| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
johanngrunt
Hong Kong1555 Posts
Not sure why you Americans are so happy that everyone has guns, whatever that "equalizes". It's just like a pissing contest, or a game of chicken, just waiting for someone to fire the first shot before everyone is dead. If you don't like getting taxed, move to Hong Kong, tax rate is 16% for highest income bracket, AND you get free healthcare. (well mostly free, you still pay a small amount even at government run hospitals) | ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
Lets look at how their countrymen run around in ships on the sea raiding and looting passing ships? How is that a good thing. Anarchy is basically where the man with the biggest gun owns all. Or even the biggest gang. It wouldn't work. Just because Anarchy works in somilia, does not mean it will work anywhere else. Afterall. Somilia was a pretty crappy place before anarchy. So really it could only get better. I personally am a Democratic socialist. Which is everything is for the people and government is elected by all and there is no single party ruling. Agreement by consensus or a large majority. So for example. One would need %75 of the votes in a parliment or congress to get something passed. Not just the %50 right now. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
On July 02 2011 08:00 Fontong wrote: You know, it would be really refreshing to hear an anarchist or libertarian who took a stand and said "I believe that [insert country] best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity." Classical liberalist here. "I believe that Hong Kong/New Hampshire best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity." | ||
|
Expurgate
United States208 Posts
On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote: Elaborate, please. How would things become better? All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states? It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac? I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality. Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis? Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn? I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want? Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in. This is a really nicely done attack on the practical application of anarchist philosophy. Kudos, Haemonculus. Seriously though, the 'logical derivation' of anarcho-libertarianism is the result of the arbitrary selection of moral precepts and relies on economic theories that economists have largely disproven or dismissed due to impracticality. It is absolutely laughable that by way of refutation, I was told to go read two books by the Mises Institute, which is the very definition of an entity with a vested interest. Arguing in defense of anarcho-libertarianism is possible, but the way it's being conducted in this thread would have you laughed out of any professional arena. Let me break this down for you, the benighted few who want to defend your pet philosophy. You have two options: You can argue for anarcho-libertarianism by moral and philosophical truth, in which case you need to be prepared to argue - Why your choice of moral precepts is to be accepted as the basis of the socio-economic system. (In what ways is the right to private property and/or the moral imperative to "do no violence" conducive to a functional society and human existence, above and beyond such values as they are already incorporated into society?) - Why your choice produces a system which is both objectively better and to be desired over the current system including reasonable explanation of options for those who disagree. (Everyone who doesn't want anarchy is a blind slave is not, repeat not a valuable or viable argument.) Alternatively, you can argue for anarcho-libertarianism on the basis of scientific and economic fact, which is hard mode. Be prepared to argue - How the existence of public goods, the tragedy of the commons, natural monopoly and monopsony, externalities, etc. will be managed in an anarchist society. - How anarchist societies outperform, outbuild, outbuy, or in general out-anything by any objective, accepted standard of measurement governed societies. (Trick question, because libertarians will always cry that it just wasn't anarchist enough) The primary posters in defense of libertarianism here are dancing around the issues by attempting to link the scientific and economic attacks on their discipline to philosophical defenses. This is, to be frank, bullshit, and you are all being called on it. Respond to the claims as they exist, please. Postscript: regarding the relatively "quick" growth rate of Somalia, any economist worth their salt, including the crackpots at Mises, can tell you that societies that start from a relatively low technological base vis-a-vis their neighbors tend to grow quickly as they pick off "low-hanging fruit," see the "economic miracle" of Japan and Germany post-WWII. TL;DR: Economies with terrible fundamentals can experience high growth by virtue of having terrible fundamentals. edit: bolded TL;DR | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 02 2011 07:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: FrankOne, the consent of the majority is not an acceptable standard, because the rights of the minority carry more weight. If the majority were to vote to steal or kill or enact slavery, that would not make it moral or acceptable. We have higher standards to adhere to than the will of a majority. I agree that the will of the majority does not make something moral or acceptable. We were not discussing what makes actions moral we were talking about things such as taxation and the makeup of government which can be decided by the majority or agreed upon by the majority on an acceptable level, better than by one man anyways. Hopefully from its creation a democratic country would respect minority rights but they don't always and the whole problems of democracy thing is not something I want to go into, I have argued enough about government for the next several days. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On July 02 2011 10:23 yema1 wrote: Classical liberalist here. "I believe that Hong Kong/New Hampshire best fits my beliefs, and as such I would like to move there once I have the opportunity." Agreed. I would give my left nut to get a solid living & job in either of those places. Perhaps New Hampshire moreso due to the community vibe. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On July 02 2011 06:46 Fontong wrote: the difference between government and company is exchange. in the government payment method, there is no exchange. this is also the fundamental reason why govermnent cannot efficiently produce goods, but that is another topic.I think you are forgetting the part where taxation comes back to benefit the people paying the taxes. Not only that, they come back to benefit the people who cannot pay taxes for whatever reason. You seem to believe that without a government, people's every need would be catered to as well as if a government existed. In this case, why would for-profit companies, which you claim to be the ultimate solution to everything, help out those in need? Those people who are unlucky, get sick, or have other disabilities and cannot care for themselves. As there is not profit in keeping these people alive, I suppose you say they would just die, right? I think that you are purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of money in Somalia comes from displaced Somali's abroad, who are funding and investing in Somali companies. The telecom industries you are tauting certainly didn't spring up by themselves. And what is the huge difference between willingly paying a government your money and willingly paying a company your money? In the case that government completely disappears, what in the world would stop a large company from gaining enough capital for their own standing army with which to protect themselves and control you? The nice thing about living in one nation or the other is that I know I will be treated a certain way by the government, even if I commit a crime. If there is no government, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from having you killed if they desire it. After all, the free market will provide assassination services much more cheaply than the government. In this free market, who will administer justice? If someone steals my car, and I catch them, who will punish them? I don't want to have to punish them myself, so I will pay the xarthaz company to beat them senseless and hold them in a cell for a year to teach them a lesson. However, I changed my mind and I don't want to have to pay for them to be held in a cell for a year, so why don't you just kill them for me instead. It's a much easier and cheaper solution. the exhaustion method - to employ every loosely related tangent to exhaust opponent. you yourself will only sparsely need to touch on all of the arguments of course. the would be defender of anarchy ill however need to do deep research to refute all of them. well im not giving up, and will keep addressing the original premise. Both of you gentlemen, Your last conclusion does not follow and is only rhetorical trick. Society and government define crime and in first world countries they are bound by laws, therefore slaughtering you would be a crime as would in most cases be total confiscation of your property.Who is this law that prevents people from doing things? As they say, the constiution is a piece of paper. Remember, in fundamental definitional level, my argument does follow, it is your concept of law that is a delusional abstraction unrelated to the topic, a mysticis ideal from which peace of mind can be gathered. And the concept of law even in its own terms doesnt exist in a society with government - if law isnt universal, it isnt law but arbitrary action. And no statist "law" is ever universal, and hence is not a law. A libertarian property system is the only political order that can be described as a lawful society, see "Ethics of Liberty" introduction. On July 02 2011 06:55 Fontong wrote: But I do consent to the government taking my money, and I consent enough that I continue to live in this country. However, I don't really like the way that things are turning out in the United States at the moment, so I am considering moving to someplace like Canada. If I didn't like it in Canada I could move somewhere in Europe if I desired, or even move to Somalia if it fit my wishes. If you do not consent to whatever country you are in taxing you, why do you not move somewhere where you will not be taxed. Like Somalia, for example. Fills my first criterion. You acknowledge being a subject of state administered slavery. On July 02 2011 07:29 TheFrankOne wrote: You agree with my first model then - acknowledging state as source of consent and rights, meaning the state owns you - and you are its subject which to tool with. Not a pleasant reality if i may say.Well, I mean, sort of. "The government" is not some guy who's got got me trapped in a cage with a gun to my head. The government is an organization established through a process of negotiation and societal change since it was formed based off of values held by those who created it. It is composed in the higher levels of people elected or appointed by elected officials. The decisions it makes are done through policies established by vote or by elected officials. Unfortunately some of the values held by those who created it were imperialistic and racist. They allowed real slavery to continue after all. We have given it a pervasive power in the society. After all I think that ultimately property rights and contract enforcement only come from our legal system and therefore our government in a large way. Would you agree? Edit: @ treemonkeys: I'm still not really sure why you don't think (were arguing?) that consent of the majority is not an acceptable societal standard. You just sounded like a narcissistic egoist On July 02 2011 09:43 _PI wrote: Anarchism is one of those concepts that appeals to people, mostly because it's basic idea is pretty nice: No Government, No Taxation, No Laws. The problem with this is it's insane to look at simplistic concept and then think you can actually implement it in the real world without huge concesions. A true anarchy would be the single worst "state" to live under as a human being. There's many reasons for this, too many to list, but there's a few that most people will see the logic in. First and foremost, as humans we tend to desire certain basic things. These things, like food, physical security, shelter, etc are things that we can gain through many different methods. Within an anarchy, you would have no guaranteed way in which to acquire something. This will (guaranteed) lead to starvation, sickness/disease and death. When we think about anarchy, we think well take our developed nations and remove government. The reason our nations are developed, and why we don't have every state using a different currency/etc, is that we have government. To think that the better part of a continnent would agree upon a singular currency, agree to exchange goods freely, etc is insane. This leads directly into my second point, even in anarchy government would appear. This sounds oxymoronic, but it's not. Think of how human civilization has developed over our time on this earth, we started out in anarchy and developed into government as our collective societal "groups" grew. This lead tribes to become states and states to become nations, and even within an anarchy groups which control significant portions of land/resources/etc would arise, setting their own rules/laws by which you can interact with them. The issue of consent is also moot. If there's one guy who controls most of the food in an area, whether he wants your first born son or is just a really nice guy and gives food to anyone, you're gonna consent to his rules unless you willingly want to starve. You can't make the ideal choice every time, because anarchy allows people to setup lose-lose scenarios. To look at a state like Somalia, and seriously believe it's a true representation of anarchy and a shining success is insanity. You're ignoring reality in doing so, and ignoring human nature. Consent differentiates exchange and robbery. The two actions are totally different in their implications for the economy - the first implies mutual benefit in regards to the property at hand, the second implies suffering. Hence why state creates suffering. On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote: Elaborate, please. How would things become better? All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states? It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac? I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality. Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis? Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn? I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want? Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in. Fear. The video i posted touches in that. Let it go. Breath in and out. Remember, the argument doesnt stem from reason and logic, but of frightenment. Also remember, the state cannot fundamentally engage in demonstrably mutually beneficial activity. Private producers can. Hence, why it is aprioristically true that the anarchist method of production benefits consumers, while the statist method of production does not. On July 02 2011 07:45 thebigdonkey wrote: It is deep research my friend. It is uncomposed, raw brain barfing on paper. My apologies for incoherence- but the reasoning remains correct, and hence the conclusions i made nonetheless make sense.Not going to touch on the actual subject in this thread, because it's just pure ideological abstract drivel. But reading the above post is REALLY REALLY ANNOYING. I know you designed it to make it appear like you exist in a world of thought that is levels above everyone else, but the fact is, it is terribly composed and articulated, leans heavily on buzzwords, and the lazy grammar just destroys any semblance of coherence. The only people who write like that are people who are attempting to appear smarter than they are. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On July 02 2011 11:24 xarthaz wrote: Agreed. I would give my left nut to get a solid living & job in either of those places. Perhaps New Hampshire moreso due to the community vibe. Ah....but not Somalia? Why not? I thought the people there live in the blissful experience of self-government? I can't imagine a man of your convictions not wanting to try to be part of one of the only free societies on earth without seeming...well, full of air. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Who is this law that prevents people from doing things? As they say, the constiution is a piece of paper. Remember, in fundamental definitional level, my argument does follow, it is your concept of law that is a delusional abstraction unrelated to the topic, a mysticis ideal from which peace of mind can be gathered. And the concept of law even in its own terms doesnt exist in a society with government - if law isnt universal, it isnt law but arbitrary action. And no statist "law" is ever universal, and hence is not a law. A libertarian property system is the only political order that can be described as a lawful society, see "Ethics of Liberty" introduction. Your quotes were messed up, so only your response is quoted. Ah, but we were not discussing what government can do and what it cannot and what prevents it from doing so. You claimed that government slaughtering someone would not be a crime. I say it would be a crime as it would fit a definition of crime by being against the law by which even government is bound. That government might ignore that fact and/or noone might be punished for it is totally separate matter.The rest of your post is therefore not an argument against what I said, but against something else. Also the rest of your post is meaningless bunch of words without proper clarification. What is law according to you, and what is your definition of universal and lawful. As the conclusion you draw makes me pretty sure that they are useless. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
I can talk like Yoda too, or I can call you delusional. Please again explain to me how an anarchical society benefits the average person? Private production can create "mutually beneficial activity?" Are you high? Private produce can produce working conditions similar to the early industrial era. What keeps people from taking advantage of others? Of banning black people from their restaurant? Of beating their children or wives? The common decency inherent to mankind? You're a nut. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Fear. The video i posted touches in that. Let it go. Breath in and out. Remember, the argument doesnt stem from reason and logic, but of frightenment. Also remember, the state cannot fundamentally engage in demonstrably mutually beneficial activity. Private producers can. Hence, why it is aprioristically true that the anarchist method of production benefits consumers, while the statist method of production does not. And can arguments not arise because we fear things? We debate things with regards to the benefits and the harms that such an idea may bring. Dismissing an idea simply because it arises from frightenment should never be a reason to dismiss an argument because arguments that arise from fright point out flaws in the things they are critiquing. You say that private producers can account for many of the goods that governments currently do. But you haven't answered any of Haemonculus' arguments. You've merely dismissed them without truly considering them. | ||
|
Expurgate
United States208 Posts
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: Consent differentiates exchange and robbery. The two actions are totally different in their implications for the economy - the first implies mutual benefit in regards to the property at hand, the second implies suffering. Hence why state creates suffering. Very cute of you to completely disregard my post. I wanted to quote this as an example of a blatant falsehood, because it's immediately apparent to even the untrained eye that forced exchanges can be beneficial. Firefighting is probably the best example, rather than something like policing that extremists can argue against. You are required by dint of paying taxes to support the firefighting system in most countries. Because there are natural benefits to making sure that your neighbors are also insured in the case of fire, as well as economies of scale in the logistics involved, the natural state of the firefighting market is monopoly. Economic theory and practice shows that monopolies supply less of a good at a higher price than nonmonopolistic markets. However, because the government can operate at a loss and has no profit motive (e.g. with revenues below expenditures), it can ensure that fires are fought no matter its (or your) financial situation. This is, of course, a massive benefit to the individual, although they may not consent to their taxation. Please stop this ludicrous, fallacious reasoning, and respond directly to claims as they are submitted. Your posts continue to overemploy philosophical terminology in defending against eminently reasonable, scientific counterclaims. | ||
|
LaGTTJack
United States69 Posts
| ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Fear. The video i posted touches in that. Let it go. Breath in and out. Remember, the argument doesnt stem from reason and logic, but of frightenment. Also remember, the state cannot fundamentally engage in demonstrably mutually beneficial activity. Private producers can. Hence, why it is aprioristically true that the anarchist method of production benefits consumers, while the statist method of production does not. Umm of course the State can, the anarcho-capitalist argument is that the free market would provide the kinds of mutually beneficial activity the state does with less cost and less intrusion. You don't even have your own theory right, unless you are someone who is at the fringes of the Austrian school of thought. No argument for a societal system should rest solely or even mostly on a priori logic; defensible and empirical statements regarding human behavior and nature are what is needed. For example, tens of millions died and hundreds of millions suffered needlessly in the USSR and Communist China. Their standard of living was quite low and advanced slowly. These are empirical statements. They really happened. This suggests that Communism is perhaps not so great in practice. Somalia is broken down into factionalism and rule by the sword. The necessities of life and public order mostly do not exist or are provided through brutal repression of 'undesirable' activities by the 'authorities.' Life expectancy and quality of life are quite low. This suggests that rule by "whom can get the most men and guns to fight effectively for him?" is not such a great idea to live under. The United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, all have long life expectancies, excellent quality of living, enjoying public order and safety and having the necessities of life fulfilled is 95 times out of 100 not a problem. This would suggest that these countries have hit upon a good, if not ideal, balance between individual freedom and public authority. | ||
|
Bactrian
Australia176 Posts
Do you even realise there's currently a civil war and major humanitarian crisis going on right now? See recent UN reports, e.g., Somalia Funding Analysis, March 2011; By early 2011, the number of people in need of humanitarian assistance in Somalia reached 2.4 million, an increase of 20% from 2 million in mid- 2010... | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On July 02 2011 12:08 Expurgate wrote: There is no demonstrated preference of goods - government bullying your money does not demonstrate you preferring the services received to money given - hence it being impossible to demonstrate public finance being mutually beneficial.Very cute of you to completely disregard my post. I wanted to quote this as an example of a blatant falsehood, because it's immediately apparent to even the untrained eye that forced exchanges can be beneficial. Firefighting is probably the best example, rather than something like policing that extremists can argue against. You are required by dint of paying taxes to support the firefighting system in most countries. Because there are natural benefits to making sure that your neighbors are also insured in the case of fire, as well as economies of scale in the logistics involved, the natural state of the firefighting market is monopoly. Economic theory and practice shows that monopolies supply less of a good at a higher price than nonmonopolistic markets. However, because the government can operate at a loss and has no profit motive (e.g. with revenues below expenditures), it can ensure that fires are fought no matter its (or your) financial situation. This is, of course, a massive benefit to the individual, although they may not consent to their taxation. Please stop this ludicrous, fallacious reasoning, and respond directly to claims as they are submitted. Your posts continue to overemploy philosophical terminology in defending against eminently reasonable, scientific counterclaims. Rothbardian monopoly theory refutes this claim, see "Man Economy State" paragraph 9 on firm theory. On July 02 2011 12:05 TranceStorm wrote: And can arguments not arise because we fear things? We debate things with regards to the benefits and the harms that such an idea may bring. Dismissing an idea simply because it arises from frightenment should never be a reason to dismiss an argument because arguments that arise from fright point out flaws in the things they are critiquing. You say that private producers can account for many of the goods that governments currently do. But you haven't answered any of Haemonculus' arguments. You've merely dismissed them without truly considering them. On July 02 2011 12:04 Haemonculus wrote: Fear, alright. Who's afraid? I'm assuming I'm the scared one, hiding in blissful ignorant slavery to my federal masters. I can talk like Yoda too, or I can call you delusional. Please again explain to me how an anarchical society benefits the average person? Private production can create "mutually beneficial activity?" Are you high? Private produce can produce working conditions similar to the early industrial era. What keeps people from taking advantage of others? Of banning black people from their restaurant? Of beating their children or wives? The common decency inherent to mankind? You're a nut. The source of mutually beneficial capital allocation is profit management - where profit guides capital according to consumer preferences. Remember - this is why it is at all possible to construct anything consumers desire. It is regrettable however, that this does not take place. As government formally rejects this - only the informal reasonability government employed producers' profit seeking leads to remotely tolerable situation. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 02 2011 11:44 xarthaz wrote: You agree with my first model then - acknowledging state as source of consent and rights, meaning the state owns you - and you are its subject which to tool with. Not a pleasant reality if i may say. Stop personifying "the state" its really just not an effective argument. "Rights" like copyrights and title to land, not other more abstract rights like life and liberty. Your reality is very unpleasant I might say. The state does not own me, it does control the military and is far more powerful than me so "it" or "a couple asshole police officers" could "tool with" me and I would get pissed and sue them. I am in America and I am white male citizen, I am doing just fine, I am a participating member of democracy, go vote or join real political organizations, it might make you feel less enslaved. Enfranchisement is pretty cool. I am done with this discussion though, sorry about your whole "languishing in slavery" issue. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On July 02 2011 12:38 TheFrankOne wrote: Stop personifying "the state" its really just not an effective argument. "Rights" like copyrights and title to land, not other more abstract rights like life and liberty. Your reality is very unpleasant I might say. The state does not own me, it does control the military and is far more powerful than me so "it" or "a couple asshole police officers" could "tool with" me and I would get pissed and sue them. I am in America and I am white male citizen, I am doing just fine, I am a participating member of democracy, go vote or join real political organizations, it might make you feel less enslaved. Enfranchisement is pretty cool. I am done with this discussion though, sorry about your whole "languishing in slavery" issue. You have identified yourself with state - that is the only other option to dichotomising between state and self. and that is fallacious. Rothbard, for one, layed a crushing critique to this claim: The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service. Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organization for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the "private sector" and often winning in this competition of resources. With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp | ||
|
Slakter
Sweden1947 Posts
1. Anarchism does not equal abolishment of rules but abolishment of rulers. 2. Not all Anarchists think alike. AT ALL. There are Anarcho-capitalists whom I think are the scum of the earth and there are more Socialist anarchists whom I would call the nicest people in the world! Then there are like a billion more. 3. Somalia is NOT an anarchy, if it was the "common folks" would have just as much of a say as any warlord. Which is not the case. | ||
| ||
Online Event
Sunny Lake Cup #1
Wayne vs ArT
Strange vs Nicoract
Shameless vs GgMaChine
YoungYakov vs MilkiCow
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
Cham vs Bunny
ByuN vs TriGGeR
SHIN vs Krystianer
ShoWTimE vs Spirit
WardiTV European League
MaNa vs NightPhoenix
ByuN vs YoungYakov
ShoWTimE vs Nicoract
Harstem vs ArT
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
WardiTV European League
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
