Theft=taking of someone else's property without their consent.
Ryan: When one simply looks at the definition of theft, how is your above claim valid?
I'm defining theft in another context, through a much broader vast scope of life. The fact is that you need energy to live, but the current economic system demands that you must give energy to others first as a means to take, which is a sort of theft. Labor is a sort of involuntary theft, which is necessary for survival. Your own energy is your highest property of all in my opinion, and people demand it as a means satisfy their own desires. So the present life is a sort of theft. Life is a sort of slavery.
Using the terms negative and positive liberty is completely off base, in fact if I am correct in understanding what you mean by positive liberty, there is no such thing. Liberty only exists when we are free from coercion by our fellow man. And coerce is exactly what government does BY DEFINITION. Government being an entity that does in fact govern, control, and guide their subjects through taxation, threat of imprisonment, or death The antithesis of liberty. So its a blatant contradiction that government provides liberty, positive or not, when in fact its purpose is to do the exact opposite.
Your definition of liberty is missing one factor. In my opinion, the definition of 'Economic Liberty' also includes the positive right to have suffering alleviated by specialists. It includes many positive rights, the right to have certain vital and essential services provided even if you cannot afford them. I include these positive rights in my definition of liberty.
.Regardless of what you say here, I still don't want government in my pockets, bottom line. If I die from cancer at age 65 as opposed to age 75 I don't care because I lived my life freely instead of as a slave, and I am in no way responsible for whether or not someone else gets health service. Secondly if I do directly address your health care scenario; what makes you think that the price of health care wouldn't drop dramatically due to being forced to compete in the free market just like every other industry? Patents and intellectual property do not exist under anarchy so they can not be used to prevent others from using technology someone else invented, and making it even better. It seems like the only services that are over priced are the industries that government has their hands in. As for anarchy being to extreme, I have no problem with that because it leads to extreme liberty, something I am fully supportive of. If you ask me, any form of government is too extreme, in an anti-liberty type of way
And so, you’re strictly adhering to your “negative right” definition of economic liberty, which is how most libertarians and anarchists tend to think. It is a very common view, and has a certain amount of truth to it, but it doesn’t solve the pragmatic problem of how to provide expensive vital services to all income classes, and liberalism government philosophy addresses the issue, while libertarians and anarchists ignore it because they can’t find a solution that finds into their ideology.
Anarchy is an ideology which promotes the elimination of the State from society: it is against all coercion, hierarchies, undue authorities and attempts to enslave or beat down human beings. More simply, to quote Benjamin Tucker:
What about a government that serves the people? In my province of Nova Scotia, there is very little corruption, coercison, or abuses of authority, I would say that the government in my province are simply servants of the working class. Most are retired teachers, lawyers or doctors that simply wanted to give back to the society, and so they got involved in politics to improve conditions.
because it represent the means by which the concentration of wealth and power is accelerated.
Do you think corporate wealth and power is always evil? Do you realize that a company cannot improve its product without an increase of wealth and power?
the fact that they maintain work hierarchies, that they concentrate wealth, that they concentrate power, that they exploit their "customers" (as mediated by government action), their suppliers, and the third-world, and that they are fictional entities, like God if God was less of an asshole and got a sudden urge to hoard as much money as possible.
But some people are more intelligent and gifted, while others prefer to do drone like positions, where they don't have to think, why do you object to what people prefer to do? A hierarchy is inevitable in a world of relative intelligence and talent. Civilization cannot function with the degree of complexity it has unless there are specialized command hierarchies.
The synergy between government and corporations, which is manifested in a number of social phenomena (statist justice system, property rights that exclude use/occupation rules, a centralized banking system that controls the currency and its parameters
America is an extreme example, and libertarian and anarchist thought is an extreme reaction to extreme tyranny, but there are moderate countries that do not abuse their central monetary power, or political power, and they are able to keep their inflation levels quite low, while keeping a growing middle-class of people, with a smaller wealthy class and poor class.