MattVortex

In Europe, the various Pirate Parties are gaining some ground, most notably in Germany, where the Pirate Party has 19 state parliament seats, and Sweden, where the Pirate Party has 2 European parliament seats.

The founder of the pirate movement, Rick Falkvinge, has created what he calls the 'Pirate Wheel', a platform of pirate politics, which is more than just in support of copyright reform, similar to how the worldwide Green parties have their 'four pillars', which is more than just environmentalism. This includes:

• Copyright and patent reform
• Open government data, transparency and accountability
• Civil liberties, cultural liberalism
• Universal healthcare, education
• Universal, unco

We've been having some discussions in the IRC channel (#anarcho-capitalism on irc.freenode.net) about consumer and employee rights, such as issues like implied fitness for purpose, and implied safety.

There was a case recently in the UK with regards to asbestos, which causes cancer in powder form. Many workers were exposed to it before it was known to be harmful, and developed cancer, and the Supreme Court has decided that employers and their insurers are liable for this exposure.

We might consider another example of cigarettes. It is now well-known that smoking causes lung cancer, but before this was known, or any link was known to exist at all, should ciga

Clearly many people in this subreddit have come to anarcho-capitalism from a deontological perspective, anarcho-capitalism being the consequence of ideas like the NAP, Natural Rights, Argumentation Ethics, Universally Preferable Behaviour, and others. Many prominent anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard, Hoppe and Molyneux have a deontological perspective.

Many of us, however, have come from a more utilitarian or consequentialist perspective. As the sidebar and header say, freedom means more liberty, opportunity, and wealth for all.

What are your thoughts on this divide, on the different philosophical and moral bases for anarcho-capitalism/voluntaryism? Do you consider yourself a deontological

Obviously (by virtue of being in this subreddit) most of you are going to believe that copyright is far too long, far too broad, and should at least allow for non-commercial sharing of information between private individuals.

What are your other views on copyright? Should copyright exist for commercial sharing of information, and if so how long and how broad should it be? Or should there be no intellectual property whatsoever? What about other so-called "intellectual property" laws like patent and trademark?

I'm getting the error 'Can't resolve hostname' when trying to connect. I did an nslookup on the hostname and it didn't work, nor did it work for a friend at a different location who uses a different ISP and DNS servers.

Is anyone else having this issue? If not, could someone provide the IP of the server so I can connect to it directly.

One thing I have noticed when discussing 'capitalism' with communists is a certain problem with definitions. To many people, I think particularly voluntaryists, capitalism might be defined as:

• A free market
• Private ownership of the means of production

Wikipedia suggests it is sometimes defined as a subset of the above:

• A competitive free market
• Private ownership of the means of production, where the owners are usually a different set of people than the workers
• Where both capital-owners and workers work for the sake of profit (the workers profit by selling their labour)

I have heard many communists and social anarchists argue that capitalism would be unsustainable withou

What are your thoughts on the possibility of statelessness in our lifetimes? Clearly statism is very strong right now, but could its stranglehold over the world be broken within the next few decades?

Could the rise of new technologies, such as new, strong cryptography and digital, distributed currencies, help towards this end, by making it difficult if not impossible for states to effectively exert their will over the population?

How long do you think it will take before statism is effectively abolished throughout the entire world? Could we see perhaps a small number of stateless territories in our lifetimes where most countries remain statist?

In the Wings of the Anarchist Movement thread, some other views and ideologies were mentioned, so I'm wondering what other political, cultural and social ideologies and views the people in r/AnCap support.

Rules of the poll:

1. If you agree with something, upvote.
2. If you disagree, leave it alone - don't downvote.
3. If you don't see an ideology you like, post it as another top-level comment. When posting a new one, include a short description and a link to more information (Wikipedia is probably fine).

Edit: I have added some more political views to get some more voting going that I don't per

Consider some services that are provided by various states:

• Police/Internal defence
• Army/External defence
• Healthcare
• Education
• Welfare of some kind
• Justice/Law

There are many others besides. Would it be possible for some or all of these services to be provided by some private organisation (not necessarily working for profit, they may be non-profit), or do some or all of them have to be provided by the state? If so, why can they not be provided by voluntary means (the state by definition is compulsory)?

(To clarify, by 'state', I mean State (polity), not US States.)

A three-parter: Proposed:

1. It is legitimate for the state to grant a monopoly to a creator for their work, which includes restricting others from distributing, transmitting or expressing the work, possibly for a limited time, and possibly with certain exceptions.
2. Copyright is necessary for the financial well-being of creators, and without copyright there would be no reasonable way for artists and creators to make money. A corollary: there can be no substantial creative industry without copyright.
3. Copyright provides a net benefit to society, since by giving authors a monopoly more works get created, and the positive effects to society of more works is greater than the negative effect

I s'pose this is a two-parter:

1. Proposed: It is morally acceptable for us to modify our own bodies using transhuman technologies that improve our physical and mental capacities above and beyond what is currently possible for any human.
2. Proposed: Such technological enhancements are preferable to our natural bodies for the future survival and success of humanity, particularly in the future when we (hopefully) become a space-faring civilisation.

[Original post at r/gue: Proposed: The state is a necessary part of civilised society](http://www.reddit.com/r/gue/comments/m0vod/proposed_the_state_is_a_necessary_part_of/)

What are your thoughts? Can society organise itself exclusively through voluntary means, or does there have to be a single group of people (the state) with whom interaction is compulsory?

By 'state' I mean State (Polity), not divisions like US States.

To expand, it is proposed that it is necessary, at a minimum, within a given territory, for there to be a single group of people who hold the monopoly on force, for interaction with this group to be compulsory (eg through taxation, law), for this group to make, judge and enforce law through some legislative, judiciary and executive processes respectively; and that without such a group, there can be no substantial functioning, organised and civilised society.

Should the tax collectors like HMRC in the UK and the IRS in the US be made to repay the taxes they have stolen from people? Should the police, courts and prisons be made to pay reparations for kidnapping people and locking them up? Should we only demand restitution from the leaders of the system, or from all who commit crimes in the name of the state?

Or, instead, should we agree to some kind of general amnesty and get on with our lives free of the state?