|
On August 29 2010 11:17 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 11:13 kzn wrote:On August 29 2010 11:07 Milkis wrote: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. My Impressions on the thread was that "what are some problems with acaps" and "why won't acaps work". Whether or not it is a 'better' form of society or not is completely and utterly irrelevant given the OP.
Work to the extent that it's possible to work, not to some impossible standard. If ancap outperforms everything else, I'd say it is at least workable LOL
On August 29 2010 11:24 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 11:14 Yurebis wrote: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. This assumes the employee always has the means to find another paying job, but if all the companies are equally exploitative in the wake of a huge economic collapse. In the wake of the Great Depression, if employees wanted more wages, companies could throw them out and accept the workers waiting desperately at the gates at reduced wages, thus constantly driving down wages. Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath details this problem. Sometimes geography and economic conditions allows cut-throat capitalism to ruthlessly exploit the workers and they have no recourse.
And who's to blame for the depression?
hint hint
|
Defense from foreign nations and the environment are two notorious cases in which market failures are predicted and difficult to solve in theory.
In practice, however, the government is doing such a poor job that I can hardly imagine a market doing worse.
There are many ancap arguments for national defence. I don't subscribe to the idea of having nations anyway, at least not in the way they are used. But collective defence force by any group is ok so long as it's voluntarily funded. I find the most compelling argument is the fact that there is actually no state to take over, so what is the benefit to a large scale invasion?
What are you going to do, go to each house with tanks and steal from each individually? People in an enlightened ancap society would not welcome a new centralised authority; they would rebel against it even if it was successful in defeating their private armies. Also consider how difficult it is to invade a nation where private individuals can (and would) own guns, and would not welcome your presence given that obviously you're obviously just a bunch of vicious violent thugs.
Invasion is extremely expensive where defence is relatively cheap. You can see that today with American armed forces invading Afghanistan and Iraq. How little it takes to fend off an army with such a massive investment, funded by something like 50% of all tax from payers in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And I think that's ignoring national debt and inflation too. It's just insane. I mean, what is the cost of one Apache helicopter for example, compared to a cheap RPG that can blow it out of the sky?
And that's ignoring the low cost of a few nukes that would ward off any nation from invading. That's not that expensive.
Environmental issues are a little trickier so maybe I'll save that for another post. But suffice it to say, the government is the biggest polluter (and the biggest waste of wealth).
|
5003 Posts
Work to the extent that it's possible to work, not to some impossible standard. If ancap outperforms everything else, I'd say it is at least workable LOL
"outperforms"
Define performance.
|
On August 29 2010 11:44 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Actually something like this would be like a popularly endorsed collusion; the companies would be more than glad to reduce output if it means they can raise prices because everyone else is also socially pressured to do so. So I believe something like this is very possible to emerge naturally. Just need to talk a lot, and be a legitimate cause.
There is a direct profit incentive for corporations to cap their own shit, just think about it. The question is if they have enough popular support to either ostracize the noncompliant competition, or well, yeah the state to break their faces. Why do you support the state to break faces though, if you were against externalities? I think there are huge externalities when the government can just come and fuck you up whenever they want. I'd raise my prices to account for that risk; everyone else does too, in an interventionist world. Government increases externalities by being hasty and imposing their solutions; markets do what they do at the best times anyone can think of. I haven't seen an actual case of it emerging naturally. You can go back in history and argue some things arose naturally, but it's more likely that it was a result of an organized, state sponsored endeavor. I'm speaking of in the current environment, a lot of the pioneering done for the new markets have been government related (see: Carbon markets)
If it hasn't, or you feel that it wouldn't arise spontaneously, then perhaps it shoudn't have arised at all.
Analogy, if nuclear weapons haven't been made privately, then perhaps they shouldn't have been made by the state... Well I do argue that whatever the state does, shouldn't have been done indeed, for if what they do is necessary, then the market can supply that demand without it's law, and better...
In this particular case, yes, I think it wasn't necessary at all, I don't know the specifics on SO2, but to me, and I think a good percentage of people in the world, don't think CO2 is such an issue as the state-funded researchers think it is.
Again, the corporations outputting CO2 would very pleasantly accept a government-mandated collusion; they'd raise prices, lay back on production, not worry about competition... so don't make this to be like something evil capitalists are fighting against, if you're trying that at all (idk)
On August 29 2010 11:44 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Pollute who's property? The government's?
I think you should be blaming the government for allowing their property (not yours, not public, theirs, state propery.) to be polluted; and not allowing people to buy off their stuff. And even when they do allow private companies to own what was previously state property, there's always conditions; a lease, for some time, under these regulations and price tables. The state never lets go of what they get until it's like, borderline revolution time. What? Don't go off on tangents...
Ok sry.
You don't know how much pollution there would be without a state, I don't either, but for the little word that I have, I guarantee that there would be as much pollution as the owners of the property in which the waste products reside don't mind it. And here is a few reasons why. There would be as much outrage from those proprietaries than there is from the government, if not more, because they directly suffer from the loss of real estate value caused by the pollution. The state has no such interest, and is only saving face for the electorate to vote them in again. So they do considerably less than a private owner of, say a river, would do, to stop it from being polluted.
In sum, the government responds to a loss of value of it's capital much slower than any private individual or group. They got it for free; easy come, easy go. asdasdasd.
On August 29 2010 11:44 Milkis wrote:yeah and there's a reason no economist takes Austrians seriously when it comes to these. Austrians have a lot of good ideas and concepts... this is literally one thing that's making them look like retards.
Yep they're retards. Paul Krugman is a genius IMO, what do you think of him as a superb economist and nobel prize winner? That guy is so goooood...
On August 29 2010 11:44 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +What bad outcome from a foreign state owning a non-coercive company in AC? If it's non-coercive.. it won't be retaliated againt. If it's coercive well.. it will be stopped by word or by force. State interests reflected in the companies. Just imagine if the US States were allowed to have their own foreign policy.
I think it would be awesome, does that mean that there wouldn't be a national army to waste hundreds of billions of dollars a year into? Does that mean that north korea would probably just nuke the sociopaths at Washington D.C. and leave the rest of the US alone? I see so many benefits...
But on to the interests, uh, what kind of interests? If they're profitable interests, that people like and buy, uh, nothing wrong again. If the interests reveal themselves to be coercive, well, it will become unpopular just as the state in the past would be again...
|
This is an excellent thread.
First off, forgive me if I'm repeating some arguments already made here because I could not read every post. Second, no offense, but your original post is kind of a shadow boxer against some perceived argument that really only confuses the issue. Easily fixed: laws and government might be made up of people but are really just ideas. They are a bulging mass of ideas (democracies moreso, obviously), and ideas are held to a much higher standard than people. They are a constant feedback of ideas that alter as they progress, even in the most ruthless dictatorships. Any situation given many people is only acceptable to them inasmuch as they can accept the idea that this is the best, or good enough, or impossible to fight etc. So theoretically any government could be run by even a majority of 'flawed' humans, if the ideas are solid enough. Thats the entire idea behind seperation of powers, checks and balances, even voting. If you don't believe in the power of ideas, and our abilities to not only comprehend them but to understand their purpose and wider consequences, then this whole thread is obviously pointless. So we can assume that ideas exist, and some are probably good, or at least better than others. And we can also see that if government is an idea, then it can also be run by flawed (evil? stupid? fill in the blank) humans, sometimes whether they see the bigger idea or not. When the first ape shook the other first ape's hand to work together, the idea they both subscribed to could easily be imagined as an entire government/philosophy/way of life. So arguing that humans are inherently flawed so government is also, is not only wrong, it has nothing to do with your original question.
Define anarcho capitalism, in laymen's terms: no government, everyone exists in a free market. First off, we have to redefine even this definition. A government is an agency through which a political unit controls its subjects (wiki). Simply: a form of control, commonly associated with current and past forms democracy, communism, etc. Any market, especially one with humans involved, is ALREADY A FORM OF CONTROL. If I start with more than you, or I find out how to get more than you, or I have less and want more, as soon as we interact, through trade or sale, amicable or forcible (stealing) we have engaged in a form of control. We traded the trust, or threat of violence with each other, and there was control implied in that scenario. Its not hard to see, given multiple threads of proportionately expanding transactions, 'free' markets can engender HUGE forms of control. Indeed, this is actually the last great argument for hard line libertarianism (which is basically a synonym of arnarcho capitalism, and tea partiers love it btw). The idea is if you control the 'interests' in a piece of land, or the air, or the water, and 'own' it, then you will be much more interested in protecting it. That sounds like a lot of control to me. So basically, we can eliminate 'no government' from the definition.
What we have left is, edited for future argument-proofing, hopefully: everyone exists in a free market, with no necessary government. As I alluded to before, the idea is based on the notion that because we are human, sometimes working together and or trading will go on between us, and the nature of these trades can much better protect our rights, and the earth, because the market will eventually valuate things according to their actual value, and workable relationships will be put together between individuals based on actual needs, and not false ideals. Examples might be a few groups of people, agreeing on things, trading with each other, occasionally disbanding etc, with large 'interested parties' overseeing potential problems (local or environmental), OR a return to a much less organized way of life, involving a more hunter gatherer organization of small communities, hopefully respecting each other because of the implied losses non respect might incur. The advantages would be that you would not necessarily be told to do anything, and that people could make up their own laws in groups, large or small, thereby defining their own individuality (imo the secret hope of all libertarians) because they can individualise, hopefully without consequence.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? But the argument against can be divided into two realms, although imo either would suffice: the realistic and the theoretical. The theoretical: first off, and most importantly, the reality is that our world ALREADY EXISTS in an anarcho capitalistic society! Governments are really just ideas based around groups of people, primarily for the means of once or current mutual advancement of those people. People only formed groups because it meant they could be more successful at their life, whether it was hunting woolly mammoths, or joining churches, or shoving jews into an incinerator. Being successful is just a collection of satisfying more fully or easily the demands that free markets satisfy as well: efficiency, luxury, safety, food, shelter etc. So we are right now a form of free markets interacting with each other. As if there were any possibility! Again, you are obviously not advocating full on anarchy, because there is nothing dearer to a libertarian than their property. Even if we can just ignore that truism, what you want is a reformation of all existing governments organized on more free market esque principles. Newer ones, maybe, since obviously I agree that originally they already are. Putting aside all the inherent flaws in that plan, you have some kind of (more) utopian, survival of the fittest corporation ruled world, in which people are looked out for because of their use-value. Scary as that sounds, ideally each person would work for some kind of organized entity (government? whatever...) and they would be rewarded with better positions, and the weak would be weeded out. This example is the very BEST possible outcome of this idea, and if you can't see how similar this is to our current state and how much less preferrable to anyone but the few on top, the realistic side of the argument is for you
The realistic: 3 major problems: 1)environment 2)market problems 3)transition.
1) We are quickly making the earth inhabitable. If you don't agree with this premise skip it, or go become a priest and rape some children or blow up a mosque, or a church, who cares. You are an idiot. Sea levels are already rising quickly, and most of the population of earth lives on the coasts. Anyway, pointless to argue that, point being: a free market system absolutely CANNOT handle the changing of the seemingly inevitable path we are on to destruction. Unless the whole world was controlled, and the interests of the whole world were taken into consideration. One world government. Sounds real anarcho, huh? If you divided it even into two groups, the interest one places on a stream or a pond or air becomes a market force, and because market forces seek to grow and make themselves stronger, either the acquisition of that natural resource or the destruction of it would follow. Our environment is likely going to kill us. Libertarianisms only answer is a one world government.
2) Most people, especially libertarians, think that the 'free market' is some kind of living, growing idea that can solve problems on its own. This is, at least partially untrue. The market is a human creation, an idea (again, a government?). It can only do what we have told it it can do, and like all ideas it is only in existence because of its followers and its ability to perpetuate itself. Commodity rates responding to fluctuations in other areas of the market only do so because humans, with limited understanding, have determined that they should. They coded the algorithms to compute those transactions, they voted for the politicians that gave those computations power. If you believe so greatly in the free market, what you really believe in is economists and bankers' interpretations of reality. Not some hedonistic pot smoking pamphlet you can pull out to impress the ladies. And given that, you are hoping that their goodwill will make the entire system work, which is almost laughably naieve. Even if they were trying to, you think bankers have a better understanding as to how people should interact then scientists, philosophers, or the average joe schmoe?
3) I'm tired so I'm gonna ramp this up. The transition from our current governments to whatever type of world you see in your head would be waay more painful to everyone (except the extremely povertied classes) than you would be willing to bear. Massive adjustments on this scale would be, indeed, anarchic, but with technologies and centres of power such as we have today, would definitely kill us.
Counter argument: Look, all roads lead to the same dead end with libertarianism: even if we have roving indian tribes circa pre European genocidal imperialistic (see, im no fan of government, per se) America, your ideal is these roving groups eventually getting together some kind of technology or whatever to make their lives easier, expanding, consolodating resources, getting bigger as luxury allows blah blah blah huge corporations, huge fights or O.W.G.... Its dumb, and its what we already have. I know how fashionable it is to hate on government right now (although I'd be wary of your stylisic choices of alternatives), but let me posit a different idea. Cultural, conscious, massive historical evolution. Basically, all interactions between humans set us apart from animals in the sense that we could form abstract thoughts and communicate them. For me, this is what led us out of the jungle all the way up to here. But in that timeline, something else happened. As we began to satisfy the basics in life, we also began to evolve, consciously, ideas about how we should live. Some of these ideas died off (earth is flat, we were all born from mud), and some stayed (gravity, democracy), but we in effect, as a mass organism, decided our own fate, and how we wanted to live. No ideas are ever completely dead, and none are completely perfect, but we are all deciding, all the time, whats best for us, personally or together or both. Instead of trying to rewrite the huge book of history with cute catchphrases and base animosity toward things that aren't convenient to you, if we can admit that we will always subscribe to ideas, and contribute to their evolution and death, and that they in turn contribute to our evolution or death, we will actually be able to form something better for ourselves, which is obviously the point of this discussion. If you want something better for just you, go fuck someone over, and if you don't care to make things better for everyone, taking a step back to a shittier way of life is certainly easy. While I think inevitably our government might be able to do this, built on enough amazing ideas (many of which are there already), it is completely up to us to write the new laws we want, or support the things we believe in, or vote, or convince others of our arguments. We are our government, and if it fails or succeeds is up to us, leaning in the right direction, in the direction we have consciously decided to evolve to. We have evolved to believe in the wheel, non-discrimination, medical science (erm), all that. A free market allows for none of those positive evolutions and in effect puts us back into me take yours territory. I actually doubt that our current forms of government can save us from the incoming effects of our compromised environment, but thats a discussion for another post. Regardless, hopefully I have convinced some of you that libertarianism, or anarcho capitalism is as ridiculous as its current political incarnation (hello, Rand Paul!). And to all you people who have read through this entire thread, thank you, single reader! Tell your friends!
|
On August 29 2010 11:44 Phrujbaz wrote:
It would be rational for "society" as a group to take good care of our environment. Agree/Disgagree?
It is rational for an individual to let everybody else care about the environment and pollute just a tiny bit. Agree/Disgagree?
I don't know what you mean by rational; IMO man is always rational, apart from unconscious actions like heart beating, blinking, salivating, but every other conscious action falls in the realm of rationality. Even a guy jumping of a bridge is rational if he thinks he can fly/wants to die for a variety of reasons. Even a communist is rational in supporting massive expropriation of capital from everyone in the world is rational if he believes that central planners can take care of everyone better than dirty capitalists.
In the first sentence, society as a group is nobody. There is no one called "society as a group", only individuals act within a society, and if you mean, "it would be net beneficial for individuals in a group to do X", then I don't know, I'm not part of that group and I don't know the circumstances. But what I know is that if it's really net beneficial for everyone, then everyone will certainly agree to participate in doing X. If it's not, then I feel it's not right to force them to do X.
The second sentence has a funny word, "let". And individual "lets" other people do stuff. In that small little word is implied that the individual has a claim of exclusive control over the resource that he's "letting" other people use. I don't think it's possible for any single individual to own the entire environment, so that question is a bit implausible to ever become relevant. And if the world does come to the point where an amazing individual owns all Earth, like, LEGIT, LOL then well I'd say he can do whatever he wants with it, he can let or not let others do whatever they want.
But obviously that's not what you meant on the second proposition, you meant, is it a good course of action for an individual to ... uh.. i don't know what the hell you mean on the rest, but I guess... respect the other people's claims of property over the environment? And pollute it anyway because you're a dick? I don't know... there lacks a clear definition of who owns each thing, then no distinction can be made on whether it is justifiable to pollute, "let", "take care", man I don't know what the fuck you mean, sorry. I'd say yes, just to answer something.
|
On August 29 2010 12:01 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 11:53 Hansel wrote:On August 29 2010 11:44 Phrujbaz wrote:
It would be rational for "society" as a group to take good care of our environment. Agree/Disgagree?
It is rational for an individual to let everybody else care about the environment and pollute just a tiny bit. Agree/Disgagree? i will try to define society: Men form relationships with whom they trust. If i can trust you to not steel my stuff or stab me from behind we already build the foundations of a society, whatever etiquette you may give it. A society without such agreements is by definition not a society. Trust works for small populations. Populations on the scale of a nation will suffer much more clearly from environmental issues or questions of how to fund national defense.
Trust may be the wrong word, what about agreement? Of course everyone involved will try to get the best out of it for himself. Having the biggest gun can certainly be a very good argument when trying to get to an agreement. However, there can never be an "end of times" in the sense of Fukuyama - only if everyone is dead.
It may be that problems increase when population increases, i dont deny that
.
|
On August 29 2010 12:22 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +Work to the extent that it's possible to work, not to some impossible standard. If ancap outperforms everything else, I'd say it is at least workable LOL "outperforms" Define performance.
GOOD ONE.
The degree to which a service or product fulfills the customer's or consumer's expectations in reaching an end.
you know I ascribe to austrian econ, I wouldn't make such a mistake as objectifying value. And if I did then you'd be justified in cracking up, and I would hit my head on the monitor respectively.
|
looool :/.
Anarcho capitalism cannot work because it doesn't exist.
Someone had to make laws you know. They don't just pop out of nowhere. The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
|
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote:
Someone had to make laws you know.
No they don't. We don't need them.
The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
That has nothing to do with the definition of Anarchy.
|
On August 29 2010 12:48 kzn wrote:No they don't. We don't need them. Show nested quote +The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy. That has nothing to do with the definition of Anarchy.
You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
No they don't. We don't need them.
Reality doesn't care about the theoretical need for "laws" that govern human behavior, or the lack of therof. It isn't about whether we need them, its about whether we make them or not. Its human tendency to organize so any Anarchy has to be regulated in order to retain an anarchy, by definition, not an anarchy.
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
People always miss the point whenever people talk about any kind of stateless political statement. They always talk super-idealistically about whether or not humans could not just all kill each other in the absence of government. This is demonstrably true. However, people forget that governments are ultimately imposed upon ourselves, created by ourselves.
Lets apply simple to determine not of Anarchy could idealistically result in a happy place to live in, but could actually exist is quite simple.
The following are facts
---
Humans by nature organize, and the chance to create government type structures is non-zero.
Governments have more power then independent Citiizens
As a result
Long-term Anarchy is impossible.
|
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote:
Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
Assuming that's true and assuming everybody does suppress those instincts, why would that not be anarchy? Not that I agree with any of your premises, but the argument isn't even valid. Additionally, is it not human nature to defend themselves and their property when under threat? Do you eliminate that from your human nature equation?
|
On August 29 2010 12:59 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote:
Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy. Assuming that's true and assuming everybody does suppress those instincts, why would that not be anarchy? Not that I agree with any of your premises, but the argument isn't even valid. Additionally, is it not human nature to defend themselves and their property when under threat? Do you eliminate that from your human nature equation?
How the fuck do you make everyone suppress their instincts In an Anarchy?
You'er right, if people didn't have the tendency to organize, Anarchy would not only be a viable form of government, governments would simply not exist.
That is not the case.
Anarcho-capitalism is even more silly. Its not even that it can't exist, it can exist, because the only thing you've changed is semantics, what you call the government.
Not that I agree with any of your premises, but the argument isn't even valid. Additionally, is it not human nature to defend themselves and their property when under threat?
What does this even have to do with what I just posted? In fact, its a contributing factor to why Anarchy doesn't work. Two people are better at defending property then one. Five people can protect property better then Two. A nation is even better.
|
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 12:48 kzn wrote:On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote:
Someone had to make laws you know. No they don't. We don't need them. The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy. That has nothing to do with the definition of Anarchy. You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics. Reality doesn't care about the theoretical need for "laws" that govern human behavior, or the lack of therof. It isn't about whether we need them, its about whether we make them or not. Its human tendency to organize so any Anarchy has to be regulated in order to retain an anarchy, by definition, not an anarchy. The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government. People always miss the point whenever people talk about any kind of stateless political statement. They always talk super-idealistically about whether or not humans could not just all kill each other in the absence of government. This is demonstrably true. However, people forget that governments are ultimately imposed upon ourselves, created by ourselves. Lets apply simple to determine not of Anarchy could idealistically result in a happy place to live in, but could actually exist is quite simple. The following are facts --- Humans by nature organize, and the chance to create government type structures is non-zero. Governments have more power then independent Citiizens As a result Long-term Anarchy is impossible.
I like this post. Wouldnt say its impossible though, just highly unlikely :-).
Getting tired now, was a nice read thx everyone.
|
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote:
You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
Reality doesn't care about the theoretical need for "laws" that govern human behavior, or the lack of therof. It isn't about whether we need them, its about whether we make them or not. Its human tendency to organize so any Anarchy has to be regulated in order to retain an anarchy, by definition, not an anarchy.
"Organisation" isn't the very definition of government.
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
Except a company doesn't have a presupposed legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people. And the expensive of enforcement to that company would be enormous to "collect taxes" (aka steal as people would see it without the presupposed legitimacy).
Define "power" and how would the company acquire said power.
|
How the fuck do you make everyone suppress their instincts In an Anarchy?
Ok, but you didn't say make everyone suppress their instincts. I thought you were talking about people suppressing their own instincts. And if making people suppress their instincts equals using defensive force against people when they try to exert power over you, then sure it's still anarchy assuming you win.
Lets apply simple to determine not of Anarchy could idealistically result in a happy place to live in, but could actually exist is quite simple.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.
|
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
Except a company doesn't have a presupposed legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people. And the expensive of enforcement to that company would be enormous to "collect taxes" (aka steal as people would see it without the presupposed legitimacy).
Define "power" and how would the company acquire said power.
LOOOOOOL.
I already responded to this.
Anarcho-capitalism is even more silly. Its not even that it can't exist, it can exist, because the only thing you've changed is semantics, what you call the government.
You described a mult-branch government, with a little bit of animosity between the ministries, quite common actually.
"Organisation" isn't the very definition of government
Once an organization becomes powerful enough to dictate how you can behave, it is government.
Define "power" and how would the company acquire said power.
The ability for an entity to effect its environment. Acquired through demand.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
Hrmm...ok. Ethiopia. 500,000 BC. First Homo Sapiens to exist on the planet.
olook they made government after a bit.
Ok, but you didn't say make everyone suppress their instincts. I thought you were talking about people suppressing their own instincts. And if making people suppress their instincts equals using defensive force against people when they try to exert power over you, then sure it's still anarchy assuming you win.
Power isn't simply HAI GIVE ME UR STUFF. That's a very shallow interpretation of government. The system you described contains you subject to the power of a organization of vast power, ie: government. The second you have "security corporations", you subject yourself to another persons power, at the expense of your freedom.
I'm not arguing why a theoretical Anarchy wouldn't be a nice place to live in because everyone would kill each other. Thats a silly argument. I'm saying the very definition of Anarchy as a sustainable form of government is a paradox that cannot exist. Anarchy is a transitional phase.
|
5003 Posts
Yep they're retards. Paul Krugman is a genius IMO, what do you think of him as a superb economist and nobel prize winner? That guy is so goooood...
Okay glad to know you're no longer taking this seriously and just fucking around now.
Why even bother with this thread if you're not going to take it seriously and start taking random ass wisecracks?
|
On August 29 2010 13:08 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote:
You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc.
And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations.
So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
|
On August 29 2010 13:16 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 13:08 dvide wrote:On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote:
You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff. The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
Only because everyone thought their "leaders" were gods.
Actually fooled is a better word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
