|
Saw the 'Debate a Conservative' blog going, and seeing as I'm really bored right now I figure I'd start my own.
There are two main schools of anarchism. Left-anarchists think we should get rid of government and private property and share everything, basically communism without a government. I have no idea how that would work. Myself, I'm a free market anarchist, which means I want to get rid of government and believe strongly in private property rights and laissez-faire capitalism. Free market anarchism (or Anarcho-capitalism) is based on the idea that there is no economic good which the public sector (government/ coercive monopoly) can provide better than the private sector.
Questions welcomed.
UPDATE: *****I would encourage everyone to at least skim this article:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p215
before posting, it is the basis for my arguments and outlines anarcho-capitalist theory in alot of areas that people often bring up, like law, the courts, and the police.*****
More general info on the Austrian school of economics at:
http://www.mises.org/
UPDATE: Found this site searching teh interwebs, I haven't read through all of it but it looks solid.
Anarcho-capitalist FAQ:
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html
 
|
How would that even work? Don't you need some kind of overarching power to support free trade, because otherwise you just get people building forts in the middle of a field with fortifications to keep everyone they don't like out, and then go on hunting expeditions to get food.
|
lololololol i think this is even worse than conservatism :D
What should be US foreign policy ? ( maybe you think US dont need foreign policy ?!!??! )
What about poor people ? Let them starve ?
i feel that this blog will be fun too 
|
On March 08 2008 11:50 zdd wrote:
How would that even work? Don't you need some kind of overarching power to support free trade, because otherwise you just get people building forts in the middle of a field with fortifications to keep everyone they don't like out, and then go on hunting expeditions to get food.
Protection would be provided by private companies, referred to in anarchy circles as PDAs (personal defense agencies). They would most likely be provided through insurance companies, so you'd pay a monthly premium for protection. Kind of like taxes now, except the difference being that PDAs would have to compete to offer the best security at the lowest price lest they risk losing customers, whereas the current government does not need to cater to its customers in this way since people are forced to pay, and it is illegal to form a competing firm.
|
I don't see how that is better at all. Democratic governments are made with the idea to uphold the will of the people. Companies are interested in their bottom dollar. And for that to work, some form of currency must exist, which requires a governing body. Whether to not you call it a government, it doesn't matter, the same structure would exist.
|
On March 08 2008 11:50 Boblion wrote:
lololololol i think this is even worse than conservatism :D
It sounds radical at first, I thought it was too, but the more you delve into it the more it makes perfect sense.
What should be US foreign policy ? ( maybe you think US dont need foreign policy ?!!??! )
There wouldn't be a "U.S."
What about poor people ? Let them starve ?
Communism led to more starvation and misery than any other form of government.
|
How do you prevent those with more power, such as your personal defense agencies, from setting up their own little authoritarian governments?
|
On March 08 2008 11:59 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 11:50 zdd wrote:
How would that even work? Don't you need some kind of overarching power to support free trade, because otherwise you just get people building forts in the middle of a field with fortifications to keep everyone they don't like out, and then go on hunting expeditions to get food. Protection would be provided by private companies, referred to in anarchy circles as PDAs (personal defense agencies). They would most likely be provided through insurance companies, so you'd pay a monthly premium for protection. Kind of like taxes now, except the difference being that PDAs would have to compete to offer the best security at the lowest price lest they risk losing customers, whereas the current government does not need to cater to its customers in this way since people are forced to pay, and it is illegal to form a competing firm.
Here you're assuming that competition will be of the fair type. However, with no laws, nothing stops a powerful security company from simply destroying a less powerful competitor with weapons. Eventually the best security company will destroy everyone, and impose whatever laws they want on their people, and you'd get a totalitarian regime.
The best-case scenario you could hope for is the "power triangle", where you have 3 companies, and each one fears attacking the others because losing soldiers will put the company that is not fighting ahead of the 2 that are fighting. But then you just get 3 totalitarian regimes.
|
On March 08 2008 12:02 Kwidowmaker wrote:
I don't see how that is better at all. Democratic governments are made with the idea to uphold the will of the people. Companies are interested in their bottom dollar.
Companies are accountable to their customers. If they make lousy products or overcharge, a competing firm will offer a better quality item or lower their price and the customers will purchase from that company instead. And so for companies to attain their interests, they must satisfy their customers interest. Compare this with government; government will throw you in jail if you try to compete with a business they have a monopoly over. They have much less incentive to improve their product. In addition, the price they set is not determined by the free market as it should be, but it is set arbitrarily by politicians, which guarantees that the market will not be operating up to its potential. And you're forced to buy their product.
And for that to work, some form of currency must exist, which requires a governing body. Whether to not you call it a government, it doesn't matter, the same structure would exist.
No, government does not have to exist nor does currency require a governing body. It would be in the interest of banks to agree upon a common currency for the sake of efficient business, and they will do what is in their economic interest.
|
What would you use as currency? Without any government a piece of paper seems pretty worthless. Would we go back to using gold? Or bartering with livestock?
|
On March 08 2008 12:05 Mindcrime wrote:
How do you prevent those with more power, such as your personal defense agencies, from setting up their own little authoritarian governments?
If they did, they would quickly lose customers to other PDAs. Also, to set up an authoritarian gov involves conflict, and conflict is expensive. Firms like these would quickly go out of business.
|
On March 08 2008 12:10 Falcynn wrote:
What would you use as currency? Without any government a piece of paper seems pretty worthless. Would we go back to using gold? Or bartering with livestock?
We would likely go back on the gold standard, but this does not mean no paper currency. Banks can still issue paper notes, and it would be in their best interest to standardize them.
|
On March 08 2008 12:02 CaptainMurphy wrote:Communism led to more starvation and misery than any other form of government.
So....it's ok because Stalin did it?
You don't seriously believe the crap your saying, do you?
Edit: That was worded kind of rudely, but I am pretty sure you are trolling.
|
So....it's ok because Stalin did it?
What? When did I say it was okay? How could you possibly even deduce that from my post? Are you trolling?
|
On March 08 2008 12:10 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 12:05 Mindcrime wrote:
How do you prevent those with more power, such as your personal defense agencies, from setting up their own little authoritarian governments? If they did, they would quickly lose customers to other PDAs. Also, to set up an authoritarian gov involves conflict, and conflict is expensive. Firms like these would quickly go out of business.
The problem here is that there is no code of ethics for company behavior. They could threaten to kill anyone that tries to run away from their protection, which would mean that in order to poach customers, another company would have to attack the oppressive one, and then you just get conflicts all around regardless of profitability.
|
How do you make sure that competition in the marketplace endures?
|
On March 08 2008 12:18 CaptainMurphy wrote:What? When did I say it was okay? How could you possibly even deduce that from my post? Are you trolling?
I was just pointing out that you avoided his question by pointing out that worse cases of mass starvation have happened under other systems than the one you support. Just because there are other ideas that are worse than yours doesn't make your idea the right one.
Edit: Not to mention that you are just assuring us that it wouldn't be as bad as communism based solely on your personal beliefs, and not on any sound reasoning.
|
How do you avoid stuff like "wildcat banks" and the savings and loan crisis?
How would public goods be provided (defense, fire protection, etc)? (The free-rider problem.)
How would goods such as roads be provided?
How would the airwaves be managed?
How would pollution be handled?
How would those unable to pay for protection be protected?
Who would arbitrate disputes?
|
Here you're assuming that competition will be of the fair type. However, with no laws, nothing stops a powerful security company from simply destroying a less powerful competitor with weapons. Eventually the best security company will destroy everyone, and impose whatever laws they want on their people, and you'd get a totalitarian regime.
This is no more likely, actually less likely, then our own military turning against us imposing their will on us. You're assuming that a large amount of people are really evil and want world domination, but most people are not this way.
The best-case scenario you could hope for is the "power triangle", where you have 3 companies, and each one fears attacking the others because losing soldiers will put the company that is not fighting ahead of the 2 that are fighting. But then you just get 3 totalitarian regimes.
War is expensive. There is no reason companies would actively seek conflict, and no they wouldn't be totalitarian.
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
On March 08 2008 12:21 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 12:18 CaptainMurphy wrote:So....it's ok because Stalin did it? What? When did I say it was okay? How could you possibly even deduce that from my post? Are you trolling? I was just pointing out that you avoided his question by pointing out that worse cases of mass starvation have happened under other systems than the one you support. Just because there are other ideas that are worse than yours doesn't make your idea the right one.
Socialism worse than Anarchy? LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
