1ErViQ…HrpA

Where did I do that? I synonymize law and civil society. You can't have civil society without law. You also can not have capitalism without law.

Law is the foundation of civilization.

That I agree with. And glad you brought up consent of the governed. It is fundamental to a free, orderly and prosperous society.

Not no government. Because government is both inevitable and necessary.

But good government.

Rule - noun
an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do.

That is what a law is.

Rule - verb
to decide officially

That is what courts do.

Yes, consent of the governed.

For there to be order there has to be rules. For there to be rules, someone has to make them. We call that a legislature. And when rules are broken someone has to enforce them. We call that law enforcement. Congrats, you just discovered civil society.

I am saying that the mere existence of a legal system to enforce capitalism defacto becomes government.

To have laws and a legal system you need courts. You need law enforcement (sheriff/police). You need legislature.

I.e. government.

That's preposterous. In order to have laws you need to have an institution with monopoly on ruling. We call those courts. Otherwise it's not law, it's just a suggestion.

Can you explain to me how laws can be competitive? While keeping a straight face.

If these laws were anything but the opinion of men, then why do you need the Constitution in the first place? The entire world would simply self-regulate to the bill of rights no? How is Constitutional law enforced? By wishful thinking?

"Natural law" is not capitalism. It's simply a notions of what ought to be moral behavior. Capitalism is a rules based system that arises when men create institutions to enforce contractual law.

In nature, Might makes Right.

Don't confuse the two

Not the same at all. Government necessarily has to have monopoly on law enforcement in a civil society. Disputes over rights are settled by courts, not by shootouts.

Both are fiction. You do not in fact have property rights, absent law+ courts (which r institutions of state). You can pretend you do, until someone rolls up w. more weapons than you and takes all your shit. Because in law of the jungle, might makes right.

The "universe" does that huh? Got a citation for that? 😂

Without law, you just have roving gangs of the least conscionable plundering and killing with impunity. This is what anarchy is. No order, only chaos, violence and destruction.

Changing my mind would require making an argument in the first place. You have yet to make one.

Make a good argument Daniel, still waiting. If you were confident in your position, it would be easy to do.

Stop playing the victim of your own inadequacy.

Nope capitalism is private property rights, i.e contractual law.

Nature is Might makes Right.

The two are irreconcilable.

Definitely not most. Majority of the people In BSV are rational people who understand the concepts of law and government and want to improve both to better society.

The anarchists are fringe, someone like Derek is just a disgruntled BCH'er w. bad ideas.

Helping me? Daniel has yet to answer a single question or make a substantive argument. He is currently busy trying to run in circles on how to best avoid making any argument at all without looking like a fool to his followers. Like every anarchist ever.

lol

How does the "le universe" dictate private property rights, contract law, criminal law and other laws necessary for a functioning society?

I really just want to force anarchists to make arguments for their nonsensical positions. The concept of Law is the Final Boss that they keep wiping on 😂 Even a full raid of their best equipped adherents can't get past the first phase.

I don't have a problem generally with minarchism, I myself learn mostly that way.

My problem are anarchists who use empty rhetoric and worthless mantras with zero substance, thinking that their ideas are anything but bad fiction. Communists of the right.

What a copout. You have conceded the argument because you have no coherent or logical answer to these very basic questions. anarchism is a cultist ideology. Answering means you expose the absurdity of your position. Derek also can't answer. Charlatans.

Dude are you serious? You keep avoiding basic questions. We both agree that law is 1) necessary and 2) capitalism is a function of law.

So far so good. The question then becomes both obvious and important: How is law to be created and who creates them?

You wrote a lot of nonsensical red herrings to divert attention away from the fundamental question I am posing. You can't answer the question because it destroys anarchism.

In society there must be rules. Who makes the rules? Who enforces the rules?

I assume you believe in laws, and that laws are necessary for capitalism. Private property rights is a function of law after all. What I am asking is for you to describe the process of creating and enforcing a law. How does that work in practice?

How about you make an actual argument that I can engage with, I don't care much for listening to a sermon of your favorite cult leader, that you have outsourced your thinking to, proselytize his ideology.

Your position makes no logical sense.

You say you believe in rules, but you don't want any mechanism of enforcing those rules. Neither have you told me who makes the rules. These are extremely basic questions you fail to answer.

If you want to convince me of anything, I am asking you to do the simplest thing one can reasonably expect - make an argument. If your leader's arguments were so convincing, you should be able to state the positions and defend them vigorously, no?

So you want government based on God's commandments? That is a reasonable position to have. Now who will be the enforcers? The church?

Either? Both? Just make an argument lmao. This kind of silly game of avoiding basic questions is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Anarchist ideology is extremely fragile when one question can have its adherents tied in a knot.

Human law? Can you define this term for me? You mean laws made by man?
It's getting pretty clear that I am talking to cultists here who just make shit up on the fly and respond with nonsensical answers because you can't create coherent arguments.