|
United States22883 Posts
On August 29 2010 13:24 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 13:16 ghrur wrote: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.
You've got the order backwards.
|
On August 29 2010 12:48 kzn wrote:No they don't. We don't need them.
The first thing which happens in a community is to lay down rules of what people can or can't do. Those are laws. Nations are formed since communities naturally wants to cooperate with other communities and for it to work they need to decide on what rules will govern the interaction.
The "anarchists" are not really anarchists, they just don't see the need for that last step. They basically wants to have a large set of small governments. You know which communities stayed like that? In Africa this was the norm, same with Indians. Do you say that their way of living when they were still tribalistic is preferable to what we got today?
There is a reason why all tribalistic societies didn't develop further and all societies which did develop beyond the basic stone age had a central government. That wouldn't be true if the "anarcho" ideals would be viable, some of the countless tribes all over the world would have developed into something more. Of course some tribes through history were more advanced but only due to trade with nations.
|
On August 29 2010 13:24 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 13:16 ghrur wrote: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.
what is this I don't even.
Your wrong. Human tribal organizations predates complex religion. Many tribes exist in extremely isolated parts of Africa that have had virtually no developments since mankinds "birth" (there number system goes up to four), they have no conception of any gods, but a somewhat rigid tribal structure.
|
Hrmm...ok. Ethiopia. 500,000 BC. First Homo Sapiens to exist on the planet.
olook they made government after a bit.
Human beings also became religious. Is this supposed to validate Christianity or something? The fact that states remain is because of the false meme that they have some legitimacy. Honestly this was actually born from religion itself. It's not through sheer power, as there would not be nearly enough force to maintain a state if the presupposed authority of states were not present. I want to pass through the anarchistic equivalent of the enlightenment period.
Ethiopia. I thought you'd bring up Somalia honestly. Can you be more specific about Ethiopia?
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.
So define power. How am I subject to the power of the the voluntary security corporation?
|
externalities, aka "the tragedy of the commons". It is often in the best interests of a private person or corporation to behave in a way that indirectly causes problems for everyone else.
|
So define power. How am I subject to the power of the the voluntary security corporation?
Because you CHOSE TO subject yourself in exchange for safety, one of the most basic progenitors of government. Thats like asking how are you subject to government because you can go to an island and be a hermit. We chose it, because the benefits of organization outweigh the benefits of isolation, up until a certain point where the organization becomes too powerful or too cumbersome and collapses, and we build up again in search for safety and human cooperation.
Human beings also became religious. Is this supposed to validate Christianity or something? The fact that states remain is because of the false meme that they have some legitimacy. Honestly this was actually born from religion itself. It's not through sheer power, as there would not be nearly enough force to maintain a state if the presupposed authority of states were not present. I want to pass through the anarchistic equivalent of the enlightenment period.
Ethiopia. I thought you'd bring up Somalia honestly. Can you be more specific about Ethiopia?
I just picked Ethiopia because its a relatively accurate guess for where the first humans came from. Regarding Somalia...whats their to say? All that Somali demonstrates is Anarchy as a transitional phase.
Let me repeat: If long term Anarchy is possible why has it not happened despite the fact that transitional Anarchy has occurred NUMEROUS times throughout history?
Once again I'm not arguing against the viability of temporary self imposed Anarchic communities or temporal transitional Anarchys after the breakdown of major institutions. However, its the inevitable fate of these Anarchy to dissipate or grow into "state" like entities. You have to Expand or Stagnate.
Honestly I think the majority of Anarchists are just Suburbanites with no real problems who want to see the world burn. Myself included I guess. Hell, I still want a revolution in the quest for a better state, and would actively support one, despite knowing its an ultimately futile effort.
|
On August 29 2010 13:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 13:24 Saturnize wrote:On August 29 2010 13:16 ghrur wrote: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. what is this I don't even. Your wrong. Human tribal organizations predates complex religion. Many tribes exist in extremely isolated parts of Africa that have had virtually no developments since mankinds "birth" (there number system goes up to four), they have no conception of any gods, but a somewhat rigid tribal structure.
What does humans living together/tribes have to do with a government/state? Each of those civilizations ghrur posted did not just "come about" religion/idol worship whatever you want to call it played a big part in their existence. In fact I would say it is the main reason why these civilizations were able to tax, force slavery ect, ect, because they saw their leaders as "above human" do you see what I am saying?
I would really like to know about these tribes that have no conceptions of gods though (though I'm sure they have some if not many other superstitions), that is really fascinating.
|
On August 29 2010 13:44 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 13:27 Half wrote:On August 29 2010 13:24 Saturnize wrote:On August 29 2010 13:16 ghrur wrote: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. what is this I don't even. Your wrong. Human tribal organizations predates complex religion. Many tribes exist in extremely isolated parts of Africa that have had virtually no developments since mankinds "birth" (there number system goes up to four), they have no conception of any gods, but a somewhat rigid tribal structure. What does humans living together/tribes have to do with a government/state? Each of those civilizations ghrur posted did not just "come about" religion/idol worship whatever you want to call it played a big part in their existence. In fact I would say it is the main reason why these civilizations were able to tax, force slavery ect, ect, because they saw their leaders as "above human" do you see what I am saying? I would really like to know about these tribes that have no conceptions of gods though, that is really fascinating.
No sorry your completely wrong. Egyptian and Nubian Kingdoms had already risen and fell before the whole "Pharaohs as Gods thing you learned in School History Class started".
|
Oh wow first time I reached the end of the thread. I'm so slow. but now I have to read this...
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
This is an excellent thread.
[PROCEEDS TO WRITE BIGGEST WALL OF TEXT]
[IDEAS BLABLABLA]
If by ideas you mean plans; okay, I can see that. The opening post was just to address the very easily refutable claim that humans are savage beasts and can't be trusted therefore ancap is impossible. Okay well, plans are courses of action that man elaborates and shares with others. The idea of anarchism is not a plan in itself, it's just denying any attempt from the part of a ruler to impose upon others his plan, for any reason. Anarchists find it better to work voluntarily, or in a setting that is perceived as voluntary (well it has to be at least more voluntary than state; taxation; etc. though i guess theres all kinds of anarchists... and ancommies would argue ancaps are coercive...THAT ASIDE,), not that there is an exact plan, a course of action, on what to do next; And society today is much like that outside of state forces. The state, well, in most countries that I know at least, don't plan your life from start to end. They have rules and courses of actions that you have to take sometimes, and others that they won't allow you to take without imprisonment or fines. But largely, life is already anarchic, and anarchists just wish to extend it to everything, not just the things that the central planners allow us to plan.
It's true that central planners receive feedback from their plans, but ancaps like me argue that such feedback is subpar to voluntary interaction, in which both parties of a deal have to agree to the plan. A central planner forces upon others a plan, and only has to worry about whether the subservant will revolt or not. That's as much feedback as he gets. Well, in sum, there's a reason why markets are so much more efficient, and it's not just because it's voluntary, it is exactly because of that extensive net of feedbacks, basically, that allow for information dissemination. Capitalism allows to be exchange value (price), as people formally own their means (capital, stuff), and therefore specialization, division of labor, all the good stuff that I can't possibly explain in one post, but you can study on austrian economics.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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.
You're right, the question is, which form of control you find legitimate. I think it would be silly of anyone to argue they don't own their own body. Ancommies say they only own that which they use; personal belongings, and ancaps say they own anything they've ever first-used and appropriated into something useful. See lockean homesteading. You own the land you built a house on, but yo don't own a forest for cutting down some trees. You own that previously unowned resource that you transformed, but you don't own a tree by plucking an apple. Well, it's kind of arbitrary, and there's grounds for abandonment, repossession, idk what else. Of course it has to be arbitrary, because man came naked to the world, and only came with formalities to exchange as exchange happened and it became necessary to - but that is not to say it's all bogus, law, not that unlike plans, are codes for courses of action, that people mutually agree on. If they don't mutually agree on, well there's an easy solution, don't trade with eachother. And if there's a dispute over a common resource, try to settle it in a way both win. The need for coercion is bogus, violence is the last resource and everyone loses with it. If not in the short run, surely in the long run as people learn how to defend against a constant aggressor.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:That sounds like a lot of control to me. So basically, we can eliminate 'no government' from the definition.
If you want to say capitalism is akin to statism do go ahead. But just so you know, my definition of a state doesn't have "control" as that is too broad, it's plain and simple "a coercive, monopolistic institution of coercion in a given area", and I define coercion to be compatible with NAP and property rights.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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,
wow wow wow hold on there, there's no such thing as objective value, if that's what you meant. but if not, ok.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 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.
Uh ok, I agree, but I have different prospects of what would happen. An anarchic society wouldn't be that different from what we have now, because there is a demand to keep things orderly. And they probably will be more orderly, and allow capitalism to continue as-is, even better of course, without the overhead of a GDP-sucking-state.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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!
I see what you're saying, but it's just wrong. Would you tell a slave, in colonial america, that he actually wasn't being enslaved, because the free market of ideas judged that he's most successfully living or working in a state of slavery? That's just an appeal to the status-quo. It's not that the slave is the most successful as it will ever be; is that he's being used most successfully by those who expect there ain't no better choice; Sure there is a free market of idea. But that doesn't mean the current overwhelmingly used plan, course of action, is the best one available, when there hasn't been enough time to try them all especially. Humans are self-correcting individuals, and I do believe anarcho-capitalism will be adopted in the future, but an appeal to what-is-is-therefore-should-be would keep things stagnant and we'd be in despotism and tribalism still. Value the ideas, plans, for what (you think) they're worth, period.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Again, you are obviously not advocating full on anarchy,
No, I am for sure. Lol.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
[minarchy rules blablabla]
Nah, I've went through all that. Believe me, most ancaps, I'd say 80%, were previously minarchists who just got tired of the inconsistency and failure of their arguments and prefered go full-on liberty instead.
The idea of having a coercive state to defend us from coercion always sounded iffy to me. Plus all the arbitrary distinctions of which flavor, er, public service, you like stealing to pay for, and which ones you don't. Lol. "I choose vanilla, with bits of chocolate, and national defense please. Everything else is illegitimate. Constitution for the win!". Yay!...
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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.
K.
May I propose another dilemma. Statism is going broke. All nations are many times their GDP into debt. This cannot go on! A state absolutely CANNOT stay financially conservative, and we are on the way to destruction.
I could fear monger too but I don't earn any brownie points for it; neither does you.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 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.
Oh wow, what? I didn't get anything from the above. Market forces seek to grow and make themselves stronger... No, I think you mean profit, and there is such a thing as diseconomies of scale, that prove growing doesn't always lead to more profits. Besides, we all know which type of organization is the most power hungry, Lol.
Wait... did you imply minarchist libertarians are for a NWO? oh wow. You must be kidding, I must have read it wrong.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
2) RANT
You don't understand what a market is.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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.
No it wouldn't, because there's market demand for it not to be.
It would be as much as a frustration as switching to Geico and saving $500 on car insurance. People just stop paying for inefficient services, and more efficient companies come along, what's the big deal? The fear mongering of anarchism is of the same class as slavery apologists saying blacks would riot the streets and kill all whiteys. Non-sensical, it's not on their benefit to do so, and it's not on people's benefits to kill themselves. Violence and death does happen a lot more by the part of states than lowly criminals, I hope you understand that much.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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.
What the butt
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 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.
That actually does sound like praxeology a little bit, grats for coming with that on your own.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 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.
Well you're not helping much tbh... I couldn't make sense of over three paragraphs you wrote and wasted a lot of time 
But it's k 
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:
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
Um, no it isn't, in the current state, you have to convince over fifty percent of the population at large to stop poking you, if you don't want to be poked. And by poked, I mean, taxed, regulated, etc.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:, 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.
Sorry, no
I love statist rhetoric but no.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: A free market allows for none of those positive evolutions and in effect puts us back into me take yours territory.
You don't know what the free market is... again, sorry but at least try to read up on the terms and arguments before saying stuff like that.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 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!
Rand Paul, an anarcho-capitalist? DAmn, if I read that last bit, I could have avoided wasting 1 hour reading the entire post altogether...
|
On August 29 2010 13:32 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
So define power. How am I subject to the power of the the voluntary security corporation?
Because you CHOSE TO subject yourself in exchange for safety, one of the most basic progenitors of government.
Am I the subject of Coca-Cola because I find their drinks refreshing? Define 'subject'. You have yet to really define power in this context, or how companies would acquire it. Maybe if there is a monopoly security agency and I am forced to contract with it if I want safety. Are you saying monopoly security firms will naturally arise?
Show nested quote +
Human beings also became religious. Is this supposed to validate Christianity or something? The fact that states remain is because of the false meme that they have some legitimacy. Honestly this was actually born from religion itself. It's not through sheer power, as there would not be nearly enough force to maintain a state if the presupposed authority of states were not present. I want to pass through the anarchistic equivalent of the enlightenment period.
Ethiopia. I thought you'd bring up Somalia honestly. Can you be more specific about Ethiopia?
I just picked Ethiopia because its a relatively accurate guess for where the first humans came from. Regarding Somalia...whats their to say? All that Somali demonstrates is Anarchy as a transitional phase. Let me repeat: If long term Anarchy is possible why has it not happened despite the fact that transitional Anarchy has occurred NUMEROUS times throughout history?
Transitional anarchy maybe. Not an example of any enlightened anarchy. A government that collapses may result in chaos for sure, especially if the society was highly dependant on it (i.e. because it used violence to maintain a monopoly on vital services). It's not exactly a fair example though, as the negative effects of government persist into the anarchy. And its people may clamour for a new ruler to 'stabilise' their society (the state would still have some presupposed authority).
And again, the fact that states arose at all says nothing to the meme that they are infact legitimate, any more than the fact that religions came about means that they are therefore true. Let me ask you this: if people (on the whole) don't consider states to be legitimate entities in an anarchy, will they still inevitably come about? How expensive would it be to put in place with all the resistance, and where would a company get all the money to fund that?
|
woah yurebis I now you made me have to read the other 8 pages of this thread in order to post anything remotely relevant or intelligent.
thx a lot brah -_-.
Am I the subject of Coca-Cola because I find their drinks refreshing? Define 'subject'. You have yet to really define power in this context, or how companies would acquire it. Maybe if there is a monopoly security agency and I am forced to contract with it if I want safety. Are you saying monopoly security firms will naturally arise?
Stop asking me for redundant definitions like its relevant to your point. I am using any definition of subject you so chose in the political sense that is widely regarded as right, I'm hardly arguing off semantics. In fact you are.
Maybe if there is a monopoly security agency and I am forced to contract with it if I want safety
Even if their ISNT a monopoly on security firms lol. You can move to the US if you dun like the UK, does that make the government any less controlling?
You really are just argueing semantics. Just think of the US and insurance package A and the UK as insurance Package B, and maybe like China as shitty insurance policy C (I'm chinese so no offense). You can choose any one of them as a citizen of the UK lol. Just move.
AMG ANARCHOCAPITALISM? Its just semantics. Power arises from demand, if you remove government corporations step in to fill their shoes, and in the end its more or less the same.
|
On August 29 2010 13:15 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Hahaha sorry but I was serious all throughout besides that bit.
|
On August 29 2010 13:26 Klockan3 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 first thing which happens in a community is to lay down rules of what people can or can't do. Those are laws. Nations are formed since communities naturally wants to cooperate with other communities and for it to work they need to decide on what rules will govern the interaction. The "anarchists" are not really anarchists, they just don't see the need for that last step. They basically wants to have a large set of small governments. You know which communities stayed like that? In Africa this was the norm, same with Indians. Do you say that their way of living when they were still tribalistic is preferable to what we got today? There is a reason why all tribalistic societies didn't develop further and all societies which did develop beyond the basic stone age had a central government. That wouldn't be true if the "anarcho" ideals would be viable, some of the countless tribes all over the world would have developed into something more. Of course some tribes through history were more advanced but only due to trade with nations.
You bring a good point (apart from being empiricism which I don't like ofc but it's ok), and I agree, that the ruler may have provided a function in times where there was no better choice. A subsistance farmer may have been scared shitless of everything and everyone else and found to be better to become a subjulgate of a common ruler to all. With religious dogma added in. Sure. And that's the excuse I give you, it was lack of information, too much superstition, that prevented man from getting on the right foot. And you may call bullshit, I don't really care, I'd call bullshit on your historical perspective anyway. It's just perspectives. You should take the ideas for what they are, not for what men in the past were or weren't able to accomplish.
|
@ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
|
The OP topic is quite vague. It is unclear by which metric to measure the "works" parameter. Slavery "works", tribal warfare "works", taleban regime "works", North Korea "works". The proof is that the respective biological populations haven't disappeared. And usually biological populations disappear by a large scale cataclysm, either natural or by being taken over by a more "successful" competing population. Human populations are quite resilient; it takes *a lot* of damage to completely wipe them out. Yeah, anarcho-capitalism can work, but at what cost?
The other unclear OP part is what is it that "Anarcho-Capitalism" proponents want to replace. Alas, the only answer that I can find is: Democracy. The idea that all citizens are equal and deserve an equal voice in the affairs of their country. How do you reconcile Anarcho-Capitalism with Democracy? What does Democracy mean to you? Given that, historically, the only societies to deliver mass prosperity were Democracies, why do you think you have a silver bullet that works better (along the mass prosperity metric)? Or is there another metric that you are seeking?
|
On August 29 2010 13:29 Luddite wrote:
externalities, aka "the tragedy of the commons". It is often in the best interests of a private person or corporation to behave in a way that indirectly causes problems for everyone else.
Tragedy of the commons is a problem of public domain, aka public property, aka state property. So the state creates moral hazards, and now it's the market's fault for acting on those twisted incentives. Okay....
|
Uh, anarcho-capitalism doesn't address monopolies and cartels?
Anarcho-capitalism assumes perfect competition and perfect information -- far from realistic. Information asymmetry and imperfect competition means economic inequalities translate to political inequalities. Even most libertarians draw the line at night watchman states.
|
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote:
@ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead.
But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
|
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. 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
Thanks for avoiding my point entirely!
Douche.
|
On August 29 2010 14:08 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote:
@ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state? Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc) Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc. I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
