Topic: How spread is drug usage in weightlifting?

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Again, ALL of your complaints about the status quo fall on governments. Government, of ANY type, is run by the rich. So the idea getting rid of government would help the rich is simply absurd. It doesn't matter how much you have studied if you haven't studied the subject we are discussing- voluntaryism and arnarcho-capitalism. In truth, the slaves are getting exactly what they want. They support the government, which is violence, so they have little reason to expect not to be subject to that violence.

[TheRedReaper]

But you fail to explain how getting rid of the government will actually change the economy to my benefit. Will a market not controlled by a government ensure my rubber tree harvesting gets a good price? I don't think so. You blame the governement, but don't provide an understandable alternative. I blame the government, and have alternative. An uncontrolled free market still sounds the same as what we have now, as far as I am concerned.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

But you fail to explain how getting rid of the government will actually change the economy to my benefit.

I summed it up by saying freedom is to your benefit. Freedom will not make you automatically wealthy, for sure. But neither will slavery [government]. Besides, not everyone wants to be wealthy. I do not, for instance. I prefer to work less than be rich. Freedom is simply unbeatable.

You blame the governement, but don't provide an understandable alternative. I blame the government, and have alternative. An uncontrolled free market still sounds the same as what we have now, as far as I am concerned.

You say I haven't provided an understandable alternative at the same time you reject that alternative- a free market. The solution to government is incredibly simple- privatize *everything*. A market not oppressed by government violence is FAR from what we have now. We have fascism now- central economic planning and the pretense of private property [freedom]. A free market can only be controlled by violence, by government, and thousands and thousands of years demonstrate that violence spreads poverty, not wealth. Further, it is actually you who have not produced an alternative. Certainly communism cannot exist without the state there to implement violence against anyone who dares to be different from the herd. And government is certainly not making progress in its "war on poverty", let alone its wars on "drugs" and "terror."

Taxation, licensing, registering, subsidies, etc to infinity ALL keep the poor down. They don't bother the rich much and never will since the rich can easy bribe or intimidate the politicians in to writing rules in their favor. So, again, government is INHERENTLY an agent of the rich used to victimize the poor. Even "welfare programs" fund rich people to provide the services, for a large profit. They don't make the poor wealthy.

[TheRedReaper]

Why does all government have to be enforced with violence? Can you actually explain that? There are of course some examples, but not every country is like this. New Zealand, for example, has never used violence against its own people.
 
And what would happen in an anarchist capitalist society? What if some people chose to hold a vote as to whether they should revert back to democratic or communist government? Would you support those who hired mercenaries to violently silence them in order to protect their luxuries only made possible by anarchy? How would it be any different?
 
And taxation and registration and so on only keep the poor down in capitalist democratic countries. More communist or socialist societies, the poor technically rule the society, and are at great benefit. Things like progressive taxation mean the poor get taxed much less whilst the rich are virtually flogged. Registration (of birth, cars, so on) is often free for people of low income. Yes, some guru at the top of the system is getting rich from the funding he's getting, but he's getting taxed sh!tloads too to pay for his own income. And someone has to get rich - so long as people are getting promoted or employed based on merit, then they deserve to be rich for their hard work and natural value. But when people get jobs based on family or connections - well, that's corruption and needs to be rooted out.
 
I also like to work less. But I still want to be rich. And I certainly don't want to be poor (as I well and truly am now).
 
I hate society as it is in modern times. I don't like any of it. But if I get to choose, I'd choose protection against the exploitation of the elite - those who have the money and power to manipulate things to their own selfish advantage at the expense of others. This is a safeguard that communism, and socialism to a lesser extent, is supposed to provide. Under your model, there is no protection from exploitation. If market prices permitted, anarchism would allow for virtual slavery with wages of those who have no choice in the matter through desperation because they are too poor to invest in another path. You go on about how we are metaphoically enslaved now, but I think it will happen for real if we give capitalists utter freedom.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Taxation is theft, extortion and slavery. In an anarchist society, NO such aggressive violence is legal, only self-defense. No one may legally rob, extort or enslave others. Thus anyone who attempted to form a new government would be treated as an outlaw attempting to set up a terrorist protection racket, which is exactly what government is. Government IS violence, without exception. In fact, it is best defined as a monopoly on violence within a territorial region. Protection rackets are not necessary for protection. There is self-defense, militias, private security, private aggression-coercion-fraud insurance, etc.

[Walter Bailey]

It is slightly amusing that this forum gets less activity than a couple others while being the least censored [only spam is blocked]. But then there is also a lot less chatter about nonsense. I'd take the site down and save myself $10 a month and $15 a year but my hope is that some of the content is valuable.

I used to frequent this forum. I've been away for a long time, and decided to give it a quick look to see what I've missed. I came on this thread to read a discussion on how widespread doping is in weightlifting (because I've never read such an original thread  ). What I found instead was a fascinating conversation on anarcho-capitalism vs communism vs fascism etc. As interesting as it was, it's not what I came to read. I've noticed that many of the threads go off topic and often political...maybe that's why there is less traffic here now? I'm not saying that these conversations shouldn't happen, it's just hard to find the weightlifting talk in between all the politics sometimes...

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Absolutely. Let the "forums" that censor discussion do so. It won't "save" the sport. Silence criticism of this system... go ahead. I approve.

[TheRedReaper]

Taxation is theft, extortion and slavery.

Okay. This is just an idea, however. Philosophy, sort of. It might be well grounded - I'm not saying it isn't, just pointing out.
 
So if you get rid of taxation, you get rid of the idea of being enslaved, but do you change anything? What I mean is, we are taxed and those taxes pay to build roads. Privative road construction and maintainence sector, and you will still have to pay money in registering your car to that now private company to use their roads. If you do not use the roads, you will not have to pay, and you will not be taxed either, so this is good - but most people own a vehicle of some sort. Even poor people in Asia usually own a motorbike (I do).
 
So get rid of slavery, and you still have to pay money. You can tell yourself in your mind you are no longer enslaved, but in reality, little has changed. The cost to use the road might even be higher - have you ever been to Malaysia? I go there once a year or so. Don't ask why, for the sake of the gods...
 
They have roads in Malaysia that are privately owned. Big ones - the highways. These are now tollways. Every couple dozen kilometers, you have to stop at the booth and flash a card you paid for or give them a few coins. I suppose it depends on how much you use these roads on as to whether Malaysians are saving any money from having priavately owned roads, but I personally don't see it as so much better.
 
The idea of privatization of everything will affect some people a lot, really. Having to pay a coin to go to the reference library and research something, having to pay more to send your child to school, costly healthcare, no more free tap water, it goes on and on. It's worse to think that some companies might try to save money on fees they charge for their customers by using advertisement...
"Hey kids. Todays lesson is provided to you by MacDonalds - fresh and healthy food for a growing child!"
 
All these things would have been virtually free for the poor who pay little tax under most decent governments, communist and democratic alike.
 
Again, you're failing to explain why your way is better. You have principles, which is worthy of you. Very decent moral points, you make. But there is seeming to be little hard benefit for the common people. It's just a free for all enviroment with little checks and balances that is open to exploitation...