EPTAnarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
Maybe you won't like the regime. Maybe you won't like the rules. But at least there's order and rules- the alternative is chaos and civil war, which is much, much worse. | ||
Milkis
5003 Posts
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer. 1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions) 2) Because people value rights that are not capitalizable. 3) Markets fail, and fail often, despite what you may read on mises.org. Not saying that this means we "need" the state, but that this hinders such system of society, and may cause it to fail. 4) You need the entire world to follow this paradigm. Game Theory wise, any nation that decides to do this will be simply manipulated by foreign powers. | ||
|
waffling1
599 Posts
On August 29 2010 08:54 dvide wrote: There is a book called 'The Not So Wild, Wild West' that you might be interested in. Also see these videos by Ryan Faulk: The 'Wild' west is actually a good example of why anarcho-capitalism can (and does) work. first video at :50 - 1:10 it stopped being anarchy and started being a a government. that's no longer anarchy. 4:35 - 4:45 2nd amendment. "Anarchy" (misnomer for freedom) resolves its own problems. what you're merely pointing out is that governments naturally arise. that governments spontaneously form from a state of anarchy. then the real problem is powerful, unstoppable abusive government, not the "evils of capitalism or anarchy" hence constitution, hence separation of powers the video is explaining the exact political parallel of the economic idea of free markets. ppl rise to meet the demands via self-interest. associations arise b/c ppl don't want violence all the time and having to live in a warzone just to claim their land. in otherwords, summed up in 2 terms: self interest, and game theory. | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote: How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not really an artificial construct. Property rights in the context of a "state granted power" could be said to be artificial, yes. But property itself not so much. Would you say that a person defending his home from an invader is being coercive, or that the invader is? If if come into your home and attempt to take your stuff, I'm guessing you would use force to try to stop me. That would not be coercion on your part, but a legitimate use of force for defensive purposes only. That is still true if there is no state granted license on your use of that force. | ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions) So you need a government in order to have a market?.. | ||
|
Milkis
5003 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:06 Saturnize wrote: So you need a government in order to have a market?.. Where did I say that? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 08:39 McFoo wrote: If there were no governments to kick BP up the arse who would be cleaning up the gulch? The poor local fisherman who don't have the resources to do it? Who would take responsibility for protecting things like the enviornment when: A. It's unprofitable B. Profits are the highest priority of all institutions This reflects the main problem with anarcho-capitalism: externalities. There are no institutions in place to clean up the inherent chaos and mess an unregulated market creates. Who owns the sea? There's your basic answer... formed as a question. lol On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: I'm an Anarcho-Communist, which is basically impossible on a large scale in practice, but there are things to learn from it. Now let's look at your position. I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture of what this system leads to. Anarcho Capitalism doesn't work for shit for the following reasons: - No state means noone looks after the working/lower classes. They are exploited even worse than in the current system. Class divides quickly become so severe that you can't even afford basic living costs as a worker. Noone runs schools/hospitals/social services, so a couple of generations down the line everyone at the bottom will be uneducated, unhealthy and dieing of diseases the west got past a hundred years ago. Who pays for schools hospitals and social services today? It seems a non-issue when you compare it vis-a-vis. Public schools are a complete hellhole of taxpayer money, paying like 10k for children when private schools can do it for under 2k. Hostpitals are shit today no thanks to the great program that medicare was (and the next one won't be) social services... not gonna go there. The "exploited" aren't entitled to a life of surplus. They have to work to earn what they want. If no one is providing them with what they want, 1- tough deal. 2- it is no excuse to steal. Government is the GREATEST generator of externalities when it steals from everyone to do anything. It detracts from everyone's fruits of labor, it creates a number of moral hazards. So don't talk about externalities when it comes to entrepreneurship when the state's the biggest thief of all. Get rid of that first. On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Everything, including basic services must be paid for, which creates inefficiencies. A nationalised system does, in many cases, result in better planned public services and, although this usually leads to large amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy and, obviously, works as a counterpoint to my own beliefs, but is still a valid criticism imo. No, it doesn't. You said it yourself, you're going to be paying for bureaucratic overhead, at the very least. Second, the goverrnent can't even properly calculate how much it should steal people to provide a certain service. Everytime it does so, it is stealing price figures from real entrepreneurs in the market, but it can't adapt for any changes. It can't respond to market incentives. The problem with a public service being overused for example - what the fuck does the state do? it goes crazy. It doesn't know how to charge more, or how much charge it for, how much should it tax more, it doesn't know shit. Because it's an inefficient business, grounded on politics, coercion. It doesn't give a crap for sustainability. PROFIT is not an evil thing, it means you're doing something better than anyone else. It is a guide for entrepreneurship, for demand, for what people want to be done. Much much better and responsive than half the population voting every four years and crossing their fingers, even morality aside. On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Competition becomes everything. With Capital deciding absolutely every aspect of life, it doesn't breed a pleasant atmosphere. There are no safety nets with anything, it's all completely up in the air all the time, and if you fuck up, you lose everything instantly, even if it's something as simple as losing a street cleaning job, creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, further fueled by the need to find safer ways of living which don't exist. Banks cannot be trusted due to the problems arising within the legal system and we have already begun to experience the problems that can arise when banks become more powerful than countries. That's a good thing. You fuck up, you should lose, duh. Banks can't be trusted today because they are indeed a legal monopoly, and you can't not accept a dollar as payment due to legal tender laws. You have to take that inflation tax up your ass, and of course it's going to suck. But that's not to say honest banks can't be voluntarily created if the market were allowed to. Honest banking is a service that has demand for - and those banks that are the most honest will be the most popular, and will have the most profits. Again, showing how profit is a GOOD thing, as opposed to deficit spending, taxing, stealing, etc. On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Businesses cannot be regulated, therefore exploitation of the working classes intensifies. Investments cease to be safe due to the lack of control over the global market. They are regulated by the customers. IT and software engineering wasn't regulated all that much, yet microsoft wasn't ripping off everyone even when they could pay off the courts to judge in their favor. Because "exploitation" is relative to what you think it's fair or unfair. Most people don't think it's unfair to work for the wage they work at, and as much as they may think their job sucks, it's the best job they are able to find; the best job that an entrepreneur was able to entice him with; the best job that any business model around him was fit for his specialization. EXPLOITATION is such an empty word that I just ignore it. You think your job is exploitation? DONT GO TO IT. You think you have a claim over the capitalist's factory? YOURE WRONG, YOU DONT, and it would be stealing if you think you do. You didn't make the business, you're not entitled to a good job, you're not entitled for free services, if it means people have to serve you for FREE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH, thanks. On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Laws will be passed based on money and nothing else. This is an indisputable point. It will quite quickly develop into a situation in which it is effectively illegal to be poor. And if the masses protest? They'll starve and be arrested, because what controls the food, water and social services? We enter a more intense version of Victorian Lassez Faire Capitalism. See what I said about law. What is profitable is what is popular. A court issuing stupidly unfair rulings would profit as much as a cellphone company that only works inside your building. Or a railroad company that can't get off the trainhouse. Credit cards that only work on one machine. Pretty dumb. Courts and justice will only be profitable to the extent they can settle issues most efficiently, with everyone agreeing with their rulings (opinions) On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: Meh, I can probably think of more, but it's late here. Combined with the already crippling problems Capitalism brings up by itself, it would just be awful for 99% of the population. I can think of more too. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:06 Saturnize wrote: So you need a government in order to have a market?.. Pretty much, in practice at least. Some sort of general governing body is required to manage a global market. | ||
|
Sumsi
Germany593 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: What does "Markets don't form by themselves" mean? How do you explain the appearance of so called "black markets"?1) Markets don't form by themselves ... ACaps often make the point that markets are everywhere where people are just making business. You dont need a state to force them. It's a strong argument imo. | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
first video at :50 - 1:10 it stopped being anarchy and started being a a government. u believe in freedom, not anarchy. what you're merely pointing out is that governments naturally arise. that's the exact political parallel of the economic idea of free markets. ppl rise to meet the demands via self-interest. associations occur b/c ppl don't want violence all the time and having to live in a warzone just to claim their land. in otherwords, self interest, game theory. The point is that on the frontiers of the American 'Wild West', the state, although existing, did not yet have the infrastructure and means in place to have much practical effect. Since people could not rely on them to 'bring order', people found other means to do so through voluntary peaceful mechanisms. It's not a perfect example because the state would still interfere where they could, and they still had presupposed authority. | ||
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:06 dvide wrote: It's not really an artificial construct. Property rights in the context of a "state granted power" could be said to be artificial, yes. But property itself not so much. Would you say that a person defending his home from an invader is being coercive, or that the invader is? If if come into your home and attempt to take your stuff, I'm guessing you would use force to try to stop me. That would not be coercion on your part, but a legitimate use of force for defensive purposes only. That is still true if there is no state granted license on your use of that force. But what makes 'your' home yours? You built it? Someone could build right next to you and that would be there home. Property rights are not an inherent concept as evidenced by many First Nation societies in North America as well as settlers not recognizing the territory as First Nation territory despite the First Nations having built 'their' house. Beyond the physical ground that your house occupies, the notion of private property is an artificial construct. (And even then, one could always knock over your house or build a dam lower on the river and flood it- also been done by companies internationally.) | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote: How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. On August 29 2010 09:01 Zato-1 wrote: The state having a monopoly over the use of force is a good thing. Without it, you'd get warlords vying for control and power with one another, assuring an armed conflict- which is definitely bad. If you have control over the use of force centralized, then no one will seriously attempt to topple the regime, and that regime can do as it pleases and establish rules. Maybe you won't like the regime. Maybe you won't like the rules. But at least there's order and rules- the alternative is chaos and civil war, which is much, much worse. Negative, anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers. People can agree on rules even contractually so; and higher order systems can arise without coercion, being paid for voluntarily and more efficiently than robbing a bit from everyone. | ||
|
Milkis
5003 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:11 Sumsi wrote: What does "Markets don't form by themselves" mean? How do you explain the appearance of so called "black markets"? ACaps often make the point that markets are everywhere where people are just making business. You dont need a state to force them. It's a strong argument imo. I'm not really referring to black markets. Market creation is normally a tenet of Anarcho-Capitalism, that is, arguing that market failures can be dealt with (specifically, Externalities can be dealt with) by formation of new markets. There are many things that is needed for this, one of the biggest things being support -- normally government grants, and governments picking it up and using the system to set the trend for the new market, leading to standardization. It does not, refer to Black Markets, since many of the things sold in Black markets are easily quantifiable, standardized, etc. But when it comes to more complex things that needs to be dealt with to deal with Market Failures, Anarcho Capitalism is rather slow in making the system work, and in fact, it can even kill the system since it may not be in every firm's current best interests since it'll cost them to deal with the new standards set. Basically, for the simple things, it works out, but for externalities, any well established corporation can stop it from happening since it's not in their best interest. Some things do need wider support before the markets actually become sustainable in the long run. | ||
|
waffling1
599 Posts
if u want a huge class gap have government get deeply involved in market regulation i've yet to hear a sound case for socialism. every time they overlook economic principles, turn a blind eye and hold a double standard when it comes to a system being prone to corruption. and they're in total deniable of history. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:06 dvide wrote: It's not really an artificial construct. Property rights in the context of a "state granted power" could be said to be artificial, yes. But property itself not so much. Would you say that a person defending his home from an invader is being coercive, or that the invader is? If if come into your home and attempt to take your stuff, I'm guessing you would use force to try to stop me. That would not be coercion on your part, but a legitimate use of force for defensive purposes only. That is still true if there is no state granted license on your use of that force. The example you use is a home, but there are more implications to a home than simple private property rights. People require a place to live, people feel an emotional association with their homes, people desire a particular sense of security in their homes, etc. Consider for example that Castle Laws exist that specifically refer to people's rights to be secure in their homes. Whether you agree or disagree with such laws, it is hard to dispute that one's home has a special significance. But we are talking simply about property rights, regardless of any special significance. A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing? | ||
|
leakingpear
United Kingdom302 Posts
| ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote: It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions) 2) Because people value rights that are not capitalizable. 3) Markets fail, and fail often, despite what you may read on mises.org. Not saying that this means we "need" the state, but that this hinders such system of society, and may cause it to fail. 4) You need the entire world to follow this paradigm. Game Theory wise, any nation that decides to do this will be simply manipulated by foreign powers. 1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business? Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow. 2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment. 3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. On August 29 2010 09:03 waffling1 wrote: first video at :50 - 1:10 it stopped being anarchy and started being a a government. that's no longer anarchy. 4:35 - 4:45 2nd amendment. "Anarchy" (misnomer for freedom) resolves its own problems. what you're merely pointing out is that governments naturally arise. that governments spontaneously form from a state of anarchy. then the real problem is powerful, unstoppable abusive government, not the "evils of capitalism or anarchy" hence constitution, hence separation of powers the video is explaining the exact political parallel of the economic idea of free markets. ppl rise to meet the demands via self-interest. associations arise b/c ppl don't want violence all the time and having to live in a warzone just to claim their land. in otherwords, summed up in 2 terms: self interest, and game theory. Game theory would tell you that for every publically known attack pattern or strategy, there can be made a defense counter against. If you know that warlords are coming, you can gather your neighbors and pay for a voluntary police force to defend you at the best price the market can offer, as much defense as you need. The idea that a socialized, one-size-fits-all system, managed coercively and exempt from market incentives can best give you anything, let alone defense against another such system, is not only preposterous but contradictory (you want a coercive body to defend you against another coercive body? lol) | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote: How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? This was one of my points when I said everyone has to agree to their negative-liberty capitalistic rules. The second someone doesn't agree and acts on the disagreement, a wide variety of private armies will probably kill you. | ||
| ||
