On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win. I don't want to discuss this any more, because it makes no difference to my argument. I've outlined the material difference that I want to change and we all understand it. So whatever you or we choose to call it is irrelevant at this point, unless we're just debating semantics.
By the by, there are continuums where two extremes have distinct words in language, but they cannot be precisely differentiated. Such as hot and cold. I think the same could be said of anarchism and statism. Language is always intersubjective, that's why outlying exactly what you mean is important to avoid a confused semantic dispute. I have done that, so we need to get off this topic.
On September 03 2010 05:52 silynxer wrote: @Yurebis: Then my point remains: the states right now are exactly an (in your view outlaw and criminal) company. If people act as you describe they should act so right now against the government.
We aren't in anarcho-capitalism, and property rights aren't understood nor fully respected.
Completely different environments, thanks for the strawman.
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
You're ignoring private property theory, so of course you think it's justifiable for the government to steal people's property for anything they do. The choice in ancap isn't between hunger or enslavement to buy food, it is between not doing anything + not getting anything back, and exchanging The choice in statism is not doing anything that the state can steal the benefits from, to doing what the state can steal the benefits from and therefore pay taxes.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win.
I don't. What is the semantic issue about? Defining coercion? Jesus how hard is that I wonder. "Oh noes, we can't define coercion, now Jack can go around the streets and kill everyone, no one will be able to stop him!"
"He he he, that's right. You can't prove what I do is coercive! So it's no different than breaking eggs to make an omelet!"
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
I've already written about this "wage slavery" type argument before in this thread. But I watched this good video about it today so I thought I'd share it with you since you bring it up again:
This whole argument ignores utilitarianism for the sake of principle and I cannot agree with that. Is murder wrong? Yes, is murdering someone to save 10 other people still wrong? I would argue no. People are so caught up in the principle of actions that they ignore the efficiency in finding the greatest good for the greatest amount. Utilitarianism, although at times vague, is still is the ultimate measuring tool for finding the best course of action in ethics and morality.
I actually agree with that a little. OH SHIT WE AGREE ON SOMETHING?
Edit: however it should be noted that someone who did kill 1 to save 10 would be heavily tried and he would have to show how he knew that his choice saved those 10 beyond a reasonable doubt. Which of course is very very hard to prove especially with other rational agents involved in the causal chain in leading him to believe that. But more importantly than that, these cases rarely happen and I think they should be put aside to philosophy threads.
And my opinion in no way is a determinant of how market law would handle such a case.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win.
I don't. What is the semantic issue about? Defining coercion? Jesus how hard is that I wonder. "Oh noes, we can't define coercion, now Jack can go around the streets and kill everyone, no one will be able to stop him!"
"He he he, that's right. You can't prove what I do is coercive! So it's no different than breaking eggs to make an omelet!"
It basically all stems from the argument he made on page 24:
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a corporation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the corporations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
So basically he's trying to argue that there is no semantic difference between ancap and statism, so we really have nothing to complain about because we already live in our desired utopia. I can't believe I'm still debating this for so long.
@Yurebis: What the difference between state (now) and company (then) is is the most central aspect of your whole philosophy. You always take as a starting point how you think AnCap will work out, I'd rather have you to start with your definitions of what it is (no government doesn't cut it if you can't explain why the government isn't equivalent to an AnCap company).
@dvide: I get the feeling I worded it badly there. It is not important how you call it but what it is in essence (the set of all systems that one can call AnCap so to say). But well it's late, so goodnight.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win.
I don't. What is the semantic issue about? Defining coercion? Jesus how hard is that I wonder. "Oh noes, we can't define coercion, now Jack can go around the streets and kill everyone, no one will be able to stop him!"
"He he he, that's right. You can't prove what I do is coercive! So it's no different than breaking eggs to make an omelet!"
It basically all stems from the argument he made on page 24:
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a corporation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the corporations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
So basically he's trying to argue that there is no semantic difference between ancap and statism, so we really have nothing to complain about because we already live in our desired utopia. I can't believe I'm still debating this for so long.
On September 03 2010 07:06 kidcrash wrote: This whole argument ignores utilitarianism for the sake of principle and I cannot agree with that. Is murder wrong? Yes, is murdering someone to save 10 other people still wrong? I would argue no. People are so caught up in the principle of actions that they ignore the efficiency in finding the greatest good for the greatest amount. Utilitarianism, although at times vague, is still is the ultimate measuring tool for finding the best course of action in ethics and morality.
I don't know what the argument has to do with utilitarianism exactly. It's simply arguing against this notion that businesses are exploiting poor people by hiring them. What does your efficiency calculation have to disagree on with this?
But your efficiency calculation is kind of disgusting to me. What you're saying is that human beings don't have any right to their own lives, because if at any point it's more efficient that they are dead then so be it, we should just murder them. And not only that, but you're saying it's actually virtuous and morally good to murder them. It kind of makes me not want to be your friend.
And you live in the United States. Do you support the idea of having a constitutionally limited government, and the bill of rights? Because that's exactly the sort of thing the constitution would purport to protect you from.
On September 03 2010 07:47 silynxer wrote: @Yurebis: What the difference between state (now) and company (then) is is the most central aspect of your whole philosophy. You always take as a starting point how you think AnCap will work out, I'd rather have you to start with your definitions of what it is (no government doesn't cut it if you can't explain why the government isn't equivalent to an AnCap company).
The state is a coercive monopoly on the initiation of force. It does not allow citizens of its domain to initiate force on their own choice against other citizens. It also does not allow other companies to compete in the services that it deems illegal for citizens to do. (like law, law enforcement, roads, prison systems, competing for infrastructure in areas where an exclusive lease is made, uh whatever else there is. Printing fiat money, yeah.) It claims the right to rob from all its citizens enough capital to do what they set out in doing. Well it claims pretty much any right it wants, as he is the sole legislator and enforcer of law.
The state could be said to be equivalent to a rogue, or outlaw supersized PDA+court that claimed control over all land. But that is as much as a valid comparison as saying monarchs are only statists with aristocratic selection for representation, or that states are just very large feuds with a constitution and crap like that. Yeah, of course "the difference is only this or that" but that is a huge difference, and completely understandable, discernible, under different theories.
The reigning theory in anarcho-capitalism is capitalism - private property, you own what you make and trade, and no one is right for taking that away from you - and for those that do, they're acting outside the realm of capitalism, and that's that.
On September 03 2010 07:47 silynxer wrote: @dvide: I get the feeling I worded it badly there. It is not important how you call it but what it is in essence (the set of all systems that one can call AnCap so to say). But well it's late, so goodnight.
Ok, I've explained what it is in essence and what the social difference is that I want to see. It is late so I will say goodnight too =) this thread is taking up a lot of my time.
On September 03 2010 03:57 Tuneful wrote: Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
Yes, they are both capable. But the state does coercion at 1 dime for the dollar. That is why it's the best enabler of violence, because it makes the oppressed pay for it's own oppression, most efficiently at that, since the citizen doesn't even realize he's being robbed.
I don't think you can simply say that the state is the most efficient "enabler of violence." In fact, I'm not sure what that means, and if you might clarify, that would be nice.
What I have tried to say previously was that capitalists have no real incentive to get rid of the state when the state can subsidize them so effectively. "Anarcho-capitalism" doesn't seem feasible if the capitalists won't abandon the apparatus that helps sustain them.
I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
On September 03 2010 03:57 Tuneful wrote: Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
Yes, they are both capable. But the state does coercion at 1 dime for the dollar. That is why it's the best enabler of violence, because it makes the oppressed pay for it's own oppression, most efficiently at that, since the citizen doesn't even realize he's being robbed.
I don't think you can simply say that the state is the most efficient "enabler of violence." In fact, I'm not sure what that means, and if you might clarify, that would be nice.
The one who steals the most has no problem stealing some more, for whatever cause they lobby it for. They prohibit the most, and prohibit lobbyist's competition some more. The monopolize the most, and shelter monopolies some more. It is cheaper to go to war for corporate interests when the state's army it's already there and ready to go, paid for by the people. It is cheaper for drug lords to bribe cops and maintain the monopoly on drugs that they have. It is cheaper for any heavily regulated corporation to lobby regulations UP, so there's absolutely no chance of competition from below.
Coercion in general is cheaper to do with the help of the state, than doing it yourself had the state not existed.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: What I have tried to say previously was that capitalists have no real incentive to get rid of the state when the state can subsidize them so effectively. "Anarcho-capitalism" doesn't seem feasible if the capitalists won't abandon the apparatus that helps sustain them.
Corporations may have. The rest of the market does not.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Will you hold that gun up forever? Did desposts and monarchs hold up the gun forever? No, and they didn't have to be forced by a bigger gun either. Holding up the gun against someone diminishes both yours and the subjects utility maximization (lol neoclassic economics). In the long run, both you and the subject will be poorer than people who didn't try to kill eachother all the time. So people have been consistently letting go of coercion in the long run, even if it may have been used early in history. There are a-priori reasons for that, that I've been reciting too often.
Even if its not a good idea to hold up a gun forever, people will do it. But then again, you don't need to hold the gun up forever. All you need is to have your subjects know that you have the ability to hold up your gun. Even then, who said the monarch's goal is to increase everyone's maximum utilization? As long as I can get stuff for free, I don't really care about how useful everyone else is.
Which is why I don't usually make moral arguments unless it's in response to a moral argument. It is true that for as long as people think it is better for them to keep stealing, moral considerations INCLUDED (not excluded, you can't disregard your own morality, and disregarding other people's moralities would be as dumb for a thief than disregarding the build order of a terran), they will keep stealing.
This is a big pile of lols. Any theory of anarchist government rests on the moral argument that the most immoral thing is the uninitiated use of force. Everything else "practical" just points to this moral conclusion. Also yes you can disregard your own morality. Especially if morality is a construct.
Austrian economics shows that it is not always the case, and in fact, the majority of times any non-sociopathic individual in history in any situation would be more inclined and better rewarded for cooperation. Okay I lie that austrian economics claims that, I'm the one claiming that based on catallactics, a few other basic concepts, and my scarce empirical experience. Even in war, a soldier relies on its comrades and superiors, a thief relies on the market to buy from him his stolen products, and sell him what he wants. a violent drug warlord relies on its dealers and on the demand of users. Even on the most violent and thieving aspects of society, perhaps even some mass-murderers included, man has been marginally more cooperative than coercive.
This statement is confused and out of place. Its not a matter of cooperative or coercive. When you combine coercive and cooperative, it becomes exploitive. The guise of cooperation combined with gaining an unfair advantage. Either way, this doesn't take into account leechers, who are neither cooperative nor coercive.
If the people who support socialistic intervention are taught of the benefits of free market cooperation, and the externalities of extortion and distribution, I have no doubt they'd stop supporting the madness. When, how, and ifs, are secondary to me.
You don't have to pick between socialistic intervention and pure free market capitalism. Of course our dangerous combination of the two has created a toxic time bomb waiting to explode, but there are other options.
I know. That's kind of my point, because nobody says thugs = state. Now states ARE just thugs in reality, but most people think states != thugs and instead states = angels. That's the whole point. That's what makes a state work. It's merely a false meme. It's a cultural thing that states are not only inevitable, but required and are virtuous, moral entities that protect you. In the same way that slavery was once considered legitimate, we now all understand that it's not and we rationally oppose it.
Lol and previously you were saying thugs != state, but thugs w/ presupposed legitimacy = state. Don't contradict yourself. Either way, I'm not one of the ppl saying state = angels. But state being a thug is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless you think that there is no such thing as a necessary evil.
And so even in a pure democracy, people aren't going to vote for slavery of the minorities just because the majority would benefit from it. It's not going to happen, because society has progressed and we have abolished slavery on moral grounds. We all 99% of us understand that there is no moral way to own another human being. Do you see what I mean? The fact that some people get political benefits from the state is true, and I don't discount it as being significant. It serves to make our job of convincing people that much harder. But in the same way that we now all rationally oppose slavery, I don't think that it's completely insurmountable.
The slavery case is not exactly the same as the government case. The slavery case is more like the anti-wealth sentiment in the US. Slavery was not a widespread occurence in the south, slaves were primarily owned by wealthy plantation owners. If the abolition of slavery was accomplished by vote, then a majority of people could have voted to abolish it without voting against their self interest. With that said, we now live in a slave-free society. What have we lost? We've lost free labor. We've replaced it with wage slavery. There is no real argument against slavery not just because people think it to be immoral, but there is simply no real positive benefits of slavery to the society as a whole. What would happen if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society? We would get rid of something immoral to some (anarcho-capitalists), and we would get a system with consequences. The consequences are what we are debating now. And if the negative aspects of anarcho-capitalism outweigh the benefits to the society at large, its going to be hard to convince them of such. The thing is, some moral judgments cannot be imposed over a majority of the population. For example, abortion. How do you reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the argument? I'd argue that its impossible. There are some things like murder which most people generally accept as wrong. There are other things that I think will never be as clear cut.
I really don't think I overestimate it. I think that 99% of people support the state's use of initiatory violence, and actively defend it in arguments. This is contrasted with 99% of people opposing state's use of initiatory violence, and actively attacking it. I think that difference is huge and creates a very large practical difference on whether the state can feasibly exist. But maybe we can agree to disagree here. I've made this point as best I can a million times already and I really don't want to try again. If I haven't yet changed anybody's mind then it's not going to make a difference.
The first part is simply unfounded opinion. The thing is, 99% of the people do not explicitly support the state's use of initiatory violence. They support the services that the government provides. They support the state not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds. The difference between anarchists and people who accept the state is that only anarchists point at the moral illegitimacy of the state. Its a lopsided argument. One side (the anarchist side) is opposing government morally, the other side (pro-government) is supporting the practical effects of government. When both sides are arguing based on different things, its hard to come to conclusions. In the slavery argument, abolitionists opposed slavery morally. The slave owners argued that they were morally justified by protecting the slaves. I dont think the slavery argument can be linked to the anarchy argument because its just a lot more complex than slavery. Plus, people have legitimate moral arguments against capitalism. You not only have to convince people to abolish the state, you also have to convince them that capitalism is moral. But those arguments are usually more widespread than anarchist arguments. One thing I will say is that anarcho-capitalists generally use the "state subsidized capitalism accounts for the evils that are normally atributed to free market capitalism", but there are some fundamental inequities such as the employer/employee relationship. While for the poor, money is a tool for survival, for the rich money is a tool used to wield power.
But your point about terror. It's true that states terrorise their citizens, and it's true that this can lower opposition to them. Duly noted. But again I don't think it's insurmountable. And I doubt that if you truly did something like that, that nobody would hold you to task for it. This would not allow you to become the next state; in-fact I would argue it would only serve you to achieve the opposite of your intended effect. Do you think the mere fact that my mutilated body hangs at your corporate office means that THE REST OF SOCIETY are all going to bow down and pay you taxes? No. If anything it would only show them how bat-shit criminally insane you are and increase opposition to your "company".
I never said the company's interest was to have people bow down to them and pay them taxes. You have a wonderful way of magically putting words in my mouth. Either way, you say it is true that it could lower opposition, but then at the end say it would increase opposition to the company. Inconsistency here, but my point is that terror directly opposes the capitalist thought. Capitalism is based on an inherent selfishness, not some sort of altruism. To be willing to be so passionate as to oppose this regime of terror requires some degree of self-sacrifice which doesn't really fit with the capitalist model. As long as you're not mutilating my body, there isn't really a reason why I should be willing to die to off you.
So surely the same logic applies if I say that I would like to enslave the bottom 1% of income earners on behalf of the top 99%. Of course, I will get a bunch of support, right! No I wouldn't, because slavery is morally opposed by everybody! That's the whole point! Who would support me? And even if over 51% of the hypothetical people would support me, at least WE REAL PEOPLE can all understand that it still doesn't make it right, or moral or legitimate.
Ignoring the fact that you just ignored my entire paragraph and picked out one quote from the middle (see I told you it would happen!), the point is that political support legitimizes the state. Current society sees if a state is using its power morally or immorally. Current society evaluates a state's legitimacy by the state's moral judgments. Suppose a king now arbitrarily decided to enslave the bottom 1% "on behalf" of the top 99%. If like you say there is moral opposition to it, then the state will have effectively lost its control. You say that the state gains its power through presupposed legitimacy. The legitimacy is not presupposed. Yes, people accept that the state has the right to initiate force, but people do not automatically assume all state power to be just. People think of the government in consequential terms as in what the government does, not what government is. That combined with state pandering supports state legitimacy.
It doesn't protect my safety; it hinders my safety and initiates aggression against me. It doesn't protect my business from fair competition; it restricts my business from fairly competing with those few that are politically connected.
This is all opinion and point of view. There are reasons why I could claim the exact opposite. What I meant by it protects my business from fair competition, I meant it protects unnaturally large oligopolies from actually having to innovate. Government regulations that stifle SMALL businesses is obviously good for large corporations who don't have to deal with the threat of small businesses taking away their huge market shares.
That's why I'm trying my best to address everything in detail in order to best convince people, instead of merely yelling YAY FREEDOM. Maybe you're right that widespread political support is insurmountable, but I don't think that it is so I will try. The same argument could be made for giving women the right to vote, or equal rights for blacks, or something like that. It's not insurmountable to have a major paradigm shift of political opinion in culture, and to have cultural progress in the understanding of freedom. As it has happened many times before in history. Or do you content that our current political system is somehow the pinnacle of human political progress, and no more widespread cultural political views can ever possibly be changed from this point in time? I think that's a genuine mistake.
You talk as if there are only two camps: The anarcho-capitalists, who are good and progressive, or the status quo-statist. Just to let you know there are more than those two groups. Of course I support cultural political evolution. Do I support your vision? Not necessarily.
I don't expect anything of you. If you don't want to watch it I honestly don't care. I link it for anybody that is interested enough.
You take the time to write a well thought out argument, but refuse to lay out some basics. It really wouldn't be that hard to list them would it?
I'm not sure what you want me to do here.
Actually you beat my expectations. I thought you'd ignore more of what I said. The fact that you come in and acknowledge some of my points followed by quickly dismissing them with hand waving gestures as if it wasn't a serious point. The thing is, you say a couple times here that whatever I say isn't "insurmountable". You point to changing the ideological structure and moral foundation of society. While admirable, like I said, there are more than one moral point of view. All ideological government systems, i.e. Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Democracy/Anarchism support some kind of moral. When all you're doing is building a system out of your own subjective principles, you are bound to meet some sort of logical resistance somewhere. See arguments against the morality of capitalism for an example.
Then nobody would accept the terms of that contract. And even if they did, IT'S STILL IMMORAL. Oh yes, I went and said it. I don't think contracts are binding to such ridiculous extremes. If that were true, then members of the Scientology sea org are actually bound to employment for a billion years. But thankfully we can all recognise it as being ridiculous.
If you don't accept, then you have no right to be on the guy's property. Arguing that its still immoral doesn't do anything except prove that you're just trying to build a system based on your moral principles.
The real curiosity here is that you ignore the statement between your two quotes above...
I've had that talk with someone else trying to mud the waters. Look, it's very clear in the realm of private property. I own myself. I also own what I make, and the resources that I homestead. I can trade my products and services with other people's products and services...
Social forces aren't coercion. Taxes are coercion, for the state claims a portion of my services and products it has no part of in creating. Dying from hunger isn't coercion because there isn't a coercer who to blame. Nature isn't a rational entity that even matters in the scope of human action, nor in private property. When libertarians say they wand "freedom", of course it means freedom from something. In that case, it is from coercion, from the initiation of force, fraud, and murder. Because these are human actions that violate private property theory and NAP, non-aggression principle.
I would say the fundamentalist is the one supporting violence against non-engaging middle-easterners, perpetuating a cycle of violence that the U.S. (state) itself has started.
You chose to ignore my comments on stability. Cool. Really I guess this whole conversation is pointless because it revolves around assumed moral values.
I could make an argument that nobody has the moral right the land or any natural resources coming from the land. Did you make the iron that comes out of the earth? Can you really own cows? Nobody created land or cows or iron. Either that or God created it. Regardless, you can't claim that you have a moral right to ownership of the cow because you didn't make the cow. Did you raise the cow and increase its value? Yes. So you can charge a fee for the service. Did it take you money and effort to extract the iron from the ground? Yes. You can charge a fee for that service. First come, first served is not a justification for why you have a right to possession of the iron. Now this comes to the problem of do we have the right to take something and refine it to sell it? Because if nobody owns it, who gets to use it? What moral right do you have to stop others from using it? There is no moral right to private property.
Now lets disregard that entire argument for the time being. Suppose we did agree that you could actually own resources. You are implying that Production equals work times resources, therefore if I found the resource and improved it and added value to it, I should be able to enjoy the full profits of whatever I have produced. However, this is not completely accurate, because without knowledge of how to improve the resource, you would have no product. Lets say you produce a tractor. Well you wouldn't have produced a tractor without the technical expertise of your ancestors. You wouldn't have been able to refine the steel necessary to make that tractor without similar technical knowledge. Production is not Work times resources. Production is Work times resources times knowledge. Who owns this knowledge? It is inherited by the society from our ancestors. Does anyone have the right to own this knowledge? Collect royalties on this knowledge? No, nobody can morally claim to be the owner of this inherited wealth. And without this knowledge, you would have never been able to create so much value. Therefore, taxation is not coercion by means of uninitiated use of force, but a rightful way of ensuring that all of the individuals of society are conferred the benefits of their inherited cultural knowledge.
The fundamentalist supporting violence is irrationally misinterpreting religious documents. It has nothing to do with the state.
Really, you think that only YOU are able to have foresight, but everyone else in society will be like "dduuuur hurrr lets allow that PDA to become a state again and mass slaughter whoever they want"? Please. If you can see it, guess what, competing businesses, investors, and courts will have noticed the possibility, the means, and the opportunities, years before you did.
Another misinterpretation of my words formed into a personal attack. No, I do not claim to be the only person to have foresight, but there are plenty of people who do NOT have foresight. If you disagree maybe you should go out there and observe people instead of sitting there in your fantasy that everyone is rational/intelligent. The PDA isn't mass slaughtering whoever they want. They're destroying a particular entity for a particular cause. In any case that doesn't matter. I guess I just forgot to mention that PDAs committing such an act won't commit the acts wearing "Hi I'm XXX PDA" over their foreheads. A PDA would do its benevolent acts in public, but then act anonymously when doing shady business. Of course with that idea you get PDAs using their shady business arm to attack other PDA's customers in order to make them look untrustworthy...
Not an argument against ancap, not a claim I care to disagree with.
A sort of feudal system could arise in ancap. If your notions of private property hold true, then corporations are essentially the feudal lords over the resources they control.
I'm not a neoclassicist. Read what austrian economics have to say on subjective value theory.
I know what Austrian subjective value theory says. My point was to say that there are non-market forces that impact people and they are sometimes more efficient than the market. Life is not all about money/power/economics.
Can do what? Fuck things up? Surely. It fucks things up the moment it extorts capital. Even if it spent the capital more cohesively, it would still be subpar. People just seem to notice when it's real bad, but it's actually always bad.
I was making an argument for why government is allowed to do war. Its because you swallow the package or you don't. That is the beauty of anarchy, you dont' have to buy the whole package. You can shop around. Of course that brings with it its own bundle of problems, so thats what we're talking about now! Or not. Either way it has nothing to do with screwing up.
Define coercion.
The act of compelling to an act or choice. The act of obtaining by pressure, force, or threat.
Wrongs create a demand to right them. People look for people to right them, and I'll call them "righters". Righters progressively earn a reputation and specialize at it. Righters figure out the best models to right things out, and righters compete in the free market. That goes for anything, not just law, defense, insurance, shoemaking, starcraft progaming, etc.
Certain wrongs create demands to right them. The poor people can't afford to pay for someone to right their situation, and nobody else is interested in righting their situation through market forces. Nobody is going to pay to stop people from abusing the environment/polluting it. Although it is in everyones interest to live in a clean environment. Some things aren't going to be righted by the market.
Fractional reserve banking is almost entirely a state enabled fraud. Banks who used demand deposits as time deposits would risk customers withdrawing them at the same time and discover the malpractice. Contracts will instantly put the bank at a bad position. Third parties could help keep banks on check, and any bank that denied being up for audit would instantly lose popularity.
Never disagreed with you. I agree that the fractional reserve banking is hard to pull of without a state, but for slightly different reasons. The rich in America are simply empowered by the state's monopoly of money. Its not to say that people would instantly go for the gold standard or something, but...
Not illogical. Criminal acts are completely logical. But they're also short term and rely on the element of surprise. When people are prepared, and able to retaliate as best as they can, is when criminality will be minimized as best as it will ever get. The way it is now, law and punishment are socialized services, inefficient and monopolized, and I claim crime is at least three times what it would be otherwise. Thats not including taxation of course.
By illogical I meant through value judgments. Either way, we know the government police system can't react to criminal acts immediately. I don't see why corporations could fix that unless they were your personal bodyguard.
The idea that the state is helping the poor by stealing from everyone (including the poor themselves) is laughable. But even if I were to grant that, it's even more funny that you think because the state is stealing, that the socialists are more satisfied so they want to steal less. What? As long as anyone has any wealth that they envy, they'll be up for stealing it, no matter how much or how little.
By my argument about inherited cultural knowledge above, I could argue that its not stealing from everyone. That aside, I never said that socialists are satisfied so that they want to steal less. I'm saying that the working class, the people who are SUPPOSED to benefit from the redistribution (or distribution from an opposite point of view) aren't as provoked to VIOLENT revolution. Its not that the socialist-proxy-government want to steal less, its that the benefactors of such a policy don't need to have a revolution in order to achieve such ends.
They already pay such services. The cops aren't being paid by Bill Gates. Give me a break. They will be MORE able to pay for defense, because the market for defense won't be monopolized and socialized. It will be far cheaper. And even more ethical I argue. PDAs can charge through insurance companies, on-demand, on monthly fees, through street tolls, there is a variety of ways to pay for things one you put down the gunverment.
Lots of poor people don't pay taxes. Well that's not true, everyone pays FICA taxes if they work. But FICA taxes don't pay for the police. Even if it will be far cheaper, for who? On-Demand? Lol so if I'm under attack by a thug, does the police defend me and charge me even if I don't want the service? Or do they just let me die? Or I negotiate with the police while being mugged? Similar with monthly fees. How do you know who paid and who didn't? Do you wear a hat that says I paid for X police service! If I get mugged save me!
Oh okay so I just wrote the above for nothing. Be clear next time thx. Apparently you are under the impression that bureaucrats somehow limit human error by being more illuminated themselves? Rational malevolence... people being mean with eachother on purpose? Like what? Terrorism, gee, I wonder if the state really stops terrorism by doing more terrorism itself. Non-market forces.. like the state and state-enabled mafias? Education... now that's funny coming from someone that agreed the state was making it worse. Subjectivity of value? Hello my name is Austrian Economics, the leading expert of subjective value theory, how are you today kind sir? Freedoms,... yeah. Information asymmetry - still doesn't prove the central planner is any brighter to even begin to justify making people's decisions for them, coercively.
Its not my problem for being unclear, its your problem for addressing stuff without reading the whole thing first that always leads to misunderstandings because it takes time to explain stuffs
No, I don't think bureaucrats magically make people enlightened. Don't know where you got that from. Rational malevolence. Lying to the consumer and telling them that its a good idea to get a get a law degree when there are too many lawyers out there. And no there isn't going to be a reputation loss there because all law professors want to keep their jobs and thus attract students. Creating a financial instrument to "protect" you from risk while betting against it because you agreed to terms that weren't in your self interest. They can't really blame you if they don't find out what you did because they voluntarily agreed to it! Terrorism is more like irrational malevolence. Whatever if you want to think its rational thats fine with me too. Nonmarket forces i.e. non economic forces like human welfare the environment etc. Eduction. Did I say I support state education? No! But I also don't support the current private school system either. Not only because it has to comply to state regulations but because people don't know how to educate others in general. The whole education system is broken because of what is taught. And of course what is not taught. By subjectivity of value I wasn't talking about it in economic terms. Value i.e. moral values. But I guess if you read everything else I said you might get it. Information asymmetry - oh hey I never said I supported central planning! It is pitiful that you put me into the statist category considering some of the Austrian things I've said. Bet you wouldn't have known that I actually support Austrian Economics. The only thing is that I also think that economics isn't everything. And neither is efficiency. Again moral judgments ftw!
Anyway, hope you come up with some good responses to add to my library of anarchist arguments
You know what, nevermind don't bother responding to my above post. After reading through some of the other miscellaneous replies in the rest of the thread I realize that you aren't going to provide useful answers, only platitudes, conjecture, and some "answers" that bypass the original comment.
At least I got rid of my boredom for today.
P.S. some stuff you said was useful. But most of it is not.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Also, define power.
That description for me implies that ancap doesn't work, for me. I don't want a system without social security. I think it is a step back from what I have in my country.
Will you hold that gun up forever? Did desposts and monarchs hold up the gun forever? No, and they didn't have to be forced by a bigger gun either. Holding up the gun against someone diminishes both yours and the subjects utility maximization (lol neoclassic economics). In the long run, both you and the subject will be poorer than people who didn't try to kill eachother all the time. So people have been consistently letting go of coercion in the long run, even if it may have been used early in history. There are a-priori reasons for that, that I've been reciting too often.
Even if its not a good idea to hold up a gun forever, people will do it. But then again, you don't need to hold the gun up forever. All you need is to have your subjects know that you have the ability to hold up your gun. Even then, who said the monarch's goal is to increase everyone's maximum utilization? As long as I can get stuff for free, I don't really care about how useful everyone else is.
It's not "for free" is my point, because if one is to steal beyond a certain point, wealth will start to be diminished in the world, and the society collapses even if people are still willing slaves. I don't question your decision of stealing for your own benefit, it was no moral judgment; I'm just pointing the usually unseen consequences that people don't think of, be them rulers, coercive monopolists, intervetionists, socialists, etc. Even politicians should think more of them. For their own good - there may not be a United States anymore within their generation if they keep screwing it up.
Which is why I don't usually make moral arguments unless it's in response to a moral argument. It is true that for as long as people think it is better for them to keep stealing, moral considerations INCLUDED (not excluded, you can't disregard your own morality, and disregarding other people's moralities would be as dumb for a thief than disregarding the build order of a terran), they will keep stealing.
This is a big pile of lols. Any theory of anarchist government rests on the moral argument that the most immoral thing is the uninitiated use of force. Everything else "practical" just points to this moral conclusion. Also yes you can disregard your own morality. Especially if morality is a construct.
No it doesn't rest on moral argument alone, and if you knew anything about praxeology thus austran economics, is that it is value free, morality free. I'm talking to cooperative human beings that what increasingly greater capital accumulation and living standards for both themselves and society - and how anarcho-capitalism is a much, much better maximizer of that compared to any centrally managed plan.
Also yes, I make moral prescriptions myself but they are not core. Moral discussions are discussions of courses of action - which actions are commendable, and which are reprehensible. Which justify intervetion, and which do not. They ARE VERY relevant to those who care about them (and I very much doubt you do not, even sociopaths can at least pretend to take them into consideration just to save face), but if you don't, I couldn't care less!
Austrian economics shows that it is not always the case, and in fact, the majority of times any non-sociopathic individual in history in any situation would be more inclined and better rewarded for cooperation. Okay I lie that austrian economics claims that, I'm the one claiming that based on catallactics, a few other basic concepts, and my scarce empirical experience. Even in war, a soldier relies on its comrades and superiors, a thief relies on the market to buy from him his stolen products, and sell him what he wants. a violent drug warlord relies on its dealers and on the demand of users. Even on the most violent and thieving aspects of society, perhaps even some mass-murderers included, man has been marginally more cooperative than coercive.
This statement is confused and out of place. Its not a matter of cooperative or coercive. When you combine coercive and cooperative, it becomes exploitive. The guise of cooperation combined with gaining an unfair advantage. Either way, this doesn't take into account leechers, who are neither cooperative nor coercive.
How do you leech without being coercive, and how do you exploit without coercing? Give me examples, applicable to a decent, non-contradictory private property theory.
If the people who support socialistic intervention are taught of the benefits of free market cooperation, and the externalities of extortion and distribution, I have no doubt they'd stop supporting the madness. When, how, and ifs, are secondary to me.
You don't have to pick between socialistic intervention and pure free market capitalism. Of course our dangerous combination of the two has created a toxic time bomb waiting to explode, but there are other options.
Yes there are other central-planning options, that are still criticizable for the same reasons which you don't seem to fully grasp yet.
And please don't mix replies of different people in the same reply unless it's clear it's for other people. You've mixed mine and dvide's quotes and since you're not adding a name on the top of the quote (Like the quote link does) I find myself replying to an argument I didn't make, ranting on you using strawmen, then I realize it wasn't for me and have wasted tons of time...
Really, you think that only YOU are able to have foresight, but everyone else in society will be like "dduuuur hurrr lets allow that PDA to become a state again and mass slaughter whoever they want"? Please. If you can see it, guess what, competing businesses, investors, and courts will have noticed the possibility, the means, and the opportunities, years before you did.
Another misinterpretation of my words formed into a personal attack. No, I do not claim to be the only person to have foresight, but there are plenty of people who do NOT have foresight. If you disagree maybe you should go out there and observe people instead of sitting there in your fantasy that everyone is rational/intelligent. The PDA isn't mass slaughtering whoever they want. They're destroying a particular entity for a particular cause. In any case that doesn't matter. I guess I just forgot to mention that PDAs committing such an act won't commit the acts wearing "Hi I'm XXX PDA" over their foreheads. A PDA would do its benevolent acts in public, but then act anonymously when doing shady business. Of course with that idea you get PDAs using their shady business arm to attack other PDA's customers in order to make them look untrustworthy...[/QUOTE] It really doesn't matter who they're destroying. Anything that affects someone's private domain have to and will be taken care by those owners better than any central planner could take care of him. People who are abused by PDAs can go in the media, go to courts, raise a ruckus, and if they were obviously abused of their self ownership or private property, then the cops will be tried to the full extent of the law. If a guy has been shot DEAD, the PDA cop is liable by MURDER, because it doesn't have any superior authority by law to do squat.
Besides, if anyone is in a position to discriminate and enforce laws selectively, it's the you-know-who. Cops abused you? File a complaint. LOL. Even if the cops ever go to court, the worst he can get is a suspension, for shooting innocents even. Oh monopolistic law+enforcement.. you so fair. SO FAIR.
Not an argument against ancap, not a claim I care to disagree with.
A sort of feudal system could arise in ancap. If your notions of private property hold true, then corporations are essentially the feudal lords over the resources they control.
A feudal system where some nut claims all land (including that of others) but homesteads none, will not be respected by any half-decent court. Much different from what you could do in medieval Europe. Nor would it be enough of a justification to enslave people who are in your land. They still maintain NAP.
I'm not a neoclassicist. Read what austrian economics have to say on subjective value theory.
I know what Austrian subjective value theory says. My point was to say that there are non-market forces that impact people and they are sometimes more efficient than the market. Life is not all about money/power/economics.
What are those non-market forces that can't be valued yet determine human action? Even love is a subjective evaluation.
Can do what? Fuck things up? Surely. It fucks things up the moment it extorts capital. Even if it spent the capital more cohesively, it would still be subpar. People just seem to notice when it's real bad, but it's actually always bad.
I was making an argument for why government is allowed to do war. Its because you swallow the package or you don't. That is the beauty of anarchy, you dont' have to buy the whole package. You can shop around. Of course that brings with it its own bundle of problems, so thats what we're talking about now! Or not. Either way it has nothing to do with screwing up.
Are you saying that people should want war? Or that people benefit from war yet don't want to pay for it? They want x but don't want to pay for x? Seems to me that they don't deserve x then, if x means that other people have to work or die for them, for free.
Wrongs create a demand to right them. People look for people to right them, and I'll call them "righters". Righters progressively earn a reputation and specialize at it. Righters figure out the best models to right things out, and righters compete in the free market. That goes for anything, not just law, defense, insurance, shoemaking, starcraft progaming, etc.
Certain wrongs create demands to right them. The poor people can't afford to pay for someone to right their situation, and nobody else is interested in righting their situation through market forces. Nobody is going to pay to stop people from abusing the environment/polluting it. Although it is in everyones interest to live in a clean environment. Some things aren't going to be righted by the market.
Really, everyone benefits from living in a clean environment? Can you explain how? And why is that enough of a justification to force people in doing what you think is proper?
I would reckon that since the government owns all land, and you advocate government to protect the environment, it is a failed experiment as is, and will fail again, as it hasn't done shit, selling the environment off like a bitch selling her ass for crack.
Fractional reserve banking is almost entirely a state enabled fraud. Banks who used demand deposits as time deposits would risk customers withdrawing them at the same time and discover the malpractice. Contracts will instantly put the bank at a bad position. Third parties could help keep banks on check, and any bank that denied being up for audit would instantly lose popularity.
Never disagreed with you. I agree that the fractional reserve banking is hard to pull of without a state, but for slightly different reasons. The rich in America are simply empowered by the state's monopoly of money. Its not to say that people would instantly go for the gold standard or something, but...
Yeah, and it's the money in their pockets who are doing those evils. Let's blame wealth! Fuck wealth! Everyone has to be poor! (now with 70% more strawman)
Not illogical. Criminal acts are completely logical. But they're also short term and rely on the element of surprise. When people are prepared, and able to retaliate as best as they can, is when criminality will be minimized as best as it will ever get. The way it is now, law and punishment are socialized services, inefficient and monopolized, and I claim crime is at least three times what it would be otherwise. Thats not including taxation of course.
By illogical I meant through value judgments. Either way, we know the government police system can't react to criminal acts immediately. I don't see why corporations could fix that unless they were your personal bodyguard.
Not just corporations, any guy with a gun can offer protection services. People in each specific area will judge who are the best to defend themselves, and will learn to both pay the right people and for the right amounts, in the course of market adjustments. With the government confiscating both people's money and choices, of course they have a harder time today defending their property, more than it is realistically necessary.
I mean, how hard is it to patrol an area? Cops today sit their asses on the highway to get tickets and only go to town for lunch and answer to 911 calls one hour later. Not hard to beat that in efficiency LOL.
They already pay such services. The cops aren't being paid by Bill Gates. Give me a break. They will be MORE able to pay for defense, because the market for defense won't be monopolized and socialized. It will be far cheaper. And even more ethical I argue. PDAs can charge through insurance companies, on-demand, on monthly fees, through street tolls, there is a variety of ways to pay for things one you put down the gunverment.
Lots of poor people don't pay taxes. Well that's not true, everyone pays FICA taxes if they work. But FICA taxes don't pay for the police. Even if it will be far cheaper, for who? On-Demand? Lol so if I'm under attack by a thug, does the police defend me and charge me even if I don't want the service? Or do they just let me die? Or I negotiate with the police while being mugged? Similar with monthly fees. How do you know who paid and who didn't? Do you wear a hat that says I paid for X police service! If I get mugged save me!
Property taxes pay for local services AFAIK. And I don't know of anyone who's been able to dodge those. Besides maybe the amish.
There are many many many many ways to pay for a service, any service, drop the arguments from ignorance. I have had mentioned a few already and you chose to pick on the on-demand one. Insurance, monthly plans, the road owners pay for it through tolls, etc. And it doesn't have to be the business who proposes the deal. Whole residential or business neighborhoods could arrange to pay for it together. Also it could indeed be paid on-the-spot, who is to say it cannot? Cars got those ez-pass things that instantly credits your account for every toll you pass; people could have a similar device if they so desired to pay for things like that on the spot, with no hassle. On-demand also means it's as cheap as you need it to be, because you're only paying exactly what you use, so there may be an interest on that by both PDAs and citizens.
Apparently you are under the impression that bureaucrats somehow limit human error by being more illuminated themselves? Rational malevolence... people being mean with eachother on purpose? Like what? Terrorism, gee, I wonder if the state really stops terrorism by doing more terrorism itself. Non-market forces.. like the state and state-enabled mafias? Education... now that's funny coming from someone that agreed the state was making it worse. Subjectivity of value? Hello my name is Austrian Economics, the leading expert of subjective value theory, how are you today kind sir? Freedoms,... yeah. Information asymmetry - still doesn't prove the central planner is any brighter to even begin to justify making people's decisions for them, coercively.
No, I don't think bureaucrats magically make people enlightened. Don't know where you got that from. Rational malevolence. Lying to the consumer and telling them that its a good idea to get a get a law degree when there are too many lawyers out there. And no there isn't going to be a reputation loss there because all law professors want to keep their jobs and thus attract students. Creating a financial instrument to "protect" you from risk while betting against it because you agreed to terms that weren't in your self interest. They can't really blame you if they don't find out what you did because they voluntarily agreed to it! Terrorism is more like irrational malevolence. Whatever if you want to think its rational thats fine with me too. Nonmarket forces i.e. non economic forces like human welfare the environment etc. Eduction. Did I say I support state education? No! But I also don't support the current private school system either. Not only because it has to comply to state regulations but because people don't know how to educate others in general. The whole education system is broken because of what is taught. And of course what is not taught. By subjectivity of value I wasn't talking about it in economic terms. Value i.e. moral values. But I guess if you read everything else I said you might get it. Information asymmetry - oh hey I never said I supported central planning! It is pitiful that you put me into the statist category considering some of the Austrian things I've said. Bet you wouldn't have known that I actually support Austrian Economics. The only thing is that I also think that economics isn't everything. And neither is efficiency. Again moral judgments ftw!
If you're implying that the education bubble is a market phenomenon, then you might be interested in this. Believing in a bubble isn't lying, so it isn't coercion, so it isn't an issue. If you mean to sue someone because they defrauded you, then you can do so in ancap, better than monopolist courts for natural reasons. Non-issue. And if you haven't proposed something better than the market (lol what), and you haven't advocated for government intervention, then your arguments are non-arguments, you're just crying about the world.
On September 03 2010 11:48 Incognito wrote: Anyway, hope you come up with some good responses to add to my library of anarchist arguments
On September 03 2010 13:19 Incognito wrote: You know what, nevermind don't bother responding to my above post. After reading through some of the other miscellaneous replies in the rest of the thread I realize that you aren't going to provide useful answers, only platitudes, conjecture, and some "answers" that bypass the original comment.
At least I got rid of my boredom for today.
P.S. some stuff you said was useful. But most of it is not.
Well again, I don't read the next paragraph before answering the one I'm at, so I absolutely did not read this. I would have very much liked to however, in retrospective.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Also, define power.
That description for me implies that ancap doesn't work, for me. I don't want a system without social security. I think it is a step back from what I have in my country.
You can pay for social security yourself like any other private retirement fund... oh well. I guess people just like ponzi schemes.
On September 03 2010 14:56 Yurebis wrote: You be exploiting I?
Partially yes Hard to evolve your own set of ideas when you're in a vacuum and when you don't have others to bounce ideas with. So by taking the opposing point of view as you hear from other sources, you can attempt to come up with a more refined version of whatever argument you're taking. Although I don't agree with all the points of anarcho-capitalism, its always good to have a set of anarchist ideas to understand/understand the flaws of other systems. So don't worry, your post wasn't in vain I'll read it anyway.
EPT
that always leads to misunderstandings because it takes time to explain stuffs 
