|
5003 Posts
1- You're saying that entrepreneurs are hopeless without government to give them money... and that's a ridiculous claim, I don't have to address it.
Even if it were true, it just means the business shouldn't have started in the first place then. Either something has it's own merits to exist in the market, and it's profitable - it will remain so - or it isn't, and it shouldn't exist. The pyramids for example? they shouldn't and wouldn't exist in a free market, you can guess why. All that isn't voluntary is coercive; I'm against, so will other ancaps. And I understand the ramifications better than you accuse me of not knowing.
Did I get it right now?
Not quite.
The issue I have in mind is things like SO2 Emission Markets, which was only possible through "coercion" to get it started and standardized. There are many other markets like that, and there WILL be markets like that, and simply put, it's going to take COMPLETE free market based systems a lot longer to adopt such a system.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it hinders developments because sometimes the fastest way and the most simple way is coercion.
2- Okay, you're saying that there are these things that corporations do, that are bad, but they aren't accountable for. How? Something bad that they do, must fall under the realm of someone's private property, right? Something bad that goes wrong in the world has to happen to someone's property or someone's body. If it isn't, say, a corporation blows a star millions of light years away, how's that an issue? An externality is for all intents and purposes, non-existent. A conflict over something in the real world can be resolved between the two parties disputing the use of the resource or capital.
And even IF it's something aesthetic like, "I don't like what corporation X is doing, it looks ugly, and I like nature and forests and blablabla even though I have no claim over that resource", then you can STILL offset profits from that corporation by boycott, ostracism, less-than-plausible-legal action or protests to show your disdain to them, and to remain popular, they have to answer, even though they didnt really have to and you're just being a communist hippie blah.
The only real issue is that these things take a lot of time and organization to pull off. You're assuming no transaction costs here, when there will literally be tons of transaction costs and opportunity costs.
Secondly, this only happens... "after the fact". Companies still pollute. How many of them would still pollute if it wasn't for a lot of the programs that got started by the government? You can say people will ostracize but sometimes... it doesn't quite work out with just that. There needs to be a kick.
3-Market failures are a non-issue because you're not entitled to say what should happen in a market. If someone want to blow a billion dollars, get his firm bankrupt, screw all investors, thats his choice. Bad for the investors that trusted such a lousy CEO, yeah, and they probably will be able to get some from whats left, and perhaps even sue the CEO for malpractice or some shit. Who knows. The thing is, market failure is a non issue because no one is entitled to say how a market should behave, so not only is what constitutes failure subjective, but no one can say that it's right to steal or manipulate other people's resources to protect themselves from misuse. It's just an excuse for government intervention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Failure
4- I had edited my post but perhaps you didn't read it. I didn't read all of the argument so it's my fault, sorry. What I say is, that foreign government would have about as much as an incentive to invade ancaps as monarchies today have an incentive to invade democracies. The return is very little, and they're probably outperformed anyway, by slightly freer soldiers, slightly more spontaneous army structures (still pretty shit ofc on ancaps standards). Ancaps would invest that exactly what is needed to protect themselves, will have a more decentralized and effective information net (think how terrorists today can do so much with so little), and will be unhindered by taxes and other leecherous services that bankrupt each other.
Invade? I'm thinking more of forming partnerships with big corporations in ACaps. Foreign policy will be an absolute disaster with this going on. Try this on a country like America and it won't be a united states for too long ;p which is why you need to apply this to the entire world pretty much.
|
I think one theoretical opposition to Anarcho-Capitalism is that information is not freely-available. That is to say, producers have an inherent advantage over consumers in terms of information. Unless corporations are somehow compelled to release information which may negatively affect their business, they will not do so, thus preventing consumers from making informed decisions. The assumption that consumers will rationally choose superior products cannot hold under such conditions.
Not to mention product safety - remember the melamine scandal in China? Some sort of governing agency is necessary to maintain product safety and quality. Evidence from the real world demonstrates repeatedly that it is a fantasy for companies to police themselves.
I will address the Anarcho-Capitalist alternative to a government agency, which I assume to be another private company whose role it is to investigate and prevent such things - I shall also assume that companies agree to acknowledge the company's authority to investigate them. (not that this would necessarily be the case, but I am generous) The problem therewith is that such a company would be driven, like any other, by profit and would thus be susceptible to bribery and corruption on a greater scale than a government agency. I doubt they would let a melamine-esque scandal slide, but smaller matters could be ignored.
|
On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote:
The government is necessary to impose disincentives to environmentally destructive practices and incentives to the development of cleaner technology.
In a purely market driven society companies wouldn't factor the social costs of pollution into their decisions and individuals would care much more about the price and quality of goods and services offered by companies than about their environmental practices.
Even if consumers cared about the environmental impact of what they bought there would be nothing to stop companies from lying about their pollution or branding their products as green even when they do nothing substantive to help the environment. This happens today and consumers are fooled just imagine what it would be like without regulation.
Perhaps eventually the social costs of environmental destruction would motivate consumers to demand real action to protect the environment, but by that time we would already be past the tipping point. Such is the nature of positive feedbacks. Every species that goes extinct affects every other species and decreases environmental resiliency. Every degree that the earth warms triggers countless positive feedbacks that cause more warming.
Any additional economic activity spurred by anarcho-capitalism would only deplete the earth's resources faster. Government is a necessary check on this otherwise we will all die from global warming and environmental destruction.
Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not.
You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for.
When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
|
Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
|
Arbitrary and subjective things are arbitrary and subjective. I see nothing wrong with stealing.
I reject anarcho-capitalism!
|
On August 29 2010 10:20 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:00 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor. Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free? I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation. The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice. The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages. I agree with this completely. Its as if the cost and time of travel is thrown out the window and someone can move instantly to somewhere with the best wages. People can easily fall victim to their surroundings much like they did in medieval Europe.
You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees?
Hokay.
On August 29 2010 10:21 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry. On August 29 2010 09:46 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about Markets imply more than simply "freedom". There exist non-market societies without governments. Okay, sorry for misusing "market" then. I like to call a "market" any human interaction. There's a market for ideas, a market for love. But sorry then. In places they aren't formed spontaneously, that's not an issue either, since people didn't want it to be formed then. Unless they're being coerced, in which case I would claim that there is some type of statist structure, a reigning authority over either all their land or all their people. For the very high-tech, specialized world we live today, I claim it is desirable for private property to be respected, so it would naturally arise even if there were no law or police to force people to. Because there is a self-interest in our sociable brains in cooperating rather than coercing. But that is of course, more descriptive than prescriptive on my part, and you can be free to disagree. The thing is that private property did arise already, and its ascent can be studied. Whether or not private property would arise if modern society lacked it is irrelevant, if it is even makes sense. Even if private property were abolished everywhere and later came back, it would still be in a historical context, with the knowledge that property had existed before. There is no need to wonder what kind of society would arise if we separated a large number of people from their parents at birth and threw them onto a desert island--it would have nothing to do with "human nature", because it has always been human nature to be raised by parents or guardians in a society, whether it be in a small band of fifty people or a large civilization. My main problem with anarcho-capitalism is that property rights have historically developed hand in hand with hierarchical structures of authority, and I have never heard a description of how anarcho-capitalism would actually decouple property and authority; indeed, most advocates deny the two have anything in common, contrary to historical and modern-day evidence.
I'm not an empiricist, I'm just being empirical when I know a little something. But my relevant claims are all a-priori. So yeah it really doesn't matter to me how society was, is, or is going to be, it could be slavery, mass murder, rape everywhere; i'd still strive for individual freedom because that is what appeals to me. And makes a lot, a lot of sense to me.
It does have a lot in common, but anarcho-capitalism would work on a different framework of property. No claiming huge chunks of land by your word alone. Lockean homesteading and all that. But even before that, it's always the best claim that owns the resource.
"I made this house, or I paid it to be made, and therefore it is mine", is a stronger claim than
"you were born into my domain, you shall forfeit me this house or pay me tribute", or even,
"I invaded your house and now am in your couch, and because of biological necessities I can't live elsewhere, therefore it's partially mine too. PROLETARIAT UNITE!"
eek
|
This is not sufficient.
You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market.
|
The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages.
A hundred thousand years ago people would have to work for their sustenance too. Nothing is different. You can't change what is a reality. If you sit down and do nothing, you will eventually die. The only difference is that it's orders of magnitudes easier to survive thanks to technological improvements, increases in the levels of wealth, standards of living and comfort. These improvements come from productive activity and voluntarily trade, etc. This is stifled by government involvement (coercion stifles productivity), as it leeches from the productive.
|
On August 29 2010 10:57 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:20 Sadist wrote:On August 29 2010 10:00 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor. Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free? I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation. The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice. The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages. I agree with this completely. Its as if the cost and time of travel is thrown out the window and someone can move instantly to somewhere with the best wages. People can easily fall victim to their surroundings much like they did in medieval Europe. You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees? Hokay. Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:21 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry. On August 29 2010 09:46 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about Markets imply more than simply "freedom". There exist non-market societies without governments. Okay, sorry for misusing "market" then. I like to call a "market" any human interaction. There's a market for ideas, a market for love. But sorry then. In places they aren't formed spontaneously, that's not an issue either, since people didn't want it to be formed then. Unless they're being coerced, in which case I would claim that there is some type of statist structure, a reigning authority over either all their land or all their people. For the very high-tech, specialized world we live today, I claim it is desirable for private property to be respected, so it would naturally arise even if there were no law or police to force people to. Because there is a self-interest in our sociable brains in cooperating rather than coercing. But that is of course, more descriptive than prescriptive on my part, and you can be free to disagree. The thing is that private property did arise already, and its ascent can be studied. Whether or not private property would arise if modern society lacked it is irrelevant, if it is even makes sense. Even if private property were abolished everywhere and later came back, it would still be in a historical context, with the knowledge that property had existed before. There is no need to wonder what kind of society would arise if we separated a large number of people from their parents at birth and threw them onto a desert island--it would have nothing to do with "human nature", because it has always been human nature to be raised by parents or guardians in a society, whether it be in a small band of fifty people or a large civilization. My main problem with anarcho-capitalism is that property rights have historically developed hand in hand with hierarchical structures of authority, and I have never heard a description of how anarcho-capitalism would actually decouple property and authority; indeed, most advocates deny the two have anything in common, contrary to historical and modern-day evidence. I'm not an empiricist, I'm just being empirical when I know a little something. But my relevant claims are all a-priori. So yeah it really doesn't matter to me how society was, is, or is going to be, it could be slavery, mass murder, rape everywhere; i'd still strive for individual freedom because that is what appeals to me. And makes a lot, a lot of sense to me.
I'm not a priori, though. Neither are you, nor is anyone: we are real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. If all you have are a priori theories with no connection to reality, all you are engaging is a sort of ideological sudoku where you strive for self-consistency but not relevance. Musings about politics or any other aspect of the human condition that are not based on facts are irrelelvant and worthless.
|
On August 29 2010 10:24 Adila wrote:
Out of curiosity, how would this situation be handled in your system?
Two societies along a river. One is upstream while the other is farther downstream. The society upstream either dams the river, pollutes it, or whatever else that has an adverse effect on the society that's further downstream.
How would the society that's downstream deal with the other?
I'm not sure how exactly it should be handled, but a few certainties:
-Not by getting up their sticks and going to a battle to death. Everoyne loses.
-Not by coercively funding a greater authority that could exterminate them both at its whim, to judge what has to be done
Perhaps:
-The most popular law firm of the downstream society gathers resources and signatures to make a class action against the exact proprietaries who are dumping shit in the river. They both go to an agreeable court to decide if the downstream society is entitled to have a clear river or not. I don't know how their law would decide it, but it would probably come to a compromise agreeable to both better than I can myself imagine.
-The downstream society gathers enough money to buy off the river upstream
-The downstream society moves.
And THEN they can fight to death if they're that retarded.
|
On August 29 2010 10:36 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Why do people care so much anyways? It's not my sea, I don't care. It's not yours, why do you care? Sure, it's a disaster, and I would be up for suing them (bp AND the state) if I had any direct losses from it, but I don't, so I shrug it off and that's it. Too bad. Better luck on the next dirty cheap lease to the next lobbyist. Are you seriously asking why people care about the environment? You do realize that all human beings live on Earth, right?
Yes. Do you or I own Earth? Do you feel entitled to say what can be done to Earth?
I don't. I claim I own the air around me; and if someone is to hurt me, I can sue them, and the courts (and everyone in general) can find that legit, depending on circumstances.
What I disagree with is the idea that a global authority is 1- going to make sure Earth is taken care of better than every individual who legitimately owns their own space, and 2- not abuse it's effortlessly acquired powers.
|
On August 29 2010 10:54 Romantic wrote:
Arbitrary and subjective things are arbitrary and subjective. I see nothing wrong with stealing.
I reject anarcho-capitalism!
What is arbitrary and subjective? And if you wish to use violence against me then why are you even pretending to debate? I'm not allowed to disagree.
|
5003 Posts
On August 29 2010 10:58 kzn wrote:This is not sufficient. You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market.
No i don't.
I'm not defending interventions here. Market Failures existing is a reason why "ACaps wont work". It's on your side to defend it. Saying "State failures are worse" aren't sufficient.
|
On August 29 2010 11:04 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages. A hundred thousand years ago people would have to work for their sustenance too. Nothing is different. You can't change what is a reality. If you sit down and do nothing, you will eventually die. The only difference is that it's orders of magnitudes easier to survive thanks to technological improvements, increases in the levels of wealth, standards of living and comfort. These improvements come from productive activity and voluntarily trade, etc. This is stifled by government involvement (coercion stifles productivity), as it leeches from the productive.
Economic systems have a lot to do with how much people work though, not just technology. There were some societies in the past where people worked much less than today in order to survive. And pointing to productivity is a red herring too: consider how productivity has skyrocketed in America in the last four decades, but median real wages have remained stagnant. This massive upward redistribution of wealth was triggered not by increased government intervention, but rather accompanied by decreased intervention.
Technology is relevant, but the fact is that our level of technology today is adequate to sustain for the most part a post-scarcity society. That we do not live in one is a political and economic problem. Everyone could work twenty hours a week and wages could be even higher than today with the amount of productivity and wealth we have today, but this would require a different distribution of wealth.
|
On August 29 2010 10:43 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:08 Elite00fm wrote:
LOL, unregulated capitalism is a terrible, inherently flawed system. A simple example of this would be the environment. We all need clean water and air, but the cheapest waste disposal methods (dumping into rivers etc.) would eventually lead to the destruction of these resources. It's a basic payoff matrix. Water and air can be ownable. If the state owns it today, someone can own it too in anarcho-capitalism. I don't know how compromises would be made, I haven't been too interested in environmental issues because the environment is not a rational being, it is not a man. And if no man is being hurt, then I could care less ATM. Though I'm certain that at the moment someone is hurt by an environmental hazard, then immediately there will be suits and court proceedings just as there are today.
Environmental issues are pretty important. How would your system deal with natural disasters? Long droughts? Water shortages? Food shortages?
History has shown that these things force people to move into other people's areas. It creates conflicts because resources become scarce.
|
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote:
Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
Failure from what context? Utilitarianism? So wages weren't infinite? I'm confused. Point me to your best number one example of a "market failure" and let us discuss it.
|
On August 29 2010 10:49 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote:
The government is necessary to impose disincentives to environmentally destructive practices and incentives to the development of cleaner technology.
In a purely market driven society companies wouldn't factor the social costs of pollution into their decisions and individuals would care much more about the price and quality of goods and services offered by companies than about their environmental practices.
Even if consumers cared about the environmental impact of what they bought there would be nothing to stop companies from lying about their pollution or branding their products as green even when they do nothing substantive to help the environment. This happens today and consumers are fooled just imagine what it would be like without regulation.
Perhaps eventually the social costs of environmental destruction would motivate consumers to demand real action to protect the environment, but by that time we would already be past the tipping point. Such is the nature of positive feedbacks. Every species that goes extinct affects every other species and decreases environmental resiliency. Every degree that the earth warms triggers countless positive feedbacks that cause more warming.
Any additional economic activity spurred by anarcho-capitalism would only deplete the earth's resources faster. Government is a necessary check on this otherwise we will all die from global warming and environmental destruction. Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not. You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for. When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
"Who owns the environment" is not a relevant question in the face of the extinction of all life on earth. If I owned a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, would I be entitled to launch them all?
First I'll address your example of logging companies. Yes, they do have an economic incentive to maintain forests. However this means they will only do so in the way most economically beneficial for them. That means tree plantations and monocropping, which is just as harmful to forest ecosystems as cutting them down altogether.
Second, the example of logging companies and deforestation is not applicable to the environmentally destructive practices of most companies. Logging companies are unique because they sell products they extract from forests so they have an economic incentive to keep the forests around in some form. Electricity companies do not sell resources that they extract from the atmosphere. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has no direct effect on their profits, and they obviously do not own the atmosphere.
|
On August 29 2010 11:06 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:36 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Why do people care so much anyways? It's not my sea, I don't care. It's not yours, why do you care? Sure, it's a disaster, and I would be up for suing them (bp AND the state) if I had any direct losses from it, but I don't, so I shrug it off and that's it. Too bad. Better luck on the next dirty cheap lease to the next lobbyist. Are you seriously asking why people care about the environment? You do realize that all human beings live on Earth, right? Yes. Do you or I own Earth? Do you feel entitled to say what can be done to Earth? I don't. I claim I own the air around me; and if someone is to hurt me, I can sue them, and the courts (and everyone in general) can find that legit, depending on circumstances. What I disagree with is the idea that a global authority is 1- going to make sure Earth is taken care of better than every individual who legitimately owns their own space, and 2- not abuse it's effortlessly acquired powers.
So you are really going to go out and sue millions of different people for just a very small amount for each lawsuit for the collective damage they have done with things like exposing you to carcinogens? How is this reasonable? And would you really even support broader action, such as say Bangladesh suing first world nations for contribution to climate change that increases the number of people who die in floods there? You say you own the air around you, but if you choke to death because the air around you has been slowly polluted over the course of a longer span of time than you have even been alive, it's a little late to start suing people. Nor will suing them get you clean air.
|
On August 29 2010 11:07 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:58 kzn wrote:This is not sufficient. You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market. No i don't. I'm not defending interventions here. Market Failures existing is a reason why "ACaps wont work". It's on your side to defend it. Saying "State failures are worse" aren't sufficient.
Yes, it is.
Anarcho-Capitalism proposes merely the nonexistence of a state. It does not propose that this will be a utopia, or that no market failures will occur - merely that it is better than all other options, all of which include state interventions. If interventions are not better, the argument holds.
|
On August 29 2010 10:37 Phrujbaz wrote:
Employers cannot set wages arbitrarily low in an unregulated market.
ty. They can though, and you certainly agree, just that they won't be employing nobody with a brain, because the employer next door is offering a more marketable, a market wage. If they do employ somebody, it's still not exploitation because the dumbass accepted it voluntary. It would be exploitation if he forced the dumbass to keep working even after he doesn't want to, and contracts can be ruled fraudulent if they require absurd stuff to be done by the consenting party, like selling one's life for a cookie, but that part is debatable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
