes how common people think about their relationships with one another.

I think we're at risk of deviating from the original debate over state monopolized violence into one over systems of government entirely, but yes, you're right, and I'm not trying to advocate that anarchy (or just about any major change) happens overnight. What I am saying, however, is that the transition period itself is inevitably going to be problematic. I believe you noted this during your initial response to my first post, but the transition from a monarchal system of government to democratic was marked by people using the resources they had available to them to assert authority, usually via financial influence, in the gaps that were left by the disappearance of a monarch. This doesn't have to be done via creating laws that people have to follow, it can be done by altering the living dynamic so that people can choose to disobey, but they likely won't survive if they do (or they'll be incredibly miserable, at the very least). For instance, children working at British factories during the Industrial Revolution; as a parent, you can certainly opt to not send your child to work at a factory, but your family will probably starve if you don't.

I fear I've been rambling for a bit, but here's where this all hopefully ties in to my larger point. Those atrocities were ultimately reined in by laws; the general population's influence eventually won over legislators to create legal protection for them. In other words, the room for exerting exploitive authority was removed altogether by the state. If you undo the control that the state holds, be it over time or all at once, there is nothing to suggest that power hungry individuals will not step in to fill the newly created void of authority. And if individuals continue to step in and simply use the lack of state authority to create their own hierarchies, the population never becomes used to a rule-less society, and the same harms that I mentioned previously apply, including the issues with powerful individuals allying and attempting to impose their authority through violence.

1. Representatives elected by their local community. Also  if you want to be a stickler about it, we can use the same foundation found in the Deceleration of Independence. Natures Law.

2. You either willfully take what was written out of context or I did a poor job in explaining this. Unique men and women drive society. These people have a drive, a passion, a desire to achieve and accomplish for their personal benefit. They take risk, discover opportunity and act on it. What makes them unique from the overall population is that the majority of human beings do not do this hence why society is advanced by the efforts of unique people. The point of the statement is that in a socialist society the natural drivers of human achievement are snuffed out among the population and are only found in government settings where the motivation is solely on how to maintain their political power. Or as is often the case how to take that power from those in charge to achieve political success; often by blood.

3. I can't even on this one. I am not sure if you're responding to my last point or throwing a fit. Socialism believes in equal results while Capitalism believes in equal opportunity. This is not even in question considering the repeated attempts of socialist governments that all travel down the same road. Mass poverty, destruction of individual rights, removal of property rights and a repugnant loss of human opportunity. 

I am a proud capitalist who believes the driving force for humanity, what will continue to further improve our overall condition, is not found in the halls of any government entity. Rather in the new ideas and efforts of free men and women looking to improve their personal condition by creating new products, services and concepts that we all will benefit from once they are brought to market. 

You don't see the need for the government to take you money against your will? Then how will these things be paid for, volunteers?

You don't get to choose where your taxes go, if you live in America, the likelihood is, is that your literally tax money probably went to the killing of some brown people somewhere. 

If you don't want to pay taxes then live somewhere that doesn't have any.. oh wait. 

The irony of this from a 'Christian Nation'.

Instead of just saying nope, do you care to go into detail? I'll show you an example:

https://www.investopedia.com/news/ceotoworker-pay-ratio-just-276-one-last-year/

Do you think a CEO works as hard as 276 workers combined? If not, that means he's getting the surplus of their labour. If you think that, then there's no point even continuing this conversation.

1. Local community of 600,000 people? That's a pretty big local community, and I find it hard to digest that representatives do much representing anyone on this matter. So I maintain, authoritarianism. As for your citation of natural law, which natural law? Locke's? I suppose you'd then concede to Locke's provisos or do you ditch them out of convenience? 

2. I didn't take what you wrote out of context. The paragraph started with a strawman of socialism, I addressed it as such. Then you chose to generalize most people as "masses" without any interests or goals of their own, which is a silly assertion. Can you substantiate your assertion that only a few people take risks with some evidence or are you merely going off anecdotes? "The point of the statement is that in a socialist society the natural drivers of human achievement are snuffed out among the population ..." If the entire scope of socialist theory were state-socialism, you'd have a point. But there is a branch of socialism which doesn't rely on the state, and in fact is considerably anti-state. This is the socialism we are speaking about in this thread, and yet you are ignoring it. This socialism wishes to make everyone capable of taking risks and innovating, not snuff out the people who currently can innovate. 

3. Substantiate the following assertion, cite a socialist philosopher or thinker whom believes this  "Socialism believes in equal results while Capitalism believes in equal opportunity."

The vast majority of socialists don't want total equal outcomes or "equal results" as you say. They want equal opportunity, like you assert Capitalists want (and which I'd disagree, otherwise Capitalists wouldn't beg for state privilege.) 

Again you cite "socialist governments" when the socialists in this thread wish to abolish government. 

"what will continue to further improve our overall condition, is not found in the halls of any government entity. Rather in the new ideas and efforts of free men and women looking to improve their personal condition by creating new products, services and concepts that we all will benefit from once they are brought to market.  "

I as a socialist, agree. Now let's move beyond the misconceptions  and have a real  honest discussion please. If you're not interested in that, then so be it. 

yes... that's why we have government

that's why services like water are provided through government and ironically enough... you're against government

or do you not realise that government is social cooperation at its very core?

"Sure, exploitation can happen in the absence of the state in local contexts, such as your bully example, but the more an individual attempts to exploit others the more likely others will react in kind."

really? you've never seen people support a bully?

your whole argument here is flawed because exploitation happens across all levels in a society 

"The state allows people to exploit others with no fear of a reaction in kind. "

and that is why we have law and police

but i think you're getting a bit ridiculous if you imply that a business owner giving someone a job is worthy of being attacked because he doesn't give that employee all of his profits and i think that's where you're going with this

since people are as we have discussed different in a multitude of ways... dome people tend to be more capable of defending themselves than others

how do you address the limitations women for example have with this idea?

i think we can agree that women are generally weaker than men and are more susceptible to harm from men..  that problem is address by having the state... what would propose as a substitute?

are you for gun control btw?

"Do you have evidence of an inherent superiority in managing a business, with all else equal?"

....um are you being serious right now?

do you accept that people have varying levels of intelligence, drive, creativity etc etc etc?.. if you do... why ask such a ridiculous question?

"I can accept that some people might have a better education, or they might enjoy finding new ways of making a business more efficient, but I don't think people are inherently born to manage others."

some people are better at leading than other people... do you agree with that?

"for example, that the dictionary definition of feminism "people who believe in the equality of men and women" lacks nuance and context. "

no i don't think so i do sincerely think they believe that and that's why its a nonsensical ideology

and to be frank i'm seeing some connections to what you are posting right now

"In a sense you are correct, we are all complicit to exploitation under capitalism and participate in the system. But it's very much like saying that a person who receives a stolen good is complicit to robbery. Are they the robber? "

look... you yourself stated that the problem with capitalism is that its the use of capital to obtain labour

the point is that you yourself exchange capital for labour

how does store owner or mason or whatever you bought up before get their tools or shelves or whatever? though the use of capital in exchange for labour

"Ultimately we don't have much of a choice but to work within capitalism. "

that's a lie, if you truly wanted to you could go live in the woods off the land

you wouldn't be the first and you wouldn't be the last either

no one is forcing anyone to live within civilisation

people willingly participate and provide their labour in exchange for the comforts that civilisation provides such as electricity, running water etc etc etc

"would be more beneficial to workers than our current one. In other-words, the state shouldn't redistribute anything."

so how would you get your water and electricity?

"I'll start with the big subsidy, does the proprietor pay for his own police force and property protection of every factory, apartment complex, hospital, or any other institution he or she owns or does the state through taxation?"

the state... and everyone benefits... which is why the state exists to begin with....

"There are also direct subsidies (the state directly gives money), bailouts, regulatory capture to prevent competition, and a multitude of other state privileges which capitalists enjoy. "

situations like bailouts like what happened in 2008 i would agree should never occur

"The difference between Steve Jobs and his investors is that his investors had the capital whereas he had the idea. "

you're evading my question

" so... the only difference between steve jobs and you is that he has money?"

" Why couldn't he had just used his ideas and savviness with a bunch of like-minded persons and create an Apple without investors?"

uh he did? apple started with him creating things in his garage

" The market demand still exists."

new ideas create new demand for what is produced by those ideas... you're taking the kart and putting it all down the road from the horse

" Your entire premise was to equivocate value production/wealth creation and exploitation, when the two aren't one in the same."

i didn't say that... so why are you saying that i said that?

furthermore you think that someone voluntarily working for someone is automatically being exploited and to be frank to me that's batshit insane