Comment: Who decides who an

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: uhhh (see in situ)

Who decides who an

Who decides who an arbitration company is? Customers; with their money. More importantly; who decides who "isn't" an arbitration company. Customers; with their money.

Lets reverse this; who decides who a government court system is? Your political masters though you "may" be stupid enough to think your vote plays a part. Of course even if it did, we might discuss the problems with raw democracy.

Who can get rid of said corrupt court system once it becomes a protection racket for the gang? Walls upon walls of human meat smacking into a barrage of bullets and pretty much nothing else. Good plan. Your system is really working out well. How many people are in our government's prison system for victimless crimes now?

I admit that not only can I not, but no human can predict the trillions of micro-economic decisions that occur within a free market every day, which is exactly why central planning always fails. Humans are diverse and brilliant, especially when motivated by personal gain. Do you imagine that humans would not rise to the occasion of filling niches left by the absence of a nanny state? Given that the largest customer base on Earth is the poor, do you imagine that said companies wouldn't try to produce products that are accessible to that massive segment of the population?

In absence of a criminal gang's court system, do you imagine that humans would stop wanting legal protection and safeguards? Do you imagine that with an overwhelming desire for this service, that other humans would not find a way to make a profit while delivering this service? If it was universally understood that theft was a crime, even when its called "taxes" do you think that people would just move into caves and no longer require the basic services we now ask governments to provide?

What do you think the difference between a company and a government is? Both are groups of humans who organize for a purpose. One assumes the right to commit crime with the sanction of idiots, the other holds no illusion that it can violate rights. One can never be removed without bloodshed, the other can go bankrupt and vanish if it fails to provide a service people want. One grows corrupt because of monopoly, the other is held in check by free market competition.

This isn't complex. You either have a society that believes its okay to deprive people of their rights, in which case you wind up exactly where we are today, a breath away from financial collapse and nuclear holocaust, or you do not.

One thing is clear, a free society will only be possible with advanced technology that allows us to communicate globally and achieve transparency. In a pre-internet age, voluntary society is utterly impossible because gangs take control of information and dominate by force. The internet brings the world together, and this trend will get stronger as technology grows. All governments lie about everything for a reason, because the truth sets us free.

That same technology that sets us free, will allow companies to provide every service governments now pretend to provide, but without gross rights violations and outright crime.

I don't understand, are you trying to tell me you are dumber than a grapefruit, or do you mean to say that like a grapefruit, I am very good for you? You would certainly benefit from digesting what I'm giving you. The NAP and the philosophy of Liberty is like fruit and vegetables. Perhaps not as appealing to the weak minded, but certainly more healthy. Statism is like fast food. Convenient since its already here, but the more you eat the fatter, stupider and more disease ridden you become. I suggest more grapefruit and less Big Macs my friend.