|
On August 31 2010 13:06 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 12:27 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 12:09 Adila wrote:
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. Well, if you believe in free markets, then it has to follow that the state is pretty bad at everything. And that includes preserving itself, so, it's not a stretch to say that the state may trip on it's own foot; it has happened so many times in history. The question is indeed like you said, whether people are ready for it, and don't just stand around confused and waiting for a new ruler. Though it's not a complicated idea.. not at all. It may be complicated if you want to understand the entire economy, of course, that's biologically impossible for any single individual, but as far as generalities go, if even a dumbass troll idiot retarded OP like me can understand it, I think society can be ready in under 100 years easily. Especially at the velocities the flow of information is going. There's more than 1 society on Earth though. You would, at the very least, need Russia and China on board. Quite frankly, I don't believe those societies are anywhere near capable of adapting this idea, especially China.
So they wouldn't nuke ancap? Not really, you just need to understand their motives for nuking, and eliminate or make up for those motives. At worst, there's nothing stopping people grouping to chip in for a nuke if it's really needed for deterrence. And there's no reason why they wouldn't - if it's knowable that they are going to get incinerated, certainly they wouldn't mind paying a fraction of what is paid today, to the trillion dollar military complex.
|
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote: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: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 Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors.
Are you implying generals of a subsidized, socialized, and monopolized army are more competent than private militias? I reject upfront.
Even if there eventually can be a good general, and even if you discount for the inflexibility of adjustments in the hierarchy due to traditionalism, a monopolized army is still denying the rest of the entire population the ability to compete with it if an entrepreneur wished to invest and demonstrate he could do a better job for the customers.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is?
Yes. To think otherwise, is to say the central planners have a more adaptive, reactive intelligence, than all free society combined. They do not, for the multitude of reasons I keep exposing. You may feel that it is not the case now, when the government suppresses military intelligence efforts coming from private entities, and coercively monopolizes that market, but that is not to say that if government stopped, example again, taking peoples farms and making bread, that they aren't able to use those farms they had and make bread themselves - and even better than the government did.
If there is a demand for military weaponry, espionage, then...
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for.
Nope.
Dragging an unemployed man to war is no different than paying a bum to break windows. It's not a sustainable economical activity, because it does not increases wealth for both sides. It's stealing.
And it is arguable whether one needs to have tanks and jets at his disposal all the time. Many countries do not, and they're not constantly invaded, for one. The answer the free market gives is that if you want it, then go and get it, don't force other people to go with you. If you are correct, and people are going to die and lose everything if they don't chip in, then there are many venues on which you can convince them without having to coerce them. I reject coercion a-priori as the best solution. Jumping the gun.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources.
(Military) Power isn't everything, perception is. Popularity, reputation. Those things enable you to enslave man more easily, and more efficiently, than a gun to his face 24/7.
The US, with all its jets, nukes, tanks, has zero colonies under its control. (at least that I know of LOL)
But it has under its command an army of 300 million of the most talented and working individuals.
How? Because they see it's coercion over them as justified.
That's a hidden weapon much more dangerous and deterrent than any amount of nukes, one that I'm trying to expose. (under property rights theory+NAP)
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project?
Yes.
And in the case there's not enough demand, then no, but then it doesn't mean it should be done anyway.
|
On August 31 2010 13:46 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 12:22 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 31 2010 11:39 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 11:06 Yurebis wrote: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? If it's the brand which has bought land, raised buildings, and have people move over, there's absolutely nothing stopping that, and I would expect the contracts to be very extent and detailed on how the company promises to run the city or town, but in the end, it's a choice by the tenant to move in to such a place. If it's the "I own all land now mwhahaha" brand, I can't say it can't happen either, however knowing that it can happen is already half the way to prevent it from happening. The right question to ask, in ancap, is not just "can it happen", but "how can we prevent the undesirable from happening" (most preferably without violence). Well, the main companies that would be able to become a state are the PDAs, who have most of the guns and weaponry. Perhaps private armies too, circumstantially formed to defend against foreign invasion. But mainly PDAs, because they already have similar infrastructures of the today's police force, so they're close by the residents, and they arguably have the means to do something like that. Well, what can the people in ancap do to stop a PDA from becoming too big, and giving it the chance to become a state again? I can think of many things. 1-Account for that risk by not necessarily picking always the cheapest and largest PDA, but the second best, third, fourth, etc. 2-Require of the insurance agencies or other third parties some sort of oversight over the PDAs (it will come at a cost, of course, everything does lol) 3-Require less entangling contracts, allowing you to immediately quit your membership with the PDA (or insurance->PDA, however the model is), whenever you see something funny. (comes at a greater premium or at a penalty) 4-Be better prepared yourself, as an individual and in your community, to react to such a possibility, arming yourself, making a local militia (which already exist btw) 5-Even if it becomes a state, just resist as much as it's feasible. The rogue PDA runs at a loss if the people resist, like don't pay taxes, civil disobedience (lol), just make their work suck. Don't really need to be violent back, though of course if they shoot first there's nothing you can do but fight back. Anyway, it will eventually become bankrupt. It will fuck up the entire society, but it will go down with it. That goes for foreign powers too. Since this is completely open information, and the PDAs themselves aren't dumb, I think it will be very unlikely that they will ever turn society back into a state again. Even if people just forget that it's possible for them to do so, the moment they do, it will resurface. It has to. Well, if it won't, then we're fucked, but... uh.. knowing that we may forget... there may be a way not to? Heh. Thanks for laying it out. I find that you assume quite a lot, and towards favoring ancap without any basis really. I know that it might work that way and could be stable. But color me skeptical of the human race. The biggest threat I see is in conglomeration, monopoly forming and cartels. Greed. PDA's will work for money and they will work for those with a huge accumulation of wealth/power. Others have mentioned this a lot in this thread already. I find it not believable that anything but an institute explicitly responsible towards the people, can deal with these issues. A big pillar in today's society, and what also would be for the ancap society from the examples you mention, is the freedom of information. If people know wrongs, they can take action. Many governments work too much in secrecy, I'm sure you'll agree on that. But how does ancap provide a guarantee for freedom of information, and how can information manipulation be battled? Skeptical me again saying that you can't. But these arguments are of course only really verifiable in a real life situation that would involve at least a million people. (edit typo's)
Greed, contrary to popular thought, is a good thing. It is what enables specialization of labor, and spontaneous hierarchies to be formed as people voluntarily recognize some are better than others at doing certain tasks. Money is the intermediary of how much certain actions are worth in relation to others, which are expressed in price.
What is not good, and that people seem to ignore, is that some may decide to coerce instead of trade. It is necessary to understand the conditions that lead one to do so, not to blame some incentive which is obvious to human nature (at least for me), that 'people do what they want'. Of course people do what they want, but what makes a man kill, loot, enslave, and how can it be solved without killing, looting, enslaving yourself? The market answers that in the best way they find suitable, but the state is necessarily the worst choice, because it by definition loots and enslaves the population, to save it from what it argues would be a greater coercive environment.
I've shown a few manners to which PDAs can be kept down, and spontaneous checks and balances put in place if there are demands for it. If there are no demands, and people just throw money at PDAs without caring what they do, well, then yeah a state could emerge. But you don't know that people will be that stupid. If even you can see it happen, why wouldn't the people who lived through and understood the evils of government not see it better? I argue they would, and free competition would keep PDAs down.
"An institution explicitly responsible towards the people" - because you say so - is not enough of an elaboration as to what incentives the man inside such institution have that will make them consistently be responsible. It is just not the case. Elections are subpar to market demand, basically a socialized and coercive version of the economy in deciding who's the best supplier of executive administration; departments are devoid of market incentives apart from the rat maze that could be said to exist between voter->letters->representative->executive->department, abysmally worse than customer<->business; the whole state is unable to coherently establish exchange prices at what should be an approximate of the market price, because it is not exposed to the market, and therefore can't know whether it's charging too much or too little. That anyone can believe such an institution can respond to any issues at all vis-a-vis with the market is jaw dropping to me.
Transparency is a common, common market procedure. No one pays someone to do something without knowing what they're doing. No one pays huge sums of money to anyone without a contract, so if a dispute arises it can much easily be resolved in court. And by no one, I mean no one who cares for what their money is worth. It's a much better incentive for both customer to keep a check on business, and businesses keep a check on other businesses, as to what actions are being rewarded, and what actions aren't. Lack of transparency makes dealing with you riskier, as the customer doesn't know or isn't assured enough of what you're going to do, so you as the business loses potential customers. Profitable business have to be as transparent as paying customers customarily wish them to be. The state gets away with that because, of course, the customer isn't a customer, he's a taxpayer, and he has to pay it no matter what. Feedback from the taxpayer to the state is laughable. "Send letters to your representatives and vote better in 4 years kthxbyelol".
|
On August 31 2010 14:33 quandle wrote:Anyone who's posting here claiming that the state is bad has to contend with the powerful argument in THIS IMAGE. It strikes me as intellectually arrogant to simply state that these institutions could be replaced without real knowledge of the consequences. Uncertainty is a powerful force--- yesterday an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico simply explodes and causes an environmental disaster, and tomorrow who knows? It's hardly a conservative position to suggest that the impact of "replacing the state" with an anarcho-capitalist (u/dis)topia could result in just about anything and no one here knows what that would be.
Is a slave also estopped from calling out it's slavemaster because it is given food to eat?
|
On August 31 2010 15:57 Myrkul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 10:54 Yurebis wrote: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... I am not satisfied with your answer, but unfortunately I don't have time right now, and I'm going out of town till the end of the week and I won't have any internet access probably, and by that time this thread will probably be dead, which is a shame. Oh well thanks Yurebis for bringing to my attention an interesting topic, it's always good to question things one takes for granted.
You're welcome. You are the first one to say thanks so I'm in tears right now.
Metaphorical tears, of course, of course... :'(
:')
|
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Voluntarily assemble... governing systems are not about voluntarism, it's about forcing everyone in
But it's ok I mean, I've made way more strawmen throughout this thread than you could ever fit in a post. It would hit the character limit LOL.
...Is there even a character limit?
The concept of choice only arises out of the lack of solidarity. Or in capitalistic terms, the lack of monopoly. If we assume that humanity will always, and should always develop existing infrastructure, and will always form infrastructures of cooperation, then after sufficient development and sufficient solidarity, both which are completely inevitable as time progresses (though it can be slowed), then you end up with a state, unless you have a governing body to prevent it, which does not exist in an ancap.
Um, no, you still don't understand what a monopoly trully is, the mainstream definition aside. It is not the lack of competition, it is a coercive barrier of entry. If the first definition is to be interpreted fully, then every accepted patent issuant is a monopolist, and should be broken down. If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you. That people may disregard some monopolies as competing with other monopolies, and therefore aren't monopolies, is also arbitrary, because in the end, everyone selling anything in the market is competing for value in the market with everything else. That interventionists cross one line here saying "this is the amount of differential needed to discern a monopoly from a non-monopoly", and then cross ANOTHER outbound line before such discernment reaches its domain, "I'm not a monopoly because I'm necessary", is completely, completely flawed.
Monopoly qua private property, is not a lack of solidarity, it is an understanding of private property theory. You can be and should be as altruist as you want. Monopoly qua coercion, IS a lack of solidarity, because it forces people to give away what should be theirs at someone else's arbitrary reasons and distinctions.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
If people have moved in, they accepted rent conditions
If you just claimed to own everything, then it's a fraud, and it's a state.
I'm not talking about a single landowner (which could easily occur fyi), I'm talking about a monopoly of security companies/other crucial infrastructure companies normally left to the government, Show nested quote +
Welp, if teared down for the right reasons, aka understanding of private property, I doubt it would come back up, just like an understanding of "civil liberties" and partial individual rights won't allow for slavery to come back up.
It wouldn't be impossible of course, but it would take quite the deterioration, multiple times worse that the deterioration of the constitutional republic of the USA.
You've already set up a structure for the state to "come back" in the form of private companies. You don't need a forced takeover of "private property" for a state to emerge. Let me ask you a question, what is the difference between a region with only one or two private infrastructural companies and a state?
By infrastructural companies, you mean, companies who built whole cities themselves and had people move in?
The difference first and foremost, is that the tenant chose to move in, at the contract's conditions.
And if you mean, companies that provide piping and wiring over property that is not theirs (but the pipes are, and they're installed voluntarily etc.), well, you can both not pay for them and compete against them.
And if you mean road builders, the people who move in to their roads can have contracts for all sorts of things. For the roads that were socialized and then auctioned off, they will be required with the residents and businesses that were using the road (and paid for it through state coercion) that at least they can't disallow people from moving out, and perhaps other clauses that I'm sure legal experts can foresee better than I do.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:
Show nested quote +
So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on?
I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Oh ok, a dispute over capital, property.
Well I believe any dispute can be settled in court, before the need of a gun. And most generally people are able to deter eachother from aggression by having some retaliatory force on their own.
The state of course, only diminishes both the ability of all disputes from being taken to court (by having shitty laws that imprison even victimless crime offenders), and reduces the ability for each person to best defend themselves through taxation and a socialized police force. Thats not really what I meant, but as I said, its irrelevant now as it was just an example to prove a point we've reached a mutual consensus on. But um...you said private courts earlier. Whos private court do we go to????? lol.
Yes I was kind of surprised this question wasn't asked before but it's not hard to answer though.
Clients of different courts who have a dispute can rely on the courts themselves to either arrange a third party, agreeable court, or have previously agreed to forfeit cases to one another depending on the nature of the case. Court hierarchies can be made in a number of ways, and could be just as they are today, with bigger courts overruling smaller ones, appeal courts, etc. I find the current type of overruling hierarchy bad though, so for the most part, a third party court will be used I believe.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Latent racism, yeah. But not deal-breaking. People aren't like that anymore. "Sorry, I don't sell cars to blacks". heh :/ . Most establishments in the US have no problem getting any customer of any race, as long as they pay, IMO.
For someone who isn't an empiricist, your fixating awfully hard on specifics. My point behind racism is to illustrate a simple point-The State forces cooperation upon people who would not otherwise cooperate. You argue that these people are only behaving as is because of the state, but I'd argue that the forced requisite by the state to "share" is all thats keeping them from fragmenting.
Well, I disagree in that:
1- Forced cooperation is not a good thing. It can't even be called cooperation when one does had not chosen to cooperate in the first place. He is just choosing to cooperate as opposed to pay a fine or go to jail. Is a slave "forcibly cooperate'd" to raise cotton? No, that's silly. Coercion is coercion, no matter the motive.
2- Jim crow laws are a good example of it. The government was cherished as being the savior when it abolished their own laws which were segregative in nature. What the fuck? Should a rapist be applauded when he's done? Government exacerbates segregation whenever it makes a law on the topic. It either coerces people on assembling when they did not want to, which perhaps stales the cultural progress of people learning to accept one other naturally; or it separates people that could spontaneously come together, and learn to respect one another by themselves. As much as racism is culturally repugnant, it is something that has to be culturally resolved, if resolved at all. Forcing people away or caging them together... isn't the best way IMO.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Their is absolutely no difference between an Ancap and a Anarchy on an theoretical level. By definition, there cannot be. You either have an ancap, or have anarchy. It just depends on the environment in which the state is dissolved. In principal, they are one and the same. And structures of organization exist on all levels. Pure Anarchy is like everyone living in the woods with no human contact. We no shit that wouldn't work, if not else, theres not enough room lol. Anarchy usually is limiting this to a organizational structures on the scale of small voluntary tribes, while ancap limits this to company like structures. The nation state of course, would be the second largest form of organization, one step below world government.
So there's no difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism either? I with I could convince anarcho-communists of that TBH.
What people respect is extremely relevant. In statism, people generally respect the state more than anything. In anarchy, no one respect anyone. In anarcho-capitalism, people respect private property more than anything. And anarcho-communism, people respect getting high and smoking trees. LOL jk
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:
The idea of Anarchy, of any form, is silly for this reason. The desire to organize and expand is one of the only human attributes present throughout history. Anarchy's, of any form, point towards a level of organization, and say "STOP THERE". Why? Why would it "stop there"? Because people understand "private property"?
The desire to organize and expand is not enough of a justification to break the NAP.
And yes, it should stop there because people understand everyone's better off when everyone respects everyone's possessions and non-coercively obtained capital. It is the most efficient, and the most consistent point to stop at. If you go any further, you have people invading people's property, and it's arbitrary - some stealing, some keeping; if you go backwards, there can't be property because property isn't respected, so there can't be formal division of labor, investment on higher order capital, and general capital accumulation not even to half the degree that is observed today.
Anarcho-capitalism maximizes both capital and moral conciseness.
And anarcho-communism can exist within anarcho-capitalism, btw. The opposite cannot, because the pestering hippies would be smoking on peoples front yard LOL JK
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:
You argue that there should be choice among companies, a primary distinguishment between that statism, but you forget to account for limited resources. There is only so many customers, so many resources, to allow for so many infrastructural companies on a large scale (pmcs, etc). And in the end, you've certainly broken down the institution of state into many small pieces, but states nonetheless.
Uh, define state.
Are you a state of yourself?...
State is coercion. You don't coerce yourself, and voluntary organization don't coerce it's members. That's just muddying the waters. Are you being coerced by me to post, or by teamliquid mods to remain civil? No, that's ridiculous.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote: Show nested quote +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 This kinda shows you have a misconception of how exactly defense works in this world. As much as the US wastes on defense, its probably, in the end, actually made huge economic progress because of it. Defense is preemptory. A billion spent on prevention a day beats 2 billion spent on defense, because that 2 billion comes with it economic damage.
I disagree that preemption is always better. It may not come to be the case. Either way it's circumstantial, and the best way to deal with circumstances is to let the people who are paying decide what course of action is the most efficient, not imposing your own flawless plan upon them.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote:
There was a very real chance the cold war would have erupted had the US not "wasted" trillions of dollars on defense research and paramilitary operations throughout the "cold war". And had a non-nuclear cold war occured, the world economy would have suffered greater damage and growth would have been more greatly slowed then if the US simply had "wasted" this money on defense that was not used.
You don't know what would have happened. And even if your opinion is more educated than mine, I humbly maintain that people would have figured out something if the state didn't exist - or that perhaps russia would have no interest in aggressing decentralized cities which they can't revert back to statism and tax without huge losses from decentralized terrorism, resistance, and therefore wouldn't be cost-efficient. People would be able to be or make deterrence themselves, is what I mean.
|
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote:
Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Is it a-priori that you discard a-priorism?
|
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote:
Without any sort of environmental regulation, what's to stop companies from spewing chemicals into the air and the oceans? Libertarians often say all property being private is enough to stop pollution but how do you privatize the air and the oceans?
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote:
I can envisage how this kind of world would be amazing for rich people- they could buy up all the the parks, national parks and beaches and prevent the 'plebes' from having access to them and their companies could pollute the air and oceans with impunity.
I would argue that 1- one can't own a natural resource that he didn't homestead
2-harvesting, fencing is arguiably not a homestead
3- you don't own them yourself, nor are you affected by what happens to far away, unowned environments, so why do you care?
4- in the case that you ARE affected, then you can take it to court and claim that.
5- people aren't required to sell their land to rich people. If the rich people are buying it for profit, then the local owners can be aware of that and profit themselves.
6- one hardly profits from harvesting all the wood in the world in one day, to go bankrupt the next. Businesses don't think as short profit as you expect, in fact I would say that 4-year-term representatives have more incentives to be than business do.
7- not enough of a justification to jump for the gun.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote:
For others else it wouldn't necessarily be so great though. There would be no more free libraries and those without enough money for healthcare would be dying in the streets. 5 year-olds from poor backgrounds would be putting in 14-hour days in sweat shops until they drop dead. Workers could try to go on strike to get some rights but risk being slaughtered by the private armies of the billionaires they work for.
Who pays today for the "free libraries" and how, and why do you think such a system delivers libraries best than a free market does? What are the incentives? How isn't the central planner not intellectually handicapped to provide the service as compared to a thousand other able investors?
Healthcare, same questions.
Sweat shops, same questions. (also http://mises.org/media/1160 )
And the idea that it is cost-efficient to have a private army of your own to enslave a small group of people is laughable, especially when today the corporations can lobby the government for a thousandth of the cost to do it for them. The answer isn't abolishing wealth, it is abolishing coercion of all types.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote:
All you would be doing by abolishing government is creating a vacuum of power that has to be filled. Once the billionaires become powerful enough society would basically revert to being a feudal serfdom until the serfs have had enough and finally rebel and bring back a some form of democratic government.
The answer isn't abolishing wealth, it is abolishing coercion of all types. Everyone is entitled to wealth (power) because everyone is entitled to their fruits of their labor. If you deny that right to anyone, for arbitrary reasons, then everyone is equally at risk of being robbed. Everyone will be equally poor, because no one can invest in higher order capital while having their returns be duly theirs respectfully.
The focus on how much a man has produces is a total red-herring to what he truly does wrong. Coercion, coercion, coercion. And the state is the greatest coercer of all.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote:
Yes, this is speculation but so it's also speculation when the libertatians/ ancaps/ whatever try to tell us that without any government and with corporations in total control the world would be some kind of utopia.
Corporations in control of what they duly own aren't a threat. Corporations in control of everything by government proxy is. Without the subsidized army of thugs, paid for by the slaves themselves, it is hardly possible to even raise the funds needed for such venture, let alone profit from it.
Coercion is only really "profitable" when it's not seen as coercion. See state.
|
On August 31 2010 18:25 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote:
Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality. Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless.
The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right?
Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count.
|
On August 31 2010 19:11 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 08:40 dvide wrote:
Seriously what is it with your hang up on this? I know you think you're being really clever here, but you're just being really annoying.
I think the "hang up" results from the special pleading which you and Yurebis constantly show. You equate the state with coercion and say the fact that you can simply move to another country with different terms is somehow invalid, because all states are illegitimate. But at the same time, in an anarcho-capitalistic society, where all land is owned by other people/companies, whenever I want to "rent" a space of living somewhere, then this constitutes a valid choice, since if I don't want to move to the land of somebody, I just go to somebody else. But what if none of the offered terms are acceptable to me? Well, then it's my (or Yurebis famous "nobody's") fault and I can at least chose to die ... the fact that none of the terms that different states have to offer are acceptable to you, however, is the states' fault ... this does not compute.
Sure it's coercion. The claim by the state to own or be entitled to control all land is as ridiculous as the feudal lord's. It has no property theory behind it, it is just an empty claim backed by power (coercive power, mind you) and a feel good democracy sentiment.
The difference between the state and a company which build a whole city by itself - roads, buildings, wires, pipes, sewage, electricty, water, all social services needed, etc. - is that the company has a claim for everything in it, because it had funded all of it. I doubt such adventure would even be feasible for one company alone, as diseconomies of scale could apply for such a massive "central planning" adventure, even if it's voluntary. Past the supply issue, I don't know if it would draw many people to it, as indeed, it would be kind of scary, but if people want to move in it, by all means go ahead. I think they'll still have support from the outside with some contractual clauses saying so, so even if suddenly the cops close all exists and make them slaves somehow, I doubt that they wouldn't be able to call for help from the outside, and if such scheme would even be profitable as people wouldn't work as well at the barrel of a gun.
In sum, the idea of corporations somehow coming to own an entire city even, is way too iffy, and doubtfully profitable even if it does succeed.
..But now I realized this was somewhat of a strawman so... okay, don't say anything. I'll just leave that there.
Also it's doubtful hundreds of landlords would all be colluding to explore the people, for reasons that I already exposed on how collusion is extremely unlikely in any circumstance where there are either competitors or the ability of other entrepreneurs to enter the market unhindered. All entrepreneurs knowdgeable of the business (don't even have to be actually competing, because they can enter when such profit margin arises), can't all be:
-be willing to voluntarily collude for profit.
-be willing to not cheat on the collusion for profit.
This is the third time I write this. Ohmygawd. Collusions can only work when the companies are already close to the market price anyway. Any higher, and there's profit opportunities from both outside entrepreneurs to come in, and colluding members to cheat.
|
On August 31 2010 21:39 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Longest troll thread on TL I've seen in a while, 4/10 though because it's as boring as dead moths.
Not a troll.
On September 01 2010 04:50 xarthaz wrote:A fellow mises.org comrade? All the best at debate here 
hi2u 
Reached end of thread. Four hours break imminent.
|
On August 31 2010 12:23 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 11:41 jgad wrote:
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. :D
If there is one thing I've learned as somebody who doesn't give a fuck, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. They're too stuck-up for it. Until they realize that they're never, ever going to see their utopia, it won't happen--like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument that you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to grow up first. They're not there yet. I'm being patient.
For what it's worth, there's no rational argument to quit heroin either if you don't allow "human nature".
|
On September 01 2010 06:34 Yurebis wrote:
If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you.
Lol holy fuck listen to yourself
|
On September 01 2010 04:49 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote:
sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
|
From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
|
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote:
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society?
Since the term "civil" as in "within the state" has no meaning in an anarcho-capitalist framework, you don't. Just the same, it's not like we've had success stopping wars in any other political framework either. Anarcho-capitalism is different from many ideologies in that it does not profess to bring a utopian society. It does not promise things like democracy or communism have tried to do - it simply is what it is. An application of formal logic leads to the conclusion that it is more efficient than other governmental systems, however, so there is good reason to believe that sum prosperity would be higher and grow more quickly than in other forms of societal organisation. Just the same, there will always be a need for defensive uses of force and there will always be those who would seek to use force to make their ends.
Insurance companies would most likely be one of many key players, for example. Legitimate businessmenn would, as they do now, want to always mitigate risk in as many ways as possible. The role of the insurance company would be more important in such a society. Your access to collectives of protection - private defense agengies or insurance companies, would no doubt be proportional to the risk you brought to them. Criminals and other people with dangerous or aggressive histories would either be outright denied or priced out of the market - those wishing to do straight up honourable and legitimate business, however, according to the tenets of non-aggression and non-coercion, would pool their resources in such defensive and insurance companies. As much as an accident in a car raises your interest rates, so would criminal behaviour raise your rates for defensive services. What police force would have you as a client if you were the sort to go looking for trouble? Thus, for anyone who wished to have the protection and security of a defensive company they would also have to be low-risk people - good people, like most of us are. Financial considerations would be enough to keep most people from considering crime. You would lose everything - make yourself an easy victim of other criminals once you lost your purchased protections.
For the rest, you might argue that they could organise into an evil collective of organised criminals, but with no state and no laws against any sort of commerce - drugs, prostitution, whatever - there would be no natural business by which such a group could make money to sustain themselves. The black market provides funds for organised crime in the present, but only because the state allows them a force monopoly on the profits from those industries - by necessarily shutting out legitimate businesses from participating.
Any organised crime in an anarcho-capitalist world would have to seek funds on the open market just like anyone else. To make profits they would have to be competitive and to be competitive means to cut your costs. Maintaining an aggressive disposition means you are always incurring extra costs, either outsourced by higher fees to your defensive companies or absorbed internally through higher costs for weapons and protection, guards, etc. This would make your business revenues low, your margins thin, and such businesses would naturally starve for money to more agreeable companies.
You can expand this reasoning to any scale, really. Consider that the citizens of Saskachewan and Montana live in a state of anarchy with respect to each other. They each subscribe, by force, of course, to the defensive services provided by their respective states - this inclusive of a separate system of courts, police, and prisons. But still they can happily live next to each other and trade freely without great incident. If one citizen or the other commits a crime there are ways in which both systems of justice cooperate to deal with the situation. So if Saskachewan and Montana can live in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, why not citizens of different cities - or people within the same city. Why not shop for your defensive provider in the same way you shop for insurance or a car? Certainly it's not a change which can realistically happen overnight. Revolution always causes serious short-term problems and so this route would not be the ideal. Slow change is always preferable but there is no reason that this slow change cannot be in a direction which ultimately does away with things like borders and nation-states and coercive militaries and other such things.
|
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
|
On September 01 2010 08:08 cavalier3024 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
I'm not sure I understand where he gets this idea of a "court" in anarcho-capitalism.
|
On September 01 2010 08:08 cavalier3024 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for?
Further reading : http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp#_ftnref2
|
On September 01 2010 06:59 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 18:25 Draconizard wrote:On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote:
Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality. Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless. The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count.
I wouldn't call it an appeal to tradition, more like an appeal to realism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
