|
additionally,
i dont know if this was touched upon but...people mentioned manhatten projects and weapons earlier.
suppose there was a company that announced it was developing a nuclear weapon.
would people have the right to pre-emptively attack them if
a) you knew the company would use the weapon to ransom everyone else
b) you knew the company would only use the weapon as a deterrent
c) you were unsure of the motives
does your answer change if it was another type of weapon that was not as powerful?
|
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 14:58 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 14:33 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:06 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 12:22 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 11:42 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 09:59 Yurebis wrote:
[quote]
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done. Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that? I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it. Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on. Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment). Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads... On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote:
Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything. Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected. If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much. There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart? Yes. Private charities already exist, and charity is a market demand. Stealing from everyone can hardly be called charity however, for any end at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropistsI couldn't find a non-mixed list, but... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.htmlOn September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:
You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would. AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all. It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country. You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system. Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay. If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place. My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle. On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:
From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life. It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits... Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will. Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force". Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful? I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone. A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability. Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well. So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best. You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need.
Things you demand. hint hint wink wink
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
"I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong?
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
|
On September 01 2010 15:19 geometryb wrote:
additionally,
i dont know if this was touched upon but...people mentioned manhatten projects and weapons earlier.
suppose there was a company that announced it was developing a nuclear weapon.
would people have the right to pre-emptively attack them if
a) you knew the company would use the weapon to ransom everyone else
b) you knew the company would only use the weapon as a deterrent
c) you were unsure of the motives
does your answer change if it was another type of weapon that was not as powerful?
A- Yes.
B- No.
C- Court time. Lol
edit: My answer would indeed change on the assessment of the risks and consequences involved.
|
On September 01 2010 15:30 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:58 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 14:33 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:06 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 12:22 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 11:42 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote:
[quote]
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that? I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it. Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on. Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment). Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads... On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote:
Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything. Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected. If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much. There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart? Yes. Private charities already exist, and charity is a market demand. Stealing from everyone can hardly be called charity however, for any end at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropistsI couldn't find a non-mixed list, but... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.htmlOn September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:
You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would. AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all. It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country. You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system. Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay. If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place. My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle. On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:
From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life. It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits... Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will. Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force". Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful? I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone. A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability. Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well. So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best. You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need. Things you demand. hint hint wink wink Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone. So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
"I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous? You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong? Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith. I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask.
|
On September 01 2010 15:38 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:30 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:58 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 14:33 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:06 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 12:22 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 11:42 Yurebis wrote:
[quote]
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery".
Search Walter Block on roads...
[quote]
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much. There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart? Yes. Private charities already exist, and charity is a market demand. Stealing from everyone can hardly be called charity however, for any end at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropistsI couldn't find a non-mixed list, but... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.htmlOn September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:
You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would. AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all. It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country. You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system. Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay. If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place. My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle. On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:
From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life. It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits... Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will. Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force". Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful? I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone. A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability. Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well. So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best. You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need. Things you demand. hint hint wink wink On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone. So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
"I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous? You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong? On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith. I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course. I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask.
Ohh so you meant THAT for so long.
Okay, haha. No, stuff isn't paid by donation, they are paid by use.
The simplest model for roads would be tolls. Others models exist.
The simplest model for defense, would be insurance. And the insurance company contracts PDAs. Road defense however would be mostly paid by the road owners themselves, which is again passed on to tolls.
Fire departments could be called on-demand, military could have their own insurance plans OR be jointly paid with the common defense plans. It would come at an extra cost, how much, and whether it's feasible, I don't know, but yeah.
|
On September 01 2010 15:51 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:38 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 15:30 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:58 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 14:33 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:06 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 12:22 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:
[quote]
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart? Yes. Private charities already exist, and charity is a market demand. Stealing from everyone can hardly be called charity however, for any end at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropistsI couldn't find a non-mixed list, but... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.htmlOn September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:
You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would. AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all. It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country. You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system. Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay. If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place. My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle. On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:
From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life. It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits... Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will. Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force". Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful? I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone. A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability. Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well. So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best. You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need. Things you demand. hint hint wink wink On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone. So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
"I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous? You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong? On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith. I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course. I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask. Ohh so you meant THAT for so long. Okay, haha. No, stuff isn't paid by donation, they are paid by use. The simplest model for roads would be tolls. Others models exist. The simplest model for defense, would be insurance. And the insurance company contracts PDAs. Road defense however would be mostly paid by the road owners themselves, which is again passed on to tolls. Fire departments could be called on-demand, military could have their own insurance plans OR be jointly paid with the common defense plans. It would come at an extra cost, how much, and whether it's feasible, I don't know, but yeah.
LOL yeah wow I was talking about that the whole time, it's okay probably my fault for not being specific enough at times. Okay I'll just take what we discussed and take some time to contemplate whether it's feasible or not because some of these concepts I don't know as much as I thought I did about. I guess I was just a bit misinformed but it's always good to learn something new and raise discussion.
|
On September 01 2010 15:59 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 15:51 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 15:38 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 15:30 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:58 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 14:33 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 14:06 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:On September 01 2010 12:22 Yurebis wrote:[quote] Yes. Private charities already exist, and charity is a market demand. Stealing from everyone can hardly be called charity however, for any end at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropistsI couldn't find a non-mixed list, but... http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html[quote] Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would. AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all. It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country. You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system. Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay. If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place. My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle. On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote:
From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life. It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits... Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will. Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force". Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful? I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone. A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability. Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well. So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best. You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need. Things you demand. hint hint wink wink On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone. So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
"I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous? You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong? On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote:
Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith. I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course. I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask. Ohh so you meant THAT for so long. Okay, haha. No, stuff isn't paid by donation, they are paid by use. The simplest model for roads would be tolls. Others models exist. The simplest model for defense, would be insurance. And the insurance company contracts PDAs. Road defense however would be mostly paid by the road owners themselves, which is again passed on to tolls. Fire departments could be called on-demand, military could have their own insurance plans OR be jointly paid with the common defense plans. It would come at an extra cost, how much, and whether it's feasible, I don't know, but yeah. LOL yeah wow I was talking about that the whole time, it's okay probably my fault for not being specific enough at times. Okay I'll just take what we discussed and take some time to contemplate whether it's feasible or not because some of these concepts I don't know as much as I thought I did about. I guess I was just a bit misinformed but it's always good to learn something new and raise discussion.
Yes. Good talking to you.
|
On September 01 2010 13:50 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 12:56 mint_julep wrote:The US government is virtually nothing more than an agent of industry at this point. The state doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. + Show Spoiler +We (in the US) live in anarcho-capitalism. It works in the sense that it literally "works". It is happening. It does not work in the sense that the disparity of wealth in this country is extreme and the people are generally unhappy with the governance of their lives. + Show Spoiler +In any other sense this discussion is meaningless. Edit: "argument" changed to "discussion" Uh...That's called corporatism, if anything. Anacho-capitalists are just as opposed as you seem to be, but not because corporations are wealthy - there is nothing wealth alone can do to harm anyone. Money doesn't go out of people's wallets and bite them in the nose. Man chooses to coerce, and man is to be called out on it. Corporations use the state, yes, but you have to note that it is the state that does the coercion. Corporations cannot coerce nearly as well without the subsidized and monopolized police, courts, law, roads, army, whatever else they do. Corporations by themselves would have to raise their own courts, police, army, etc. etc. to do the same. It would cost at least tens of billions - but they can do it for a few million by lobbying. This discussion is not meaningless. What is meaningless however, is blobbing together everyone you don't like, and blame them all for the ills of the world. Justify why each person who does what they do are wrong. Every group. Being 'rich' is not an evil.
Causes and effects confused tend to distort arguments. In this case I am arguing that corporatism has led directly to anarcho-capitalism in the US, not that they are one in the same. Please don't accuse me of misusing terms when I'm not.
Your second point is as useless as arguing that gun wielding bank robbers do not kill people, it is the guns they carry that do so. Wealth does not not directly cause harm any more than guns do. Users of guns are the instigators, in the sense of the proverb 'power corrupts'. It is not the power that harms, but the corrupted, obviously.
Clearly what I'm saying is that corporations have no need to 'raise their own courts, police, army etc, etc. to do the same' when they can simply gain control of an external set of these powers. i.e. the state. and that is exactly what they have done, Successfully.
Anarcho-capitalism (along with anarcho-anythingism) will generally have the same end objectives as I have. The majority of any arguments at that point will lay at strategy as this one does. I think that this strategy is weak, and that is my argument.
|
On September 01 2010 17:35 mint_julep wrote:
Causes and effects confused tend to distort arguments. In this case I am arguing that corporatism has led directly to anarcho-capitalism in the US, not that they are one in the same. Please don't accuse me of misusing terms when I'm not.
Your second point is as useless as arguing that gun wielding bank robbers do not kill people, it is the guns they carry that do so. Wealth does not not directly cause harm any more than guns do. Users of guns are the instigators, in the sense of the proverb 'power corrupts'. It is not the power that harms, but the corrupted, obviously.
Clearly what I'm saying is that corporations have no need to 'raise their own courts, police, army etc, etc. to do the same' when they can simply gain control of an external set of these powers. i.e. the state. and that is exactly what they have done, Successfully.
Anarcho-capitalism (along with anarcho-anythingism) will generally have the same end objectives as I have. The majority of any arguments at that point will lay at strategy as this one does. I think that this strategy is weak, and that is my argument.
Either the state doesn't exist or corporations use the state for their ends. It can't be both. Corporations having influence over the machinery of the state is not the definition of ancap that we are using. Although we both agree that it is happening. The word anarchism as we are using it simply means that there is no state, and crucially that no organisation has the supposed moral right to initiate violence.
|
On September 01 2010 15:19 geometryb wrote:
additionally,
i dont know if this was touched upon but...people mentioned manhatten projects and weapons earlier.
suppose there was a company that announced it was developing a nuclear weapon.
would people have the right to pre-emptively attack them if
a) you knew the company would use the weapon to ransom everyone else
b) you knew the company would only use the weapon as a deterrent
c) you were unsure of the motives
does your answer change if it was another type of weapon that was not as powerful?
Meh, look at what happened in the real world - the more the merrier. Everyone races to get them and the more people who have them the less likely it is that anyone actually uses them. Eventually those who didn't buy them end up richer than those who did and they end up being sold around as just another form of capital to pay off debts. Finally they're stripped down and used to run power plants which, at least, have practical uses and actually make you money.
|
On September 01 2010 17:35 mint_julep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 13:50 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 12:56 mint_julep wrote:The US government is virtually nothing more than an agent of industry at this point. The state doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. + Show Spoiler +We (in the US) live in anarcho-capitalism. It works in the sense that it literally "works". It is happening. It does not work in the sense that the disparity of wealth in this country is extreme and the people are generally unhappy with the governance of their lives. + Show Spoiler +In any other sense this discussion is meaningless. Edit: "argument" changed to "discussion" Uh...That's called corporatism, if anything. Anacho-capitalists are just as opposed as you seem to be, but not because corporations are wealthy - there is nothing wealth alone can do to harm anyone. Money doesn't go out of people's wallets and bite them in the nose. Man chooses to coerce, and man is to be called out on it. Corporations use the state, yes, but you have to note that it is the state that does the coercion. Corporations cannot coerce nearly as well without the subsidized and monopolized police, courts, law, roads, army, whatever else they do. Corporations by themselves would have to raise their own courts, police, army, etc. etc. to do the same. It would cost at least tens of billions - but they can do it for a few million by lobbying. This discussion is not meaningless. What is meaningless however, is blobbing together everyone you don't like, and blame them all for the ills of the world. Justify why each person who does what they do are wrong. Every group. Being 'rich' is not an evil. Causes and effects confused tend to distort arguments. In this case I am arguing that corporatism has led directly to anarcho-capitalism in the US, not that they are one in the same. Please don't accuse me of misusing terms when I'm not. Your second point is as useless as arguing that gun wielding bank robbers do not kill people, it is the guns they carry that do so. Wealth does not not directly cause harm any more than guns do. Users of guns are the instigators, in the sense of the proverb 'power corrupts'. It is not the power that harms, but the corrupted, obviously. Clearly what I'm saying is that corporations have no need to 'raise their own courts, police, army etc, etc. to do the same' when they can simply gain control of an external set of these powers. i.e. the state. and that is exactly what they have done, Successfully. Anarcho-capitalism (along with anarcho-anythingism) will generally have the same end objectives as I have. The majority of any arguments at that point will lay at strategy as this one does. I think that this strategy is weak, and that is my argument.
The cause and effect of corporate interference in government may be easy to assert, to the point that I agree with you, corporations do use government, generally. But to take any legal proceedings into dismantling them, requires you to prove which ones, and to what extent, they conspired with government. Prove it in court, and matters shall be settled. I had already answered a question in this thread that yes, it would be possible to sue corporations in bed with government after government itself has fallen.
edit: now with 50% less strawman
|
is it just me that thinks anarchy does nothing but generate a bunch of different small pockets of state like militias and the like? You will never have your perfect anarchy because thousands of small groups of people are gonna start little dictatorships, if there is a body large enough and ethical enough to prevent that from happening, isnt that a government already ?
|
On September 01 2010 14:44 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote:
just to reiterate my point,
a failure in the security industry would mean an end to anarchy because very few organization with a lot of power have the "power corrupts" syndrome. By failure you mean, they decide to go initiate some force into those silly ancaps right? It would indeed be somewhat of a failure. Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote:
a failure in the security industry can occur because there is no gaurantee on a competitive market. There is no way to look at the number of firms.
just another thought that is less important -- imperfect information. the inherent secrecy behind security capabilities (you dont want others to know your vulnerabilities) will not allow people to audit out of control firms.
There are no guarantees in government either, first off. The correct question to ask is, which one is less likely to coerce? Well, actually that's quite the biased question since the PDA wins by default... eheh... well, let's not compare then. Within the free market, everyone is aware of that possibility. People will be more weary of buying the services of a large PDA, and that PDA's services will carry that weigh and risk with them. Would you buy into a cheaper service that has a higher chance of backstabbing, defraud you, or will you choose the more expensive one that has no such risk? I don't know, depends by how much, right? But there is an incentive to back off big PDAs, even if diseconomies of scale don't hold them back. The larger it gets, the higher the risk of backstabbing, and the more it will either have to better address the transparency issues like you said, or will have to shrink/stale. Systems of checks and balances aren't impossible to be made in the free market either. That's what insurance companies are famous for - perhaps they themselves could be the proxy of risk, with all it's actuaries. Instead of buying into PDAs directly, anarcho-capitalists could hire them through insurance companies that both made the services cheaper for less troublesome clients, and more expensive for violent individuals. These insurance companies would also be hiring PDAs either on-demand or on short-term contracts to attend their customers in need. The PDAs chosen and paid would immediately be put into considerations of risk, just as the customers are. Bigger PDAs would be paid less or hired less if they're increasingly shady, and more transparent or smaller PDAs would be hired more, even if it comes at an increase. PDAs could be required to report to the insurance companies everything they've done. There could be made anonymous or private phone lines where people and members report issues they've had with PDAs, or tips on whether a PDA could be planning something, and the insurance companies would take those into account, perhaps hiring third party investigators to know what's up. The insurance companies however are just an additional layer, and it does ultimately come down to the customer wanting more transparency, less risk, at a cost of course. Government is indeed a bit freer in that regard, they can bust down any doors and wire any lines, however at what cost? and who keeps an eye on government itself? There is always more to it when you talk about government being good at anything. Think of the externalities and limitations. No problem, below.
People demand a trustworthy security company because they are worried about the company turning on them. People demand a large security company because they are worried about external threats. A large company does not necessarily mean untrustworthy. I believe that a company can satisfy both demands through the implementation of its business strategy and the product it sells. For example, every purchaser of the service automatically becomes a shareholder and have rotating leadership. Even if that's not satisfactory, i believe there can be a way to engineer a defense company that is trustworthy to its customers no matter how large.
Furthermore, another major market failure would arise since security companies do not have to be profitable. Customers moving away is not that worrisome (if that's the only means of controlling size) since businesses can live off investor money forever. Some businesses never make a profit.
It is impossible to judge whether a business is using resources to form an offensive capability or improve its defensive services. The problem is that once a business develops the technology to make nuclear power plants, developing nuclear weapons isn't that much harder. Once a business develops the rocketry to launch communication satellites into orbit, developing long range missiles is not that much harder. Being able to pre-emptively deny people you do not like those capabilities is a form of coercion. Insurance companies will never be able to accurately assess peoples' intentions. "it's for good stuff, it's for defense, it's for...oh wait"
|
|
|
On September 02 2010 06:19 D10 wrote:
is it just me that thinks anarchy does nothing but generate a bunch of different small pockets of state like militias and the like? You will never have your perfect anarchy because thousands of small groups of people are gonna start little dictatorships, if there is a body large enough and ethical enough to prevent that from happening, isnt that a government already ?
No, it's not just you, and no, it doesn't have to be coercive to deter coercion.
The framework of private property allows for legislative and enforcement systems to be non-coercive if they ever were allowed to mature.
I thought I had already explained why the gang-protected slums in Brazil aren't an example of a free market emergence of defense. Do you or do you not you agree with my theory? The feds' presence alone does not allow people to choose between voluntary services in the market, they choose whatever gang is the least coercive (feds included). In that sense, it is somewhat competitive, but it isn't a full capitalist market, because private property is not understood nor respected. The market participants are both required and allowed to have some level of coercion in their businesses, at the expense of capital accumulation. If a city or town were allowed to even begin the process of non-coercive defense, then that city or town would flock with businesses and greater prosperity, but they can't, because everywhere around them and above them, there are gangs with an established and respected presence by the part of its subjugates. You yourself said people preferred to be ruled by one gang or the other - of course it's a mini-state then, that's what states do. Legitimized monopolies on coercion. Even Somalia is more advanced in that sense, and they have their own traditional setbacks and shitty neighbors still, but at least, no common authority above them.
|
On September 02 2010 07:52 geometryb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 14:44 Yurebis wrote:On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote:
just to reiterate my point,
a failure in the security industry would mean an end to anarchy because very few organization with a lot of power have the "power corrupts" syndrome. By failure you mean, they decide to go initiate some force into those silly ancaps right? It would indeed be somewhat of a failure. On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote:
a failure in the security industry can occur because there is no gaurantee on a competitive market. There is no way to look at the number of firms.
just another thought that is less important -- imperfect information. the inherent secrecy behind security capabilities (you dont want others to know your vulnerabilities) will not allow people to audit out of control firms.
There are no guarantees in government either, first off. The correct question to ask is, which one is less likely to coerce? Well, actually that's quite the biased question since the PDA wins by default... eheh... well, let's not compare then. Within the free market, everyone is aware of that possibility. People will be more weary of buying the services of a large PDA, and that PDA's services will carry that weigh and risk with them. Would you buy into a cheaper service that has a higher chance of backstabbing, defraud you, or will you choose the more expensive one that has no such risk? I don't know, depends by how much, right? But there is an incentive to back off big PDAs, even if diseconomies of scale don't hold them back. The larger it gets, the higher the risk of backstabbing, and the more it will either have to better address the transparency issues like you said, or will have to shrink/stale. Systems of checks and balances aren't impossible to be made in the free market either. That's what insurance companies are famous for - perhaps they themselves could be the proxy of risk, with all it's actuaries. Instead of buying into PDAs directly, anarcho-capitalists could hire them through insurance companies that both made the services cheaper for less troublesome clients, and more expensive for violent individuals. These insurance companies would also be hiring PDAs either on-demand or on short-term contracts to attend their customers in need. The PDAs chosen and paid would immediately be put into considerations of risk, just as the customers are. Bigger PDAs would be paid less or hired less if they're increasingly shady, and more transparent or smaller PDAs would be hired more, even if it comes at an increase. PDAs could be required to report to the insurance companies everything they've done. There could be made anonymous or private phone lines where people and members report issues they've had with PDAs, or tips on whether a PDA could be planning something, and the insurance companies would take those into account, perhaps hiring third party investigators to know what's up. The insurance companies however are just an additional layer, and it does ultimately come down to the customer wanting more transparency, less risk, at a cost of course. Government is indeed a bit freer in that regard, they can bust down any doors and wire any lines, however at what cost? and who keeps an eye on government itself? There is always more to it when you talk about government being good at anything. Think of the externalities and limitations. No problem, below. People demand a trustworthy security company because they are worried about the company turning on them. People demand a large security company because they are worried about external threats. A large company does not necessarily mean untrustworthy. I believe that a company can satisfy both demands through the implementation of its business strategy and the product it sells. For example, every purchaser of the service automatically becomes a shareholder and have rotating leadership. Even if that's not satisfactory, i believe there can be a way to engineer a defense company that is trustworthy to its customers no matter how large.
Why are you agreeing with me all of the sudden?
On September 02 2010 07:52 geometryb wrote:
Furthermore, another major market failure would arise since security companies do not have to be profitable. Customers moving away is not that worrisome (if that's the only means of controlling size) since businesses can live off investor money forever. Some businesses never make a profit.
And they die off, and their investors lose their investment. Clearly, it is much more painful for them to lose everything, than it is for a president to lose stranger's lives and taxpayer money. Hence, it will happen less.
On September 02 2010 07:52 geometryb wrote:
It is impossible to judge whether a business is using resources to form an offensive capability or improve its defensive services. The problem is that once a business develops the technology to make nuclear power plants, developing nuclear weapons isn't that much harder. Once a business develops the rocketry to launch communication satellites into orbit, developing long range missiles is not that much harder. Being able to pre-emptively deny people you do not like those capabilities is a form of coercion. Insurance companies will never be able to accurately assess peoples' intentions. "it's for good stuff, it's for defense, it's for...oh wait"
So no one's going to notice if they round up civilians or fire some missiles?
And why are you contradicting yourself in the first paragraph? If people demand assurance, assurance will be supplied, better than the state could, for the various reasons I won't repeat...
Insurance companies can more than likely assess risks than any bureaucrat or state representative auditing ... the state itself.
|
So what would happen in a an anarcho-capitalist world where a large group of people decide to form a nation-state with a ruling government, and then the nation-state decides to start invading everyone else and starts successfully taking over their lands and resources due to the anarchists' lack of comparable unity.
|
On September 02 2010 09:42 blue_arrow wrote:
So what would happen in a an anarcho-capitalist world where a large group of people decide to form a nation-state with a ruling government, and then the nation-state decides to start invading everyone else and starts successfully taking over their lands and resources due to the anarchists' lack of comparable unity.
What happens is, that for every evil, infallible plan you can think of, the free market has already thought of a counter, a deterrent to it, and will make it at least unprofitable for you to do it, if not impossible.
It would be easier to kill everyone than to subjugate the free men back into slavery, that much I'm sure.
|
34 pages is too long for me to go read thoroughly so forgive me if I go over something already mentioned. There are way to many items to discuss about anarcho-capitalism if you truly want to discuss it properly, so i'll just mention a few.
The whole discussion of why can/can't anarcho-capitalism "work" revolves around the definition of work. Work for who? In relation to what? It all has to do with values. If you value meritocracy, you'd have a problem with the "capitalist" part of anarcho-capitalism. If you value equality, you might have similar objections. If you value stability, you might object to the anarchist part. Anyway...
* Disclaimer * I am not supporting the legitimacy of the state.
1. Would there be a stock market in anarcho-capitalism? If so, then you do a short sale on a companies stock. Then, you hire a "defense" company and use violent means to destroy the company and make a profit.
2. Fraud. Life grows complex. Even in the last 50 years, the volume of information that people need to process to accurately make good decisions has increased tremendously. An increase in complexity, information asymmetry, and the limited ability for humans to process information makes fraud very easy.
3. Violence is naturally unpopular, therefore is hard to use massively if it's recognized as such. If the state is to ever fall and not come back for a while, people will instantly know what is up if someone tries to set up a new state. No one will pay for that failed experiment, just as much as America today won't go back to slavery.
Who says violence is naturally unpopular? For most people, it is, but it violence isn't something related to popularity. All it takes is one person to fund it for it to exist. One of the reasons inequality exists today is that the government uses its monopoly on power to protect private property. People are naturally jealous when they are poor and there are super wealthy people around. In anarchy, nothing's stopping the average joe from picking up a gun and shooting Bill Gates or the like. Bill Gates is going to want to protect his private property, so he might as well pay for the establishment of some sort of state. It only takes ONE wealthy person who wants the existence of the state to make coercive states viable. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has the means and the funds to do such.
***
On Anarchy. Anarchy is a system which depends on the existence of tabula rasa. If man is purely a product of the environment, then government can move from a physical entity to an intangible idea. Yet it still is a government. i.e. governing principle. Under the tabula rasa idea, anarchy is possible under many forms. One way is to condition everyone to act like a hive drone and make them completely constrained by feelings of not wanting to be socially ostracized by the community. That results in the non-existence of government without freedom. Another way is to have a completely educated population. Law is a substitute for rational thought. It is a shortcut that allows people who can't think rationally to come to semi-rational conclusions. Of course, law is abusable because it is arbitrary, open to interpretation, and hard to adapt to the situation at hand. Therefore, a society that has collectively achieved the highest level of education can operate without laws. Of course, the whole conflict is how you define education and rational thought. Rational for who? For individual self interest? Collective interest? A mix of all of them?
Of course if tabula rasa doesn't exist, then anarchy doesn't work. The OP bypasses this by acknowledging that anarchy doesn't work in the presence of "human nature", but then neither do states. This is a cop-out. The OP should just have denied the existence of human nature and went straight for the gut with tabula rasa. Oh well.
The thing is, if "human nature" exists, then there is no possible way to create a system of government or non-government that is perfect because the word system implies that it should work regardless of who is in power (or not in power). Since you can't know who is benevolent and who is not, you cannot make a foolproof system. The idea of checks and balances tries to mitigate the damage that one person can do, but all that did was a) make it hard for good people to do good things, b) make it hard to react to a crisis, and c) remove the extreme good/bad decisions and fill government with mediocre decisions. If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
|
On August 29 2010 08:42 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 08:05 Sl4ktarN wrote:
I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism. Shall everybody live in poverty, so that no-one will have "power"? Yay for communism! Just how does money bring power exactly? The power to trade? Wealth only brings the power of oppression when there is a vehicle of oppressive power to buy at a low cost, which is kind of the whole point. Would companies fund the enforcement of arbitrary, oppressive dictats out of pocket? Consider how huge the cost would be to them, and for what benefit? All this talk about private companies becoming the next state is kind of missing the point. The state has presupposed authority. States face little resistance because of the false meme that the state has legitimacy. Private companies do not have presupposed legitimacy. They could not offload the cost of oppression to the taxpayer, AND the cost would be much greater overall because people would actually defend themselves against the oppression where there is no presupposed legitimacy. How could Coca Cola possibly become the next state? Makes little sense. And where would their money come from if not from voluntary trade in the first place?
When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot. After you get a monopoly/start building your own private corporate military, all notions of voluntary trade go out the window. Sure, you may have originally built your commercial empire through voluntary trade, but after a point you can enforce your power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
