|
On August 31 2010 09:55 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 09:52 dvide wrote:On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:
If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If you legitimately own that region land that is the size of a fourth of Montana, then fine. I can't see how you'd come to own it. I mean you'd have to convince every landowner in the area to sell their land to you. But say that did happen then that's fine. But I wouldn't call it a state. States didn't buy their region of land that we call a country. They own control it because of presupposed authority over the region. But if you want to call your scenario a state then that's fine; it's just a minor semantic quibble. The important thing is that it's all voluntary and not coercive. Hrm? I'm not talking about a dominion by a private citizen, I'm talking about in relationship to the companies providing these services.
You said if YOU have a community. But fine, so what? Private companies / organisations own the land. Whatever, it's the same. I'm ok with it if it's voluntary, if not I will oppose it. And again I don't consider the private company a state, assuming they legitimately own the land. But that's maybe just a minor semantic difference.
|
On August 31 2010 09:15 Sultan.P wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Took this from wikipedia as no definition of this theory was given in the OP.
Why it can't work based on this definition. It says that the state has to be eliminated. This is just retarded academic jerk off thinking.
The obvious questions that need answering:
1) Who protects the people from possible foreign aggressors?
2) Who protects the people from others in the society who wish to do harm.
Their answer? "Voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies." What does this even mean? I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. This is just inviting the return of 7th century warlords to take over and do whatever the fuck they want. In essence, this whole idea is going to be ruined simply because the guy with the bigger gun is going to call the shots.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is.
The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
On August 31 2010 09:15 Sultan.P wrote:
You can't run a society by eliminating the state. It just makes no sense. You need legislators to write statutes and define the crimes and rules. You need the executive to carry out these rules. And you need a fair and impartial judiciary to interpret the law. I mean c'mon, you can't even create a corporation in any country if the legislator does not allow it.
Law has a natural demand for the market, as you say, you'd want there to be laws, and so every other individual who wants to keep their property, exchange, and make contracts. You have seen the liquipedia article, so I assume you could study it yourself on how it could work. Sorry but I must have explained the basics on that thoroughly at least three times.
On August 31 2010 09:15 Sultan.P wrote:
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
There is sense, but I feel you haven't even understood the "capitalism" part of anarcho-capitalism, so of course you're not going to get the full picture.
|
On August 31 2010 09:17 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
Seriously, I can see where the OP is coming from. But at the heart of the issue, its one of logical contradictions. It isn't even "this cannot work". Its "this idea, as a concept, is basically a paradox".
What's the paradox?
On August 31 2010 09:17 Half wrote:
Transitional Anarchy without people dieing on the Streets? Sure. Can happen, has happened, and will happen again.
Not the same kind of anarchy.
Or rather, anarchism.
On August 31 2010 09:17 Half wrote:
Long term Anarchy? The very idea, applied to human beings, is illogical. Humans beings thrive on growth and change, and long term Anarchy assumes neither exist.
What is capitalism to you?
Again, it is anarcho-capitalism. Not the conventional definition of anarchy, aka, chaos. That would indeed be kind of silly. "Why chaos can't work?". Well, I think the definition pretty much covers that it's a non-working, purposeless state.
|
On August 31 2010 09:31 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 08:40 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 07:23 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote:
You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing. Can you see the fraud then? Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made? No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose. Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks?
Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business?
No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
|
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
|
On August 31 2010 10:02 Myrkul wrote:
I'm afraid I'm not very well educated on the subject, and my English is a bit lacking, especially the spelling, but I'll do my best.
I'm going to use a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. It's a known fact in economics that transport plays a vital role in the reproduction cycle. Raw resources need to be transported to facilities were goods will be made out of them, which in turn need to be transported to warehouses etc, and eventually to the consumer. Thus the more advanced transport is, the more efficient the economy is. Now this is a good reason to build massive highways that for example make a huge grid in the US, or any other country. Now, to make the grid optimal in terms of cost-efficiency requires the work of very educated people, advanced mathematics, huge amounts of collected data on the needs of transport in the area in question, well educated engineers, lots of labor etc.
Now the first thing that puzzles me is how would this Ancap society even have high education, university's etc.. required for the job. These things obviously cost alot of money, but in the eyes of your average joe serve no real purpose. Or atleast cost more than they should, which tends to be the opinion of everybody about the things they don't really understand. From what I understand nobody in this soceity gives his capital to anything he does not want to, so given that a vast majority of today's population are not economists, presumably they would say something along the lines of "I manage with the current roads just fine thank you, your fancy highway that goes to places I've never even heard of, nor have the need to travel to doesn't interest me". So I presume you would have to have people walking around and explaining the basics of the economics, that the better the roads are the cheaper you get your goods and so on. But then who would pay these people to do that, who would justify their existence to your average joe? It seems to me that everyone in this Ancap soceity would have to be very well educated in every field of human research for it to be efficient. Otherwise it looks to me like everyone just looks after himself and very capital intensive long-run return on investment projects (like science) would never be aproved.
I don't really understand how you can call something like collecting funds(taxes) and spending it on something like subatomic particle research "stealing".
The necessity or desirability of a service to you or to others in your perspective is no justification that they have to be coercively organized in any central way. Many things depend on many things in the market, and yet the companies that are depended on by others could fall the very next day. What happens if the metallurgy goes broke? Then the engineering firms, car industries, would all go broke too? What happens if the milkman had a heart attack, and no milk was delivered for a day? What if, what if... So many things could happen that it does kind of scare you, because we are indeed in a very interconnected and interdependent, highly specialized market.
But coercion, you have to understand, would only make things worse. A central planner, coercing a population to pay for a certain project or business model, and not allowing others to present what could be a better answer, will always lead to more inefficiencies than if the market were able to operate on it's own. Because the thousands of entrepreneurs already did and constantly ask themselves the questions which you too fear. They know their business best than anyone else, because they have all the incentives and market inputs to do so. Government on the other hand, has neither appropriate incentives, nor can it even know what the prices of its services should be, apart from emulating signals from elsewhere and crossing their fingers.
The market of higher education today IS the next bubble, and it costs a lot exactly because it is inflated. People are getting diplomas for jobs that won't exist, because again, the government has fiddled with student loans, and people are going to college with near 0 liability, at 0 initial cost, so yeah.
Roads can also exist privately. Again, just because the state has built them coercively, doesn't mean they can't be built voluntarily, and I believe they would be not only cheaper but also free of externalities, such as destroying people's property that are on the way... and THEN paying them a fraction of what it was worth.
Addressing the last sentence: I could just as well say "I don't really understand how can you call something like 'me grabbing money from your wallet' and spending on something like a new computer for myself 'stealing'". It is stealing, plainly because if it wasn't, then no taxes are needed, people would just donate to the government what they think is due. Or even better, people could buy only those services they want. Which is what I've been advocating all this thread...
|
On August 31 2010 10:38 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 09:31 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 08:40 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 07:23 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote:
You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing. Can you see the fraud then? Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made? No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose. Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there. Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
|
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote:
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
Why do you feel there should be more reproduction, and why is that enough of a justification to coerce others into reproducing?
Incentives can be voluntarily generated, sure. Raise a fund for responsible parents, that gives money to those who can show they're raising a number of kids responsibly. Or just create educational institutions with the purpose of telling people the benefits of reproduction.
You are not justified, however, from stopping people from obtaining whatever products that were voluntarily produced, nor stopping them from getting a job if they wish and have willing employers.
|
On August 31 2010 10:57 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 10:38 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 09:31 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 08:40 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 07:23 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote:
You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing. Can you see the fraud then? Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made? No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose. Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there. Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof. I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory.
You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc.
You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
|
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote:
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
I've never heard this objection before. Can you be more specific about the problem? I'd just like some more clarification on the evidences / reasoning about market liberalism lowering incentives for reproduction, and how this creates a problem in society?
We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement.
Is this a problem? Why not defer your gratification of having children until you own a house, earn a solid income, have savings and such? Or are you talking about something else?
|
On August 31 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is.
The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Again, so you don't get confused, I am putting to question your assumption that a private police force would be more efficient and free from impulses to enslave the people. Furthermore, what would this police force exactly be enforcing if there is no legislature that will come up with statutes under which they could prosecute people?
Also, how exactly would a "private judiciary" work? Wouldn't judges in these positions be susceptible to bribes, leaving no room for any type of justice?
Law has a natural demand for the market, as you say, you'd want there to be laws, and so every other individual who wants to keep their property, exchange, and make contracts.
This sentence...makes no sense at all. I think you forgot to finish it up.
You have seen the liquipedia article, so I assume you could study it yourself on how it could work. Sorry but I must have explained the basics on that thoroughly at least three times.
Liquidpedia? I thought that was for starcraft, lol. If you have explained the basics please quote it for me at least so I don't have to wander aimlessly through 26 pages.
There is sense, but I feel you haven't even understood the "capitalism" part of anarcho-capitalism, so of course you're not going to get the full picture.
Again, please quote me something I can address instead of brushing me off. Your OP says to state reasons why Anarcho-capitalism can't work, yet you ambiguously, if anything, define the term and completely dodge questions that scrutinize the ideology. You must do better than this, for the sake of argument.
|
On August 31 2010 11:02 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote:
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions? Why do you feel there should be more reproduction, and why is that enough of a justification to coerce others into reproducing? Incentives can be voluntarily generated, sure. Raise a fund for responsible parents, that gives money to those who can show they're raising a number of kids responsibly. Or just create educational institutions with the purpose of telling people the benefits of reproduction. You are not justified, however, from stopping people from obtaining whatever products that were voluntarily produced, nor stopping them from getting a job if they wish and have willing employers.
No, I don't see a women choosing to work as a problem. But how is your system going to last longer than a generation? And what's exactly preventing people from contributing to a fund for responsible parents now? I don't think you've answered this question and you've dismissed it.
|
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
I can't speak for Yurebis but I'm 99% sure this is just a minor misunderstanding. I think his 'more like communism' statement was directed at "I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community."
How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
You brought it up in your first question:
1) Who protects the people from possible foreign aggressors?
2) Who protects the people from others in the society who wish to do harm.
|
On August 31 2010 11:06 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 10:57 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 10:38 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 09:31 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 08:40 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 07:23 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote:
You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing. Can you see the fraud then? Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made? No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose. Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there. Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof. I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry) Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory. You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc. You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
I think the original message had nothing to do with property rights or marketing. (that was a follow-up on some argumentation). If I read it correctly, it equates current government to a company that could arise in the environment that ancap provides. I see various people arguing this (I think I mentioned something likewise, less precise) in various forms, but can you give a really easy to follow transparent argument that shows that such a mega-conglomeration could not come to fruition?
|
On August 31 2010 11:08 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote:
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions? I've never heard this objection before. Can you be more specific about the problem? I'd just like some more clarification on the evidences / reasoning about market liberalism lowering incentives for reproduction, and how this creates a problem in society? Show nested quote +
We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement.
Is this a problem? Why not defer your gratification of having children until you own a house, earn a solid income, have savings and such? Or are you talking about something else?
I gave the reason. It's more that they take themselves out of competition during maternity leave and that they lose promotion opportunities and income generating ability. The Western countries are experiencing declining birth rates amongst its citizens, with Japan being the hardest hit. The decline is attributed to females entering the workforce. I can find plenty of citations for the theory and there's good empirical evidence that the West is experiencing declining birth rate. Did you want those?
|
If there is one thing I've learned as an anarcho-capitalist, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. Society is not ready for it. Until states fall apart under their own weight it won't happen - like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to hit rock bottom first. We're not there yet. I'm being patient.
|
On August 31 2010 11:40 DetriusXii wrote:I gave the reason. It's more that they take themselves out of competition during maternity leave and that they lose promotion opportunities and income generating ability. The Western countries are experiencing declining birth rates amongst its citizens, with Japan being the hardest hit. The decline is attributed to females entering the workforce. I can find plenty of citations for the theory and there's good empirical evidence that the West is experiencing declining birth rate. Did you want those?
No that's ok. I understand where you're coming from now, thanks. I honestly don't know how an ancap central planner would "solve" this, so I'll have to pass and maybe think about it a little more. If I had to throw something out there, I'd say people today are working just to make ends meet. If people had much more expendable wealth they could afford to work less and have a baby and it wouldn't really matter as much. But that's assuming that enough people would actually want to have babies and not do other things instead. If you were dictator, what would you change about today's system to solve this problem? Genuinely curious. Thanks.
|
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered
I was answering to this by you:
I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community.
In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:Show nested quote +The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is.
The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery. When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority.
2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting.
3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them.
4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat
2-Demand for defense increases
3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
And I argue that the market mechanisms that make insurance companies possible, also will make the assessment of personal and collective defense possible. Not just possible, but more efficient than the state, because there is many more people competing to provide the best solution. Because there's this thing called the "calculation problem", that handicaps the state's ability to efficiently cover demand - which is a main reason why public services can't adapt to changes as well, and can't provide the amount of service that is demanded as accurately. It's not even an issue of big government, it is an issue of central planning period.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:
Again, so you don't get confused, I am putting to question your assumption that a private police force would be more efficient and free from impulses to enslave the people. Furthermore, what would this police force exactly be enforcing if there is no legislature that will come up with statutes under which they could prosecute people?
Also, how exactly would a "private judiciary" work? Wouldn't judges in these positions be susceptible to bribes, leaving no room for any type of justice?
Market law can arise out of dispute resolutions and the moral sentiments of the population. Because capitalism is preserved, it is expected that the laws first and foremost would protect private property over everything else. Courts are in competition with one another, and they can each have different law codes, however, because they're employed to solve conflicts over property, it would most likely be proper that they try to establish the type of property theories that most satisfies all of their clients, and makes the court reputable. The leading courts will disseminate those law codes to other courts as it is in its own interest to be able to arbritrate cases between clients of different courts.
PDAs, aka protection defense agencies, would have no more rights than anyone else, and would be susceptible to the PDAs "rulings" as anyone else would. If a PDA is ruled aggressive, it must comply with its terms or it will greatly lose popularity. You may laugh out that popularity won't stop PDAs from becoming aggressive, and they'll just disregard the court rulings, but you can't forget that the courts are the decentralized opinions of the people. Reputation, for a PDA, court, and insurance company, is even more important to its business than say, congress approval ratings is for the state. Because the PDA is not a monopoly, if he is deemed "unlawful", so are it's employees, and everyone in that PDA loses public approval. They may lose credit scores, ability to make contracts, have breached some of their contracts already, and they're basically a carcass waiting to be picked on and liquidated. An unlawful PDA or court is a failed PDA or court.
Thats basically it.
I must have written that for the fourth time, lol.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:Show nested quote +Law has a natural demand for the market, as you say, you'd want there to be laws, and so every other individual who wants to keep their property, exchange, and make contracts. This sentence...makes no sense at all. I think you forgot to finish it up.
You and any other individual who wants to be able to formally exchange with others, will want to be under a law code, aka be friends with the courts, be a member of a defense insurance company, client of a PDA... because if you're not, it's not like you're illegal by any means, but there's less insurance that making business with you is safe. Like a credit score. But also criminal. There can be private agencies who evaluate that too.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:Show nested quote +
You have seen the liquipedia article, so I assume you could study it yourself on how it could work. Sorry but I must have explained the basics on that thoroughly at least three times.
Liquidpedia? I thought that was for starcraft, lol. If you have explained the basics please quote it for me at least so I don't have to wander aimlessly through 26 pages.
Oh I meant wikipedia.
I dare not going back into the earlies dark pages, without good reason. I dare not.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:Show nested quote +
There is sense, but I feel you haven't even understood the "capitalism" part of anarcho-capitalism, so of course you're not going to get the full picture.
Again, please quote me something I can address instead of brushing me off. Your OP says to state reasons why Anarcho-capitalism can't work, yet you ambiguously, if anything, define the term and completely dodge questions that scrutinize the ideology. You must do better than this, for the sake of argument.
Well I was responding a brush-off with a brush-off, I always go through the entire reply, and either ignore people's brush-offs, or sometimes make lesser brush-offs myself. It is justified retaliation though. We can go to court for it, if you want. he.
|
On August 31 2010 11:32 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 11:02 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote:
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions? Why do you feel there should be more reproduction, and why is that enough of a justification to coerce others into reproducing? Incentives can be voluntarily generated, sure. Raise a fund for responsible parents, that gives money to those who can show they're raising a number of kids responsibly. Or just create educational institutions with the purpose of telling people the benefits of reproduction. You are not justified, however, from stopping people from obtaining whatever products that were voluntarily produced, nor stopping them from getting a job if they wish and have willing employers. No, I don't see a women choosing to work as a problem. But how is your system going to last longer than a generation? And what's exactly preventing people from contributing to a fund for responsible parents now? I don't think you've answered this question and you've dismissed it.
Demand for reproduction would spontaneously increase if the population were to decrease rapidly. Is this acceptable?
I seriously doubt millions of people would suddenly have near 0 demand for reproducing, it would be quite the unnatural genetic anomaly. Especially all in one generation. And even then, why is that a bad thing? If no one wants to have children anymore, then so be it. Are you entitled to live in a world with tons of people? Why don't you go make a huge family of over ten children then. Fulfill that demand of yours yourself. Lol.
|
The more I read, the more I believe this is unfeasible without there being a global catastrophe of some kind that eliminates all the states ability to function and a drastic drop in population. It would need a reset of thousands of years of history and behavior that have been ingrained into our psyche.
Even then, it is debatable whether or not people would behave in a way that would support this or just revert back to the basics that start the formation of governments/states.
The only other possibility is to have like-minded people settle another planet to have it work on a large-scale basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
