It's an interesting list. I even had to facepalm myself...because there are TONS of privately owned power companies.
The one I'm interested in now is disease eradication. It's a curious term.
Just to make sure we are on the same page...do you mean like..measles and what not?
...there are TONS of privately owned power companies.
And the number of times ice and wind knocked them down I won't even guess.
Do you think they built and rebuilt those lines to our house out of the goodness of their hearts?
No. They did so because government required it of them.
Edited by TasteTheRainbowThey did so under the threat of the use of force by the state.
Sounds lovely.
Because what your saying is effectively...
That you prefer things are provided to you backed by the threat of force.
In your example...people were forced to provide utility service to a remote and likely unnecessary location under threat.
Look man. I'm sorry , but I'm not comfortable with the notion of having people wave around the 'use of force' to get what I want. Or enforce my opinion.
If you are fine with it. Then great. But we don't have much else to say to each other.
If you are interested in peaceful solutions to the problems youve mentioned, I can tell you that they do exist. They do have historical precedent. There is in fact documented statistics regarding how well things were being handled voluntarily compared to how they are handled by the state.
It's just that the books 'and stuff'...as you put it with a delightful and condescending tone don't seem to include any of that information.
If you are interested in peaceful solutions to society's concerns...i recommend you find more books....and stuff....
If you are content to have the state threaten those around you in order to provide inefficient and immoral solutions to society's concerns..
Then we are finished here sir.
There are no "peaceful" solutions that get power to poor people. Not as you define it. And no, there are no "documented statistics" showing basic needs of modern life being met for the masses without government intervention. The fact that government solutions make you uncomfortable doesn't make other solutions suddenly viable.
I had a long list there. Find one.
Edited by TasteTheRainbowI found at least one for each point on the list years ago.So, your claim that peaceful and voluntary solutions don't or never existed really are meaningless.
Whats barely more interesting is your last line!
So forceful!
So very "do as I say or else"!
Amazingly crude and insulting!
It's also completely expected from a statist.
"Go forth and do as I say!"
It's positively priceless .
Funny, why are so many libertarians with answers to these questions unwilling to give them?
Not really... I mean...I'm not accusing you of using ad hominem. It's not like...my feeling on the matter or an opinion.
It just kind of ...is what happened.
I think you are mistaken on almost all of those points.
The exception being power. But I'm curious to look into it.
So, you don't like government because it's backed up by force. I agree that it is, and a **** good thing too. Selfish people exert force to get what they want. Without government what stops them from using force against those weaker than themselves? Not every government does stop that of course, but that's an argument for what *kind* of government we should have, not none. What is the alternative to using force to ensure that the stuff everyone wants is shared, rather than allowing the strongest to use force only for what they want? Please, paint us a picture of your ideal system.
Edited by mazz0
Once again, a compelling argument. I don't understand - if you don't actually want to discuss it, why are you posting?
Also, a doge without a wow! If that's what happens in your anarchist society count me out! 
You provided exactly 1 answer, which you now admit was wrong. Is it possible your other answers are also wrong?
I'm not speaking to the content of that post.. but when I read through it with all the line breaks and positive statements I knew it had to be doge'd.
I'm not speaking to the content of that post.. but when I read through it with all the line breaks and positive statements I knew it had to be doge'd.
Ooh, sorry, I got you and the anarchist himself mixed up, didn't notice it was posted by a different person!
The bear-guarantee of great loss. Making it illegal + having a life worth preserving.What stops people from doing that now?
+ education.
Government makes all three better.
...
Modern education has never been done without government.
...
None of these things have ever been done without some level of government involvement.
To respond to one of your earlier claims, Taste, what about private education? You stated that "modern education has never been done without government." Do you mean that private educational institutions require some social order in which to operate, or that state-funded schools are the only form of education known in modern times? (I suspect you intended the latter, since earlier you also stated that education improves with government involvement, but I want to clarify the issue.) If it's the latter, I would contest the point, but don't want to go up against a straw man if that's not actually your argument.
For the record, I completely agree with your analysis of the power company's replacing of lines to a rural area; it's not in their rational self-interest, as it probably is not profitable to run power out there in the first place, so the government requiring that they do so (and then replace downed lines) is an example of government leveling the playing field for all actors involved (one or even a dozen families in rural areas lobbying the power company to run a line or replace a downed one probably isn't going to get the company to even bat an eye at the problem).
Funny, why are so many libertarians with answers to these questions unwilling to give them?
Now don't go lumping us libertarians in with the anarchists! 
Wow, we really have gotten off-topic. I was just about to mention that the civil tone this discourse had earlier is sailing dangerously near the wind, and then realised we're no longer talking directly about Britain's vote to leave the EU...
I imagine he meant that private education has never catered to everybody, only to the rich.
If you think (exclusively) private education is a good idea, please look at Chile...
The bear-guarantee of great loss. Making it illegal + having a life worth preserving.What stops people from doing that now?
+ education.
Government makes all three better.
To respond to one of your earlier claims, Taste, what about private education? You stated that "modern education has never been done without government." Do you mean that private educational institutions require some social order in which to operate, or that state-funded schools are the only form of education known in modern times? (I suspect you intended the latter, since earlier you also stated that education improves with government involvement, but I want to clarify the issue.) If it's the latter, I would contest the point, but don't want to go up against a straw man if that's not actually your argument....
Modern education has never been done without government.
...
None of these things have ever been done without some level of government involvement.
For the record, I completely agree with your analysis of the power company's replacing of lines to a rural area; it's not in their rational self-interest, as it probably is not profitable to run power out there in the first place, so the government requiring that they do so (and then replace downed lines) is an example of government leveling the playing field for all actors involved (one or even a dozen families in rural areas lobbying the power company to run a line or replace a downed one probably isn't going to get the company to even bat an eye at the problem).
Now don't go lumping us libertarians in with the anarchists!Funny, why are so many libertarians with answers to these questions unwilling to give them?
Wow, we really have gotten off-topic. I was just about to mention that the civil tone this discourse had earlier is sailing dangerously near the wind, and then realised we're no longer talking directly about Britain's vote to leave the EU...
I think it is about the Brexit. It's the same sort of "we can take care of ourselves" blanket nonsense.
Back on track for those of you in the US that don't know about it.
A lot of 'leave' voters are seriously regretting their choice as the pounds value plummets and they only now start googling 'what is the EU'.
Many are saying the refurendum was too close and a revote should be had (not enough majority, not a high enough turnout).
A petition was set up saying 'if the result is less than 60/40 and less than 75 per cent of voters vote it shouldnt count'
Its had over 3million signatures so far and is the most successful e petition in history.
The 'leave' campaign are clamouring 'its democracy , deal with it.'
Which would be fine if it wasnt some clown in the leave camp who had set the petition up because he thought they would lose.
What a total cockwomble
You cant make this up..
The petition wont change anything but it is a good barometer of public feeling . At the moment its about 7 per cent of the voters, so thats about 14 per cent if they all come from the remain camp but a *lot* of leave people are disenfranchised as they voted on the platform of 'lets spend our money on the NHS not the EU' and hours after the result came in the man who made that promise said it was a 'mistake' and the UK may have to move to private health care.
A counter to that petition is that anyone in the world can sign up, and that it's very easy to sign multiple times.
There are at least 30k signatures from Vatican City for instance, and that's a country of 800 people.
The validity of 3 million signatures is questionable to say the least.
To counter any 'old people stole the future of the young':
35% of the 18 to 24 year old showed up as opposed to 85% of those 55 and older.
Decisions are made by those who show up.
There will also be no preliminary negotiations between the UK and the EU. Negotiations will start only after Article 50 has been invoked. The pressure is rising on Cameron to not pass the buck and wait 'till october.
No one will want to start that off as its career suicide.
I think so far 77k out of the 3.5m signatories have been proven to be fake and removed.
Even if it was a million of them its still a significant show of dissent.
For the record i dont think the petition will do much, im mainly pointing out the biggest fear the leavers have right now is the government listening to an 'if we dont win we'll complain' petition that they set up when they thought they would lose.
Edited by GadgeLike I've said before, I'd like to see some polls over the next few weeks showing how people feel about the results. If there's been a significant shift away from Brexit then it could be very difficult for any PM to execute order 50.
I think there will be.
Many people are disenfranchised by the reversal of the '£350m for the NHS' banner reversal
Many people are horrifed at the rise in racism over the last few days
Many people have realised that financial damage has already been done
Many people have realised that 'immigration', especially 'illegal immigration' will now be easier if France and Eire and Spain dont help police borders with Dover, Gibralter and Northern Ireland
Many will not want to see Scotland (and even bloody liverpool) campaigning to leave the Uk
A lot of leave voters did it as a protest vote, a lot for the above reasons and now feel misinformed or lied to, a few are just going 'oh god what have we done'.
I cant see a single 'remain' votes going 'ooh i wasnt too sure, looks like i made the wrong decision after all, the future looks rosey now!'
We're in for 'interesting times'
Edited by GadgeMaybe votes with far-reaching consequences should be weighted based on the fraction of life expectancy remaining.
You can have some education without government obviously, but not mass education. Not universal.
Fair enough.
I think it is about the Brexit. It's the same sort of "we can take care of ourselves" blanket nonsense.
This I can agree with. (Again, libertarian ≠ anarchist.)