EPTAnarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Matrijs
United States147 Posts
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor? I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own: How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor? Short answer: market decides. Long answer: Man, Economy, and the State by Murray Rothbard Real answer: only knowable when it happens My answer: Law does not come from the ruler. Law comes from the people's sentiment and ethical constructions, culturally, instinctively, naturally, theologically, however you may believe. The law is whatever most people consider fair. Law codes can be freely written just as biology books are written, or medical books. They describe problems, issues, rights, and guidelines on how to best solve disputes in a way most people agree. Market courts have verdicts just as today; but they aren't monopolistic nor coercive of course, and their rulings are more like opinions. However, the many courts seeking to settle disputes have a direct profit interest in being popular - the better they settle issues, the more people their hear, the more money they make. So you can see there's a profit incentive to use decent law codes and be fair to the extent a court's customers pay them to be so. Fraud is a problem of dispute. Goes into the above. How it can be punished. There are many ways. In ancap, all the land that is used is owned. A criminal could be denied going to malls, stores, parks, across the street, or even just leaving his home. People would require him to go to court when he's called on a serious issue. If he doesn't, he hurts his reputation and that's one thing that can happen. I personally endorse getting rid of violent sociopaths if they're proven in court to be a menace to society, either killing or sending them for rehab somewhere. PDAs aka private defense agencies are hired by people to enforce court rullings, but they're mainly defensive - they can't risk agressing or they can be sued just like anyone else. Every bullet comes to a cost, and again, like the courts are paid to solve disputes, the PDAs are paid to defend the customer's due property. They are as popular and profitable as they are deemed reliable in doing so. Agressive pdas.. risk losing popularity, hence profit, and can particularly be retaliated against seeing that they're a greater menace to society than old guys with wigs sitting on some weird pedestal. Currencies... more of the same... banks would be the most able to issue exchangeable notes out of people's deposits, and the most popular banks would be those that are the most reliable and have the best exchangeable notes. PDAs are just like your cops today, minus the thuggery, because a cop being rude with its customers cuts into his own paycheck and possibly risks his employment status at the company. Unlike public police, there isn't just one, there is as many as the localities are interested in. And unlike government jobs, cops don't have the huge amount of insurances, securities against termination, benefits, great pay... a cop today could kill someone and only be suspended for a month no problem. I don't think such absurd, popularity-shrinking, profit-losing, criminal behavior from any employee would be legally forgivable, let alone allowed to keep one's job. At least as much as a cellphone store would keep an employee who constantly breaks people's phones and harasses them. I don't know what you mean by reproduction of labor, but if you think government jobs are real jobs, I don't think I can help you that much on that. Forcing people to pay for anything, isn't a job. It's theft. If the job is desirable for a customer, he can and will pay for it. Why steal from him to give back to him the services that you assume he wants? Again, sorry if that ain't it. | ||
|
nashface
United States5 Posts
Our government is incompetent and stupid. The solution is not no government. The solution is a better one. | ||
|
keynest
United States57 Posts
If there is no entity to enforce private property rules, there is no ownership; the strong takes what they can and the weak has to bear what they must. In such violent environment, a market cannot prosper. As a result, the system of capitalism breaks down. Anarchy means no market. No market means no capitalism. Let's say that you accept the smallest government to enforce these rules. Is this enough? No, because the simple ownership system is flawed. Who owns the air? Who owns the river? We have to use this resource but the market cannot allocate them through private ownership, so it's overused and polluted-leading to the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want to put up with the pollution level of early 19th century London? The thing is free-market and free-enterprise system, even with their tremendous efficiency, are not without flaws. You can make a more valid point in arguing for freer market through less regluation. However, it is very hard to actually support Anachro-Capitalism. | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment. I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads. A few questions arise: Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid? Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices. Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already. Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good. Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment? How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back? Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes, anyone can be an entrepreneur, however everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed. Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house? Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely. Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible? Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job? Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed? So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical? Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners? Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example). So the government takes role of being a watch dog over the corporate state. What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point. The results are as such: 1. People need a means for survive. 2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors A) Skill set of any given person B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources). C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc). 3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation. 4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power" 5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position. A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy. B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc) 6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder. A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position. B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level. 7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer. I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently. I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice. On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices. Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does. I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place. Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation. You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money. You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: You're correct in that the problem is not the 1% of utter basket cases that fit through the cracks. We can deal with that. The real problem is that we're all just a little bit sociopathic. Given a choice between us and them, we pick us, and in so many cases 'us' boils down to 'me'. Very few people can make the leap of considering themselves as part of a greater structure and measuring their own health by the health of that structure when it comes to making decisions- they understand the concept, but they don't apply it. Subjective rationality is a very powerful concept that you should understand, as it's vital to working with Acap. Formal, traditional rationality does not factor in a whole weave of things as economic values. Subjective rationality does. Once you understand subjective rationality, you can begin to construct a model that does not 'hope for the best' as far as human nature and society goes. It can hold every variable, from mad irrational hatred to cold mathematical logic, and give you valid output data I read you dude, same here. But we have to be careful not to believe in something because we want it to be true. If we want something to be, and it is not, we have to figure out why it isn't properly, and the 'oh woe government' argument doesn't do that very well. The state exists because people made it, and we have a tendency to make states and collectives, which naturally vest in authorities and become the great nation-states we have today. If you destroy one state, another will arise unless there are deliberate and organised steps taken to prevent it- which in itself is a state of sorts. The economics are simple and, like the dilemma, so long as the assumptions hold true (division of labour increases efficiency, human problem solving is synergistic etc) it's not something we can fight- people will form states, and those states will involve many people delegating authority to fewer people so they can produce more efficiently without having to worry about it. We can look to make a better system, assuredly, but we can't just say it's horrible and bad and it shouldn't exist. That don't help any. Uh... what? People are sympathetic, therefore, they will want to form a coercive monopoly of power? I don't see the link here. Humans are cooperative beings, the reason why only 1% are sociopathic is because they're generally WORSE at life; they don't feel other people's emotions even though they can pretend they do. It is like not having sensory pain. Feeling other people's emotions is extremely useful in knowing when to smile, when to laugh, when to frown, when to pinch someone, when to hug, when to kiss, when to punch them in the dick, etc. They're socially handicapped, even though it is extremely USEFUL for the purposes of coercion; they can do it without sentimental, moral, or instinctual blockage. Aiming the gun better, sending the troops at the right place, blowing the right targets, they can kill rob and rape like no other. But that is NOT generally something that rises you up. It is very circumstantial. And as much as I like to say that the sociopaths flock the state, it is not like 50%, or even 10% of the state is filled with sociopaths. Most presidents do feel like they're doing the right thing, generals, advisors, secretaries. If they didn't believe, not even a little, it would indeed take a sociopath to live and work like that. And it doesn't follow that from any description of human nature, that the state is inevitable. There just isn't such a thing. It's not like there's a state gene. I'm a human too, am I craving for some whipping on my butt right now? No... that's silly. State is a means, and it has been consistently chosen as the best means for a while now. But I reject it still, just as someone in colonial america could have rejected slavery, or a serf in a feud, or a servant in a monarchy. On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: The trouble with the way you're arguing is exactly that you're trying to explain a perfect place FIRST without considering and lining up how to get there- and so people will always question your assumptions, since you haven't outlined them all. Historically, the most effect method of convincing a group or person of a novel argument is as follows advocate: I have this great idea, what if XYZ? critic: it won't work. advocate: I see. Very well, do you agree that If A is true, B is true and C is true, then XYZ is plausible? critic: but A B and C *aren't* true advocate: I know, but if they *were* true, do you agree it would work? critic: I guess so... advocate: My challenge, then, is to demonstrate that A B and C are possible to make true simultaneously. critic:: B will never happen advocate: very well, again we must make some assumptions. If D E and F are true, we agree B could follow? critic: ugh, ok, yes. advocate: Right, then, my challenge becomes to make A, D, E, F and C simultaneously true. And so on. Now, this might sound a little arcane, but it's quite elegant. It rests on the principle of getting your critic to agree with you each step of the way. You work your way down through the abstract, proving elements as you go using unestablished assumptions. Then, once you have reached a point where once these unestablished assumptions can no longer be challenged, you can begin working from the point closest to reality that your critic understands, instead of trying to sell them something ten, fifty or a hundred steps down the line- each one of which they can challenge out of any semblance of order or coherency. Okay, I hadn't thought of it this way directly, but yes, the purpose of the thread was to both collect what premises do people find necessary for ancap to work, and to teach to those that are interested what it even means. On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: So instead of trying to convince people of things they will never accept, don't try and convince them yet. Simply convince them of things that make sense. State that you are assuming in abstract that X and Y and Z. If someone challenges one, think about what would have to be true for their argument to be false, and break it down again. Well you see, I did make two threads before. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121813 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133085 but they weren't that popular on average... People respond more when the topic is more tempting LOL On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I must add, of course, that if you fail, you must man up and change your scenario or abandon it. If you cannot establish that you truly could make an assumption, then you've based your reasoning on false premises and have to modify it. Sometimes this can be easy enough (I assumed that humans natively do X. It has been established that this is not the case, but I *can* assume that in Y scenario, they will do X, so Y scenario must be true for this assumption to hold). Sometimes it can be impossible ( I have discovered that I can never assume that reapers will *always* be OP). I knew this myself. But there's also the possibility that the state has brainwashed them so hard that they won't listen to reaon. Obviously I don't argue that route as it is meaningless as an argument, but just saying, that it may be true even if the whole society decides to incinerate me for merely saying it (hint hint) On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: This is a formulation of argument that is easy to do structurally, but puts a lot of intellectual work back in your camp. However, if you DO pull it off, you will be the next Darwin or Newton, concepts proved in such a manner are almost impossible to argue with. lolkthxbyebbq | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 12:37 SharkSpider wrote: I think this paragraph shows one of the major weak points in your stance. Let's say I start by saying that human nature is pretty bad, overall, but I accept that it applies to anarcho-capitalism and any democratic state at the same time. I might then argue that there is no state that exists in an entirely democratic sense. Constitutions are written by particular people, who may be above-average in terms of how "good" they are. These constitutions provide a bulwark against democracy and anyone appointed by democratic means. So, if I argue that a perfect democracy with no laws that cannot be overturned by a majority does not form a "good" society, then the same arguments could apply to anarcho-capitalism without necessarily applying to any state. This could be extended to argue that a state founded on "good" principles would persist while one founded on "not good" principles would fall, leading to a sort of "survival of the fittest" among constitutions. For a current example of how the use of constitutional laws can (maybe) prevent the inherently evil majority from making bad decisions, take a look at California. Here's an example of a majority attempting to remove a constitutional right from a minority. (If you disagree with me about this particular case, you'll have to forgive me, because I'd imagine it would be impossible to find a case in which a constitution has opposed a majority that isn't politically charged.) If you prefer theoretical examples, consider a theoretical country that has 101 male residents and 99 female residents. In anarcho-capitalism or pure democracy, 101 males, if "evil" enough, could vote that females no longer retain the right to vote, but a constitution may prevent this by guaranteeing all males and females the right to vote. Either way, I think that this provides a sufficient challenge to your assumption that all arguments concerning human nature that would apply to anarcho-capitalism apply equally to states. Okay, so, because both ancap and democracies are somewhat populists, if one is bad, the other one is just as bad? Is that a good sum-up? I'm gonna write assuming it is. Okay well, I'm not going to repeat myself thoroughly but you don't seem to agree with me on what laws are. Laws don't come from some ancient paper written by guys with wigs and beards, they come from people's moral cognitions, which in turn, come from the culture, god, genetics, yadda yadda yadda. Second, yeah, a democracy isn't really all that bad if they respected private property rights. But they don't. By definition, property rights isn't the highest priority, populism is. So the difference between anarcho-capitalim and democracy in the law sense, is first of all, property rights comes first in ancap, populism second. Populism is first in a democracy, property second. Third. The system is designed differently. Democracies, as good as they can get, aren't decentralized. They are one and only, and all the people in a huge area have to compromise their laws. Ancap suffers no such restriction. People assemble as they want, and laws are secondary to conflict resolution. Welp, perhaps I could put it this way. Ancap - conflict resolution comes first, laws are a tools for that. Democracy - tries to establish an ultimate law code first, then the rest of the system next. I think it's much better to start bottom up eh. And there's austrian economics reasons for that which I've explained ad nauseum in this thread... market... incentives, ... price signals... competition... uuuhh I'm going to throw up. I hope that answered enough | ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On August 30 2010 11:46 SharkSpider wrote: In arguments like these, you can always pick out the people who understand economics from those who don't. Fact: Left-wing governments, minimum wages, labour movements and unions fix the wages in certain industries at levels higher than "the going wage," which is what corporations would offer baesd on traditional supply and demand style economics. Fact: When there is a wage floor above the going wage, companies that are interested in profit-maximization and who experience diminishing returns on labour will opt to hire less labour, because labour is less efficient. The result is that the more power labourers have over wage bargaining and the higher the minumum wage, the higher the unemployment rate. If the minimum wage lowers, the power of unions decreases, or the productivity of labour increases, it becomes profitable for firms to hire more labour and reduce unemployment. What you're doing is viewing a natural process in economics as exploitation. No matter how up-in-arms anyone chooses to get, the power to employ rests with the owners of capital. When the price of labour is fixed at a level that makes it impossible for the profits generated by a unit of labour to "rent" the capital used to attain those profits, labour will not be hired, and in addition to this, the accumulation of capital will be discouraged, which simply works to perpetuate the situation. EG: Factory for one worker costs $1000 to rent every year, one worker at the factory generates $2000 yearly, then that worker should be paid $1000 yearly. If minimum wage is $1500 yearly or if the union in charge of that sector is able to force $1500 yearly, that worker will go unemployed because the corporation would lose money by hiring them. Either way, I won't disagree that corporations have a lot of political power, but you're disagreeing with a simple economic principle and providing no backing for it. I chose to take a moral and ethical viewpoint instead of a strictly economic one because someone's well-being should not have a dollar sign associated with it. I also think it's pretty hilarious how hard you're over analyzing my points, and how many deductions you make about my opinions when, as a matter of fact, I agree with many of your viewpoints. The government may make mistakes and overcompensate for things to try to win over the common worker. This doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be watching over corporations to check for corruption or at least be given the option to check a companies book keeping if needed. Watch as I point out all your deductions... Left-wing governments, minimum wages, labour movements and unions fix One generalized term and two other terms in which I mentioned NOTHING about. When there is a wage floor above the going wage So the same as fact #1 except instead of minimum wage you used an elaborated explanation. Never mentioned anything about minimum wage dude. Just because you can point out that min. wage causes lay offs doesn't mean anarcho-capitalism is the end-all argument to all economic theories. Like I said, I agreed with a lot of your points, but you were too busy being pretentious with your deductions to see that just because I don't agree that anarcho-capitalism is the way, doesn't mean I think our current system is perfect. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 12:49 geometryb wrote: because government and law is unavoidable. A business is just a mini-government or government is just a really big business. you can see the obvious parallels between a business' organizational structure and the governments'. A company decides within itself the rules regarding how to divide resources, relationships with co-workers, security measures, how to handle the buildings and property. Law can be both written and enforced spontaneously. Governments and companies are nothing alike if you know the calculation problem On August 30 2010 12:52 geometryb wrote: imagine getting dropped off with your fellow anarcho-capitalist buddies in a new world. The first thing people do is come up with a scheme for leadership and decision making. They can call it a "business," but they just created a government. They'd only go after you if you fucked with them though. No taxes or positive obligations... hardly a government. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
| ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
On August 30 2010 13:47 Yurebis wrote: Law can be both written and enforced spontaneously. Governments and companies are nothing alike if you know the calculation problem They'd only go after you if you fucked with them though. No taxes or positive obligations... hardly a government. for the first thing, government - direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants. That sure sounds like what a business does. for the second thing you said, you dont have to pay taxes, but you're obligated to follow the direction if you want to belong in the business/tribe/community. maybe when the community starts creating currency, then you would have to pay taxes. businesses can financially/economically plan. they can issue their own currency if they wanted to. make their own bonds. you even mention private banks coming up with their own currencies. | ||
|
keynest
United States57 Posts
Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills. This is another good point. Despite the biggest financial crisis, people seem to forget that humans are still far from Homo Economicus. | ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
am i the only one that sees it this way? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 12:57 Matrijs wrote: I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own: How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome? -Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia. Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want. If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time. It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there. Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty. See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 13:15 nashface wrote: Yurebis: What evidence do you have that the partnership formed by A and B, multiplied trillions of times over history, will never coerce C (exploit, fuck over, whatever your term)? Some naieve concept of business ethics? And how can you say anyone at any part of the system can leave it at anytime? Ever heard of slavery? A great business idea, that one! The myth of the free market has already played itself out in imperialism-> today. You are right about the Fed and fractional reserve banking though. You also need to realize, corporations will never have the foresight to stop themselves from making a profit before the point of no return, at which resources become limited and people start dying. The only efficiencies they really contain are precisely because of this singular goal - the acquisition of prophet, which, even you would agree, the free market absolutely demands. Our market is not too regulated - its too free. Thats what makes it suck. Thats why the only thing really happening right now is that as people grow and contribute to our economy, making and producing and innovating, every so often the "free" market advocates like the large banks, large corporations, and the fed contract the economy, ruining millions of peoples lives and consolidation money at the top, eliminating the middle class. See current economic status for examples. As long as their are enough retards to call Obama a muslim and wave their guns at rallies, they will continue to vote against the simple leveling of the playing field against people who take advantage of them "coercion" constantly, and they will continue to vote against their own interests. And sweden is not fucking anarcho capitalist. Thats ridiculous on its face. Our government is incompetent and stupid. The solution is not no government. The solution is a better one. Whenever I said that the won't, it had a context. It won't - if they want to keep popularity up. It won't - if they don't want to risk retaliation. It won't- if they don't want to lose profits long term. And if I did let go once twice or thrice that they won't, period, then I mean generally. Of course I don't know how the fuck some certain individual in a remote time that I don't know and that was raised in a culture that I don't know will ever do anything. Hell, I don't even know what I will do, much less someone else who I don't have access to the consciousness of. The private company will tend to coerce LESS, because it doesn't have a monopoly, because it's profits depend on popularity, because people can retaliate better when they're not being robbed of 30%,40%,50% of their income. Slavery wasn't that profitable. If you don't believe me fine, it's a shitty argument of yours anyway. It comes at a greater cost for you to babysit and take care of the slave like he's an animal, than letting him take care of himself, then voluntarily work to you. Because it takes "mental work" to figure what the slave needs - food, clothing, housing, and instead of working that yourself, you can just pay him the due amount you think it would cost him to get that, and he does it himself. Boom. The slave-owner-now-entrepreneur just saved a bunch of money by switching to GEICO. How is imperialism -> today an example that free market works...? wtf. And Lol, you're saying entrepreneurs will constantly go broke because they can't manage their resources? LOL. And I assume you're saying that STATISTS CAN MANAGE RESOURCES BETTER? DOUBLE LOL. No. All the government owns is obtained coercively. THEY lack the market mechanisms to know if tomorrow they'll have enough money. THEY lack the price signals to know at which price to sell their products, or by how much should they tax its servants er slaves er taxpayers. THEY lack the most basic market incentives of supply and demand to know when to stop RAPING EVERYONE. Entrepreneurs that are allowed to own their own property have not only the best intelligence over how to use their own capital (as opposed to a no-liability bureaucrat sitting in D.C. miles away and unconcerned with the financial stability of anyone but his lobbyists, and as much worried about his voter as it costs him to prop up his campaign next year and get more voters back to >50%). They know best when to stop because contrary to popular thought they do care if their property will be worth less. They only do no care when GOVERNMENT LEASES TO THEM STOLEN SHIT. Then they can deforest, overmine, do whatever the fuck they want. Hell it's private property, if they don't do it, some other company will come around, pay off the state pimp, and slap that bitch before they do. OUCH. Goddamnit I didn't go through half the post yet. Prematurely posted. GOING ON. The central banks are FREE? WHAT? Did you ever try to figure out what one needs to start a FED-approved BANK (entitles you with <1% interest rate loans)? It's like initiating into the mafia. You need in total hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get started. The banks are in a whole league of their own it's not free AT ALL. It's a cartel, a legal cartel. And it's a no-brainer why they're so big and fucked up. Because you're not allowed to compete. They have the backing of Washington, you don't. Government of the people? YEAH RIGHT LOL. Some guy who sold liberty dollars, wasn't even a note intended for trade, just redemption into silver, was raided by the feds and got all the silver taken. Read stories of people getting raided for gold in the past, idk, 70 years. It's ridiculous. It's too free? You got to be shitting me. I never even once wrote the word "sweden" in this thread, and taxation is coercion, yes, you may not consider it, and be a good citizen. Good for you. But it's a fact. You don't pay, you go to jail. You resist, you get shot and Die. Simple. | ||
|
keynest
United States57 Posts
On August 30 2010 14:03 Yurebis wrote: -Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia. Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want. If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time. It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there. Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty. See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series. Hmmm, I don't know about you but I really want that big stupid externality badly. One of them is called national security. Do you have any bright idea on how to prevent free-rider problem that will be more cost efficient than the current system for national security? I really hope you don't suggest me to arm myself with F-22. . . . That shit is expensive. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 30 2010 13:22 keynest wrote: The whole presmise of anachro-capitalism is self-contradictory. Capitalism can only exist if there is an agreed system of ownership. The problem is that this "ownership" is not natural, and must be enforced by an entity (ie government). If there is no entity to enforce private property rules, there is no ownership; the strong takes what they can and the weak has to bear what they must. In such violent environment, a market cannot prosper. As a result, the system of capitalism breaks down. Anarchy means no market. No market means no capitalism. Let's say that you accept the smallest government to enforce these rules. Is this enough? No, because the simple ownership system is flawed. Who owns the air? Who owns the river? We have to use this resource but the market cannot allocate them through private ownership, so it's overused and polluted-leading to the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want to put up with the pollution level of early 19th century London? The thing is free-market and free-enterprise system, even with their tremendous efficiency, are not without flaws. You can make a more valid point in arguing for freer market through less regluation. However, it is very hard to actually support Anachro-Capitalism. It is natural. Ever heard kids saying "it's mine"? Property may be a "social relation", but irregardless, it's not something we need the government to be constantly reminding of us how it works, and not to steal, not to kill. Hell, don't even need the government to enforce. Who said the air has to be owned? And then even if it has to, then why can't it? The river could certainly be owned just like land is, what's the problem with that? And even if it's not owned, and people form a community around it and use it, they can ostracize and sue people who misuse it or pollute it, therefore giving them health problems. I mean.. there's no single dispute that can't be resolved in court. Everything can be worked out. To jump for the gun to resolve such silly and simple problems is throwing out the baby with the BATHTUB OUT THE WINDOW. Tragedy of the commons is a public issue, and just guess what the best solution is. You seem to imply government saved london. Who owns london, and why couldn't he save it himself? Oh wait, I guess it was state owned to start with? So you're saying the government manned up and cleaned up their own property? Well grats to them fuckers. How long did it take? | ||
|
keynest
United States57 Posts
It is natural. Ever heard kids saying "it's mine"? Property may be a "social relation", but irregardless, it's not something we need the government to be constantly reminding of us how it works, and not to steal, not to kill. Hell, don't even need the government to enforce. Have you seen them proclaiming "ownership"? They hit the other kid and take whatever they decide is "mine." When a government breaks down, one of the first things that break out is theft. Have you seen Louisiana after the hurricane? Enforcement is essential for an ownership system to exist. Who said the air has to be owned? And then even if it has to, then why can't it? The river could certainly be owned just like land is, what's the problem with that? And even if it's not owned, and people form a community around it and use it, they can ostracize and sue people who misuse it or pollute it, therefore giving them health problems. If there is an efficient way to privatize air, I am all ears. Really? you are gonna sue the people who pollute the river? who is going to maintain the neutral court system and set up the law that the court will be based on. What entity will pay the judge, security personnels, and clerks? I mean.. there's no single dispute that can't be resolved in court. Everything can be worked out. To jump for the gun to resolve such silly and simple problems is throwing out the baby with the BATHTUB OUT THE WINDOW. Not everything can be worked out by the market. It sometimes fails. I don't know how put so much blind faith into the market. You seem to imply government saved london. Who owns london, and why couldn't he save it himself? Oh wait, I guess it was state owned to start with? So you're saying the government manned up and cleaned up their own property? Well grats to them fuckers. How long did it take? Wow, you are now just proving you are debating for the sake of debating. London was not owned by the government. Most of its land was private property, but shit happened. Private businesses did not regulate themselves because cost was too great for a single business to have a cleaner facility but the benefit would be dispersed to the entire city--An externality problem. and the air pollution killed thousands of people. The pollution was problem and had to be dealt with one way or the other. Regulation, though not most efficient, was one way to go about it, and it worked. Air pollution killed 4000 people even in 1952 London, for nearly 2 centuries, the market failed, and finally the government had to step in with a regulation. All I gotta say is that Capitalism and the market cannot solve everything. When they do fail, you cannot turn blind eyes. Even if the solution might not be efficient, sometimes you gotta step in. | ||
| ||
